shooting boards

[engineer one]

thanks derek,. that seems to be borne out by my experience at this short time. the difference between the two mouth openings is about 1mm but it really makes a difference on all the woods.

i get thin shavings with the 62,but it translates more easily into dust on the No9, and since both blades are sharp the only other difference is the mouth.

so to helpmy poor hand i want to sort the mouth on the No9 because it is so comfortable.

thanks again for the continued and non anal responces :roll:
paul :wink:

 

[AHoman]

most of the time we tend to end grain timber about 2 inches wide, so it the angular displacement is almost imperceptible, and frankly is not likely to make too much difference to the wear rate.

Hi,
I've used both ramped and flat shooting boards and have found the ramped one to be nicer to use (with a LN 62 BTW). I'm not sure about the claims of wear on the blade, either, but I can relate that for small work, one can use these for long grain work (edges), and in this case the ramp does make a difference. Give it a try and judge for yourself!
-Andy

 

[Paul Kierstead]

i get thin shavings with the 62,but it translates more easily into dust on the No9, and since both blades are sharp the only other difference is the mouth.

Make the mouth on the 62 the same size as it is on the 9 and see if there is any difference in usage of the 62.

 

[engineer one]

paul, thanks for that thought, have just tried. with the mouth closed up really tight on the 62 i am seeing a similar, but not the same effect as with the 9.

most of the cutting seems to produce dust not shavings which is a pita, but that's life. maybe TLN will respond in the next day or so.

shame i can't try the blade from the 62 in the 9 it is too short.

will see also about fixing the end stop more effectively, but can't really see that having any impact on the cutting action as long as it is stopping the planed wood from moving.
:roll:
paul :wink:

 

[newt]

Paul although this is becoming a long thread I think it is great that everyone is joining in to solve the problem. And think of all the folk out there that have learnt from this thread, a good example of why this forum is so good. Keep at it, you will succeed.

 

[engineer one]

newt, you are right, it is also nice that basically it has stayed a good humoured thread with the desire to discover the real reasons.

i am no expert, that's why i asked the questions, and one of the important things is that when i finally sorted out setting a normal plane, in particular my no 6,i have been able to plane in the conventional way reasonably well, both flat and square.

i foolishly therefore thought that i could make a shooting board pretty easily, and get it working.

to find that the plane i had bought, albiet some time ago, did not work as i expected after all the fettling was disappointing to say the least. and then to find that another plane not exactly designed for the job works more effectively is a little confusing, not to mention painful.

so i have learnt. and am still learning. i cannot get big shavings, but i can at least now make the end square in both directions with a decent finish.

i have also learnt that there is a preferred way to plane, one way across the end grain is easier than the other.

of course the problem with that may well be that that grain is not in line with the face and edges that you had originally sorted out :? but then i guess at that time, since your wood should be square on all four sides, it should not make too much difference.

all in all though being technical, i am surprised it has raised so much interest and information for which i am truly grateful. 8)

paul :wink:

 

[bugbear]

to find that the plane i had bought, albiet some time ago, did not work as i expected after all the fettling was disappointing to say the least. and then to find that another plane not exactly designed for the job works more effectively is a little confusing, not to mention painful.

I can't speak for the LN #62, but a very similar plane, the Lee Valley low angle jack is most certainly intended for shooting board use.

BugBear

 

[newt]

Paul I assume the sole is flat on the no 9 particularly around the mouth.

 

[Paul Kierstead]

paul, thanks for that thought, have just tried. with the mouth closed up really tight on the 62 i am seeing a similar, but not the same effect as with the 9.

I just checked my #9. Opened fully, the mouth is 1.6 mm. I keep it considerably under 1mm normally, no problem; that is more then enough to let a shaving through. 1mm would be a gaping mouth.

When you say "really tight", how tight to you mean? Put the mouth on the 62 the same as it is on the #9 (not tighter) and try it. I am confident you will not find any significant difference between that and with it wider open.

I would ask if you are using it bevel up but it wouldn't even fit, I think.

 

[engineer one]

frankly paul since i was once an engineer apparantly, i did check the measurements carefully. i actually made the mouth on the 62 narrow a little than on the 9, and it does impact. it is more difficult to produce a decent shaving.

where i find it most noticeable, is with a piece of square oak about 1.5 inches by 1.5 with the 62 at any setting it is easier than the 9 to remove sufficient material to give the appearance of a shaving. it also starts cutting more effectively.

obviously i am still doing something wrong, but don't yet know what

remember i still get a decent kind of shiny surface on the end grain, and it is square in the two additional dimensions. but what i do not really get is shavings, rather i get dust. and with the 9, it is more difficult to start the cut.

since my piece of cherry as the end stop is moving around a bit more than i would like i will screw it down tonight rather than use the taper, and see whether that has any more impact on things.

paul :wink:

 

[MikeW]

Paul--I just had a thought. (Uh oh the crowd gasps...)

You have a Tormek iirc. Yes? If so, grind the #9 blade more than you think you really ought to on the coarse grade.

Without changing a thing, regrade the stone to fine. Grind again.

Use even and firm pressure for these grindings, but not hard pressure.

Do not strop or hone the blade.

Straight from the Tormek grind wheels, put the blade into the #9 and try it again.

Any difference?

Take care, Mike

 

[engineer one]

ok mike now you have peaked my interest. 8) :twisted:

at what angle should i sharpen, and why do you think this might help??

so far the latest sharpening with honing and polishing has been the best at 27.5 degrees, but still the starting is the difficult piece, and i can't see why what you suggest is going to help.

hope i am not being more thick than normal :? :lol: especially since i have yet to resharpen the 62 blade since i did it ages ago and have face and edge planed about 12 pieces of oak with it. :roll:

paul :wink:

 

[MikeW]

It is to eliminate the power/handstropping or hand honing on a stone variable.

Any angle you desire, really. fwiw, I never sharpened mine with less than a 30 degree bevel.

The bevel angle used really doesn't matter as regards the reults. You can get good shavings from a 60 degree BD plane ala Gordon, a 45 degree BD Stanley/LN/LV etc.

The only thing the lower angle is good for to me is when the plane is used off a shooting board on large end grain surfaces where the entire blade comes into play. (As in end-grain butcher blocks.)

So the fuller reason, the point behind removing the stropping/honing variable? Because it eliminates the issue of dubbing the edge. The reason for a longer grinding session is to ensure that the lower wear bevel is completely removed. It doesn't matter if you don't know what that is--it'll be explained in due course.

For now, it's just the Tormek as it will not introduce any dubbing.

And besides, the Tormek alone will provide a good enough edge for testing purposes. It is just that it will not be as refined as it should be for daily use. But if the shavings are more to your satisfaction straight off the Tormek, it means the issue lies with the refinement of the edge, not the creation of the bevel itself.

Take care, Mike

 

[Wiley Horne]

Hi Paul,

You have indeed fostered another great thread, as so many of yours are! Now to the point.....

The LN62 and the LN9 were both designed for end grain planing. However, the 62 is bedded at 12 degrees; the 9 at 20 degrees. This is a considerable difference. If the blades are each honed at anywhere near the same angle, the 62 will be cutting at a distinctly lower angle, which makes a considerable difference in the force applied in end grain planing. Also, if the sharpening is less than terrific, the 9 will be affected more than the 62, if it is attacking at a higher effective cutting angle.

This seems more likely to account for the differences between the two planes than the difference in mouth opening, each of which is huge for your application.

Wiley

 

[engineer one]

how about that two more completely different viewpoints :?

mike as usual a good clear explanation. that makes a lot of sense.
this last time all i used was the tormek, but with honing and polishing so

will try that idea.

wiley that opens a whole new avenue, since everybody seems to have a different view on the total angle of the blade in relation to the wood.

consider, if the 62 works better on the square lump, then surely the included angle on the 9 should be so low to get the same effect, but of course then you have a bevel strength problem :?

first i will try mike's idea.

however surely if some say that you can produce say a 2 or 4 thou shaving, the mouth needs to be open more than enough to let that through without breaking off???

paul :wink:

 

[Wiley Horne]

Paul,

I completely agree with Mike's approach, which gets not only to sharpening, but to bevel geometry as well. And I agree one can shave end grain with a variety of angles--provided the sharpening and blade geometry is right. You're on the right track at this point.

Wiley

 

[Good Surname or what ?]

where i find it most noticeable, is with a piece of square oak about 1.5 inches by 1.5

I am the only one to think this a bit thick for doing on a shooting board? I'd just knife this and square the end with my block plane while it was held in a vice.

 

[engineer one]

phil, interesting thought, my only comment from my position is that
surely the essence of a shooting board is that it produces square ends, and they are more difficult in a vice.

but also i guess i wonder why there should be any limit above the width of the plane blade to what wood you work with.
:roll:
paul :wink:

 

[engineer one]

just got a reply from LN, and not sure whether it helps

"Hi Paul,

We can't change out the mouth piece as they are made and matched to
each
plane. You can chamfer the front of the mouth for a slightly wider
slot.
Also, check to make certain that the back of the blade is flat all the
way to the edge of the sharpened end. If there is any bevel on the back

of the blade it will reduce the cut.

I hope this helps, please let me know how you make out.

Best regards,

Mike Leonard"

anyway at least i got a decent and quick reply.

paul :wink:

 

[MikeW]

where i find it most noticeable, is with a piece of square oak about 1.5 inches by 1.5

I am the only one to think this a bit thick for doing on a shooting board? I'd just knife this and square the end with my block plane while it was held in a vice.

Ha--that's what I get by not reading the entirety of the thread since my early posts...Good catch...

Nearly 2" square stock is a bit of a bite. It would not surprise me, Paul, if the stock is slipping a tad as the plane is bashing into it. That would lessen what is being shaved.

If I were needing to use a shooting board on thick stock I would ise a #7 or #8. Really. In all likelihood I would use my miter jack because I have one. But I have done such thick stock in the vise by keeping it about 2" above the height of the bench, sandwiched between two offcuts, usually Pine or Poplar. And then still used a Jack plane.

I apologize for not reading more carefully before allowing my fingers to type...

Take care, Mike