WoodCentral Forums

Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge

The edge planing experiment

Posts

The edge planing experiment

#1

The edge planing experiment

david charlesworth


>This thread has certainly generated a huge amount of interesting ideas and hypotheses, which I have enjoyed a great deal.

Thank you everyone.

However I am disappointed that only three?? people so far have admitted to trying it.

I was hoping to collect some data to prove or disprove my observations. If you start with a perfectly straight edge, (about 15 to 20 " long), and then take ten through shavings, (with something like a 5 or 5 1/2, 6, 7 or 8) a small bump will appear in the length of the edge. I set fine shavings of about one to one and a half thou thick.

Are there any more who will humour me, please?

I do admit that this test will be almost impossible without a precision straightedge like a Starrett. The bumps I get can't be more than a very few thousandth's of an inch, but none the less bumps is what I get.

best wishes,

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#2

Re: The edge planing experiment

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>I'd love to, David, but there's this thickness thing about wooden jointers, even my 30 incher. I feel so left out. Wish you guys would suggest things in which we can all participate. :)

Pam

Re: The edge planing experiment

#3

Re: The edge planing experiment

Dan Clermont in Burnaby


>I'll try the experiment tonight if I get a chance.

I don't have a Starrett straight edge but will use my granite reference plate as a reference

Dan Clermont

Re: The edge planing experiment

#4

Re: The edge planing experiment

Moses Yoder in White Pigeon, MI


>I can try this on Thursday evening. Tonight and tomorrow night are out. It will take me a little while to make a "perfectly straight edge". It will take me 10 or 15 minutes to pick out a board! ;)

Re: The edge planing experiment

#5

Re: The edge planing experiment

thomd [email protected]


>Look, this is all about talk and no action!

OK, I will give it a try. By bump you mean a gradual longitudinal convexity, or a speed bump that occurs soewhere along the length? I do have .001 though over 36" straight edge, Chesterton or something.

Re: The edge planing experiment

#6

OK OK already...

Frank D. in Montreal


>I'll give it a go tonight, just because it's DC who's asking.

Re: The edge planing experiment

#7

Re: OK OK already...

Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native, Presently Away


>David,

I don't have the equipment to measure that finely, so my question to you is: Can you feel these bumps with your fingertips?

This does interest me, but just at the moment I am not quite properly set up to try it, but should be by this weekend.

Todd O.

Re: The edge planing experiment

#8

My results inconclusive

Barryvabeach


>David, I actually tried it the next day, though my results did not agree with your guarantee. First, I used a board that was 28" long and 13" wide. Obviously, the width would overcome any irregularity in top of my bench, which was a good thing, though I had to put in my bench vise because otherwise I could not reach the top. I centered it in the vise. I used the lee valley aluminum straight edge and feeler gauges and confirmed that I could routinely run the board over the power jointer and then place the straight edge on top of the edge with one hand holding it down at one end and could not insert a .002 feeler gauge at the other end. I then planed 10 strokes using a Clifton # 6 ( 18 inches long) and found that a .002 feeler gauge would easily fit under the straight edge at one end when I pushed down on the other end ( actually as much as .015 feeler gauge once) . I repeated that test, going to the power jointer and confirming no gap before planing, several times with the same results. ( 1 caveat is that the board was still very high so I could not get much control over the planing action ). While that result is right in line with your guarantee, I decided to try again with a St James smoother - aprox 7 inches, I ran that test several times and each time came up with the opposite result - I got a .002 hollow in the middle and no gap at either end. Since I can't offer any rational explanation for that, and I have been out of town since then, I did not post my results. I set both planes to cut a shaving in the .002 - .003 range. It is possible that due to the height of the board, that my technique was so off that caused the hollow in the middle. I was planing mahogany and don't think that the fact that it was held in a vise, rather than supported its full length had any impact - especially based on the results using the Clifton, though it is possible that the shorter lenght of the smoother allowed the board to flex more. So, I did read your message as a request to run a test, and I did run the test, but the results don't confirm that you will always get a bump. I have not measured how flat the planes are using a grantie plate but will try to do so this weekend - as well as trying to do the test with a thinner board. Barry

Re: The edge planing experiment

#9

Re: OK OK already...

thomd [email protected]


>What about the sole of your plane? If there is a fairly discernable bump it might be something the plane can tell you is there. I know the plane isn't 36" long, but still...

Re: The edge planing experiment

#11

No need to try David

HC Sakman


>Just put all the logic into the dynamics of hand plane and the way it functions. (I believe you have already done so in depth.;-)

Due to the same level of soles in front and behind the blade, it has to leave some bump on the board due the lack of any height difference; although very minor like you already have mentioned. We have been using planes without much fuss about this because the amount (thickness) is shaven off by the plane is so miniscule. Thicker the cut, more pronounced that bump will be. (this theory is subject to be tested and proven)

I think there's all to it.

All the best.

Chico...

PS: What I'd like to see is what happens if someone machines off 0.1 mm of the sole (of a #5 for example) in front of the blade (mouth) and leave the rest as is. Of course, the entire sole has to be absolutely flat in order to establish some reliable result.

Re: The edge planing experiment

#12

Re: The edge planing experiment

david charlesworth


>Sorry Pam, no intention of excluding anyone, I would expect same result for wooden planes.

I am just planing an edge which is roughly of the same order of length as the plane sole length, say from 1 to 1 1/2 times the length of the plane sole.

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#13

Some results

Dave Thompson


>I didn't have alot of time tonight, but I did do some testing, and had some unexpected findings. I was planing on a 30"x3/4" white oak which was initially straighted on a power jointer. I suppose I could hold back on posting anything until I can repeat engough times and or accomodate for unexpected results. Rather, I'll just post my findings so far. The following is the progression of my trials. I used the LN5.5 repeatedly, because for some reason it always came out flat.



PlaneBoard profile after 10Plane sole profile

LN 5.5flatflat

Record 08concaveconcave

LN 5.5flatflat

#606concaveconvex

LN 5.5flatflat

22" transitionalconcaveconcave


I find a couple of things disturbing. The Record #08, #606 and transitional have opposite sole profiles, yet the outcome is a concave board. Also, your hypothesis predicted covex outcome, which none of my results were.

I don't know how a concave sole profile can produce a concave board... the first thing that comes to mind is Slante's sole bending hypothesis.....hmmm. I'm not predisposed to believe it, and I don't think I'm that strong, but my technique does torque the plane in such a way that would tend it towards a covex sole....leading in theory to a cocave board (which I observed). This would also be supported by the fact that this was not observed with the thicker and shorter LN 5.5.

I'm thinking there are more variables that may need to be accounted for than just plane profile. This has gotten me more curious.

Dave

Re: The edge planing experiment

#14

Re: The edge planing experiment

david charlesworth


>Thom,

yes a "gradual longitudinal convexity", nice phrase!

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#15

Re: FWIW, my results

Dave Mount


>Well, I just tried the experiment for what it�s worth. Given my lack of a quality straightedge, my assessment methods are potentially suspect, but here�s what happened.

Summary: Using a LV low angle jack, I saw evidence of crowning after 10 passes. When I did the same procedure with a smoother (Keen Kutter K4C), I did not observe crowning.

Details:

I used two pieces of stock, one walnut, a full 1" thick and 24" long, the second a piece of yellow birch 3/4" thick and 27" long � no special reason, they were just there and about the right length. I didn�t start out to use two, but added the birch board as I went along as a way of checking things. Two planes were used before it was all over, a LV low angle jack with a 38 degree iron (50 degree total) and a vintage Keen Kutter K4C with the stock iron. The LV LA jack was taking a shaving about 0.0015", the K4C a little less than that. Neither plane has been lapped though both perform well for me. I�m not among the habitual lapping crowd, and I�ve never lapped a plane unless I was having problems with it. Both of these planes worked well as received, even the vintage K4, so I didn't mess with them. Both irons were sharpened with a 8000 grit Norton waterstone.

I started by running the walnut piece over the power jointer. Since I don�t have a straightedge, I evaluated straightness initially by putting the stock jointed edge down on the outfeed table and put moderate (3-5 lbs?) pressure on the last six inches of the board. My thought was that this would accentuate any crown. Doing this, I could just barely encourage my thinnest feeler gauge, 0.0015", under the end of the very end of the board opposite where I was holding it, but it met increasing resistance almost immediately as I slid it toward the center of the board. If I put my hand in the middle of the board, I couldn�t really get the feeler under anywhere. Hard to know whether this means that the board was crowned or that the jointer bed had slight crown, which it certainly could from sagging under the cantilever.

At any rate, I later added the birch board to the experiment to see if comparing opposing faces and the associated doubling of error would help me. When I jointed both boards on the power jointer, then came together with no visible gaps with essentially no hand pressure. All this makes me think that my boards were starting within 0.001" of straight, although the scalloping from the jointer may obscure some deviations, by creating a more compressible surface.

The first plane used was the LV low angle jack. It took full length shavings on every pass and after 10 passes I put the board back on the jointer table. Putting my hand on the last 6" of one end, I could bring the 0.0015" feeler about 6 inches in from the other end. This seemed to be symmetrical.

To better check for crown, I rejointed the walnut then repeated the procedure with the LA jack using both the walnut and birch boards. When I brought them together before planing, there was no visible gap. After 10 passes on each (each board planed separately, not clamped together), I brought the jointed edges together and there was a visible gap at the ends. Naturally, this gap was accentuated when I held the boards together at one end only.

Having seen that someone else tried a smoother with this test, I did the same. Both boards were rejointed on the power jointer and fit without visible gap afterward. I then did ten passes with the K4C on both boards (again, separately). Perhaps significantly for this test, I noted that the shavings ran out at the far end of the board for about the first three passes, after which the remaining passes created full length shavings. This was not intentional, it�s just what the plane did in my hands, even though this did not happen with the LA jack. After 10 passes on both boards with the smoothing plane, the result was that the two boards fit together without a visible gap. I checked them on the jointer table as described before and wasn�t able to fully insert the 0.0015" feeler anywhere.

This result may be because the first couple shavings ran out leaving one end of the board high, counteracting any crowning that may have occurred later on. As I said, I didn�t intentionally do this; I don�t know if it is a �feature� of the plane or of my technique.

The next thing I did was to take these two, apparently flat edges, just as the smoother had left them, and take 10 passes on both boards with the LV LA jack. The result was pretty much what I had gotten the first time; this treatment appeared to create a slight crown in both that the smoother had not.

The final part of the test was a little weird. Having created an apparent crown with the LA jack, I took the crowned boards as they had been left by the jack, and took 10 passes on each with the K4C. A similar runout was observed in the first couple shavings, and after 10 passes, the boards fit together without a visible gap.

I�m not claiming my measurements are accurate, my planes are flat, my technique is good, or anything else � this is just what happened as best I can explain it. Guess the lesson learned is that I can pitch that LA Jack and the rest of my planes and just use that sweet little K4C as both smoother *and* jointer!

Your mileage will undoubtedly vary. . .

Dave

P.S. I broke my 0.0015" feeler trying to shove it under boards, so you owe me a new one. . .

Re: The edge planing experiment

#16

Re: OK OK already...

david charlesworth


>Todd,

No, it is a very gradual thing, as Thom's phrase describes, not a "speed bump" , just a gentle convetity creeping in!

I visited the Morris car factory in Oxford when at school and remember being very impressed when they told us that a skilled man could run his fingertips over the steel car bonnet die, and detect bumps and hollows of less than 1 thou of an inch. However I don't believe I could feel the errors I am describing.

I test edge straightness by placing a precision st edge on top, and sliding each end, in turn from side to side a bit. One observes where the st edge pivots on the wooden edge. At either end means minute hollow. Pivoting somewhere in the middle area indicates minute bump! This is a great method for modest component lengths as you dont have to bend down and squint under the st edge, using a good light source. This can become rather tiring on back and eyes..... Neither do you need to feel for the feeler gauges, unless you want to measure the bump or hollow.

If I do want to "measure", usually to demonstrate to students, I generally use shims of writing paper or cigarette papers, which are widely available. Finest cigarette papers just under 1 thou". Average writing paperaround 4 thou" buisness card around 12 thou".

The high point of the convexity would become obvious by placing two edges together and doing the "slide each end, sideways a bit" test which traditional craftsmen used to test a hot glued rub joint. This required two edges as straight as possible, unlike a modern glue joint which is usually prepared sprung, or with significant hollows in each edge.

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#17

Re: My results inconclusive

david charlesworth


>Barry,

Thank you so much.

I do hope this is fun and not a chore!

I will have to go and repeat my test with some different planes!

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#18

Re: Some results

david charlesworth


>Dave,

thank you, the plot thickens....

I agree with Richard that plane soles do flex. Whether I flex mine inadvertently, I do not know.

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#19

Re: FWIW, my results

david charlesworth


>Dave,

Sorry about the feeler gauge ~:-(#

They used to rust and get crinkled here, perhaps why I started using paper....

More fascinating results, "curiouser and curiouser....." (Alice in Wonderland? or Through the looking glass.)

David

Re: The edge planing experiment

#20

More results

Frank D. in Montreal


>I didn't have too much time either, but here's what I found.

I took a 22" pine board, 1" wide. I used 3 planes, and tried the experiment 3 times with each plane. I'm giving the averages for each plane used, since the results were similar for all 3 attempts on with each plane.

I flattened the edge with the plane I had in my hands. I can see smaller gaps with a strong desk light than my .001" feeler gauge can measure, so I made sure there was absolutely no light coming from under the straightedge, and I double-checked with the feeler gauge just to make sure.

With a LV low angle jack, taking .0035" shavings, after 10 strokes, on average (after my 3 tries) I had .0015 dip toward the end of the board, and less than 1 thou dip at the beginning (my feeler gauge couldn't slip under the straighedge, but light came through). The dips started around 3 inches from each end.

With a LN 4 1/2, taking .003" shavings, I had light at each end, but so minute as hardly to be seen (a little more light at the rear end). My .001" feeler gauge could not fit under the straightedge anywhere.

With a LN 062, taking .0035" shavings I had about .001" dip at the back end of the board, and just a little bit of light coming in at the front (too small for a feeler gauge to fit).

I was surprised at the results. A few observations: all boards were "convex," or rather, they had little dips close to each end (around 3" from each end, quite consistently). The dips were more pronounced at the rear end of the board. I don't think the middle of the boards were very convex at all, but still flat. To my surprise, and this seems to be similar to other people who tried this, the smoother kept the board the flattest.

Let me know if I can still be of help. This was fun because I almost never check my boards with a straightedge.

Re: The edge planing experiment

#21

Clarification

HC Sakman


>I meant to say:

"What I'd like to see is; What happens if someone machines off 0.1 mm of the sole (of a #5 for example) in front of the blade (mouth) and leave the rest as is. Of course, the entire sole has to be absolutely flat BEFORE THIS MODIFICATION in order to establish some reliable results."

Chico...

Re: The edge planing experiment

#22

Re: The edge planing experiment

Dan Clermont in Burnaby


>Sorry didn't get to it tonight. Busy painting but I will have time tomorrow night.

Will post my results then

Dan Clermont

Re: The edge planing experiment

#23

Re: The edge planing experiment

mikew


>Hi DC,

Just for fun I paid attention to a glue up I am doing. Boards are ~1" Makore and the panels once glued up are about 24" x 36". Boards were about 4"-6" in width

Two panels worth of boards were prepared, though I don't own a jointer and so I paid no attention to how they came off the bandsaw--other than were were mostly straight.

If I positioned a board with one end in the vice and the free end resting on the board jack, I created a convex board of varying amounts dependent on how many passes. If I planed the boards on the benchtop against a stop the boards were dead flat.

I tried this using a #605 and a #8. Same results with either plane using either method. While I do own a Starrett straight edge [and used it], I also used a back light. I didn't measure the gap, though I could get a piece of notebook paper started under one end or the other.

To double check the attempts I believed were straight, I do what I always do. Take two boards which are to be glued together, aly them together on the edges to be glued and use an F-clamp at one end, lightly clamping them together. If it doesn't raise the top one off, and I cannot see light passing in the middle, good enough for me.

As well, most often my last pass on a typical board is using a #3 or a #4. My typical method is a very light cut, and I begin about 1/3 of the way into a board's length and lift off before the board's end. Next pass is half the distance from where I started to about the same place at the end. Then one full shaving. This I did following the attempts which produced convex boards. These passed my quick glue up test at that point. This is in part the method I use for creating sprung joints, though there are other steps. But it keeps me consistent.

Looking most closely with the Starrett, the boards which I am calling convex, really were flat for a significant portion of the centers and dove off at both the leading and traling edges. I think that my "technique" may unconsciously be compensating for the effect which you started this thread for. Or I have been lucky in that the way I was taught to create sprung joints crept into my "normal" technique and simply produced the desired result.

Sorry I didn't attempt a strict test as per the request, but these boards did need to get glued up :^}

Take care, Mike

Re: The edge planing experiment

#25

Re: OK OK already...

thomd [email protected]


>Is the purpose to develop a means of doing rubbed joints? Or is that just for descriptive purposes. I went down that path for a while and have a number of techniques, but never had a means of doing it directly off a plane as an automatic result. I did consider the concave sole, but neever tried it. I was mostly just interested in wide boards 20 or so inches long.

👍 This page answered my questions

Your vote helps other woodworkers quickly find the answers and techniques that actually work in the shop.