Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Things to check

Christopher Schwarz

>Derek,

How old/new is that 4.5? I see a lot of Lie-Nielsen planes and the backs of the blades are dead flat from the runs during the last couple years. That looks like an older one to my eye -- at least as best I can tell from the focus of the photo.

Some things I'd check:

1. Is the frog surface flat? Remove and check with a ruler, especially up by the mouth.

2. Is there gunk between the frog casting and body casting? That, and not having the frog aligned and secured tightly can cause dust to build up under the center of a smoother. I've personally experienced this problem.

3. Is the underside of the breaker flat? A hollow in the center can distort the iron. It doesn't take much.

4. Is the iron warped or misground? Is it square all around with parallel faces?

I can think of a few other places I'd check too. But these are the most likely. I've encountered this problem on planes myself. Usually disassembly, cleaning, resharpening and retweaking fixes it. It can be the combination of a variety of factors as well.

Usually when it happens, however, is because my sharpening medium has a hump.

Good luck!

Chris

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

R.J.Whelan (Eastern Sierra, CA)

>Derek,

I've never had this with a L-N, but I did experience it with a couple of Baileys (this may not be what's happening in your case) - check the breaker and cap iron; if they are bent they can distort the iron just enough to cause the pictured problem when taking a very light cut.

Good luck ... rj

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Norman (Ottawa, Ont.)

>Derek,

If you eyeball the plane iron as it protrudes from the sole,

do you see it as being parallel to the sole and straight?

You can exagerrate the plane iron depth to better see this,

or even measure it.

Also, this from my old days of troubleshooting.

Yuo wouldn't happen to have another LN 4.5 around you can interchange the plane iron, cap iron, lever cap, etc.

These should be interchangeable, and this is solely for troubleshooting.

It does appear there is somewhat of a negative camber in the iron though, or the sole ahead of the mouth opening is not quite flat.

Do you need to apply heavy pressure to get the full-width shavings?

Norman

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Chris, RJ and Norman

Many thanks for your replies.

Just to clarify, the picture of the back of the blade was taken shortly after I began flattening it. It is an early picture, not one taken at the end.

I do suspect the blade as the main culprit, but ... There is something wierd going on. I did try and use it in my Stanley #4 1/2, but it is not a good fit (although my 4 1/2 uses a Clifton blade of the same thickness). I tried the Clifton in the LN, however it then did the same as the LN blade ...

I did use a straight edge over the frog. And the cap iron is also flat (compared to the Stanley, the LN cap iron places lower pressure against the back of the blade).

The other planes used are bevel ups. They planed magnificently - not a hint of a problem anywhere. It cannot be my waterstones or honing in this case.

I will pull the frog apart tomorrow (it's 1:00 am here!)

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Things to check

Dave Thompson

> [Chris] How old/new is that 4.5? I see a lot of Lie-Nielsen planes and the backs of the blades are dead flat from the runs during the last couple years. That looks like an older one to my eye -- at least as best I can tell from the focus of the photo.

FWIW, my LN 4.5 was a pre-order from LN's first batch. It's always worked beautifully for me. The back of my blade was dead flat and took very little effot to show a clear reflection.

Dave

What are you doing with an LN?

Dave Thompson

>As the biggest promoter of LV products, I would have thought you would be smoothing with a LV BU jack plane. ;-)

Seriously though, since you've established that the sole of the plane is dead flat, I would focus on your blade.

1. Given the natures of your shavings, I would suspect your cambering technique with that LV cambering guide. Have you tried without this?
   
   
2. I see your blue sharpie marks on your blade as a cambered back bevel, and the first thing that comes to mind is...wow that's daring.
   
   

I'd suggest trying without the cambering or back bevel just to baseline your experience with this plane. I know this could be alot of work.... you could try putting it in the clifton plane just to confirm the blade issue.

enjoy,

Dave

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Darin

>Is the frog tight?

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Joe Rogers, Northern Virginia

>The Clifton blade performed similarly in the L-N but normally in the Stanley, correct? If the L-N cap iron was interchanged, it or the frog on the L-N 4.5 is the problem then. I'm sure Thom Lie-Nielsen would like to exchange the plane so as to diagnose the problem. This kind of issue and its correction will add to his database on quality control. I'm putting words in the mouth so to speak however Thoms reputation here and on other fora would suggest that is what he would recomend.JR

Follow up on the cambered back micro bevel

Dave Thompson

>From the photo, it doesn't look like an even size back bevel across the blade. If it's changing angle along the edge, then it's going to have different characteristics of cut along that edge.

Dave

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Michael Brady

>Derek,

The photo of the blade back is not exactly high-def, but I would say that it needs more preparation than is exhibited in the photo. Any of my L-N plane irons looked much better than this out-of-the-box. I know they hand lap each iron on sandpaper and I never have seen machine marks that close to the edge. The "ruler trick" looks a little aggressive also.

I would say that the mouth is probably too tight for shavings to clear at the center of the blade. The cambered corners in effect widen the mouth and let shavings pass on either side. Just my observations and long-distance suggestions.

Re: Things to check

Thom D

>My LNs are all old, but they have great blades. Not much flatening required. I have one with a gross machining eror, but it doesn't stop the plane from working, more aesthetic than anything.

I think this problem should be easily solved by the judicious use of a machinists square. If the blade is good, then either the sole isn't flat or the blade retention/bedding is skewgee. But all that is so obvious you will have checked it. So you get into combination effects.

Do you have any machinist's measurement tools like a granite block, or a dial indicator with bases? Kinda makes it hard to review machinery without any tools. Though there are many workshop tools that may be every bit as good, maybe.

It's presumably possible the tool could have changed since it was made castings aren't for ever, or it may have been dropped.

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Frank Bessette

>The photo shows, though not really clear, a blade that looks slightly chambered. So the question that occurred to me was �Is the frog so far forward that the center of the of blade cannot cut.

Alternate theories: Could the chipbreaker and/or frog be so tight as to distort the blade? Is the wood flat or is it concave?

Re: I think Dave has got it!

Ted Shuck

>I think that Dave has diagnosed the problem here. If the blade is not flat along the cutting edge, then the back bevel may cause an inverse camber of the cutting edge. The corners of the blade are proud and the center is concave. You will need to sharpen the primary bevel with some camber to rectify this.

Best Regards,

Ted

Made it home safely, I see...

Ted Owen, Pittsburgh

>good to meet you, Frank, at MASW. Hope to see you again.

Best, Ted

go back to basics

Larry Williams

>I'm sure there must be some other step that can be added to complicate the sharpening process but I'm at a loss as to what it might be. This is kind of a classic example of obscuring the goal with gadgets, gizmos and gimmicks. It's hard to say what's going on here with all the layers of "simplification" .

Back off the cap iron, open the mouth and dump the crutches. Set your honing guide and "short cuts" aside, just sharpen the iron without all the paraphernalia--like it's been done for hundreds of years. I suspect all your problems will go away. You can then adjust the cap iron and mouth opening to suit your needs.

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>OK, I've had another look at the whole plane following all the excellent suggestions here (and on the UK site).

As an aside, it is quite an interesting adventure when something like this occurs - it makes one so much more aware of the balance between components in getting everything to work together, and to do so well.

I read Larry's advice after I had come to the same conclusion. There was something very basic that was being overlooked,

The major culprit has been the blade. This is largely a fault of manufacture, but partly (I believe) a consequence of the honing technique I used with this blade.

Firstly, I went through the plane with a fine tooth comb, again. The sole is flat. The mouth is flat and square. The frog is flat, and sits flat on the body. The cap iron is flat and spreads the load properly. I used just enough tension via the screw and lever cap to hold the blade firmly and so avoid undue distortion of the blade. By now I was a paid up member of the Flat Earth Society.

So back to the blade. Now, the picture I posted earlier has been misunderstood by many as representing how it looked when I used it. Not so. Not nearly so. I took the picture to document the state of the blade when I got it, and shortly after I began trying to flatten the back. Some suggested that I had overdone the micro-backbevel.

I decided to regrind the blade on my belt sander set up and then re-hone on the LV Mk II, in other words, go from scratch. Here is the bevel after my belt sander (120 grit). All this did was tidy up the bevel. You can still see the microbevel.

The problem - I believe - lay with the camber roller on the Mk II I used or, rather, with the way I used the camber roller. I suspect that I applied too much central pressure, which caused the bevel to become slightly hollowed. A straight edge revealed that this was so (too difficult to photograph). So I put away the camber roller and used the straight roller instead. Again honed a final microbevel on 8000 grit and finished with Veritas green rouge.

The result was much, much better. On Rock Maple (with some soft pockets that tore out easily), with the grain, the #4 1/2 planed pretty well. The shavings were somewhat erratic, that is, the thickness was not stable, and gradually the centre section began to labour. Very prematurely, the plane stopped cutting. Clearly, the blade did not hold an edge and was softer in the centre than at the sides.

I re-honed and exchanged the Clifton blade for the LN, keeping the LN chip breaker and settings. The Clifton is the same thickness as the LN. Now we were cooking!! Finally the #4 1/2 was working as I expected it to. Behind the #4 1/2 you can see the shavings made by three planes during the review planing.

The shavings from the #4 1/2 here were made against the grain (45 degree frog).

While the review was principally about the Marcou smoother, I shall be compiling another mini review of the LV BUS and LN 4-1/2 head-to-head.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: What are you doing with an LN?

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Hi Dave

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter at hand.

What am I doing with an LN? You should know that I own more LN planes than LV ones!

With as much tongue-in-the-cheek

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Fred Krow

>Reading this exchange, I am very confused. In my short experience with flatening this is what happens.

1. Flattening a plane sole on W&D paper = convex (side to side and somewhat toe to heel.

2. The shavings from a flat blade will be as shown in original post.

Every used Stanley plane I have purchased over the past few years is convex on the sole, most likely from sanding on paper or powered belt sander. I must expend hours on a diamond hone or lapping plate to flatten reasonably.

What am I missing with application of W&D paper on glass or granite subsurface?

Regards,

FK

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Derek Cohen (in Perth Australia)

>Fred, no doubt BugBear will say something about his preference for scraping a sole instead of lapping.

I have lapped a good many soles and have not created curviture, either side-to-side or front-to-back. However, I do have experience in the difficulty of trying to remove curviture than others have created. The act of lapping is perilous, so one must be very careful. The danger lies in trying to lap as if one were planing. This moves in an arc, which is where the problem begins. I make sure that 80% of the pressure I exert is downforce at the centre of the plane, and 20% is forward movement. This is further facilitated by standing high over the plane, or kneeling over it if I place my lapping board on the floor.

With the LN I really did not lap the sole - more like ran it over W&D to check the pattern produced by the scratches. They revealed that the sole was flat since they removed the added blue marking evenly.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

paul womack

>Fred, no doubt BugBear will say something about his preference for scraping a sole instead of lapping.

Derek, I know you were baiting (delicately) but I've moved on.

My initial inspiration was (indeed) scraping, but scraping is waaaay too slow and tedious.

I moved onto filing pretty soon, but was disappointed with the cosmetics of the (still very flat) result.

Recently I have been experimenting with using localized abrasives; I've tried small (4cm square) slightly convex sanding blocks, and a round ended, "wooden chisel" where I wrap abrasive around the convex end. The latter worked rather well.

In all cases, flatness is achieved, since the core action of marking where the high spots are is unchanged by the technique used to remove the high spots.

BTW, it is (famously) possible to get a convex surface by this method, but it's much less likely. A "rocker" is quite easy to detect whenthe plane is on the plate, and easily fixed by deliberately making a small (and VERY shallow!) hollow in the centre, which will again prevent the workpiece from rocking.

BugBear

Re: Predictable *LINK*

paul womack

>Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

BugBear


Flattening with Reference to a Surface Plate

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Fred Krow

>Derek,

Thank you for the detailed return. I also have been lapping with 80-90% downward force and very light forward pressure. I mark the plane sole with black Sharpie marker criss-cross and lap the smaller planes on a DMT Extra Coarse diamond plate, it is slow and boring however, it does remove the convex rocker out of the geometry. There is a huge difference in time required for the initial 90% and to obtain the final 100% surface contact.

My next experiment is to purchase some very coarse diamond paste and rough out the initial flattening on a lapping plate. I have some ductile iron plates but do not know how the diamond will react with the cast iron Stanley plane surface. The ductile iron base plate may be too close to the hardness of the cast iron plane.

Regards,

Fred Krow

Questions of uniform heat treatment?

Dave Thompson

>[Derek] The problem - I believe - lay with the camber roller on the Mk II I used or, rather, with the way I used the camber roller....[snip]... Clearly, the blade did not hold an edge and was softer in the centre than at the sides.

Derek, glad I could help out. Though, I am curious how you came to the conclusion that the blade hardness is not uniform. Even if this were true, I wouldn't expect a softer portion to dull noticeably in a couple of test cuts. How much difference could there be?

Dave

Re: Advice needed on LN #4-1/2 fault finding

Tony Zaffuto

>Derek,

Do you flatten plane bottoms on a stationary belt sander? If so, do you add a piece of verified flat steel (or something similar) under the belt?

I'm asking this because I know you use a belt sander and not because it has any relevance to this thread. Some of the comments allude to plane bottoms ending convex after use of a belt sander.

Thanks,

Tony Z.