Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Wayne Anderson
>Little #1-sized smoother with an extra thick iron set at 57 degrees. No chipbreaker here. I left the iron a bit long because I knew it would be used quite a lot. Seems to work just fine without the double iron. Makes one wonder...maybe the chipbreaker is more important with thin irons? -wayne
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
mikew
>Another beauty, Wayne!
Take care, Mike
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
gabriele piccini
>Wayne,
it's like a fist in the stomach.
you make very beautiful planes.
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
ThomD
>That is a beauty!
Krenov made the point that since the maximum flex is in the bevelled region and since thick blades have even less support out towards the end, it either didn't mater, or didn't mater much.
Looked at another way, every fat blade has the same first unsupported 1/8" as a 1/8" blade. A fat blade has further to go before the bed supports it.
I'm not sure how serious he is, but it is a good insight.
Re: 3 things...
paul womack
>1) Nice plane!
2) Nice photo (sharp plane in foreground, blurred contextual workshop in background)
3) Ergonomically speaking, could you soften/round/chamfer the side edges on the rear (as fitted) of the blade? I find on small coffin woodies my hand wraps around the blade, and the edges can be unpleasant.
BugBear
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
paul womack
>Krenov made the point that since the maximum flex is in the bevelled region and since thick blades have even less support out towards the end, it either didn't mater, or didn't mater much.
Looked at another way, every fat blade has the same first unsupported 1/8" as a 1/8" blade. A fat blade has further to go before the bed supports it.
True. But...
The front 1/8" of a thick blade is extremely well :-) connected to a large stable inertial mass - the rest of the blade!!
The front 1/8" of a thin blade is connected to its inertial support via the bedding. This invites the possibility of imperfect connection.
BugBear
But Krenov was a woodworker
Jim Reed @ Tallahassee
>not a physicist. As has been pointed out, blade chatter is a function of the entire blade, not just the tip. Chatter is directly related to blade thickness. Physics--not just a good idea, it is the LAW.
Pure eye candy
Jim Reed @ Tallahassee
>I'll bet it drives as good as it looks. Good job from a master!
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers... *LINK*
Tom MacGregor
>Some thoughts and observations about chipbreakers from traditional planemakers Clark & Williams.
Single vs. Double Irons
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Norman (Metcalfe, Ont.)
>Very nice work Wayne...
I needed to get the sunglasses out for that one :)
Can you provide some dimensions?
Norman
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Wayne Anderson
>IIR...the OAL is about 5-1/2" and the iron is 1-1/4" X 3/16".
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
paul womack
>> Little #1-sized smoother with an extra thick iron set at 57 degrees.
>>Can you provide some dimensions?
I'm guessing 5 1/2 inches long...
BugBear
Re: But Krenov was a woodworker
ThomD
>Right, and one of the physical laws that applies here is that the best way of supporting something is not necesarilly to undercut it...
As I said, I don't make any claims here, either for what he thinks 30 years later or why Hock "Krenov" blades are thicker than regular hock blades. He has a point though.
Re:Eighteenth Century
Warren in Lancaster, PA
>It sounds like they didn't really understand smoothing planes in the Eighteenth Century.
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
ThomD
>A bad bed would be a bad bed in either case. Since he resaws his plane bodies he has ample opportunity to ensure they are flat before regluing. The blades are also sandwiched between wedge and bed he does/did specify breakers. What of all this is the most important is open to question. A blade that isn't supported until .3" off the deck vs. .15" off the deck, as with .25" blades vs. .125" blades is part of the trade-offs.
Re:Eighteenth Century
Dean J in MN
>Or try panes, or fore planes, or rabbet planes, or, well any plane. :)
(Notes, none of his above woddies have chipbreakers)
-D
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>That article is confusing, seems like they're trying to make a case for thick single irons, but not so thick as to cause more work sharpening. Larry and Don, you might want to fix it up so it scans better. For example, I don't find that my thick Japanese blades are any harder to sharpen than the thinner C&W irons. In fact, the thickness helps with freehanding. Of course, 2/3 to 3/4 of that Japanese blade is soft.
Anyhow, great looking plane, Wayne, as usual. How thick is the iron?
Pam
I've got a feeling
Jim in Burlington On
>It works better than it looks. Thicker irons just seem to make sense to me. So what kinda work did the fella order it for or does he have small hands? It would take some serious testing to prove or disprove the theory wether the thicker irons negate the need for chip breakers one would have to invent a blade holder like yours:) Very sweet work.
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Wayne Anderson
>Pam,
3/16", A2, hardened to Rc 60-62, cryo treated.
Dammit Wayne!
Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA
>I want it! I want it! I want it!
Another beauty Wayne, I'd be proud of it.
Scott, wishing his wife would find a job. Then I could afford one.
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
John Fitzpatrick
>I don't have my Holtzapffel series at hand, but in the section on planes, Mr.Holtzapffel made some pretty 'authoritative' statements about there being less and less need for a capiron (I don't think he refered to it as a chipbreaker), the more that one increased the bedding angle in a bevel-up plane, citing the example of scraper planes as never having them.
So while blade thickness certainly is a variable, blade angle could be the overriding reason why Wayne's pane performs so well without a capiron.
Another beautiful plane, Wayne!
correction: I meant bevel-down
John Fitzpatrick
>
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Dick Schafer
>I've done a couple of wood bodied planes in the Krenov style, using a single bevel down iron with no chip breaker and they work quite well. Course the irons are 1/4 inch thick.
Re: Speaking of no chipbreakers...
Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX
>Do you use wedges, Dick? I also prefer my Japanese planes without sub blades, have a box full of them that probably won't be used until I sell them.
Pam
Stunning!
Todd O. Cronkhite Maine Native in FL. Exile :~(
>Wayne,
Another beauty!
What that white tip in the knob of the lever cap? Obligatory white paint splat? ;~)
Man, I hope you're keeping a photo record of every tool that you produce, will make a heck of a catolog one day for collectors.
How 'bout a close up of that nifty round tool holder that you've got in the background. That looks like an oldie goldie
Todd O.