Jointer plane length?

Re: Jointer plane length?

Jim in Burlington Ontario

>Well a few weeks back I started using my 24" razee jointer from Knight toolworks bought it off of e-bay I think for 145US to my door. More than happy with it very impressed with how easy it is to set the iron considering that was my first woodie. I did pick up a 608 off of e-bay for 160US and made a new iron for it myself and stripped off the brown paint. I looked at the record #7 from LV and it didn't seem any better than buying a #7 Stanley off of e-bay or from a dealer.

Anant *LINK*

Hoa Dinh in Alameda

>I don't own any Anant planes, but heard good thinks about them. Anant plane owners please share their experience.

-- Hoa


Anant No. 8 Jointer Plane

Re: Jointer plane length?

Jonathan Peck - N.Y.

>Vince, assuming the plane will be set for a fine cut, the longer the plane, the truer the surface. An 18" plane (fore plane) may work for you, and maybe you really want a longer plane (jointer plane). If you're looking for an affordable quality jointer plane, don't overlook a woodie. They are lighter and glide easily - read easier to push - also, easier to lap flat. But, they don't have all the gizmos like frog adjustment screw, lateral adjuster and depth adjuster. So, if you want all that stuff, you're going to have to pay more if you're looking at new makers of metal bench planes of a good pedigree.

regards

Jonathan

longer is better

Tim of Dublin

>And Steve will make them longer than 24 inches if you ask real nice ;- ).

Tim

Re: Anant

Skip in Falls Church

>I only have one - the Anant version of the #10, and I'm happy with it. However, other posters here have been disappointed with them. Anant may have had or may be having some quality control problems - who knows? I'd make sure that I could return it if I wasn't happy with it. That said, given the choice I'd try the Anant before I tried the Record.

The blade in my Anant was very thin, so plan on a blade upgrade and factor that into any price comparison.

Skip

Re: Jointer plane length?

Rob Lee

>The description says it's the longest plane in the Veritas line-up.

Hi Vince -

You'll have to mentally add "so far" to the write-up.... there is a 22" plane on the horizon.

One of the factors you have to take into account with our planes is the location of the mouth... our #6 cuts "as long" as a Stanley #7 (handles are slightly farther apart too).

The unspecified new plane will cut as long as a #8 will....

Cheers -

Rob

Interesting!

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Rob,

I never thought about. That's interesting. Help me understand the physics here. You're saying that for a plane of any given length, there's a difference, in what the size of the shaving? flattness you can achieve?, by positioning the mouth in the middle of the sole? Is that right?

Let's assume the board's edge is concave. The plane rides on the ends of its sole. With a fixed blade depth, the mouth nearer the toe may cut, but when the mouth is in the middle it will not.

I see the geometry, but I'm not sure I understand what it better, how you would find a sweet spot for the mouth. I'm not sure I understand this completely.

Adam

Re: Interesting!

Vince

>I'm not entirely sure I understand either, but it sure sounds cool, and it's making me lean toward purchasing the Veritas #6.

On the other hand, if I knew when the Veritas #7 was coming out, maybe I'd hold off for a bit. 22 inches sounds great, especially if it cuts as "long" as a #8.

I'm sure Rob would love to see me purchase the #6 now and the #7 later, but I'm not yet that far down the slippery slope!

Thanks,

Vince

Re: Jointer plane length?

John Todd

>The Clifton #7 available from www.thebestthings.com for $315 is a choice too. Good quality conventional "bedrock" style plane that's a little cheaper than a Lie-Nielsen.

Re: Jointer plane length?

Vince

>Thanks for the info. I'm really just trying to narrow down my choices and make a fairly quick decision, but I guess I knew I'd wind up with more choices -- not fewer -- when I posted my question.

I go to Ottawa and Toronto often, so I can visit the LV showrooms and purchase what I need on the spot. That's why I tried to narrow my choice down to the Record #7 or the Veritas #6.

However, I have a feeling I won't be making a quick decision ;-)

Vince

Re: Jointer plane length?

Ernie Miller Topeka

>I don't understand Rob's math but he has never lied to me or any one else I know. so the #6 might be good enough for you. I have allways heard longer is better. so I would get the #7 but if LV is comming out with a #7 it might be worth the wait. I also like Steve's planes but you sound like a touchy fealy guy so that might not be an option. #7 is my go to plane unless the blade needs sharpened and I am lazy. then all bets are off.

Re: Interesting!

Derek Cohen (in Perth, Australia)

>Adam

I suspect that what Rob may be saying is that the "registration area" in front of the mouth is the same as that of a longer plane. If this plane is similar to my LA Jack in the placement of the mouth, the mouth has been moved further back, thereby increasing the area forward of it.

So the plane is not actually longer - no conjuring trick here - but the effect is similar to a longer plane in one area. Does this mean that the registration area behind the mouth counts for less?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Interesting!

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I'm still not sure I get it, but I can visualize the plane's geometry.

When the board is lumpy or convex, the sole length matters little, right?

But when the board is concave, for a given blade depth (sag if you will) the position of the blade ultimately determines the radius of the concavity. Right?

So in practical terms, if you set your jointer to take the smallest possible shaving, Rob is saying his plane will produce the same radius as a longer plane. I buy it.

Here's what I don't understand. Why are mouths placed where they are. Why aren't all planes' mouths in the middle of their soles. Obviously, a smooth plane doesn't intend to impose flatness. Are their structural reasons? Perhaps something else I'm missing?

Adam

Re: Interesting!

joel

>Balance of the plane.

Move the iron to the senter, the handle goes back too and the balance changes - the plane become front heavy and harder to use for long periods of time. I happen to have a partiuclar wooden plane like that - really hate it.

Re: Interesting!

Vince

>I have to imagine that the folks at LV have done the research and crunched the numbers to arrive at the "sweet spot" for the plane's mouth.

Unlike Adam, I have a little bit of difficulty visualizing the geometry. I try to imagine various situations (convex, concave, irregular, etc.) and then imagine how the cut would be different if the mouth were in extreme positions (right at the toe, dead center, right at the heel). Admittedly, no one would want the mouth at the toe or heel, but it's an attempt to see how important mouth placement really is. Rob Lee is saying that it's very important -- in fact, mouth placement can make an 18-inch #6 act like a 21-inch #7. If I understand correctly, however, Joel seems to be saying that mouth placement is more a question of comfort and ease of use than anything else (though maybe I'm reading more into his post than intended).

Mouth in the Middle

Christopher Schwarz

>For several months I've been working with a tool that has the mouth centered in the length of the sole. Unlike Joel, I really like having the mouth there. For me it allows this smaller plane to act like a slightly longer full-size smoother. Yet it's lightweight and is definitely not tiring to use.

I've also wondered about the placement of the mouth and have wondered if there was some "industrial design" reason for the placement that superceded other reasons. In the 18th century planes featured in Jeff Greene's book, many of the tools (jointer, smoother, strike block) all have the mouths near the center of the wooden stock.

If anyone has any firm historical stuff on the location of plane mouths, I'd love to review it for possible future publication.

Chris

My 2 cents

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>Vince,

If I may, I�d like to go back to your original question:

What's the ideal length for a jointer plane? I want to joint boards for edge-gluing�

As you may have guessed, there is no �ideal� length. An appropriate length depends on your work and your physique. Truly any plane can work. But flat surfaces are easier to produce with longer planes. My jointer is over 30� and that�s not too long. If you plan to do quite a bit of this work, this would be a good place to invest a little extra money. 24� is the minimum I would consider for a jointer plane.

The easiest way to affect a glue joint between two boards is by (match) planing them together. In this case, you need to concern yourself with another feature on your jointer- the blade width. Mine is 2-7/8�. That�s just barely enough to match plane two pieces of 6/4 hardwood or two fir 2x10�s from home depot (something I recently did with two 14 footers!).

If you don�t plan to work long or thick stock, then maybe you don�t need a jointer at all. But when you are working long heavy stuff a long hand plane is probably the best way to do it- certainly better than using an electric stationary jointer, since you don�t have to man handle the work.

�and I also need to get a flat surface on fairly large boards.

You don�t do this work with your jointer. This is done with a try plane. Many people confuse the two. Read the recent thread on the subject. Your try plane should be long, but it can be narrow. It should have a curved blade. Mine favorite try plane is 28� long.

Again, if you are serious about working wood with hand planes, you should look to compromise elsewhere. Both of these tools will pay for themselves in time saved not messing about with straight edges and the like. A hand tool craftsman needs good saws, planes and chisels. You shouldn�t compromise on those. Now you don�t need a fancy rosewood, marking gauge with girly brass wear strips. Okay, maybe just one, but you don�t need a fancy ebony brace with a complete set of Sheffield bits. You know, they�re only gonna get more expensive�you�ll probably kick yourself for passing one of those up. Forget that, you can save money by buying cheap carving tools�.er, what a minute. Maybe that�s not such a good idea either. I guess they don�t call it the slippery slope for nothing!

Adam

Re: My 2 cents

Vince

>Excellent advice. So now I need a try and a jointer and, just to keep Mr. Lee happy, a Veritas fore plane. Slippery slope indeed! ;-)

Thanks for pointing out the difference between the try and the jointer. I guess lots of people (myself included) are tempted to get more functionality than they should out of one tool. Sometimes that's a good thing, sometimes maybe not so good.

I'm going to hunt down the thread you suggested.

Once again, many thanks.

Vince

Re: Interesting! Second thought

Christof Hartge

>Hello Rob and all,

as Adam I don't quite get it, why the positioning of the mouth should add anything to the flatness of the planed surface, beside ergonomics.

I'm quite sure you did research on the subject, so there will be an convincing answer.

My state of knowledge is, that any plane produces an arch in the longitude. The radius of the arch is determined by three points: the tip of the plane, the protruding cutting edge and the toe of the plane. The middle one can be influenced by adjusting the iron, the first and the second by the mere longitude of the plane.

I just try to simulate in my head what would happen if the cutting edge is not in the middle. Does it influence the radius of the planed arch in an elliptical way, thus producing an lower arch?

Greetings, Christof.

That's one purdy plane

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA

>

Re: Mouth in the Middle (long)

joel

>I'm talking about wooden planes - certainly on metal planes the geometry is different.

If you follow the logic that a centered iron makes for an effectively longer plane than a off center iron would make for an effectively shorter plane. For smooth planes where a short length is a major advantage one would think that the iron would be at one end - like a chariot plane.

Certainly most smooth planes have irons nearer the front than center but not nearly as far front as one could get.

Therefore I would suggest that iron location is more or a matter of tradition and balance than anything else.

I would also argue - that centering the iron might make the plane more effective in some situations but not in others. for example a concave surface the longer front of a centered iron would be a benifit, but as the plane moves on the stroke the shorter area behind the iron would move off the high training end first and you would end up planing more concavity than you would with an actually longer plane.

THerefore I am willing to bet that shifting the position of the iron (except for extremes to one end or another) has far less effect on flatness of the planed surface than just getting a longer plane.

A simple test would be of course to compare the flatness produced by the various models of plane and see if there is a difference. Not just between different lengths of planes but the same length plane with different mouth locations.

If one can plane a surface acceptably flat with two planes of the same length and the same sole flatness only with different mouth positions I would say that there is not real difference in performance.

I can tell you that when planing rough wood longer planes are more accurate - but shorter planes - which are easier to use being lighter can do a pretty good job too, but may require a little more care.

Re: Interesting!

Rob Lee

>Adam -

What�s really going on with a plane on an uneven surface, is that there are three contact points/lines when a plane is cutting - somewhere in front of the mouth, the tip of the blade, and somewhere behind the mouth. The further BOTH of the sole contact points are from the tip of the blade - the flatter the resulting surface will end up.... (I feel myself not explaining this well, without going "mathy")...

Picture a plane as a boat - riding wood waves... the blade clips the high waves - while distance between the ends of the bow and stern tends to bridge the troughs... a small boat follows the wave - a long boat bridges - AND makes the waves smaller by clipping. Make enough passes, and the maximum amplitude of the waves is reduced to the point where the long boat is following really low waves�.or it is clipping water from both the wave peaks and troughs�

Going back to the lines of contact - consider a slice through the plane from end to end - now we have three points of contact (in the "plane" of the plane slice:) )... and the points are not collinear (for a non-zero blade projection)... three non-collinear points can define a circle (and a plane) - varying the relationship between the points varies the resultant radius of the circle. For a given fixed distance between end points � and a fixed distance from the line passing through those end points (the blade projection), maximum radius of the defined circle occurs with the third point equidistant from the end points.

So � if the center point is not equidistant from the end points the radius increases the closer the center point gets to either end.

Now for planes � we still have to make an accommodation for all the functional bits � handles, frogs, toe plates etc. We also consider balance, center of gravity too, as well as the dynamics that describe the movement when held by a person�This tends to make us locate the mouth forward of center, making the distance in front of the mouth the major factor in how flat a surface can be achieved� extending the �longer� part of the sole does affect the radius � but by nowhere near as much as lengthening the shorter part of the sole�.

Cheers �

Rob

(awaiting a Math major to shred my conceptual explanation� :))

Re: Interesting! Second thought

Rob Lee

>Darn it Christof -

I spend all that time typing - and here you go ahead and answer the question...!

Cheers!

Rob

Japanese planes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Japanese planes have their mouths set way back relative to western planes, well behind the middle position.

Pam