Silly Japanese plane blade size question

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

steve knight


>it's the width of the iron it's self.

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

Thom D


>And it isn't unusual for a fitted blade to be a little wider than the abutments so that when you set it all up you have to grind away even a little bit of the existed edge width. So I guess it's easier to measure the total width since the final width is slightly variable.

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

paul womack


>is that describing the width of the blade body or the cutting edge?

Unless there's a "rock solid" convention, it may vary from supplier to supplier (sadly).

BugBear

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

Wiley Horne


>Wilbur,

Not silly. As Steve said, 65mm is the width of the blade body, and similarly for other ratings such as 60mm, 70mm, etc.

The reason Japanese blades have to be notched is so that the shaving can come through clean and not pile up against the abutments. This also means that if the blade ever has to be ground back--due to a chip for example--the notch has to be reestablished. Otherwise, the shavings will clog at the corners where they hit the bottom of the abutments.

Many (if not most) dais that I have seen arrive with the sidewalls of the abutments tight against the sides of the blade body--too tight for lateral adjust. For this type of normal fitting, the usual practice is to lay back the sidewalls slightly, so that you have, say, 1/32" play either side of the blade body.

Wiley

Also true

jim reed @ tallahassee


>that the bodies are quarter sawn and shrink from side to side over time. That means that the dai opening must be relieved on the sides over time. Many old planes were stored with the blade, shrunk, and then cracked over their width.

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Many (if not most) dais that I have seen arrive with the sidewalls of the abutments tight against the sides of the blade body--too tight for lateral adjust. For this type of normal fitting, the usual practice is to lay back the sidewalls slightly, so that you have, say, 1/32" play either side of the blade body.

Note that this is fine if you're using a subblade to hold everything tight against the brass cross piece, but not so good if not. Or, this wouldn't work well if you're using only a single blade.

Pam

Paper shims

jimreed@tallahassee


>I have found some with no blade holder, but many with paper shims under the blade.

I find it amusing that the Japanese spend 90% of their effort on the blade and western planemakers spend 90% of their effort on the plane. Seems to me that there is still room for improvement using Japanese blades in western style bodies with adjusters. Just a thought.

90% of effort on the blade/plane

wilbur


>This week has been my first experience with tuning/using a Japanese plane. What amazes me is how fast and easy the blade adjustment process has been. Sure, I have to whack the blade or the plane with a hammer, but a few quick light taps is still much faster than twirling the adjustment knob on my #4 and #7 Baileys through the slack, and then dialing in the setting I want. Furthermore, I've found I can still make adjustments as to the cutting depth by putting pressure on the back of the blade as I make the planing cut, which is much harder to do with my Baileys. It definitely has made the time spent on the plane blade worthwhile for me.

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

Joel


>Pam,

I think you misconstrue what Wiley is saying. THe iron is held in place by the compression of the wedging action of notches cut in the sides of the plane body. Deeping the notches laterally like Wiley states is standard practice and has no effect on the wedging action of the plane body on the iron. It's actually a pretty important thing to do when you get a new plane body. THe cap iron is fitted separately and it's clamping against the crossbar will not effect the position or clamping of the iron.

I can only respond as to I've done and/or seen.

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX

Scratch that last subject

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>I can only respond with what I've done and/or seen.

Pam

Re: Paper shims

steve knight


>already done that though without adjusters. for once in my life I can say I did it first (G)

but it would be pointless to but a great iron into a stanley type plane. The iron bedding needs a great deal of improvement to get the most out of the iron.

Re: Silly Japanese plane blade size question

Thom D


>Well I wouldn't want it wollowing around in there but I would want it held in the endgrain of the abutments and bed and not the cheeks so it needs to be a little loose. I I have lateral contact it's mostly at the top, though where it should be is not something I have ever heard discusse, though I have seen pictures of blades fitted and they look tight at the top. I set single blades up that way all the time and I don't use sub-blades to wedge the main blade in when they are in use. I was impressed at how hard our teacher set the main blade probably about twice as hard as I was used to, and I don't see any role for a sub blade to act as a wedge, whatever else it may be doing.

Re: 90% of effort on the blade/plane

Thom D


>Jim I agree with you about the difference in approach. Though I don't think the Japanese are leaving any stones unturned with the bodies either. Their body concept is at least as advanced as the western planes. About the only limitations I see is fact that they can require a little more adjustment to keep them on track than metal planes but it isn't required that often and when it is, it is woodwork so It's a lot more pleasent that rubbing a piece of metal on sandpaper.

Many of our top of the line western planes are pretty pathetic design wise. I'm not talking about the overall concept: If a person wants a plane in metal, with mechanical adjusters, a plane that is pushed, no problem. But we are still seeing a lot of stupid materials and designs. It's mostly what the market wants it's rolling along rapidly and gaining sophistication, it just seems like a slow process. I'm follow a lot of gear, and I don't see the design of woodworking tools moving ahead like bicycle gear or climbing gear, or automotive. Cast iron and brass or pretty pathetic materials. Were is the CNC machining, the billet materials, how about some materials that don't rust when they come in contact with people. How about tools that won't break if dropped. A wooden plane won't break if you drop it, a cast iron one with a wood handle on a light screw will sustain a lot of damage.

Also the low cost, which used to be a proud point among western style toolmakers is going through the roof. I just paid nearly 300 with tax for an LV jointer. That's the company with the high quality bargain brand, the no-frill presentation, though it's looking pretty nice these days. I could have bought 2-3 Japanese blue steel blades and dai for that. Japan woodworker has some serviceable blades for around 100. Japanese planes are sorta the low cost option these days. One can spend a small fortune on them but it's not necesarry. There are many cheaper tools we never see over here and they can be wonderful, It's jsut not worth bringing them over here for the market we have.

Re: Paper shims

Thom D


>I've been running "blue Steel" blades in my Record planes (and ECE)for 25 years, I sure noticed the improvement.

Re: tight cheeks

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>My only experience with Japanese planes before the Inamoto-san seminar we took together was a 54mm from Misugi, probably Gomi with Inamoto dai. It arrived tight but not too tight. It didn't take more than a few minutes trying to adjust it to realize that I had no idea how this was supposed to be done; so I signed up for the Inamoto seminar, figuring that if I learned how to make a dai I could probably adjust one.

I, too, was surprised at how tight the fit Inamoto built, much tighter than the Gomi as shipped, and quickly upped the weight requirement of a dai building/adjusting mallet to 2 lbs. I thought it was intentional that the dai he custom built were tighter than his off-the-shelf dai. I've kept my dai as tight and, in the four years since, not a cheek has blown and it still works a charm with a single blade.

And you're absolutely correct, we never discussed this, in class or otherwise.

Pam

Lost knowledge

jimreed@tallahassee


>Perhaps the tightness of the cheeks is something that Japanese craftsmen think is so intuitive that they take it for granted. I guess they are pretty tight laterally because a cracked dai is not unusual. All this being said, I find that producing light and wispy shavings does not require a profoundly tight blade.

Innovator

jimreed@tallahassee


>I should have recognized you for your efforts. Your planes do incorporate some of the best features of East & West.

Re: Lost knowledge

Joel


>When I studied with Toshio Odate the first thing he had us do was deepen the recesses for the blade. There are two reasons: Lateral adjustment and more room for wood movement. I think however the plane bodies are made purposely a little shallow just to allow for a wider range of iron width - within a few millimeters anyway but my guess is in the US most planes purchased are never set up inially correctly and the US is drier than Japan so even a dry plane body will shrink more.

Re: Lost knowledge

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Maybe so. Had Inamoto-san spoken English, I certainly would have asked him. So I don't know if it's lost knowledge or an experiment or accident or what. As it is, I'm happy with the fit and performance and do my best to duplicate the tight fit in new dai, particularly since I'm so pleased with the way single blades work. It now irritates me no end to have to pay for two blades. :)

Pam

Re: Lost knowledge

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>I haven't seen Inamoto-san working in production mode, so as far as I know, every blade/dai combination is customized. I truly don't know what purpose all this lateral adjustment serves. I've never needed it. If I need to align the edge with sole, I just bash the blade one way or the other, no problem even with the tight fit since the blade's never far out of alignment.

Pam

Re: tight cheeks

Thom D


>The only point I can add is that some smiths, trying to guild the lilly, add three weldments of HC steel at the top of the blade. One for driving in, and one on each side for tapping to set the edge angle. So it's obvious from that, that at least some smiths assume their blades will be banged back and forth for angle, and for that the abutments need to be loose for sufficient lateral movement, if only down low. Anyway, there are lots of different approaches in tools. if one thinks of stuff like multiple hollows, plated blade uppers, taping surfaces, different steel etc... No one right way.

Re: tight cheeks

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Yes, of course there are many ways to do most anything we talk about here; but I don't see any reason to risk mucking up a dai for usage with its blade. If one pares away the abutments too much, one can no longer use that plane with a single blade; so if one is very good at trimming bushes without taking too much off, go for it. I'm not that person. :)

Pam

Re: tight cheeks

Thom D


>I was just saying your method is as good as any other if it works.

I don't think there is any risk of paring away too much of the abutments, of the objective is to provide lateral play. One is widening the part that is to the sides of the blade not reducing the engagement surface.

I never count on the sub-blade to hold the main blade for me so it has to be right regardless. If anything the sub-blade requires a vary firm main blade because when one inserts it the main blade will move about. With an SB I want a stiff main blade and proportionally loose SB, after all, all that is pushing it around is the escaping shaving.