Iron placement in new woodies

Re: Iron placement in new woodies

Steve Knight

>I like the irons almost centered. on the jointers and jacks they are a bit more forward then centered. on the totes fine on you like and copy it.

Re: Iron placement in new woodies

paul womack

>I think I might like an enclosed tote, ala the infil type.

Enclosed totes were traditionally used on the large planes, not just infills. Here's a picture and measured drawing which may help you.

close tote page

BugBear

Re: Iron placement in new woodies

Mike Swindell

>Paul,

Thanks for the outline, this will simplfy my efforts greatly. Of course I could have spent hours refining shape, which would be the neanderthal way, but even us neanderthals need help.

Cheers

Mike

Tote shapes

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>There are other ways, other handles. Not clear to me which is best. Last year I put some 17th century handles on old junk woodies. (see Felibien's 1676 images or Moxon- same images more or less). I really like these handles and wonder why they were ever changed. They include a strange horn like feature at the toe which I like, not wholly unlike the front knob on modern metal planes.

Only thing I can tell you is these aren't easy to make so maybe that doomed them. I think they are smaller than you would like, but not uncomfortable since you hold them differently. I find I hold the back corner of the ring-like tote (think of a brief case handle) or hold the body behind the handle.

These bodies are also arched on top. I suspect this was done for the same reason smoothers bodies were boat shaped, i.e. to expose more end grain.

Have a look at 16th and 17th century planes, or the funky Dutch planes for some new ideas. You may find you like them. I expected to hate the totes I made, and was quite surprised. I never see these things reproduced so that means they are past due.

Adam

Re: Tote shapes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Do you mean like the one C&W used on their jack? If so, I love this tote, if it's even called that.

Pam

Re: Tote shapes

Mike Swindell

>Pam,

That's the first time I've seen a tote in that shape. It is quite unique, I assume you must have one of their planes - wanna send a tracing ? Seems like that handle would be much easier to make than a closed tote. The ergonomics of the design look good - not that I plan to surface 200 bd ft for my next project - but I might give it a go adn see what it feels like. I'll have to search for teh books Adam was talking about - I see collector prices on the horizon for these books.

Re: Tote shapes (Msg. not for the faint of heart)

William Duffield, on the Cohansey

>It looks like nothing so much as the handle of a khanjar. Google will tell you more, if you are interested. I have one somewhere in the loft over my shop that I carved in purpleheart, but then set aside. The originals were often made of rhinoceros horn. I may now resurrect it, as I have an old badger plane that needs a tote, if I am to return it to service, but not for sacrificing goats.

Why end grain?

Clay Craig

>Adam,

Why is it desirable to maximize exposure of end grain on the smoothers (leading to the coffin shape)?

Thanks,

Clay

Re: Tote shapes

Joel

>"I suspect this was done for the same reason smoothers bodies were boat shaped, i.e. to expose more end grain."

I understand why this would make the plane more stable - more wood could breath easier. but is this a modern theory or is there actual contemporary evidence that this feature was understood and apprecited at the time.

Re: Tote shapes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I don't see it; but then Google didn't show me much in the way of examples.

Pam

Re: Tote shapes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I don't know how unique it is, seem to remember seeing it other places; but it's been a while since I first saw it, might have forgotten. I love using it, very comfortable, good marshalling of strength. C&W also use it for their panel raisers.

Note that the C&W jack is more like a scrub than other jacks. Joel says this is what a jack should be like.

Pam

Re: Tote shapes

paul womack

>Last year I put some 17th century handles on old junk woodies.... . I really like these handles and wonder why they were ever changed.

Maybe the 18th century know-nothings thought they knew better ;-)

BugBear

Re: googling

paul womack

>A google image search for the single word "khanjar" gives 323 images for your browsing pleasure. Perhaps you typo'd?

BugBear

Re: Tote shapes

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>"I suspect this was done for the same reason smoothers bodies were boat shaped, i.e. to expose more end grain."

I understand why this would make the plane more stable - more wood could breath easier. but is this a modern theory or is there actual contemporary evidence that this feature was understood and apprecited at the time.

Joel,

That's a good question for C&W. In terms of evidence, there's evidence and there's evidence. I don't know of any documentary evidence discussing the rationale behind smooth plane shapes. But there's plenty of evidence suggesting they understood the problem of wood movement, choose an advantageous species for plane bodies, and took steps to deal with end grain in countless other examples.

I'll leave it to you to decide what they knew or didn't know.

Adam

Re: Tote shapes

Joel

>it's a very interesting question how the coffin smoother came about. European smoothers were (and are) mostly but not all rectangular. MOxon's smoother is rectangular - although the engravings were copied from the French. WAs Moxon wrong for England? the planes of the Mary Rose IIRC were also all rectangular and European like. But English smoothers from 17 something onward are coffin shaped. Why the change? what happened? why didn't it happen in the rest of Europe?

Actually the difference in design between English tools and Contenental tools is very interesting. Considering how much interaction there was between nations it is remarkable that there is so much regional style. Of course this talks volumes about the conservative nature of industry but it is a real shame that knowbody at the time thought to do an technology impact report. (I'm in the middle of reading such a report from 1854 on the arms industry)

Re: Tote shapes

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I know you're throwing rocks at me, but I prefer to assume the best and give your post the respect it deserves.

In terms of tote shapes, the shapes I'm talking about are very, very labor intensive to produce. We're talking about a 3 dimensional carved shape, not a sawn shape, filed smooth.

My guess is when planes were made by craftsmen, they could do this sort of work without apology. When businesses began mass producing planes in the early 18th century, they simplified this design exactly as you imply, possibly to the detriment of functionality.

Having read your sometimes vitriolic, often challenging posts for the last 5 years, I'm guessing you are wondering how far (I'm suggesting) one must go back to find the most optimized form of any hand tool. Roman times? Stone age?

Although such a question might be sent with your signature, double entendre sneer, its an excellent question, as usual. IMHO, worthy of significant consideration. We must not allow ourselves to lazily assume newer is better.

I built these planes (just the handles really) and tried them and I really like them. I also think I understand the reason for the enigmatic offset tote. It was a lot of work, but it was worth it. Looking at the pictures you can't imagine they would be comfortable. When we first started using them at Pennsbury (about a year ago) the other joiners (and our own Jeremy Osner, who was visiting) immediately wanted changes made to the totes. Fortunately, I resisted. After a few hours, we found new ways to hold our planes. A few hours after that, we began to see some of the advantages of their design, especially with respect to our French benches.

Its not true that I think everything was better in the 18th century. But just like you, I challenge our ingrained assumption that what we have today is, de facto, the best.

Thanks for the comment. Sorry if I put too many words in your mouth.

Adam

Re: Tote shapes

paul womack

>I know you're throwing rocks at me

I always HAVE to throw a rock. The first time you answer a question, you almost always come out with some kind of unqualified assertion about the context-independent merit and superiority of some ancient technique.

I throw a rock.

You then (often) provide the "real answer" which is normally much more detailed, with a context of fitness-for-purpose.

BugBear (and his pile of rocks)

Re: googling

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Got a couple of knife images, then it was all clothing, airports, films, and food.

Pam

Re: Europe & GB

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>Well, of course there was interaction, but mostly piddling little wars, not exactly conducive to the free flow of information.

Pam

Re: Tote shapes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>A few hours after that, we began to see some of the advantages of their design, especially with respect to our French benches.

Now, Adam, how can you just leave that hanging out there without elucidating? Please...

Pam

Re: Tote shapes

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>I'm not trying to be catty... its hard to explain.

The benches at Pennsbury are classic french benches like Dean's. No tail vise, no dog holes. Just a planing stop and an unfortunately positioned hold fast hole. So the board is loosey-goosey on the bench, okay?

So how can you work on such a bench? Well you can. I find downforce is helpful. The bench is lower than you would prefer. So you control the board under the plane somehow. The back hand is half behind the tote, half on top. The front hand is as always, but there is a hook so you can pull with your thumb. Its like there's more control over the plane and the board and it makes everything work. You are more over the tool than beside or behind it.

That's the best I can describe it. Its probably more subtle, but to me it feels like pulling v. pushing planes. Very different. I lowered my home bench two inches this past weekend, BTW.

Adam

Re: Tote shapes

Adam Cherubini, NJ

>it's a very interesting question how the coffin smoother came about. European smoothers were (and are) mostly but not all rectangular. MOxon's smoother is rectangular - although the engravings were copied from the French.

Moxon's engraver copied Felibien's 1676 "Principles des Architectures" (or something like that). Moxon published a mirror image of Felibien. But Moxon's engraver added a few things to the picture including a coffin smoother, a dolphin grip open saw, and a vise on the workbench.

We can thus assume the coffin smoother dates to at least 1701, but a little research may reveal the smoother was in the original printing in the 1680's.

=====

I always think England's markets were expanding throughout the 17th and 18th centuries as English trade goods found their way into the hands of German, Dutch, and Swedish colonists residing in British controlled colonies. This may have started with the rebuilding after the fire of London.

As far as planes go, were there many continental planemakers like there were in England? The manufacturers may have standardized and regionalized designs. I always think French and German and Italian craftsmen made their own tools (thus the unique shapes).

I wonder what Goodman says.

Adam

Re: Tote shapes

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

>I see, thanks. Since my bench is a bit higher, I'm probably not getting full advantage of this tote; although I do use it with planing stops only (an L-shaped stop) and it works great. Have you experienced much tote-breaking?

Pam

Re: Tote shapes

Mike Swindell

>Gosh,

I was asking about totes and this discussion certainly changed. I guess I'll make my own tote to my own design, as I'm the only one who has to be satisfied.