Thread: Dem bones. And a hand plane .

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

The bones of bulls have to be "fighting weight". My guess is that they are thicker and possibly denser than those of a cow of similar size.

Would it be worth looking around for a larger cattle breed in your area - such as charolais or limousin , or possbly even water buffalo?

Sorry, I don't have a spare elephant or whale.

PS: My dog is incredibly efficient at removing all traces of meat from a bone.

My dogs are good on the bone cleaning Graeme. One of them is good at stealing bone parts off work tables too. Lucky I caught her or my prize piece could have ended up anywhere within 200 meters.
The pictures in post 8 on this thread show the difference between a cow and bull of similar age. The bull bits I have so far are fine for this job. And these 4 yo bulls are pretty average sized ones. A paddock down the road had some massive big old Black Angus boys in it a while back. I don't know how old they get kept for. As long as they're doing the job I suppose. They must have been 5 to 8 years old possibly? At night the bulls call out to each other from a few kilometers away on other propertys. It sounds like something out of Jurassic Park sometimes on dead still clear nights.
Speaking of Jurassic period I saw that the other day and saved it.
IMG_5510.jpg

Rob.

Originally Posted by DJ’s Timber

Just though I’d add a bit of info in regard to cleaning bones.

When we clean deer stag heads, we put the head in the pot with some detergent and about a cup of bi-carb soda, no bleach is used. The bi-carb soda breaks down the proteins. And most importantly, just a low simmer, if it’s boiling, it tends to make the bone brittle.

Thanks DJ. Ill use that info.
The last stuff I did simmer on my hotplate as it wouldn't boil.
Had I thrown all the bones on my ute in a drum over a fire I'm sure that would have got to boiling temperature. Ill go easy on the fire wood then .

Rob

I discovered today that I really need to book an overdue trip to the optometrist.
Between the bad lighting and my eyes I'm finding the fine detail a little hard.
When I load and look at pictures on the computer I see things I didn't notice while working in the shed.


I re mounted this today with the shellac on a board high enough to get it between elbow and eye height. Re filed and fine tuned it .

IMG_5517.jpg
But discovered later inside these round internal corners that I did not see.
The blind smoothed sided file Ive been using has been riding up the those little inside curves.
IMG_5517a.jpg


Used my mini lathe / grinder with a small grinding disk mounted to grind the angles then filed in closer on the wooden jig.
IMG_5524.jpg IMG_5530.jpg

I still ended up taking it out to finish though. First filing through on the yellow stroke and then across like draw filing on the red stroke. A quality hardened and ground straight edge still showed a roll to the surface of the bed angle though. So I ground the file end and sort of scraped it flat to as good as I could get it. It seems pretty good.
I'm checking some of my mitre planes though (The R Towell mainly atm) and I suspect to get a blade to bed well it probably should rest nice and flat on the steel bed angle and be a hair hollow along the infill until its up past the bridge. And the wedge should clamp that slight hair hollow down to ensure perfection. The Towell does look that way. Timber movement could be the reason though?
IMG_5532.jpg IMG_5541.jpg


Having a struggle here. I started filing the tenons and went to far to quickly. So had to grind them back and re do the angle losing 1 or 2 mm and started again. Then made the same mistake in a different way. You can see the shoulders are to far back on top.
So I gave up in failing light and blame myself for not getting my eyes set up with new glasses months ago. Those head mounted magnifiers didn't help much either. I had on my bi focals that I usually wear for woodwork. Ive got a single lens pair of glasses inside that I use on the computer that may be better that Ill try tomorrow. And I'll have to do more adjusting on that tenon end. I left the sole to long at both ends to final trim when I'm done so no probs there. Ive got 10 mistakes worth extra.
IMG_5536.jpg IMG_5539.jpg

And another thing Ive often pondered Ian.
The yellow arrows below point to where the sides should end up if I am successful at building this. The red and blue arrows point to what is left as extra meat on the inside for the mortise and tenon strength I suppose. The red happens to be a bit more than the blue atm. Some planes have as much extra meat as a side thickness. Ive taken these ones here back as I do like the look of less and it allows for the most blade width. My Towell has hardly anything extra. Just a small step in. Lovely and neat. Spiers planes Ive checked have a fair bit in there. Id love this to work well of course. And its not ever going to be cranked up so tight as to shift the sole apart by me. What do you like to do in there Ian.

IMG_5539a.jpg

Rob

Originally Posted by auscab

......The yellow arrows below point to where the sides should end up if I am successful at building this. The red and blue arrows point to what is left as extra meat on the inside for the mortise and tenon strength I suppose. The red happens to be a bit more than the blue atm. Some planes have as much extra meat as a side thickness. Ive taken these ones here back as I do like the look of less and it allows for the most blade width. My Towell has hardly anything extra. Just a small step in. Lovely and neat. Spiers planes Ive checked have a fair bit in there. Id love this to work well of course. And its not ever going to be cranked up so tight as to shift the sole apart by me. What do you like to do in there Ian.

IMG_5539a.jpg ...

Rob, how much room to leave between the walls is a matter of taste. It looks better (to me) if the blade fills the space with only small gaps between the walls, but remember you need to move a low-pitched blade more left or right to correct any out-of-square error in the blade edge. I've settled on somewhere between 1.5 to 2mm each side (i.e. the body is 4mm wider internally than the width of the blade), for any plane I make. That doesn't give you a lot of wriggle-room, especially with the long body of a mitre, but it's worked ok for me, I just have to be more meticulous when grinding & sharpening the blades than I am with my bench planes..

My first mitre ended up with barely a mm each side, which was definitely too little, so I tapered the back half of the blade width a little & that gave me enough lateral adjustment for practical purposes. Having to grind & sharpen blades to sub-micron tolerances is a bore & waste of time! 8 pic.jpg

The first thing I noted, though, is that you've gone against convention by making the section spanning the mouth as a socket rather than a pin. On the few factory-made split sole planes I've been able to study (including your little thumb plane) it's always been a pin across the mouth, like this: 16 together.jpg

The reason, I assume, is that it makes it easier & safer to peen the edges of the pins (which are the parts that need most peening), without collapsing the metal into the mouth, narrowing the bed space. [Incidentally, that pic shows pretty clearly the small chamfers on the brass 'tails' that create the appearance of a sloped tail.]

It'll work ok, as long as you are careful. On one plane where I was fearful of this happening, I cut a piece of steel & wedged it firmly into the blade bed. It was a bit tight getting it out again, but it prevented any serious collapse.

Filing the socket corners clean is always a challenge for me too (& I always need my headband magnifier!). Ordinary files always have slightly rounded corners & the larger the file, the more rounded they are - even the finest triangular file leaves a rounded corner. It still amazes me how the slightest bit of metal left in the corners will prevent things going together nicely. The simple solution is to run a small file along the grinder to produce a square edge, with teeth that cut right to the edge (i.e. make your own "equalling" file). I've 'converted' a few files of various widths just for this purpose. Old saw files are good donors, the corners are wrecked long before the centres of the faces, and grinding a mm or so off the edges of one face can give you a file that still has plenty of life left in it. No need to grind the whole side of the unwanted faces, just take the edges off at an angle that will fit the slope of your tails (which is more like 15* than 60), or just the very edges for the straight corners.

Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by IanW

The first thing I noted, though, is that you've gone against convention by making the section spanning the mouth as a socket rather than a pin. On the few factory-made split sole planes I've been able to study (including your little thumb plane) it's always been a pin across the mouth, like this: 16 together.jpg

Its funny but as much as I cut DTs on my woodwork I still don't think of them in terms as tails and pins. With me its just Tails, and I mark off the cut tails on a drawer side or cabinet and remove waste to fit them and the rest is nothing .
Unless I have to put my brain in gear and describe something to someone or somewhere like here on the forum.

Sorting out what is a tail and a pin on these metal planes is much more of a brain twister for me! Every time !

I had to read your comment quite a few times to understand what I think you meant Ian. The first few times I read it I thought you meant the M&T had been cut the wrong way to normal.

But now I'm sure your talking about the gap I have here below as being a socket. That would mean if it was we wouldn't be seeing my mouth join from the side when its finished. And a big mistake on my part.

IMG_5536mn.jpg

That missing section both sides is where I cut away the huge excess of the sole that I have down each side. I cut it away to make filing the sole join mortise easier. The rest of it down each side of the sole will be trimmed back before final fit and peening but not so far I think. Just enough to leave the 1 or 2 mm needed for peening the steel over. The side view of my plane should be the norm.

You also said this.
" The reason, I assume, is that it makes it easier & safer to peen the edges of the pins (which are the parts that need most peening), without collapsing the metal into the mouth, narrowing the bed space."
I'm still trying to work that out . I think I know part of what you mean.

Your obviously very used to reading a DT plane body.


Rob

Originally Posted by IanW

Filing the socket corners clean is always a challenge for me too (& I always need my headband magnifier!). Ordinary files always have slightly rounded corners & the larger the file, the more rounded they are - even the finest triangular file leaves a rounded corner. It still amazes me how the slightest bit of metal left in the corners will prevent things going together nicely. The simple solution is to run a small file along the grinder to produce a square edge, with teeth that cut right to the edge (i.e. make your own "equalling" file). I've 'converted' a few files of various widths just for this purpose. Old saw files are good donors, the corners are wrecked long before the centres of the faces, and grinding a mm or so off the edges of one face can give you a file that still has plenty of life left in it. No need to grind the whole side of the unwanted faces, just take the edges off at an angle that will fit the slope of your tails (which is more like 15* than 60), or just the very edges for the straight corners.

Cheers,
Ian

Yes I have converted some files like that. Ground a blind side. A term used as well I think? That's what I used to fine tune the brass but it must need an extra fine look to make sure its working right. To cut the sole mouth join mortise I had to grind down what I think is a Ward file on both faces that was about 2.5mm thick to 1.3mm and use it on its edge like a saw. The side of the CBN 80 grit wheel did a nice job on that.

Originally Posted by auscab

IMG_5510.jpg

Rob.

You could definitely go to a jointer plane, Rob, something like this:


Roman Plane.jpg


PS: I tried to edit previous post but managed to zap it.

Originally Posted by auscab

Its funny but as much as I cut DTs on my woodwork I still don't think of them in terms as tails and pins. With me its just Tails, and I mark off the cut tails on a drawer side or cabinet and remove waste to fit them and the rest is nothing .
Unless I have to put my brain in gear and describe something to someone or somewhere like here on the forum.

Sorting out what is a tail and a pin on these metal planes is much more of a brain twister for me! Every time ! .....

s'okay Rob, there are different terms used around the globe - I've adopted what seem to be the most common Nth American terms - tails for the first bits you cut (which do look bird-tail-ish), pins for the parts you cut after scribing off the 'tails'. It helps me to know which bit I'm dealing with. Applying that to planes, the sides are cut out first, so become the 'tails' which are scribed on the sole, so the sole bits become the 'pins'. Both 'tail' & 'pin' sides have to have sockets (which was the term our grade 8 manual training teacher used). As long as we're understanding each other, all's good..

Originally Posted by auscab

... I had to read your comment quite a few times to understand what I think you meant Ian. The first few times I read it I thought you meant the M&T had been cut the wrong way to normal.

But now I'm sure your talking about the gap I have here below as being a socket. That would mean if it was we wouldn't be seeing my mouth join from the side when its finished. And a big mistake on my part.

IMG_5536mn.jpg ...

Yes, that's what I was babbling about. It's actually a reasonable way to go, as you said, it will cover the sole joint - that's your cabinetmaker side dominating your thinking! Tbh, I'm not sure it will make a huge difference structurally, once it's all peened up, it's just that it might make peening a bit trickier for you.

Originally Posted by auscab

... You also said this.
" The reason, I assume, is that it makes it easier & safer to peen the edges of the pins (which are the parts that need most peening), without collapsing the metal into the mouth, narrowing the bed space."
I'm still trying to work that out . I think I know part of what you mean. ....

What I'm getting at is that by chopping a socket out across the sole joint, you have reduced the T&G sections to thin slivers either side of the mouth, which aren't well-supported and liable to be squashed inwards when you peen. Like I said, it's not a terminal disaster, I was giving you a heads-up before you found out the worst way. If you are at all worried about getting any unwanted deformation during peening, use the 'trick' I suggested of wedging a piece of steel across the blade bed.

Originally Posted by auscab

... Your obviously very used to reading a DT plane body....

I orta be after making something like 40 of the darned things now - as I say in my 'manual', enough to have made most of the mistakes one can make, though I'm sure there are still a few lurking & ready to pounce.....

Cheers,
Ian

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

You could definitely go to a jointer plane, Rob, something like this:


Roman Plane.jpg


PS: I tried to edit previous post but managed to zap it.

It'd be nice to have a go at planing a board with a reproduction of that Graeme. It'd probably work just as well as a Stanley 5.5 or 6. Some guy in the US I think it was, made a copy and used timber for the body. I'm pretty sure that original Yorkshire one is ivory.
Another one was found in the backpack of a Roman legionary in Pompeii. Carpentry was his job on the side I read.

Lol that You zapped that post. I saw it doing something funny when I gave it a like . The picture disappeared for a while then came back!?? I wonder if that was when you were playing with it ?

Rob

As I said earlier, I started on a mitre plane just a bit smaller than yours a while ago. I'd put it aside to concentrate on a couple of other things, but your thread got me going so this morning I decided to do a bit more on it. I was just a bit further along than you are atm, and maybe this will help you see where you're headed next, more clearly.

I'd got as far as having everything ready to assemble - just had to make up a peening block (should've had one from the previous one I did, but darned if I could find it, probably chucked it out thinking I was never going to make another this size ). So I did that first thing. The good part about these mitre planes is the straight tops of the sides keep it simple, so making up a new peening block didn't take long. Here is my plane, clamped by the vise against the metal cleats screwed to the block, with a small clamp holding the sides firmly against the front cross-piece: 1 innitial peen.jpg

I used a cardboard shim when fitting the cleats, which was removed before clamping up. This ensures the sole will be pulled tightly against the side sockets & not 'bottom out' against the block. With my trusty 4oz ball-peen, I went along the outer edge of each pin (i.e. the bits of projecting steel sole), lightly peening them to lock the tails in & drive the sole against the side sockets.

Once the sides were locked in, I removed it from the vise, & used a couple of small clamps instead so I could move to my bench-top 'anvil' (a hefty chunk of steel): 2 serious peening.jpg

Then it was just a matter of going round & round, peening each pin a bit, always working from the outside (sole side) towards the corners of the tails. When I was sure I had the tails very solidly locked in, I switched to the sole side & hammered the brass down to fill the gaps on that side. Lastly, I worked on the cross-piece. It's easy doing the top parts, but the bottom bits up aginst the sole are tricky. I use a well-work nail punch, which explains the round divots you can see here (they don't go deep & will file out easily): 3 front.jpg:

A peened-up body looks pretty rough: 4 sides peened.jpg

... but after some coarse & fine filing, things start to look a bit better (you'll notice I also cut & shaped the toe & heel of the sole): 6 sides filed.jpg

Actually, I usually work on the sole first because it's easier, so you get some quicker gratification. Pleased to see the sole is very close to flat, the heel part dips a little behind the mouth, as it always seems to do, but it's only a tiny amount & will flatten out very quickly once I start lapping in earnest: 5 sole roughed down.jpg

I'll have to put it aside again for a few days while I work on some more urgent stuff, but hopefully I can get back & finish it by mid to late next week. The biggest job remaining is to make & fit a lever-cap, fit some infill (got a nice little bit of gidgee for the front bun) which is easy, no over-stuffing with these planes.

Not trying to upstage you in any way, just thought my going through what will be your next steps might helpful....

Cheers,
Ian

A suggestion to be taken with a bit grain of salt, cause I have never used for plane making and Ian suggestion of reusing saws file is very neat, but lately, cause it was handy, I have take to using this credit card sized diamond file for squaring out corners.

IMG_6244.jpg

The width helps keep the file square and in fits into relatively tight spaces

Originally Posted by auscab

It'd be nice to have a go at planing a board with a reproduction of that Graeme. It'd probably work just as well as a Stanley 5.5 or 6. Some guy in the US I think it was, made a copy and used timber for the body. I'm pretty sure that original Yorkshire one is ivory....

The "Goodmanham" plane is indeed ivory, shod with iron. It's an interesting construction that isn't unique, a few similar planes have been found, but with wood infill, not ivory.

There have probably been numerous copies or attempts at copies, but a Brit has had a good go at one. He used Holly wood for the infill (I got the impression reading the thread he had a strong aversion to using elephant parts). You may need to sign in to see pics, but the text makes an interesting read. He had to fudge the iron sole a bit, not having the facilities to forge a more exact replica, but he got it to look quite like the real deal (except it does look a little newer!)...

From what the maker says, the copy works fine but those handles make it a bit awkward to use on a modern bench. Apparently, the Romans used low trestles rather than benches & knowing that, the handle orientation makes much more sense to me. The style lived on in parts of Europe for a very long time, I've seen somewhat similar planes from as late as the 18th C.

A copy of the Goodmanham plane can be your next project, Rob - you better finish the "Davies" plane first....

Cheers,

Rob, I should've taken a closer look at the pic of the original Davies plane you included in your first post, which shows its construction pretty clearly. It looks to me like the side-to-sole 'dovetails' were made by peening lots of sole material over the brass tails (or pins if you like ), they have a slight irregularity in their slopes, same as mine do, which seems to be an inevitable result of so much peening of a harder metal against a much softer one.

The front piece is attached with 2 dovetails each side (I used only one in the body above), a pretty impressive feat for such a small part in such thin stock! The bridge is unusually long (or deep?), & looks like iron/steel as do the rivets holding it, while the rivets holding the woodwork are brass.

So you are off the hook with fitting the bridge, you won't have to make any holes 'til after the body is made, which in my mind makes it far less fraught than trying to work out where to put the holes before assembly. Drilling through that thin bridge for the pins will test you out (or your drill-press, rather) 'cos you'll probably do them from each side & they'll need to meet up fairly well in the middle.

Because you are using a wedge, the bridge position is a bit less critical than a lever-cap, if you get it out of srauare to the blade bed by a fraction of a mm (quite easy to do, trust me!), you can still get the wedge to fit neatly & nobody will know it's not perfect without taking calipers to it. A lever cap can be off by a fraction too, and made to close evenly by filing the mating edge a bit, but it needs to be very close, or the eye can easily spot the wonky fit - not a pretty sight, though not quite as bad as the crooked mouth on one of my recent efforts...

According to the pundits, Mr. Davies was not a regular planemaker, but he was obviously not unskilled. It's the only plane known by him, but if that was his first & only, he was no slouch. He was obviously pleased enough with his own efforts to have it engraved so elegantly.

Cheers,

Originally Posted by auscab

... I'm pretty sure that original Yorkshire one is ivory.

It was, but we don't have an elephant.