Where did the knowledge about the capiron get lost?

[swagman]

The decision is easy, Stewie!! Common pitch plane with cap iron for everything!

DW. Looks like Veritas disagree with you.

Figure 4: Blade with micro-bevel.

In a bench plane, the blade is used bevel down, so the bevel angle has no bearing on the cutting angle. This is determined by the angle of the bed which, in this case, is 45°. In the past when steeper cutting angles were desired, particularly for smoothing, special planes were produced with bed angles of 50° or 55°. However, the same net effect of altering the cutting angle can be achieved by introducing a back bevel on the face of the blade. In this way, a 5° back bevel will yield an effective cutting angle of 50° (commonly known as a York pitch). A back bevel of 15° will yield a cutting angle of 60° (see Figure 5); this will result in an entirely different cutting action from the standard 45°, producing what is known as a Type II chip (or shaving) as opposed to a Type I (reference: The Complete Guide to Sharpening). With this type of chip the wood shaving fails right at the cutting edge, eliminating tear-out and enabling the working of difficult grain patterns. This type of cutting action is similar to that produced by a scraper. The higher cutting angle increases the force necessary to propel the plane and is not required when working with the grain. However, when you have to work wood with widely varying grain (e.g., bird's-eye maple) it's handy to have a back bevelled blade at hand. Changing blades has the same effect as using a high-pitch plane.

We recommend a back bevel of 15° to 20° for most difficult planing situations, which yields a cutting angle from 60° to 65°. Note that even within this range, there is a significant difference in how the plane performs. At 60°, the plane will cut well against the grain, except around knots and the more dramatic grain swirls. Increasing the angle to 65° will all but eliminate tear-out, even around knots and rippled grain such as found in bird's-eye or curly maple. The 5° increase will, however, make the plane noticeably more difficult to push. We therefore recommend beginning with a 15° back bevel to produce a 60° cutting angle, and only increase it by another 5° to 65° if you still experience tear-out. It is also important not to skew the plane in use when a back bevel is employed as described here as this has the effect of reducing the included angle. http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 48944&ap=1




Stewie;

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

D_W - my #3 is an early bronze with the thin pressed cap. It was some time later they introduced the current heftier design and I do fancy trying that, my LN3 is a real day-to-day basic so i'm not chasing rainbows with it. You are right, I can get an LN one over there and have someone I know bring it back. As for the QS if it doesn't fit it'll go on my Record 3 so not wasted.

Hi Douglas

David and I disagree here, but I favour the newer LN and LV chipbreakers over the thin Stanley pressed metal version. I have not used the LN version that is similar to the Stanley, but I have used many Stanley versions. My criticism of the Stanley type is simply that the ones I have are easily flexed, and difficult to set accurately without moving. I think that David would argue that the rounded front is critical to set up (because Warren says so), and I will dispute this being the case.

Two years ago I argued the case against the Stanley chipbreaker here: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolReview ... eaker.html

The front angle of the Stanley is around 45 degrees. What is the LN? The new LN and LV chipbreakers are 30 degrees, which is too low to use as is, and a secondary bevel must be added. I added these at 50 degrees. The leading edge is about 1/16" (around 1mm) high.

Recently I compared a new LN chipbreaker which I rounded ala Stanley/vintage woodies with a straight/secondary bevel LV chipbreaker. Planes were the LN #3 (45 degree frog) and LV Custom #4 (42 degree frog). The wood is Fiddleback Marri, a very interlocked hardwood that would tearout just looking at it!

This is what I got from the LN (the straight shaving indicates that teh chipbreaker is effective) ...

The shape of the chipbreaker ..

And its positioning (about 0.2 - 0.3mm back) ..

Here is the LV. It should be at a slight disadvantage since the bed is slightly lower. Nevertheless, the shaving is the same ...

The shape of the chipbreaker ..

The positioning of the chipbreaker ..

Conclusion: same as

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[DennisCA]

I tried setting the cap iron reaal close again last night on my no 5 but I think the mouth of this plane is too small for it to work. There is no configuration of frog (to open the mouth) and depth of cut on this plane that will allow a shaving to rise up through the mouth with the iron set so close. I had to back it off to 1mm at least before I was able to get a shaving again. So based on this it seems a plane needs a big enough mouth as well. But it's a jack plane so perhaps not meant for this kind of job.

Based on what I've read earlier the recommendations have always been to have as small a mouth as possible though, but that seems counter productive based on last nights experiences.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

Hi Dennis

How close to the edge of the blade were you setting the chipbreaker? Too close and it will not cut - check for concertina shavings.

A jack plane should have a large mouth to take thick chips. Can you pull the frog back?

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[DennisCA]

Like I said I tried all kinds of settings with both depth of cut and the frog, I had the frog extremely far back but no configuration with the plane about .2mm (as per the kato video) would work in that position. The closeness of the cap iron itself closed off the mouth too much.

 

[Corneel]

Grab a file and open up that mouth! A good size mouth for a smoother is about 0.5 to 1 mm. For a jackplane, quite a bit more.

A tight mouth has always been mentioned in combination with the close set capiron, but the combination is not ideal. With carefull modelling both the front edge of the capiron and the shape of the mouth it is possible to combine the two. But it is a bit of a belt and suspenders way of working. The close set capiron is capable enough of its own. A tight mouth, not so much. To be effective the mouth needs to be in the 0.1 to 0.2 mm range, which is really bloody damned tight and the sole should absolutely be pressing down on the wood all the way to where the mouth interrupts the continuity of the sole. Normal wear in this area completley negates the function of the tigh mouth.

 

[DennisCA]

I should probably take some pictures and show measurements before anything further is done.

 

[pedder]

I should probably take some pictures and show measurements before anything further is done.

And look like Konrad does:

http://sauerandsteiner.blogspot.de/2015 ... rface.html

 

[matthewwh]

Dennis,

What is the angle of the leading edge of your cap iron?

This can have a significant influence on performance and a steeper angle makes the cap iron effective when not set quite so eyewateringly close to the edge.

Widening the mouth should if anything have a detrimental effect, if the plane is clogging it is more likely to be chipbreaker preparation that solves the problem.

 

[Corneel]

That's right Matthew.

But I would still select a wider mouth when you use the close set capiron. It just makes life a whole lot easier.

 

[DennisCA]

Dennis,

What is the angle of the leading edge of your cap iron?

This can have a significant influence on performance and a steeper angle makes the cap iron effective when not set quite so eyewateringly close to the edge.

Widening the mouth should if anything have a detrimental effect, if the plane is clogging it is more likely to be chipbreaker preparation that solves the problem.

I made it steeper than whatever factory angle it was after the kato video, but I think it's best I show pictures rather than try to explain from memory. Will have to wait for now though.

 

[D_W]

The decision is easy, Stewie!! Common pitch plane with cap iron for everything!

DW. Looks like Veritas disagree with you.

Figure 4: Blade with micro-bevel.

In a bench plane, the blade is used bevel down, so the bevel angle has no bearing on the cutting angle. This is determined by the angle of the bed which, in this case, is 45°. In the past when steeper cutting angles were desired, particularly for smoothing, special planes were produced with bed angles of 50° or 55°. However, the same net effect of altering the cutting angle can be achieved by introducing a back bevel on the face of the blade. In this way, a 5° back bevel will yield an effective cutting angle of 50° (commonly known as a York pitch). A back bevel of 15° will yield a cutting angle of 60° (see Figure 5); this will result in an entirely different cutting action from the standard 45°, producing what is known as a Type II chip (or shaving) as opposed to a Type I (reference: The Complete Guide to Sharpening). With this type of chip the wood shaving fails right at the cutting edge, eliminating tear-out and enabling the working of difficult grain patterns. This type of cutting action is similar to that produced by a scraper. The higher cutting angle increases the force necessary to propel the plane and is not required when working with the grain. However, when you have to work wood with widely varying grain (e.g., bird's-eye maple) it's handy to have a back bevelled blade at hand. Changing blades has the same effect as using a high-pitch plane.

We recommend a back bevel of 15° to 20° for most difficult planing situations, which yields a cutting angle from 60° to 65°. Note that even within this range, there is a significant difference in how the plane performs. At 60°, the plane will cut well against the grain, except around knots and the more dramatic grain swirls. Increasing the angle to 65° will all but eliminate tear-out, even around knots and rippled grain such as found in bird's-eye or curly maple. The 5° increase will, however, make the plane noticeably more difficult to push. We therefore recommend beginning with a 15° back bevel to produce a 60° cutting angle, and only increase it by another 5° to 65° if you still experience tear-out. It is also important not to skew the plane in use when a back bevel is employed as described here as this has the effect of reducing the included angle. http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 48944&ap=1

Stewie;

I think that the technical advice that Rob and those in charge get may not be very good. That's just my opinion, though I haven't seen them say much publicly.

I don't get any tearout around knots with a 45 degree plane with a cap iron. It's strange that they'd have to go to 65 degrees to achieve that but I sure wouldn't want to use a 65 degree plane much (or 60, either).

I think i could surprise them internally with a few simple demonstrations, but I don't anticipate technical staff there would be interested in opinions differing from theirs.

 

[Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)]

David, I think that it is likely to be closer to the truth that that description is about 10 years old. It was written for the previous model #6, not the newer Custom Planes. Clearly due for a description update. I very much doubt that the Lee Valley team are ignorant about the chipbreaker - why do you think that the Custom planes feature one? Originally (<2113), they were designed to be single iron planes, that is, without the chipbreaker. The chipbreaker was subsequently designed in because it was considered important.

Stewie, you are so transparent in your (frequent) attempts to find support for high bed planes (because that would support the few you have made), and denigrate any other plane type because it somehow threatens you.

Regards from Perth

Derek

 

[D_W]

David and I disagree here, but I favour the newer LN and LV chipbreakers over the thin Stanley pressed metal version. I have not used the LN version that is similar to the Stanley, but I have used many Stanley versions. My criticism of the Stanley type is simply that the ones I have are easily flexed, and difficult to set accurately without moving. I think that David would argue that the rounded front is critical to set up (because Warren says so), and I will dispute this being the case.

Hi Derek - I came to the conclusion of preferring rounded cap irons before discussing any of that with Warren. I'm glad to see that Warren agrees, but I got to that point after using all of the cap irons in my shop.

My biggest hope was that I would find the cap iron really opening up the use of japanese smoothers more since they leave such a bright finish, but that didn't work out as well as I'd hoped (it's just much easier to set and adjust a stanley plane, and the simple fact is that if a stanley iron develops a nick, it's little work, but if a japanese iron develops one, you will not be working with it again in 2 or 3 minute, which is the time it takes to grind and hone out a nick in a stanley plane. It's more like 10).

At any rate, I've tried everything and I came to the rounded cap iron preference from the stanley cap iron without outside coaching or even outside knowledge of any preference (it seems logical that a single flat bevel would be more precise, but I didn't end up preferring that in practice just based on feel).

I always take the stock cap iron and work the edge to a uniform finish by rolling them on a stone. I'm sure mine have an angle above 45 degrees and probably above 50 right at the point of contact with the iron, but I don't know what it is.

 

[D_W]

David, I think that it is likely to be closer to the truth that that description is about 10 years old. It was written for the previous model #6, not the newer Custom Planes. Clearly due for a description update. I very much doubt that the Lee Valley team are ignorant about the chipbreaker - why do you think that the Custom planes feature one? Originally (<2113), they were designed to be single iron planes, that is, without the chipbreaker. The chipbreaker was subsequently were designed in because they were considered important.

Stewie, you are so transparent in your (frequent) attempts to find support for high bed planes (because that would support the few you have made), and denigrate any other plane type because it somehow threatens you.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I don't think they are ignorant to the workings of the cap iron. I have never talked further than to Rob (and not about the cap iron, unless I had thoughts about a specific particular LV plane), but I think the conclusions are a little bit off to my experience at the bench.

Of all of the companies out there, if anyone would have rigged up the cap iron and put it in practice on a machine before this second go around, I would think it would've been LV - they test everything. Sometimes work at the bench comes out a little different than controlled tests, though.

 

[swagman]

The decision is easy, Stewie!! Common pitch plane with cap iron for everything!

DW. Looks like Veritas disagree with you.

Figure 4: Blade with micro-bevel.

In a bench plane, the blade is used bevel down, so the bevel angle has no bearing on the cutting angle. This is determined by the angle of the bed which, in this case, is 45°. In the past when steeper cutting angles were desired, particularly for smoothing, special planes were produced with bed angles of 50° or 55°. However, the same net effect of altering the cutting angle can be achieved by introducing a back bevel on the face of the blade. In this way, a 5° back bevel will yield an effective cutting angle of 50° (commonly known as a York pitch). A back bevel of 15° will yield a cutting angle of 60° (see Figure 5); this will result in an entirely different cutting action from the standard 45°, producing what is known as a Type II chip (or shaving) as opposed to a Type I (reference: The Complete Guide to Sharpening). With this type of chip the wood shaving fails right at the cutting edge, eliminating tear-out and enabling the working of difficult grain patterns. This type of cutting action is similar to that produced by a scraper. The higher cutting angle increases the force necessary to propel the plane and is not required when working with the grain. However, when you have to work wood with widely varying grain (e.g., bird's-eye maple) it's handy to have a back bevelled blade at hand. Changing blades has the same effect as using a high-pitch plane.

We recommend a back bevel of 15° to 20° for most difficult planing situations, which yields a cutting angle from 60° to 65°. Note that even within this range, there is a significant difference in how the plane performs. At 60°, the plane will cut well against the grain, except around knots and the more dramatic grain swirls. Increasing the angle to 65° will all but eliminate tear-out, even around knots and rippled grain such as found in bird's-eye or curly maple. The 5° increase will, however, make the plane noticeably more difficult to push. We therefore recommend beginning with a 15° back bevel to produce a 60° cutting angle, and only increase it by another 5° to 65° if you still experience tear-out. It is also important not to skew the plane in use when a back bevel is employed as described here as this has the effect of reducing the included angle. http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/page.a ... 48944&ap=1

Stewie;

I think that the technical advice that Rob and those in charge get may not be very good. That's just my opinion, though I haven't seen them say much publicly.

I don't get any tearout around knots with a 45 degree plane with a cap iron. It's strange that they'd have to go to 65 degrees to achieve that but I sure wouldn't want to use a 65 degree plane much (or 60, either).

I think i could surprise them internally with a few simple demonstrations, but I don't anticipate technical staff there would be interested in opinions differing from theirs.

DW. It might explain why Veritas then moved on to these; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPK1IppxqU

Stewie;

 

[condeesteso]

Thanks Derek. I am firmly in the hefty cap school (is there one?). Years with the Record SS, numerous woodies and the odd premium one-off universally support my intuition. Your LV chipbreaker looks and sounds what I aim for, I estimate around 60 degrees and make a flat probably around .6mm, i mean under a mil. I then flat that just because I need two flat planes (surfaces) meeting on the leading edge to create a dead striaght line / edge, so this bit is about mating mainly. I then quickly polish but have not explored leaving that surface, maybe polishing it is of no significance... I just do it.
Regarding higher piches (and fuzzy logic maybe, I liked that point) for my part I resign to the compromises which the Bailey is. For all the tuning, my Sparks no70 beats any of them every time for smoothing. It happens to be 52½ degrees - but that's where fuzzy comes in, or maybe chaos theory. More variables with many of them interacting. I will say that given its versatility the Bailey design is quite an achievement, but if we had a blank sheet and wanted a dedicated fine smoother, we wouldn't start there would we?

 

[D_W]

DW. It might explain why Veritas then moved on to these; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPK1IppxqU

Stewie;

Could be. I don't know what their reasoning was. I'll bet they had noticed that everyone seems to want something different, and put a platform together to attempt to provide choice.

 

[swagman]

DW. It might explain why Veritas then moved on to these; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyPK1IppxqU

Stewie;

Could be. I don't know what their reasoning was. I'll bet they had noticed that everyone seems to want something different, and put a platform together to attempt to provide choice.

It might also be from what you suggested; I think that the technical advice that Rob and those in charge get may not be very good.

Stewie;

 

[DennisCA]

Took some photos of my planes and tried some settings

I took apart the 5 first:

That's what my setting was, about 1.35mm:

I set it to .25 or .3mm, as close as I got it reliably. What I found was I was able to take super super light shavings that turned out like this, but if I tried to take a bigger shaving, even the teeniest big bigger, it'd be like running the plane into a brick wall and it skipped and caused a surface on the wood that looked like it was full of chatter,

So these where the best shavings I was able to get with the plane configured like this. I also tried the 3½ and I had much better luck there, with the chip breaker set to about the same I was able to take a thicker shaving without the same issues. So partial success, got it working more or less with my small smoother, which is where I guess it's most useful.