Hand Tools

Subject:
Friction, and more
Response To:
Re: reframing the issue ()

Bill Tindall, E.Tn.
When I made some wooden planes I was struck by how effortlessly they slid across a wood surface. If they required the same lack of skill to adjust them I would still be using them.

The coefficient of friction of wood on wood is a piddly 0.2, about third that of steel on wood. The resistive force of friction is the object's mass times the coefficient of friction. One can see that a steel plane weighing times more than a wooden plane will be many times harder to push across a wood surface, considering only the resistance of friction and not the additional force to create a shaving. So, both weight and coefficient of friction conspire to make a wooden plane the more effortless choice when considering pushing or pulling it.

The force difference when lifting is obvious.

I was initially drawn to a heavy plane because it held in the cut better. Mr. Weaver taught me that a properly sharp blade will hold in the wood without the benefit of the plane's mass. I confirm this wisdom every time I plane something and when this situation begins to fail it is time to sharpen. So, there is no practical benefit of more mass for this aspect of planing.

Momentum is proportional to mass. More momentum could be beneficial if there was a case where the resistive force changed abruptly during the planing stroke, like hitting a knot or grain reversal. In this situation a heavy plane would be smoother to push.

Messages In This Thread

Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
not the direction I went *PIC*
5 1/4
Re: reframing the issue
Re: reframing the issue
Friction, and more
The experiment and conclusion are both confusing
Re: Heavy and light
The best case for heavy planes...
another factor
If you're trimming furniture...
At some point..
Inertia and figured wood
Re: Jim, what is Osae-gani? *NM*
Osae-gani
Re: Osae-gani
Note on fitting
Re:wedge fitting
funny...
Re: funny...
Re:wedge fitting
biases for the maker...
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
Not a positive contribution to the discussion
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
finding out who to listen to...
Re: Same
Old history
Shops using mostly hand tools..
Re: Shops using mostly hand tools..
Don felder's guitar...
Misprint?
cultural thing...
Re: Misprint?
Re: finding out who to listen to...
I agree...
Re: finding out who to listen to...
Turnover, newbies and FAQ
comment on teaching
If you get my drift...
Re: Light vs Heavy planes
new vs. old planes...
I like tools from Brooklyn
Re: I like tools from Brooklyn *NM*
Infills in the UK
I'm glad you commented.
Note on a modern infill
konrad's planes...
Re: I'm glad you commented.
what I've found...
Re: what I've found...
interesting that...
Re: Calling BS
I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Re: I haven't seen it....
Truing Kanna
expanding on what jim said
Re: expanding on what jim said
Re: expanding on what jim said
Coupla thoughts
different methods of lapping and the bump
Re: Calling BS
Re: Facts, not assertions
Re: Facts, not assertions
I think we're agreeing...
Re: I think we're agreeing...
Re: Me too
Wood isn't indefinitely stable, either
Re: Calling BS
Re: Calling BS
Re: Calling BS
by the early 19th century
Re: by the early 19th century
It's not offered as ball court...
I miss Todd Hughes' contributions too *NM*
Re: It's not offered as ball court...
I'm guessing on parts here...
Re: Can't argue
Weight Comparison
more infill weights
Re: more infill weights
now there is a pearl of wisdom
Re: more infill weights
initial fitting...
one more follow-up comment.
Re: one more follow-up comment.
rosewood
Re: rosewood
© 1998 - 2017 by Ellis Walentine. All rights reserved.
No parts of this web site may be reproduced in any form or by
any means without the written permission of the publisher.

WOODCENTRAL, P.O. BOX 493, SPRINGTOWN, PA 18081