Two unanswered questions for a dull afternoon.

[Jacob]

1.
I've asked this many times but nobody answers. Even though they object to it, they seem unable to say why. Here is the question: What is wrong with a convex bevel?
2.
I've asked this one a few times with no answers so far. The effective cutting angle of high and low angled planes are or can be very similar. Except for small block planes where it makes for a more compact and one hand usable tool - what is the point of a low angle plane?

 

[ac445ab]

1.
I've asked this many times but nobody answers. Even though they object to it, they seem unable to say why. Here is the question: What is wrong with a convex bevel?
2.
I've asked this one a few times with no answers so far. The effective cutting angle of high and low angled planes are or can be very similar. Except for small block planes where it makes for a more compact and one hand usable tool - what is the point of a low angle plane?

Hi, I'll try to answer to the second question.
2. Assuming the high angle planes have bevel down irons, I would say more blade support at cutting edge for low angle ones. The dark side could be the lack of a chipbreaker if this was intended for tearout problem solving.
Ciao
Giuliano

 

[AndyT]

I've tried to help with Q1 in the other thread: https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/post746006.html#p746006

 

[richarnold]

I've tried to help with Q1 in the other thread: https://www.ukworkshop.co.uk/forums/post746006.html#p746006

Me as well andy!!!

 

[Jacob]

1.
I've asked this many times but nobody answers. Even though they object to it, they seem unable to say why. Here is the question: What is wrong with a convex bevel?
2.
I've asked this one a few times with no answers so far. The effective cutting angle of high and low angled planes are or can be very similar. Except for small block planes where it makes for a more compact and one hand usable tool - what is the point of a low angle plane?

Hi, I'll try to answer to the second question.
2. Assuming the high angle planes have bevel down irons, I would say more blade support at cutting edge for low angle ones. The dark side could be the lack of a chipbreaker if this was intended for tearout problem solving.
Ciao
Giuliano

Sounds OK. I've got two very similar planes the LV la bu smoother and the Stanley SW 4. The main difference is the angle and the chipbreaker on the Stanley, but they have similar blades and solid frogs. The LV is better made, in terms of finish at least.
But performance is very similar. I can't make one consistently out-perform the other.
I gather Clifton owners would have the same expectation, or maybe Cliftons are better than either of these?

 

[barkwindjammer]

1. Nothing

2. Variety-its a sales gimmic

 

[jimi43]

42

 

[Jacob]

1. Nothing

2. Variety-its a sales gimmic

Got it in one!

 

[Racers]

1, Nothing wrong with a convex bevel, apart from bevel being flat not curved, it just seems to be a waste of time removing metal from the whole face of the chisel/plane blade, when a quick hone of the secondary bevel will do the same job.
The shortest path between two points is a straight line, therefore you will need to remove more metal from a convex bevel, obviously not much but the quantity isn't what we are talking about here.

2, I haven’t tried a low angle plane (apart from a 62) so I can’t comment.


Pete

 

[richarnold]

42

=D> =D> =D> =D>

 

[Spindle]

The shortest path between two points is a straight line, therefore you will need to remove more metal from a convex bevel,

Hi

I thought that too initially but the more I thought about it the more unsure I became. So I plugged a few examples into CAD - and as Jacob says, if you preserve the profile advancing up the blade an equal distance will result in the same volume of material being removed.

Regards Mick

 

[powertools]

I don't think that there has ever been an afternoon in my life so dull that I would want to read another sharpening thread.
My son lives a 100 miles from me but every time I go there are many jobs and few tools and it is not unknown to have to sharpen something on his back door step to be able to complete a job. Don't know what sort of bevel is is though.

 

[Phil Pascoe]

42

That's what I was thinking, sat here downing a nice pint of cider in the restaurant at the end of the universe.

 

[Heath Robinson]

As to Q2' if you have a low angle blade in a low angle plane, a la my little quenshang (which I must say I love, cheers WWH)' then the blade's effect is far nearer to a paring chisel than anything else. I suppose that this could be equated to the low angle meaning that the chips/shavings have to bend less as they're turned aside by the blade, and you need less force to push the blade through the wood.
Having a tried the 3 different blades that came with the plane, I have to say that I hardly ever use the standard-angled one. The low angle blade is easier to use for the majority of the time, especially on end grain. Having to put less force onto the plane makes me feel a little more confident using it in odd places, although I can see this effect being less on a two-handed plane. Obviously I have no quantitive method to assess this, but even if it's a psychological thing, it means less slips and screw-ups, so I'm happy with it.
It's the same as having different angles on yer chisels at the end of the day, a finer bevel gives a finer finish, but requires more sharpening, is more fragile, and so on.
That's just my take on it, and I have to admit that the effect isn't enough to have tempted me to buy a big one yet. Also, it'd look a bit out of place on the rack of pre-40s planes...

 

[Racers]

The shortest path between two points is a straight line, therefore you will need to remove more metal from a convex bevel,

Hi

I thought that too initially but the more I thought about it the more unsure I became. So I plugged a few examples into CAD - and as Jacob says, if you preserve the profile advancing up the blade an equal distance will result in the same volume of material being removed.

Regards Mick

But for just hone of the secondary bevel its quicker, and if you use a hand grinder its quicker to reshape the primary bevel, but we arent talking days.
So just use which ever method suits you.

Pete

 

[Richard T]

Quite right Heath Robinson re Q2.

The point of a mitre plane is that it holds the iron in a paring position. The angle of bevel is not really the issue.

I don't know if anyone has ever tried to pare end grain holding a chisel bevel down ... not easy - practically impossible in fact. It's the same for a plane; much easier to hold a blade in a bevel up position when paring.

Re Q1 - Jim is spot on. The Deep Thought of this forum has also been mulling it over for seven million years and the answer is the same.

 

[Corneel]

When the bevel up plane was invented, somewher in the 17th century or so, it was used for marquetry and for shooting and mitering. At least these planes appear in Roubo, Moxon and Diderot in the marquetry section. And I found a 1714German dictionary describing this "Vergatthobel" doing the usual shootingboard stuff. Why? Well, better support for the edge I guess. A bevel up plane can support the edge all the way to the edge, while in a bevel down plane you always have the bevel between the edge and the solesupport. The low cutting angle can't have been an argument because the bedding angle was about 20 degrees, so with a 25 degree sharpening angle you still have a 45 degree cutting angle.

Convex bevel? No idea. Freehanding a concave bevel with a small secondary honing bevel is just way easier and faster. When a grinder plays a role in your sharpening regime of course.

 

[Dangermouse]

OH MY GOD, NOT ANOTHER SHARPENING THREAD !!!!!!!!!!! :evil: :twisted: :shock: (hammer) :mrgreen: (homer) #-o

 

[MIGNAL]

(2) Certainly not a lot wrong with it if you happen to be a Guitar maker. I have been using a convex chisel for more years than I care to remember. Such a beast is used to shape the scoop on Soundboard and Back harmonic Bars. We occasionally refer to it as a 'belly chisel'. It's the only practical way of doing such a scoop without resorting to sandpaper and other methods that woould take much longer.

BTW. Dipping the wrists on the forward stroke when sharpening is MUCH easier than the ridiculous figure of eight method. It's surprising how accurate one can be in returning to the correct angle.

 

[Jacob]

Thanks for replies sorry to bore everybody senseless.
I'd sum up as follows - objections to convex bevels mostly hypothetical, arguments in favour of LA planes ditto.