Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

paul womack


>No - whilst a long flat plane cannot plane (significantly) concave, it can easily plane convex - the classic "dubbing the ends" problem.

BugBear

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

Paul Kierstead


>Not even close. Technique and attention are required.

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

Dan Clermont in Burnaby


>It takes practice and patience. Need to make sure you ge the board properly supported, work surface needs to be flat, gotta know how to sharpen a blade, how to use winding sticks

Lots to it. I am exhausted just thingking about it. A good plane certainly does help

Dan Clermont

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

Neal in San Jose


>Nope. Especially if the board is convex (humped), it is very easy to end up with the same hump, only thinner. Start with a Banana, end up with a thinner banana. DAMHIKT

NO WAY

Ron in Kokomo


>As an example: Tiger Woods can play a whole lot better with your clubs than you can with his.

The biggest variable by far is whose hands the tool is in.

Perhaps more interesting Q might have been ...

Paul Kierstead


>What is the single biggest factor in getting a board flat?

The way this one is asked, it tends to be pejorative.

Well said...

Scott Burr in Ben Lomond CA


>It's nice to know I'm not the only one that has made a Atkins banana so to speak.;^)

No, and here's some more food for thought

Dave Thompson


>As been said many times above, No. Though I think you were trying to go somehwere with your choice of dimensions, choice of plane and condition.

As BB said, convex is the tendency. Without care, as the toe and heal engage or disengage the wood, if the plane is not touching flat (i.e. not coplanar), then round over will occur no matter how short.

Further, round over will happen with the sides of that 6" wide board if the edge of the blade extends over the wood like a rabbet plane does.

On a side note, a while back, I was doing some playing around with the general rule that one can plane a board flat which is twice the length of the jointer. Some hold that the general rule is three times the length. I was edge jointing a 10 foot long board using my best techinique and an old #7. While the sides were square (no side round over) because of use of a hand held block fence, I found when I mated the two edges I had an equal concave edge joint that allowed 1/8" gap half way through. The 10 foot span had a 1/16" convex dip in the edge. I don't know for certain that this particular plane is dead flat, which would naturally contribute significantly. I planned to repeat with a tranny that I knew was dead flat, but haven't had the time yet. Also on my todo list is to do a little geometry to get a sense of error in plane flatness projected over length of material...

There are some other issues that come up in a mental simulation. A power jointer has a theoretical advantage in jointing wood in that the infeed is not in the same plane as the outfeed, i.e. the outfeed table is at the same height as the the blade cut. Theoretically, a hand plane would always be able to rock on it's blade, because the heal (outfeed) is not offset to match the blade depth. Increasing the blade depth exacerbates this issue. Good techinique with a jointer plane, would have one using minimal blade depth as one gets close to the end of the jointing operation. This theory contributes to a convex outcome rather than concave. It also adds weight to the thought that a trully flat jointer is not desirable, i.e. a slight concavity in the heal might be desirable.

Dave

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

Pam Niedermayer - Austin, TX


>Absolutely not. And not only that, a flat sole is not even a requirement to get a flat surface. My Japanese planes don't have flat soles, altough they are coplanar at two or three important spots (toe, in front of mouth, and possibly at the heel - also note that these descriptions in Japanese plane land are heel, behind mouth, and toe respectively, just to throw in some more confusion).

Pam

Re: Concave

thomd coralseacat@yahoo.au


>If it's flat you get a concave surface. The long sole is for dialing in the unconcious curvature. Long sole means you can auto plane longer joints without getting so much gap you can't make a joint. The other regulator is the amount of blade projection too much and it reduces your efficiency since this isn't a finishing function and you want to be able to take some kind of shaving. you can always dial it down if you have to.

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

thomd coralseacat@yahoo.au


>Yes sir, but that is the workmanship of risk, not certainty. In other words maybe you can find a way to get the reindeer cookie cutter to make santa, but it's probably not the innevitable function of that CC. With planes the innevitable longitudinal function is concave.

A kind of mental obesity

woodburnbob


>Edge jointing a 10 foot board...now there's a concept.

Actually, Dave, in recent weeks I've been working on my spotting and scraping skills ("scrape that sole flat") and comparing it with hand file techniques to do the same. I'd done about a half dozen smoothers and jacks, and started looking at 3 #7s I'd bought over the years that had less than flat soles. They were close but less than perfect. This got me thinking about how little I use long planes and I started thinking about whether they were even necessary...if careful technique with a #4 or #5 could supplant them. Reflecting on experience, I realized I've never thought there was an intrinsic advantage to using a jointer over a #3,#4 or #5...other than the received wisdom that "you should use a #7 or #8 when planing something long".

So I asked the question: Is a jointer sufficient to get something flat or straight. The unanimous answer seems to be no. A related question would be: Is a long plane necessary. I suspect the answer would be: no. Folks would then probably split into groups who argued over jointing speed and ease. But if the concensus of users was that long planes are neither necessary nor sufficient, maybe their existence (jointers, that is) is superfluous. I could forget about my 3 #7's, sell them and work on something else to pass the time.

I suppose in the most abstract sense, I'm still perseverating on an old and fundamental question of mine about how much sense it makes to ever use a surface that is being worked on as a guide for that work. For example, I think you probably can set a surface grinder to produce a flat sole, mentally go to sleep, and wake up with a flat sole within "specs". That won't (and I'd argue can't) happen with handheld abrasives that use the surface being ground as a guide for where grinding will occur.

I know, one of these days I'm going to need to get a life.

Re: A kind of mental obesity

Paul Kierstead


>long planes are neither necessary nor sufficient, maybe their existence (jointers, that is) is superfluous.

There is a very long distance between "neither necessary nor sufficient" and "superfluous". That is a leap of logic which has little validity. If the *only* purpose is to get the job done with the least number of tools, then I suppose it is true. You could joint with a chisel if you were so inclined. Or a knife. You don't need a plane at all, and no plane is sufficient alone.

Although a jointer is not sufficient nor necessary, it certainly makes getting a consistent surface easier. You might still get a gently convex surface with a very long jointer, but you are highly unlikely to get a wavy one; fairly easy to do over a long edge with a short plane. And correcting that will be easier with a long plane.

Re: A kind of mental obesity

woodburnbob


>You might have missed the sentence just before the one you quote:

"Folks would then probably split into groups who argued over jointing speed and ease."

I'd say your objection to "neither necessary nor sufficient" ... but still not "superfluous" in your mind, seems based on the issue of speed and ease.

I suppose I wonder if you really mean it. For instance, would you say you can't joint a board as fast and easily with a #5 as a #7...given the motivation?

But then I'm not so sure you and I have all that much about which to disagree.

And another thing

woodburnbob


>I walked away from the computer with this statement from you hanging in my thoughts:

"There is a very long distance between 'neither necessary nor sufficient' and 'superfluous'."

So I couldn't resist.

Here are the first 2 definitions for superfluous in the Oxford English Dictionary:

1. That exceeds what is sufficient

2. a. That is not needed or required; unnecessary,

My reading is that neither necessary nor sufficient defines superfluous.

I kind of dread going to work this afternoon because I know I'm going to be argumentative and quarrelsome with everyone who speaks to me. It's the first cold and cloudy day here in Oregon in a long time.

Re: And another thing

Paul Kierstead


>Dictionaries are really pathetic at capture the nuances in the language. It is no wonder people learning with it struggle at the finer points.

But, in any case, the problem revolves around the concept of "not needed". Like many things in life, something which might seem clear cut isn't so much. As I said, you could joint and/or flatten a board board without any plane at all. Does that make all planes superfluous? "needed" implies some definition of requirements which is assumed. The problem if one asks "do I need X to achieve my goal" is that everyone will assume different, unstated requirements. If you say, "do I need a plane to flatten a board by hand", most will say yes, though a select few might believe an axe is enough. Depends on where you ask I would think. But at the core, most will assume you want to achieve it in a reasonable period of time, without excessive amounts of required skill or experience. But, in fact, you could flatten the board with chisels. And you certainly could flatten and joint a 10' board with a block plane, but it would be quite an undertaking.

So, yes, I seen your split into 2 camps comment but ignored it, because effeciency is not a black and white thing.

Now it should be fairly obvious you could flatten and joint most boards reasonably effectively with a ratty ol' #5. But, for big boards, finishing the process will be *more* efficient with a long, flat, plane. And it would be *less* efficient with a #4. So, what do you need? I don't know. It is a sliding scale, and regardless of the dictionary, common usage of "superfluous" would be not just unnecessary, but unnecessary to a 'larger' degree, like teats on a bull.

But for a new user, it might be different. If someone said "I want to joint some boards, all I got is a smoother, what should I buy" I might not say "a #7", I might say "a #5" or "a #6", especially if they are trying it on some narly rough stuff (not tweaking skip planed boards), because it is easier, IMHO, to finish jointing with a #5 and a #4 then it is to hog off the really nasty bits with a #7.

Above all, what is "necessary" is a philisophical question not so easily answered as "can a product be made without it".

Loaded question...

John in New Mexico


>Though I doubt you'll agree. The original question was whether a perfectly flat soled long plane guaranteed a flat surface, regardless of the existence of shorter planes. The consensus appears to be no, skill on the part of the user is also required.

Now you start throwing in shorter planes as a substitute for a long plane, and basing your logic on the answers to the original question.

Why not just ask the question "is a jointer necessary given that with sufficient skill, a user can flatten a face or straighten an edge just as well with a smoother?"?

I suspect you'd have gotten different answers, as it is fundamentally (and literally, come to that) a different question.

John

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

Joel


>I'm going to say yes with one caveat.

first intentionally plane the board concave using either a shorter plane or your long plane starting and stopping from 1/2" or so from the beginning or end of the board. If you use the latter method after a few strokes the plane with stock cutting and you have a concave surface. - The latter method is what I usually do.

Then take full strokes starting off the beginning the board and ending off the board.

You will get choppy shavings at the beginnng and end of the stroke. When you get a single long shaving your board will be flat. You can do this to a board 10' or 20' long and get great results as long as you take fine shavings at the last steps.

It's really a trivial process and requires no real attention or skill once you get the basic hang of it. Remember squaring stock is the first job an apprentice had after sweeping up. THe major cause for complications is changes in grain.

Try it you will see.

Work from inside out

Wiley Horne


>Agree with Paul--if you just start planing, the board will go convex because the blade with always get a shaving on each end, even when the blade is barely touching wood in the middle of the board. This can be controlled somewhat by keeping pressure on the lead end of the plane when starting the cut, and on the tail end when finishing the cut. But if you plane long enough, it'll go convex.

There is a strategy to jointing that I've picked up from various members of this forum: First, get the board a little concave by working from the inside out. Then you are ready to joint. For boards of reasonable length, to face joint or to edge joint, work from the inside out. Take shavings from the middle--say, between the 40-yard lines--until no further shaving is possible, then back up and plane between the 20-yard lines until no shaving comes, then back up and go end to end until you have the profile you want--either dead flat where the plane is taking a continuous shaving, or a coupla thousandths hollow, where the plane is taking a shaving from the ends but just barely scraping the middle. Note this only works if you start concave, because you can easily get a continuous shaving from a convex board. And, as said, the longer you plane, the more convex it gets.

More generally, we are talking about reading the shaving. This is the great value of a long plane. If one practices reading the shaving, and works from the inside out, a long flat plane will tell you the exact topography of the board. A 30" jointer is a beautiful tool for this, and you won't need to check for flat as you go. The shaving tells all.

Wiley

Re: Does a flat sole guarantee a flat board?

William Duffield, on the Cohansey


>To add a couple of subtle points to your basic truths: Instead of a shorter plane for the first passes, you can skew your jointer so the nose and tail are hanging off the sides. Voil�, shorter plane. With a wooden jointer, and to a lesser extent a metal one, you don't have to actually look at the shaving to determine when you are done. The sound of the plane cutting tells you whether or not you are getting a consistent, full width, full length shaving. Of course, that takes a well trained ear, and mine doesn't work so well anymore. I need all the clues I can get.

Re: Topic drift - flattening soles

paul womack


>in recent weeks I've been working on my spotting and scraping skills ("scrape that sole flat") and comparing it with hand file techniques to do the same. I'd done about a half dozen smoothers and jacks,

I would love to hear your experiences, either here or by email.

For obvious reasons...

Bugbear's tireless obsession site :-)

BugBear

Re: A kind of mental obesity

Dave Thompson


>Edge jointing a 10 foot board...now there's a concept.

Without a doubt, it's much easier to move an 8lbs 22" #7 (and sometimes initially a smaller #5) than to move a 25lbs 10'x7" board. If an edge has got something like a ~1/2" dip in it that needs to be jointed out, it can be pretty tiresome on a power jointer. I claim to chose the hand plane edge jointing method for pragmatic reasons. ....Versus cutting them down prior to edge jointing, it just so happened that my most recent project needed 95" long final cuts.

I know, one of these days I'm going to need to get a life.

Ha! I fiddle planes and wood planing techniques for entertainment. Talk about needing to get a life... ;-)

enjoy,

Dave

You're probably right

woodburnbob


>Believe it or not, I hadn't started this with the intention of generating a legal or moral case against jointers. I began with wondering if I should get rid of a few jointers I don't use much. Wiley, Joel and Willaim have now enlightened me on a technique that does require a "long" plane...in a sense making my jointers necessary, if not sufficient. In effect, my current inference is I wasn't using them much because I didn't know how to. I'm going to now spend some time trying to master the technique Wiley, Joel and William suggest. It will be new to me and hopefully advance my novice knowledge and skills.

This whole thing illustrates something about me. My thinking is often stupid, inconsistent, naive, petty, misguided, illogical and irrational. I'm a flawed human being. I can pick a fight one day and feel terrible about it the next. I probably do inadvertently generate loaded questions like "Are you still beating your wife?" Still, I'd like to think I'm basically not malevolent. Maybe I have that wrong too.

John, by you saying: "Now you start throwing in .... basing your logic...", I get the feeling I've offended you or at least provoked you. I'm sorry. I wish I hadn't.

B.S.

Paul Kierstead


>This whole thing illustrates something about me. My thinking is often stupid, inconsistent, naive, petty, misguided, illogical and irrational.

Total B.S. Yes, I am willing to tell you what you are.

The exploration of ideas by asking questions and challenging conventional wisdom is good, smart and needs to be done much much *much* more often. This thread is informative and useful, and the concepts are good. Being "right" is irrelevant, and largely can't even be determined. Learning something new and exploring ideas is wonderful.

The long technique is also new to me. Good stuff, I am gonna try it on my next long-board job (I have a serveral 8' boards that will need jointing on the weekend...)