Re: Data doesn't match the claims
TomD
Alan, I think you are right that the article is long and serious and not just about one thing, but it is also incorrect in some maters so I don't know what to make of the parts that are as easily grasped by me.
A famous boat builder, Jim Brown, had a pithy comment to the effect that technical arguments are just the arguments we make to justify an already existing preference. He had a better way with words. I rather get the feeling that the tradition that appeals to Bill and Larry, and why not, is the English plane tradition. Everything else follows from that bedrock.
In their article they take time to disparage Japanese planes, Krenov planes, and by inference the work of the German plane makers which may be the most prolific in the West. Sure Krenov is a bit of a one-off, but the German and Japanese planes don't work either?
"However, I think Clark and Williams are saying something more subtle than these responses assume. When they refer to its stability, they are assuming design that allows certain types of movement: expanding and contracting without distortion that would compromise the plane's function."
Basically dry, split (including sawn as if split) blanks will do this all day long.
"According to them, the problem is while it is changing, not once it has stabilized at a new dimension."
I don't really follow that because one can't predict whether the weather changes gradually or not. And in most cases the planes work in any case. I have only had two wooden planes that stopped working due to seasonal changes. One was a specialty plane that had a jointer's length, but a smoother's mouth, just didn't get lucky. And the other was a bad Dai, it moved like a pretzel. There are scenarios where a quick move might help, make no difference, or be bad. Mostly it doesn't seem to mater. Let's say the shop is normal, all of a sudden it pores rain. Are we supposed to believe it is better that the plane moves quickly to a different shape, or would a more gradual move be better since it might wait out the weather. What do we make of all the people who tried to oil their planes. Many beech planes look like they were dipped in tar. B&L say it is a bad idea, but the users tried anyway.
"This property of beech also creates problems. It is difficult to dry without degrade (sic) because the tangential surfaces give off moisture so easily."
I think this falls into the classic problem of difficulty. Isn't that why we have trades and pros. They figure it out. Difficulty actually works for them as they blow by it soon enough and it just becomes their competitive advantage from that point on. Amateurs take difficulty very seriously. In any case my own experience does not show that drying beech is difficult, so there is that. Most of the comments here about that have been about commercial settings, or outdoor storage. Split balks, coat ends, air dry in the shade like a barn, pretty much zero loss.