Fire away, Chris

Re: Fire away, Chris

Frank Mutchler

>Can you elaborate a little on your assessment of the Clifton chip breaker? TIA

Re: Fire away, Chris

Sean Evoy in Ottawa

>Sure (although I meant my message to go along with the discussion of the L-N chipbreakers; gotta coffee-up too I guess). From my understanding, the 2-part chipbreaker is supposed to offer 2 functional advantages. First, because the front part "pivots", it should make complete contact with the blade when the lever cap is tightened without fettling. Second, sharpening should be easier beacue you just remove the blade, remove the front part of the chipbreaker (not the whole thing), and hone-away.

As to the first advantage, it is hard to satisfy yourself that the chipbreaker is really making solid contact along its entire width. I don't feel comfortable leaving this to chance and with the traditional chipbreaker design, you can just eyeball the connection for gaps. With the 2-part design, it relies on the lever cap to push the front part against the blade. You can try to develop the pressure with a finger or two, but it is an approximation.

As to the second advantage, I use a sharpening guide and I find that I cannot fit the blade and chipbreaker into it, so I end up taking off the whole unit anyway. In that situation, it actually takes more time to put the chipbreaker back with the proper set-back from the blade.

YMMV of course, but that has been my experience.

Long coffee-fueled review of breakers

Christopher Schwarz

>I hate chipbreakers.

At least, I thought I hated chipbreakers because for the last 13 years of my life I've been using the spring steel ones on my old Bailey planes.

Here's why I hate them: Adjusting them so they fit tightly against the back of the iron is one of the most frustrating activities imaginable. Bend them too much and your iron will flex � ruining your iron's bedding and usually introducing chatter.

Bent them too little and they won't seat properly and firmly against the back of the iron � causing shavings to choke the plane's mouth.

Stoning the front edge properly takes more effort and precision than sharpening. And Buddah help you if the thing is in wind. Twisting a chipbreaker back to flat just stinks.

Then there's that hump on the breaker. If you don't have the hump positioned properly under the lever cap you are going to either impede the iron from retracting or advancing.

The new chipbreakers from Lie-Nielsen and Hock are superior in that they eliminate all of these problems.

They are thick, like an aftermarket iron, and are relieved or machined on the underside so they fit tight against the back of the iron with little (or usually no) work on your part. The LN and Hock are different on this point. The LN breakers have a squarish projection out by the front edge and the breaker is basically flat. The Hock is bent just a bit and has an area under the breaker that has been machined so you get a tight fit.

I've tested three Hock breakers and five LN breakers. One of each brand was in wind (twisted). All the others were perfect right out of the box. Compared to the old-style breakers, this is a massive improvement.

In many ways, I think an improved chipbreaker is the first upgrade for an old plane instead of an aftermarket iron. Most planing problems can be traced � in my opinion � back to the breaker. Adding an aftermarket breaker adds mass and rigidity to any blade assembly (reducing chatter). And it helps chip clearance because they fit tighter.

My wooden-plane friends must be laughing at this thread. The solution, according to them, is to fix your chipbreaker problem by purchasing a plane without a chipbreaker.

Oh well.

Chris

Re: Long coffee-fueled review of breakers

Sean Evoy in Ottawa

>Hmm,

"I hate chipbreakers" may become my new motto. I have to agree, and I've been struggling to get all of mine to work properly for a while now. I'll check my Hock for wind when I get home tonight. Hadn't thought about that possibility and it may explain a problem I've been having....

Maybe it's time to swap all by bench planes for bevel-up equivalents! Hey, after I add up all the replacement costs, maybe I can justify a L-N #62 after all.

Re: I'll say

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>My wooden-plane friends must be laughing at this thread. The solution, according to them, is to fix your chipbreaker problem by purchasing a plane without a chipbreaker.

You got that right. :)

However, the few metal planes I have that use chipbreakers (LN and Veritas), apparently have great chipbreakers, so far zero problems with them.

Pam

Thanks for the review!

Ed in Arizona

>I've been thinking of getting a few of those breakers myself. Next weekend here in Phoenix is the big woodshow and there will be the "finetool" guy selling LN, I may just pick-up a 4-1/2 high frog with chip breaker to go!

ECE Primus planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>BTW, forgot to mention that the ECE Primus planes have trouble free chipbreakers, too.

Pam

Re: ECE Primus planes

Sean Evoy in Ottawa

>Pam,

Assuming you have a Primus, I have heard that taking the blade out of the Primus is a bit of a PITA. Is that your experience? I ask because I am thinking about taking the plunge into the world of wooden planes and that is one of my short-listed options.

Re: ECE Primus planes

Greg B�tit, Vergennes, VT

>I'm not Pam, but I've got the Primus smoother and jointer. PITA? Only the first time or so, and because it is, well, 'different':

I'm doing this description from memory: A rod parallel to the plane sole with a T end must be loosened by unscrewing the back knurled nut, the T must be rotated 90 degrees to fit through the oval hole, and the blade/chipbreaker assembly is free. In re-assembling, in addition to reversing this procedure, you have to be concerned that the depth adjusting rod fits onto the crook in the other rod. It might be a little more involved than the procedure for a Bailey, but blade adjustment is easier.

Thanks! NM

Sean Evoy in Ottawa

>

Clifton chipbreaker

Russell Seaton

>I have seven Clifton two piece chipbreakers. They came on the Clifton planes I bought and there was a $10 or less sale on them mentioned on this forum a few months ago.

I'm not sure the Clifton chipbreaker design is all that great. Tuning, getting the tip to a knife edge, is actually harder because the front piece is small. Harder to grab. But you can tune them up so the end is a knife edge. And as mentioned, you have to put pressure with your fingers to see if their is any light.

And most frustrating is when you take the chipbreaker off and then put it back on. The two pieces are harder to get to line up with the iron so you may end up with the larger top piece slightly off the side of the iron while the tip is lined up. Its more difficult than a normal one piece chipbreaker.

But its not worth it to "upgrade" to the thick one piece Hock or Lie Nielsen chipbreakers unless you just like to spend money for no purpose.

Yes, it is a pain in the arse

Russell Seaton

>Its not the worst thing in the world. Or even close. But the Bailey method is much nicer and easier than taking out and reinstalling the Primus plane iron. But my Primus plane does smooth nicely and leaves a "glass smooth" surface on white oak. My metal planes don't seem to leave that "glass smooth" finish as well. So you should get a Primus Reform smooth plane even if it is awful taking the iron out and reinstalling it. Joel at the Museum of Woodworking store has them on sale.

I like Cliftons

Robin Frierson

>I actually prefer the Clifton design as the upper part lays flat on the blade and I can sharpen by just letting the front part drop off. They do need a lot of work when you get them though as they can be terribly out of flat. Fitting the nose has never been a problem for me... I took off all my LN and Stanley chipbreakers and put the Clifton's on. Woodworkers supply had them on sale for like 9$ a while back so I got enough for every user plane.

Re: I'll say

todd stock

>Having used a first production run LN #4 since whenever they were shipped, I've been able to compare the #4 as delivered, with cryo iron, with York pitch frog, and with the new chipbreaker.

The cryo blade really helped edge holding, but did not do anything WRT working curly or wild woods. The 50 degree frog helped with tough woods, but I still was getting some very minor tear out on QS figure sycamore where I went from heartwood to sapwood.

With the new chipbreaker, planing curly maple is like working rift-sawn cherry. I'm able to handle any of the items in my 'devil wood' box, to include some curly ipe that is both abrasive and wildly figured, and getting a better surface than I can achieve with scraper alone.

In summary, there is little comparison between LN 4 and LN4 with HA frog, cryo blade, and new CB. I strongly recommend these mods for those that have a LN, and would spend the extra $5 on any new plane for the new CB.

Re: ECE Primus Planes

glh

>I've pretty new to this forum, but you've hit on a topic near and dear to my heart. I bought a Primus Improved Smooth plane about 1.5 years ago on ebay. The plane was in excellent condition. When I received it, it was ready to go. Blade was very sharp and I used it for a pretty good while before I decided to hone before it got dull. Very brief instructions accompanied the plane. I was loosening the tension knob in order to turn little bar that holds everything together (don't have plane or instructions with me) so I hope you know what I'm referring too. The instructions said "don't remove tension bar all the way," but I accidently did. The reason was that I could not get my fingers around the little bar well enough to turn it 90 degrees, and I didn't know how far the tension screw could be loosened before it came out. I have fought this plane for at least four or five hours over the last several months in attempt to get things back together. Things seem okay until I try to adjust the blade down for cutting, it doesn't adjust up or down. I know the problem is with the tensioning rod but have no idea how to correct it. Maybe your instructions will let me get it back. I'll fight it again tonight if my wife doesn't have other plans. It's a great plane, but the assembly is most complicated (difficult) I've seen.

Re: Long coffee-fueled review of breakers

paul womack

>My wooden-plane friends must be laughing at this thread. The solution, according to them, is to fix your chipbreaker problem by purchasing a plane without a chipbreaker.

I have a number of wooden planes, mostly with chipbreakers. Most 1880-1950 wooden bench planes in the UK were fitted with "double irons".

Since the blades are thick, and the plane have no adjuster, and no lever cap, the problem you alude to in a Bailey design do not occur.

BugBear (who has wooden planes with chip breakers that work just fine)

Re: ECE Primus planes *LINK*

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I don't find it particularly difficult, but you be the judge, below is the instruction page.

Pam


Primus blade removal

Re: Clifton chipbreaker

John Truxell-Svenson (jvs)

>But its not worth it to "upgrade" to the thick one piece Hock or Lie Nielsen chipbreakers unless you just like to spend money for no purpose.

Well, that depends on how annoying a person finds the shortcomings of the Cliftons, both to get them working right to begin with, and continually in use every time the iron needs to come out of the plane. People with more patience than I have are a source of continuing inspiration.




/jvs

Making it work (Long)

Wiley Horne--Glendora CA

>Hi,

You own an outstanding plane in my opinion. We're talking about the model with adjuster. In the US, we're unfamiliar with this mechanism. And so the plane will seem tricky and difficult if you don't take it apart and see what's making it tick.

There is a mechanical interaction between the blade-clamping mechanism (that's the knob that daylights out the back), and the depth adjuster on top. It is essential to understand this mechanism, so take the plane apart. Here's what you want to do: First, raise the blade quite a bit using the depth adjuster. If you leave the blade at depth, there will be some problem untangling it from the blade clamp. Now loosen the blade clamp knob enough to swivel the blade clamp around to a vertical position so it will slide through the blade slot and release the blade. Lift the blade assembly out. Just once in your life, it's best to unscrew the end cap all the way, so you can see what's going on. No disaster will happen. But make sure the fitted washers that go ahead of the spring don't get lost--keep them beside the blade clamp knob.

Lift the blade assembly out, so you can see what's going on. Notice that the red part of the blade clamp rod has to be facing up. You can remember this by the little indentation in the top of the rod behind the red area. This little dent, or pit, is where the end of the blade depth adjuster rod beds into it. That's right: the depth adjuster works by pushing down on the blade clamp rod! That's how the mechanism works. This means that the tension you put on the blade clamp affects the operation of the depth adjuster. If you clamp it up way tight, the depth adjuster won't be able to budge it, and the blade won't move. But then there's got to be enough tension on the blade clamp so that the blade will retract when you raise the depth. So you need a Goldilocks amount of tension ("ju-u-u-st right") on the blade clamper for the depth adjuster to work right. If the blade is not responding to the depth adjuster, loosen the blade clamp.

Now putting the plane back together, you can see what needs to be done. The depth adjuster rod beds into the blade clamp rod, and this is why the depth adjuster has to be raised to make clearance for the blade clamp to pass through the blade slot (vertically) and swivel around to a horizontal position, with the red side facing up. When you get the plane reassembled, put just enough tension on the blade clamp that the depth adjuster will still work. In fact, you will learn that small retractions can be made just by loosening the blade clamp a hair.

See if these steps get your plane working again. You own an excellent plane. But it will be frustrating if you don't examine the mechanicals that make it tick. Once you do, it will all become clear.

Wiley

I wish

Dan Donaldson

>I wish LN made one of their new style chipbreakers for the #1. The position of the hump on the standard one is difficult to position to get the cap iron adjusted right.

Re: Making it work (Long)

glh

>Thanks, I'll give it a try this weekend. I have been extremely satisfied with the plane's performance.

Re: Clifton chipbreaker

John Horobin

>The Clifton two part chip breaker is based on the original Record Stay Set design and this undoubtedly was of higher quality. Even so it was eventually dropped by Record and its amazing just how many Stay Set planes have had it replaced by a standard one. The standard Record cap irons were more substantial than the Stanley ones anyway.

John

Re: I like Millers Falls

Patrick Gibbons, Houston, TX

>The Millers Falls has a hinged cap iron. I'm adding Hock chipbreakers to a #9 and a #10. I'll let you know how they work.

Stating the obvious but...

Thom Trail, Powder Springs, GA

>You can install the tensioning rod and then the blade. Trying to do all at once would be an exercise in frustration.

Thom