LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews *LINK*

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Erickson

>Hi Alice,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I had a chance to use the LV #6 and the LA Jack planes. I found the depth adjustments for both of them too course for my liking, but the #6 was the worst of the two, and I really didn't like it. Your explination of the ration of "along to down" explains the difference between the two. This along with a .003" concave sole would cause and immediate jump from nothing to .003" when one is trying to sneak up on a shaving. Something that I found both of them to be poor at.

I think that quantifying the "along to down" ration would be something that many, or at least I, would find helpful.

cheers, Paul

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

john jesseph

>Lyn, are you talking about a flat (non-hollow) primary bevel, and at what angle? What range of included angles?

__________________________________________________________________

I have to appreciate the effort behind plane reviews, but it is very difficult avoid subjectivity, obscured unintentionally by carefully crafted wording and technical jargon. By my choice of career, I guess I have been trained to be a high-grade cynic.

I agree bevel up planes may be good for new plane-users. Certainly will help people discover the utility of handtools that we all know about.

I wonder why the Japanese plane makers never experimented with bevel up planes? Maybe I am ignorant of the efforts.

Re: Nice review! One question

Denis Ch�nard, Orl�ans, Ont.

>...and I am drawing challenged...

Right now you have one side of the wedge against the fence, giving an angle of 135 degrees between the plane sole and the surface of the wedge in contact with the wood being planed (which is the diagonal).

Instead of that, put the diagonal of the wedge against the fence (viewed from the end it would be as if you turned the wedge one "notch"). What you have now is an angle of 45 degrees between the plane sole and the wedge.

Hope that makes it clearer,

DC

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Kierstead

>"Therefore the mouth-to-heel of the BUJ is shorter than the #7 (as measured)."

But the article said it was the same, not shorter, as you can see from my excerpt.

Ah well, it doesn't matter.

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

paul womack

>I wonder why the Japanese plane makers never experimented with bevel up planes? Maybe I am ignorant of the efforts.

The acuteness, and hence fragility, of the bed under the blade at its leading edge means that even cast iron isn't strong enough. Only steel, and latterly ductile cast iron is string enough.

Wood is not even close to strong enough.

BugBear

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Rob Lee

>Paul -

Adjusters are "geared" differently for B-up, and B-down planes...

The .003" tolerance is a maximum deviation - not a standard, and the maximum deviation is only tolerated in non-critical areas.

Right now - we hold tolerances much tighter than +0, -.003 (about 40% better in fact). To put that in perspective - plane soles tolerances for longer planes actually exceed straightness tolerances for some straightedges...

Cheers -

Rob

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>So much for the conspiracy theorists....

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Yes, all primary bevels are flat, but for 1-2 degree microbevels that the LV platter sharpener puts on automatically.

As for angles, in the second study the primary bevels range from a minimum of 20 degrees to 50 degrees on the BU planes (effective cutting angles of 32 to 62, plus the minimal secondary microbevel). For BD planes, almost all were prepared with a 30 degree primary bevel (IIRC my Japanese bladed infill was still 25), and back bevels ranged from 2.5 degrees to 20 degrees.

"I have to appreciate the effort behind plane reviews, but it is very difficult avoid subjectivity, obscured unintentionally by carefully crafted wording and technical jargon. By my choice of career, I guess I have been trained to be a high-grade cynic."

Any good investigator is at least skeptical, if not a cynic. Subjectivity enters into everything, and of course when it comes to tools we use, is not necessarily something that should be eliminated. I brought in a second planer/evaluator for this second study so we could do single blind ratings. Not the ultimate, but I daresay a level of control (on subjectivity) rarely matched for tool evaluations. If I should achieve "carefuly crafted wording" I must admit I will be reluctant to hash it up just so someone isn't seduced by the elegant prose :-) As for technical jargon, I would rather think that if we develop a language that more precisely describes and uniformly defines our observations and the conditions we are dealing with, that it will lead to more agreement and understanding.

"I agree bevel up planes may be good for new plane-users."

Let me answer this on a personal level. If tomorrow my shop burned down and all my planes were lost (hey, it has happened once before), the first four planes I would buy are the L-N LA Adjustable Mouth Block Plane (which of course is a BU plane) and the L-V BU family of Smoother, Jack and Jointer.

Adjusters and "stickion"

Lyn J. Mangiameli

>Tagged here, just to fit it in somewhere.

I don't have any problems with extension/retraction adjustment with either the BU or BD LV planes. I suspect one of the reasons is just a lot of familiarity with adjusting them, but I suspect another factor may come into play. That factor is the "stickion" that arises from a blade back mated to its bevel surface. The more bedding surface, and the rougher the blade back, the less smooth the travel of the blade along that bed. The result is that extension adjustments become slightly jumpy as any adjuster deforms slightly in the face of the friction, then when the friction is overcome it slightly overadjusts. One of the reasons I fully flatten and polish both faces of my most used smoothing blades is to minimize this stickion.

Re: Adjusters and "stickion"

Paul Erickson

>Hi Lyn,

Good point. I have wondered if jeweling (such as you will see on the bolts of some rifles) the surface of the blade which comes in contact with the frog would help improve the smoothness. There is some science to support the notion that slightly rougher surfaces will have less friction than a more polished surface.

cheers, Paul

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Paul Erickson

>Hi Rob,

Thanks for the reply. I would strongly suggest that you consider re gearing your mechanisms to allow for easier, finer adjustments.

Perhaps it was just the two examples that I had the chance to try at the show, but those examples did not serve you well. It was too bad that the Jointer was not available to try out. Apparently due to sole casting problems, I was told. I am looking forward to trying it, and some others soon.

cheers, Paul

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

Rob Lee

>Jointer's aren't available due to customer problems....too many customers, not enough castings.... :)

The main issue here (now) is time.... Jointers take 30 or more cycles on the surface grinders... there's a lot of area there to grind, and it has to be done slowly.... right now, only about 10-15 per day.

Cheers -

Rob

Re: LV BU Jointer/Fence - Reviews

john jesseph

>Thanks for taking the time to consider my points. Thanks also for adding to the knowledge base for everyone. I look forward to reading your most recent work. I did not mean to direct my comments at your reviews or Derek's reviews specifically. There are some points in the link above that were fit my critique, but probably wouldn't affect my overall agreement with the conclusions.

I also appreciate the opinion at the end of your post. I figure if I had to pick two planes to keep, of all I own, they would be my LN adjustable mouth block and my LN low angle jack. I could make about anything else I need...