Scraper & cap iron: 2 peas in a pod

[MikeG.]

No contest if you intend to have flat surfaces........That's my two cents
Tom

Except it is. That's my two cents.

Equally worthless assertions, just to show you how this arguing-by-assertion works. Now, have you got any comment on the geometry revealed by the drawings?

 

[D_W]

Mike, I've got an idea for you. Follow what I just said above about setting a cap iron.

Pull out your favorite #80 scraper. Set it aggressive. determine a goal (perhaps 30 grams of planed wood) do both, and let us know how it turns out.

Your goal with the cap iron is only to plane a thick enough shaving so that it straightens or doesn't curl into a ball.

You should grasp why there's not much point in talking about pictures when you can do something in practice. However, this is a handicapped test, because you're very familiar with one of these two, but the other will come out on top.

 

[Ttrees]

Its removing the wear bevel, without too much work is the issue for me.
I seem to always end up skewing the camber one way or the other working on too fine a stone I suspect.
I have had better luck now starting with the 2 quid 400 grit ebay plate that's now nice to use now (epoxied to a bit of granite offcut)
Its nice to have an iron drop into the plane without wriggling the adjuster about.
I could get used to that, and hopefully I do.
Tom

 

[Blackswanwood]

I don’t see why this has developed into such an adversarial argument.

The OP seems to be conceding that both worked but the plane may be more comfortable for the user. The point on setting the cap iron properly is useful.

What is there to argue about?

 

[MikeG.]

Mike, I've got an idea for you. Follow what I just said above about setting a cap iron. .....

For god sake, DW, how many times.........

I do both. I use the close-set cap iron a lot, particularly after you started talking about it. It works. This was never meant to be a cap-iron-is-useless thread, but you have such a blinkered way of approaching the subject that that is all you see. The point of the thread is to show the similarity in the geometry of a tightly set cap iron with that of a scraper. That's all. Many people, myself included, have thought these were entirely different approaches, and all this drawing reveals is that they are more similar than most have probably imagined. I cannot for the life of me understand why this simple point is such a trigger for you and for your disciple.

The fact is, I prefer using a scraper, but I don't argue that the scraper is better. It is easier to set up correctly, in my view, and with the faffing around time taken into consideration I contend that there won't be much in it if you really are for some reason intent on timing these things. I don't care if that's wrong. The scraper also produces an equally good finish in the timber I use. I don't really care if your mileage varies on that. You use different wood. For me, starting with a blunt scraper and a blunt plane blade, I'll end up with a finished board quicker with a scraper..........I reckon. I reckon.......but I don't care.

The entire point of the thread was to show the similarity of the geometry, and thus of the way that these two supposedly contrasting methods of smoothing actually work. It was not to say that one way is better than the other. I'm thrilled to bits for you that you get such a kick out of using and proselytising for the close set cap iron, but I simply do not understand how you can be so defensive that you think even a straight forward comparison of the geometry is some sort of blasphemous attack on your religion.

 

[That would work]

Interesting enough but if it were a scraper plane without a turned over edge, the the geometry would be quite different.

Here you go..........

 

[Ttrees]

Maybe you would like the double iron plane more, if you got another plane or two for yourself Mike?
It can't be much fun swapping the irons out all the time.
Even still with that faff, it would be no question for me which I'd use.

Tom

 

[Trevanion]

Some would say we perfected the method of wood planing just about 150 years or so ago with only very few slight improvements by contrast in the last few years.

I'm of course talking about rotary planing :lol:

 

[D_W]

The entire point of the thread was to show the similarity of the geometry, and thus of the way that these two supposedly contrasting methods of smoothing actually work. It was not to say that one way is better than the other. I'm thrilled to bits for you that you get such a kick out of using and proselytising for the close set cap iron, but I simply do not understand how you can be so defensive that you think even a straight forward comparison of the geometry is some sort of blasphemous attack on your religion.

I didn't see a lutheran reference.

At a very simplistic level, the scraper and the cap iron are similar. I have no idea who invented the cap iron, but I don't think they would've been thinking about a scraper at the time. They could've but who knows.

I think it's more likely that they understood that long splinters were lifting out of wood and probably made something too drastic to start (like something mounted to an iron).

The trouble with the references about cap irons and scrapers working the same way is that it doesn't work out in practice - it's only ideal on a picture and it assumes too many things can be easily controlled.

The leap on other forums has been pretty easy to predict - a cap iron works like a scraper. I'm mastering a scraper, so a cap iron will be a waste of time because it's the same.

Economics brought development. Economic dominance brings numerical dominance. We're left to figure out why (i'm doing that in retrospect - it has less to do with what was for me, and more to do with what's easier if you're not going to use power tools to any degree - they end up in the same place).

What I was really hoping to do with all of this is use it in japanese planes, but that didn't work out. It works fine in them, but it's far less convenient for several reasons. I was also a step away from making scraper planes,too (paul hamler over here is a scraper fanatic and he can really put on a demo at woodworking clubs like a site salesman for a vitamix who will convince you that you'll use scrapers as he does for far more than you'll end up actually doing). Scrapers were *the* answer at that time. All you had to do was look at blood and gore and such dense information provided, it extolled the virtues of the scraper plane. Then after that, it was the "brese" type plane. Put it on wood, plane with it. no tearout. take out the cap iron and make a thick single iron because it makes the plane "less complicated and more solid".

Who knows what those people at stanley, and griffiths and norris and mathieson were doing. They must've been simplistic and they needed modern hobbyists to light the way.

Of course, I took a trip on the single iron small mouth thing:

I even bought the iron and cap iron from brese - this was my second infill plane. If you want to plane a 2 thousandth shaving all day long, it'll do that. you'll sharpen it twice as much as a stanley, four or eight times as much if you count volume of wood worked instead of footage. But that's half as much as a scraper and the tiny mouth prevents you from doing any damage. I made another plane - it had a hundredth mouth - 2 1/2 times as much as this - that didn't prevent tearing (thought it would be a good plane to use just before this one).

It was about a year later that I was goaded by a guy who works with hand tools for a living into figuring out the double iron stuff and in less than a week, I was really disappointed to find out that the washing machine plane here was a leisure plane. It feels great to use, but it's not productive.

Same with all of my scrapers. I kind of resented nobody else describing all of this to me, but not too much, as I like experimenting in context - practical context. I've got a section of hardwood floor to redo in my house in a few weeks - that'll provide opportunity for scraping.

 

[D_W]

Some would say we perfected the method of wood planing just about 150 years or so ago with only very few slight improvements by contrast in the last few years.

I'm of course talking about rotary planing :lol:

Even the good versions of those (tersa and others) have a chipbreaker. And it's quite a wonderful thing if you have one that can be adjusted and use it. I'd bet lack of ability to set the older planers (which is probably lack of reading literature) has probably sold more spiral heads than just about anything else.