LN LA Jack question

Re: LN LA Jack question

Indy Dan

>My guess is that it wouldn't work well. Most scrapers -- hand, cabinet, plane -- are held at a higher angle than you would get with the LA. Since your angle of attack is affected by the hook, it is probably possible to make it work. I am just skeptical.

Re: LN LA Jack question

Greg Sloop

>I've not gone to a 90 deg angle relative to the bottom of the plane, which incidentally would be around 78 deg bevel, but I've gone as high as 53-55 deg on the bevel, which makes for nearly 70 deg total angle.

(Since you're talking about ~90 deg total angle, I think, this is perhaps a useful comparison.)

In the ~70 deg total angle configuration, it cuts very beautifully, and really I'm not sure I could see the use of going higher.

Given my experience, I tend to think that a nice crisp (not dubbed over) 78 deg bevel (perhaps wedge would be a better term *grin*) would work nicely. However, for most, sharpening such a bevel wouldn't be a trivial process. My Veritas jig is hard enough to use at 50-55 deg angle - it wants to nose over and does so quite easily - at 78 deg, the tendency would be massive.

Also, with the very short projections, a very small difference in projection will cause much greater changes in angle when compared to longer projections as often used in more "normal" angles.

It sounds like an interesting idea from an "academic" standpoint, but until I get the new QPSS and don't have to "regrind" the angle by hand, I'm going to skip it. (Going up is fine - but going down isn't much fun.)

Cheers,

Greg

Re: LN LA Jack question

Robin Frierson

>With a 50-55 degree bevel, there is a good chance you wont need the scraper. Its amazing what you can plane with those higher angles.

It works, I swear

Christopher Schwarz

>And you don't have to have a hook either. In fact, on my #85 scraper plane I never put a hook and I can pull gossamer shavings like nobody's business.

However, I agree that the extreme high angle (70�) is scraping, too. And very few woods can give you much trouble as you get up in that range.

Chris

Re: It works, I swear

Greg Sloop

>Hey, can you send me your iron for the 62 so I can try it without butchering mine! *grin*

(PS. I'm a subscriber too!)

I guess I'll have to give in and try it sometime.

Thanks for the beta.

Greg

Re: It works, I swear

Tony Z.

>Chris,

With your 85, what is the angle you sharpened at--55 or 70 degrees?

Thanks,

Tony Z.

Re: It works, I swear

davidcharlesworth

>Indeed it does work surprisingly well.

I have tried it but not found a convenient way to sharpen (SIC) the blade.

Mostly I find a minute 25 degree bevel on the flat side of a regular bench plane blade will deal with the most cranky (hard) woods around.

This bevel needs to be no wider than 0.2 mm or about 8 thousandths of an inch wide, possibly less.

If you want to use this 'type two' chip production, (Hoadley Understanding Wood) you must keep shaving thickness at about 1 thou".

Those who talk about using up two years worth of blade are misguided.

Happy planing, David

Re: It works, I swear

Greg Sloop

>I'm confused... (I'm dense too, so perhaps this is to be expected...)

Are you talking about a ~1.25 deg "bevel" on the *front* of a bevel down (BD) plane?

I was just wondering because the thread started on LABU (low angle bevel up) and I wasn't sure if you were talking about BU or BD.

If you don't mind, a bit of clairification would help ease the theory and practice into the cranium rocks...

TIA,

Greg