Let's ditch Bailey and all get low angle planes

Re: It's not that clear cut

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>

No lateral adjustment mechanism on low angle plane

Russell Seaton

>And the two low angle planes I have handled, Lie-Nielsen jack and smoother, are fairly light weight. The Lie-Nielsen low angle jointer overcomes this weight problem.

Personally I tend to grind my irons less than perfectly square all the time. I have to have a lateral adjustment or I would just dig trenches with my planes. But I reckon the perfect plane iron sharpeners don't need no stinking lateral adjuster.

But they do

Christopher Schwarz

>The Veritas LA smoother has a Norris adjuster and (some would argue) more lateral adjustment than necessary for a reasonably decent sharpener. I'm not a perfect sharpener.

The LN is also easily adjusted laterally. You can move it a degree or so. I needed a bit more so I touched the long side edge of the iron to my grinder, narrowing the iron a bit. Now it's perfect.

I like LA planes a lot, but I wouldn't foresake my Baileys etc.

Chris

I've already started thinning the herd

David Barnett

>I'm only going to keep one Bailey each of #3, #4, #5, and #7. I'll get another iron each for my low-angle jack and smoother (both L-N), and I'll keep my Primus smoother. All those extras - the well-tuned planes I haven't used for the last year or so; out the door. I'll keep the Hock irons, of course.

Re: I've already started thinning the herd

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>I have only seriously been handplaneing for 8 months now and can share a few thoughts. I have the LV low angle smoother LV low angle block plane the LN 4 1/2 for smoothing. The angles add up easily enough. But does the force created by the different setup equall better results in long grain or is it just the angle? I hope LV makes a low angle jack soon because they are far easier to work with and I get tired lookin for the one screwdriver that fits the chipbreaker.

Lyn I know I'm baiting on this but,

Eric Hedberg

>I agree, it's not clear cut. Certainly the user technique (skewing) and factors like plane mass have a component. Over the last year, though, I've been hung up on chip breakers (is that a pun?) and whether mechanically they have historically served to stiffen the relatively thin blades (i.e. the apparent improvents of a Clifton vs generic breaker) of older planes. It would seem reasonable that stffness and bedding held constant, a wood sample can't distinguish whether the effective angle of the blade striking it comes from one design or another. Perhaps some of the testing you are doing will give us some indications. (But its cold in Minnesota and I am spoiling for a good debate ; )

Re: Lyn I know I'm baiting on this but,

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>"a wood sample can't distinguish whether the effective angle of the blade striking it comes from one design or another"

Ah this last round of testing has been less tidy than the first. Some of the findings that would have seemed somewhat striking a year ago already are becoming accepted wisdom, while some accepted wisdom is not as clearly supported as might be expected. There is definitely some things to be said, and I have already broken my promise to report on things by the end of January. Now I am hoping for the end of February and am not positive it won't be until a couple of weeks after that (I have a neuropsych presentation I have to make the first weekend of March, and then things will clear out a lot for me).

But back to your comment. Yes the wood will see the same angle from the blade, but there is a lot to question as to whether the blade will respond to the forces of cutting at a given angle in the same way for both bevel up and bevel down. Damping of the blade, I suspect, will differ considerable in the two arrangements, so the discussion is in part which arrangement will offer the best damping and control of the blade, and will some styles of planes be more suitable carriers with one blade angle or another. I think my findings may provide some insight into this, but I'd like to present them all put together in a complete package. So for now I confess to tossing in some skeptical comments without proper reference to why.

Chip Breakers Historicaly

Todd Hughes

>I don't think you can say historiacly chip breakers function has been to stiffen thin blades.Chip breakers apparently came into being in the late 1700's and soon became common place and was demanded by most wood workers in thier planes. The blades that they were used with was as thick or thicker then the blades that didn't have them.They were not being used with thin blades while those with out them were the thick blades.I have heard the augument that the use of the chip breaker was an easy , cheaper, way to make a blade stiff. As someone that has made blades as well as chip breakers I can tell you straight it is many times more work to make a chip breaker then it is to just make a thicker iron. Harder to forge and more steps,[slotting, tapping, fitting, making the nut,etc] Many wood plane makers continued to offer cheap planes that took just a simple iron with out a chip breaker but even though they were cheaper they were never very popular and today are definatly the exception on the wood planes you find. Latter on if say Stanley wanted a thicker stiffer blade it would have been very easy to just make a thicker blade then go to the trouble of making a chip breaker if it's only function was to make the blade stiffer......Todd

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

William R. Duffield, on the Cohansey

>So, what are they for, really? To keep a really thick shaving from going up your sleeve and leaving splinters stuck inside your elbow? I don't really buy the idea of "easier to make," especially in the 1700's, when the steel that was needed for the cutting edge was obviously much more expensive than the steel needed for the rest of the blade, or the chipbreaker, and even very highly skilled labor was the least expensive part of the equation. Also, there is a long ways between the cutting edge and the bed on a bevel-down blade, especially one with a moveable frog. Adding a cap iron on top provides additional mass and stiffness right up next to the edge, but thickening the blade does none of that. On the contrary, it moves the cutting edge farther from the bed. further, it has been documented that smoothers with thicker cap irons work better than thinner ones.

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Sir William commented: "Also, there is a long ways between the cutting edge and the bed on a bevel-down blade, especially one with a moveable frog." Interesting you say this right now as just tonight I was making this very argument to a plane maker. My sense of things from the first plane study was that thicker was better up to about 1/8 inch, but after 3/16 inch I doubt there is any thing to be gained in a bevel down blade, for the very reasons you wrote of. Now adding damping and stiffening from a steel chip breaker, or perhaps even better a laminated chip breaker, or perhaps in certain planes from a wood wedge, seems like the way to go with none of the disadvantages that would come from increasing the distance between the cutting edge and the bedding which occurs with very thick blades used bevel down.

Of course none of this is a problem with bevel up blades as thickness does nothing to change the distance from the cutting edge to the bedding surface.

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>I should also add that when I find a chip breaker most useful is not only with a thick shaving, but when working softwoods like pine and fir. These softer more flexible woods do benefit from the breaking action of the hump of the Bailey style chip breaker. Nowhere does this become more apparent than when cutting rebates on the edge of a pine panel, or planing the edge of a door where long thick shavings may be produced.

Sometimes I think we forget that a lot of the Bailey features came into existance to increase the performance of the planes for carpentry work with softwoods.

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

Steve Knight

>but a thicker blade does work very well. thats easy to prove. without a chipbreaker.

I don't see much improvement over 3/16" without a chipbreaker but in a jack plane.

but it does make the iron easier to free hand sharpen.

but a chipbreaker is hardy to channel the chips away from the wedge. soemthing I have done battle with for awhile.

Re: Let's ditch Bailey and all get low angle plane

Patrick Gibbons, Houston, TX

>Grinding a blade in a low-angle plane to 35-40 degrees makes the ease of use- the pushing needed to engage the plane to wood- diminish. That alone makes me doubt the efficacy of using only low-angle planes for all applications. After all, low-angle and high-angle configurations are intended for the exceptions found in woodworking and not the rule. I have to assume that Bailey-style planes answered a lot of the complaints craftsmen had with wooden planes. We focus today on the desirability of thick plane blades but I would posit that a thin blade was a welcome change to past generations of woodworkers. We get hung up a lot on which sharpening system to use. 100 years ago you could use oilstones or oilstones. Oh yes and I almost forgot, oilstones. With the lack of standards for steel, a thick blade needing sharpening often would be an impediment. A chip breaker makes a thin blade possible.

Re: But they do

todd stock

>For debate's sake, I'll mention that my LN LA jacks works fine for lots of stuff, but even honing at 40 degrees (about 52 degree cutting angle) won't prevent some minor tearout on really nasty stuff.

I'm thinking that the Bailey style plane with 50 degree frog pitch and a closely set 15 or 20 degree chipbreaker may raise the effective cutting angle to around 65 to 70 degrees, which is moving towards a scraping action.

Higher pitch (60 degree or better) single iron smoothers seem to give similar performance, so maybe I just need to hone the LA at 50 degrees versus 45...something else to try.

Just my noodling on the subject.

I agree

Eric Hedberg

>I worked a lot in product development and the trap we were always trying to avoid was designs based on historical constraints. Thin blades are quick to sharpen and cheap to punch out at the turn of the century and if a chip breaker will stiffen and deflect the chips of a "carpenters" plane its a good choice. Now, though, we don't have the same constraints and in practice many of us use our planes to smooth/fit hard woods not trim/adjust construction grade softwoods. I don't honestly propose we throw out the high bed angle planes (I like the asthetics anyhow. *Steve I hope to order one of your planes in the near future*). I'm more interested in always being open to new ideas to refine/improve our tools functionally and asthetically (and a good fun debate). Now if someone could come up with a chipbreaker/deflector that really worked on a spokeshave I would be really impressed.

An experiment I've wondered about

Derek

>Lyn,

I don't have a low angle bench plane to try this out, but has anyone tried adding a thin wood backing to a low angle plane to see if it affects damping?

I'm suggesting that the strip be placed between the blade and the frog. This would be easier to do with a low angle plane because it has that nicely adjustable front shoe and the mouth would have to be opened up.

The idea is that wood seems to be a better damping material than cast iron and this might be a relatively simple upgrade path for folks. I don't know if a thin piece of wood (e.g. 1/8-1/4") would help or not. It could be added to Bailey style planes as well but I thnk it would be easier to test with a low angle plane. A longer cap iron screw would be needed.

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I think that Japanese planes violate all your heuristics about blade thickness and provide a superior planing experience. What's more, most work just as well without chipbreakers/subblades as with, and in fact can be used both ways.

Pam

Re: Japanese blades/planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Well Pam, "a superior planing experience" covers a lot of ground and is rather subjective, so I won't be trying to modify your perceptions. I prefer to report on objective findings obtained from comparative observations and measurements, and in the most recent study, multiple single blind ratings. I wish I had even better methodologies available from which to generate data for analysis, and perhaps someday we all will be treated to well funded study that can substantially improve our knowledge into what makes a plane work.

Presently I have less than a half dozen traditional Japanese and Japanese style (i.e. laminated but without an ura) blades at my disposal. Interestingly, I note that all of the traditional Japanese blades I have are tapered, and what I find is that while much thicker at the non working end, the thickness when measured at the top of the bevel is very near 3/16 of an inch (it varies somewhat depending on bevel angle, with the higher bevel angles being less thick). I don't know the history of why tapered blades are used, but at least based on my traditional Japanese blades, Japanese planes actually should have edge to bedding distances closer to what I am recommending than many of the wooden planes presently out there, and actually at a distance rather consistent with the thickness found on the typical modern infill plane. Just maybe, those old Japanese masters found better performance from tapered blades in no small measure because the tapered blade lessened distance between edge and bed consistent with my analysis.

To my knowledge, there has never been an objective comparative study to determine the effects of blade thickness in Japanese style planes. Nor to my knowlege, has there been an objective study that compared Japanese style planes with or without a chip breaker. Yes, some Japanese style planes have been demonstrated to perform very well, but there has been no (again to my knowledge) investigation as to what happens when one varies the characteristics of the component parts. Who knows, it may be that performance (or even your "planing experience") might well improve if the blades were made thinner or even more tapered (and thus lessening edge to bed distance)? Perhaps blade thickness will indeed result in different characteristics in a laminated blade than in a single steel blade. Again, to my knowledge the investigations haven't taken place with Japanese blades in the context of a Japanese plane.

But I have investigated the performance of a lot of other styles of planes (including the Bailey and "Low Angle" planes which were the subject of this thread), have discussed this issue with some prominent plane makers (most particularly Stephen Thomas), and have had the opportunity to try different blades in several planes (including some that allowed me to use conventional Japanese blades and laminated Japanese style and manufactured blades), and can say that my findings do not show any clear improvement in performance when a plane uses a blade thickness over 3/16 inch, and that many planes can perform at their maximal level with blades thinner than this. I will be continuing to look at the matter of blade thickness, and just received confirmation today that I will soon have the chance to compare some of these blade differences in a style of plane that is usually more difficult to do this with (details later).

So Pam, I don't see anything about the integrated package of components called an Japanese plane that fundamentally "violates all [my] heuristics about blade thickness." If anything, the measurements I've taken of traditional Japanese blades would suggest that their performance is not at all anomolous to my comments on the advantages of reducing blade edge to bedding distance while trying to increase damping in the blade assembly itself.

Re: Japanese blades/planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I meant what I said, perhaps would amend my statement to exclude the "all", that was a bit much. By superior planing experience, I mean superior results without much effort. Yes, the blades are tapered, the blades are much thicker than 1/8" at the top, and they still perform extremely well with or without subblades. My good experience is limited to blades with ura, flattened backs, no back bevel. Oh, yes, and not only don't they need a subblade, they don't need wedges. I'm not trying to dissect your argument, simply refute it as not being universally applicable, based on my experience.

Pam

Re: Japanese blades/planes

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Yes, the blades are tapered, the blades are much thicker than 1/8" at the top, and they still perform extremely well with or without subblades. Oh, yes, and not only don't they need a subblade, they don't need wedges. I'm not trying to dissect your argument, simply refute it as not being universally applicable.

Pam, I never in any way indicated that you said anything you didn't mean. Lots of planes can appear to offer superior performance,in one person's opinion or another. I've heard those statements with respect to every plane from junker off label #4 Bailey's to $5100 custom planes. What people consider superior results or planing experiences are meaningful to them, but rarely useful when it comes to determining what designs and variations in design will offer optimal performance.

My consistent contention for a couple of years now, based on investigating a lot of both blade and plane types, is that blade edge to bedding distance is a meaningful variable in the performance of bevel down planes. I also contend that damping within the blade assembly (be it within the blade itself, via a wedge, or via chipbreakers) is another meaningful variable.

These contentions are rapidly moving towards replicable fact, with many reporting improved performance with the stiffer, thicker chipbreakers, which provide both increased damping and increased (though single sided) support to the blade immediately behind the edge. Your failure to discern any difference between a Japanese plane with and without a chip breaker begs the question of why so many of the premium priced traditional Japanese blades come with chip breakers? I have a guess, but I'm interested in your explanation.

It is possible for the interested woodworker to parse out the contribution of the damping associated with blade thickness, from the effects of changing distance between cutting edge and bedding angle associated with blade thickness. It takes multiple blades and blade assembly configurations to do so, however. Actually, one can also do it via tapered blades.

Interestingly (to me at least), I actually find the traditional Japanese plane with tapered blade to represent rather than refute my assertions related to bevel down planes. It demonstrates one way to obtain maximal damping mass while minimizing blade edge to bedding distance. The key is to achieve both, but almost surely there is no single best way to do that.

Re: Whoops, the first ...

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>paragraph is Pam's and forgot to delete it.

Re: Japanese blades/planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>These contentions are rapidly moving towards replicable fact, with many reporting improved performance with the stiffer, thicker chipbreakers, which provide both increased damping and increased (though single sided) support to the blade immediately behind the edge. Your failure to discern any difference between a Japanese plane with and without a chip breaker begs the question of why so many of the premium priced traditional Japanese blades come with chip breakers? I have a guess, but I'm interested in your explanation.

This is up for grabs. According to Harrelson, the subblade, which is quite thick, too, is handy for planing particularly knarly/unruly grain. It is more difficult to adjust a plane with subblade since they're separate pieces. What's your guess?

Pam

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

Steve Knight

>I think part of the reason a japanese blade works so wel lis the way it self wedges. this makes it bed very well and become part of the plane. the blade is usualy a much higher quality too.

but the bedding I think is key to really good performance.

Re: Chip Breakers Historicaly

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Think I'd agree with this, it's a very tight fit when done properly. And the dai is precisely fitted to the blade, you can't just make a basic dai and slap in a blade.

Pam