Thread: Luban plane blade adjustment

Originally Posted by Mnb

.....Filing the hole for the screw so it reaches higher means the depth adjustment slot is probably going to be in the wrong spot. Doing as Derek suggested means the whole thing starts higher and will go further before hitting the screw. (Just tell me if I'm wrong and I will have another look) The possible issue is the one you mentioned.

You seem to have it sorted. Yes, if the blade/CB combo as-is is almost cutting, then simply moving the CB back a mm should allow ample adjustment. A typical 'fine' shaving is about 0.025mm thick (0.001 inch in the old money) and a coarse shaving 3-4 times that, i.e. ~0.1mm. The blade has to ravel 1.4 times the increase in shaving thickness for a 45* cutting-angle, but we can still go from fine to pretty coarse with something like 0.2mm of blade travel, so if you've got a mm of blade travel past the point where it starts to meet wood, you should have all you need on a typical bench plane.

Taking the easy route, i.e., simply setting the CB back a bit, is not necessarily wimping out. For the vast majority of planing, & particularly if you are taking moderate to heavy cuts in 'easy-planing' woods, most people will find the set-back for the CB that I was taught to use way back in my youth works just fine. We were told to use a "fat 32nd of an inch", which translates to somewhere around 0.8-1mm. In fact, if the curve of the CB where it meets the blade is at the wrong angle (too shallow on many recent CBs), or roughly-machined & not polished, and particularly if the edge of the CB isn't mating precisely with the back of the blade, as is frequently the case, you'll find 'setting coarse' works better. You'll not get shavings working their way under the edge of the CB so easily. When that happens, your plane will stop doing what it's supposed to do right smartly, as most people who've mucked about with Bailey planes will probably have discovered for themselves.

Even at 2mm setback, a CB will still perform what I believe to be its primary function, which is to stiffen the thin 'standard' blades. Since most amateurs these days use the thicker after-market blades, I think a lot have either forgotten or never known how chattery thin and cantilevered blades can be when provoked!

The 'secondary' function of the CB, which is now touted by some as the main function, where close-setting can turn your 'standard-angle' blade into a 'high angle' cutter, takes a bit to master. The people who proselytise super-fine CB settings are all very experienced plane users and many seem to have forgotten how much you need to understand & be familiar with plane function in order to make it all work properly. I advocate new users sneak up on this happy situation over time, gradually getting to recognise all the sources of trouble with planes through use and trying various settings of the CB. How fine you'll ever need to go depends entirely on the wood you plane & the sort of finish you are satisfied with 'off plane'. I use various settings of my CBs depending on what I'm doing & what woods I'm working with, but on most of my bench planes, I use what I learned way back, out of habit. It works fine for 90% plus of what I ask my planes to do.

I still say learning to sharpen properly is the #1 priority, in my view, for all tools, not just plane blades. Stumbling along on my own, in those dark days before the internet, it took me many years to achieve real sharpness. That was a major revelation to me - the sound & feel of a really sharp plane blade is wonderful, no wonder so many rave about it when they finally get there!

Cheers,

Ian wrote ...

Even at 2mm setback, a CB will still perform what I believe to be its primary function, which is to stiffen the thin 'standard' blades.

The people who proselytise super-fine CB settings are all very experienced plane users

Hi Ian

My highlights of your post illustrate where I believe this thread gets its wires crossed.

Up until 2012, when some forums began to discuss the chipbreaker's role in tearout control, there was common agreement that it simply acted to stiffen the blade. This view became entrenched and accepted as its primary role. The fact is that the knowledge about the chipbreaker has been around for a few centuries, but teachers and writers in recent decades omitted this information, or minimised it, and it gradually fell from use amongst the great majority. Even in the last 6 years, with so much discussion, there are few who acknowledge that it is a major and primary feature of tearout control.

The second point I quoted is true I believe, and that setting the chipbreaker is a skill that requires some practice, and it is not for everyone. To be effective, the chipbreaker needs to be about 0.3 - 0.4mm from the edge of the blade, and the leading edge of the chipbreaker needs to be around 50 degrees (it is more standard that they come at 25 degrees). These days we have alternatives, such as high cutting angles (both BU and single bevel BD), and not everyone needs to set a chipbreaker close to control tearout. In addition, careful choice of timber may reduce its need in the first place.

So we come down to the likelihood that an inexperienced buyer who wants something new would not be alerted to the current issue, that being, a chipbreaker that cannot be set close. This was David's experience with a new LN a few years back. LN still appear to minimise the importance of the chipbreaker, preferring high cutting angles in all their discussions, however they must have done something right as both my (#3 and #4 1/2) LN bench planes work exceedingly well (with a close up chipbreaker - but not otherwise).

Back around 2010 (I do not recall the exact date), WoodRiver planes came out from China under the lead of a USA company, Woodcraft. This caused must controversy as they were made from molds of LN planes. LN went to court over this. I am not sure whether this was the reason, but the next generation of WoodRiver planes altered the configuration slightly. This generation came in for criticism for poor design features. It was not until Rob Cosman came in as advisor and Mk 3 came about, that WoodRiver developed into a really individual and viable alternative. The Luban planes, and a few others around the world, all come from the same factory as the WoodRiver, however they are not the same generation. I suspect that they are a mix of Mk 1 and Mk 2. In this case, I suspect that the Luban has the chipbreaker from the Mk 1, which is a direct copy of the LN of that era.

If all surmising is correct, then the great majority of Luban owners will be none the wiser. The fix, for those who do take notice, is to change the chipbreaker. The simplest way is to try a current LN chipbreaker (borrow one to do so). Or modify the slot on the current chipbreaker until it can be extended.

Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek, I think we are substantially in agreement on all points.
And definitely:

Originally Posted by derekcohen

.......If all surmising is correct, then the great majority of Luban owners will be none the wiser......

And possibly never need to be any other way......

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

.....I still say learning to sharpen properly is the #1 priority, in my view, for all tools, not just plane blades. Stumbling along on my own, in those dark days before the internet, it took me many years to achieve real sharpness. That was a major revelation to me - the sound & feel of a really sharp plane blade is wonderful, no wonder so many rave about it when they finally get there!

Cheers,

Good Moring Ian

I think you are understating the importance of sharpenning !!!

Some five years ago I asked some very basic questions about sharpenning and got some truly excellent advice from Forumites including Derek and yourself. Since then my sharpenning has been a series of upward plateaux. I'd think I was getting good results, then I would learn something new or I would refine my technique, and move onto the next plateau. A lovely experience.

Unless you have worked with a truly sharp tool, you cannot comprehend what you are missing.

Finally I thought I was getting to a very good standard. My sharpenning was consistent and, I thought, quite sharp. Then last month I had a discussion with a sushi chef; his concept of sharp is from a different planet.

Forget about cutting unsupported paper or shaving hairs from your arm. Can you cut 0.5 mm slices from an over-ripe tomato at speed? Mind bending.


Fair Winds


Graeme

Originally Posted by IanW

..... A typical 'fine' shaving is about 0.025mm thick (0.001 inch in the old money) and a coarse shaving 3-4 times that, i.e. ~0.1mm. ......

Originally Posted by Derek;

.....The second point I quoted is true I believe, and that setting the chipbreaker is a skill that requires some practice, and it is not for everyone. To be effective, the chipbreaker needs to be about 0.3 - 0.4mm from the edge of the blade,.....

Hi Guys

Have you, Ian or Derek or anyone else, done any impirical testing of chipbreaker offset?

[To save the confusion of all those decimal places can we use microns - 1,000 microns = 1 mm - so Ian's fine shaving of 0.025 mm becomes 25 microns and the course shaving is 100 microns.]

I read somewhere that the optimal maximum offset was one half of the shaving thickness, but cannot now locate that reference. This means that for a thick shaving of 100 microns, the maximum effective offset would be 50 microns. Derek's prefered offset of 0.3-0.4 mm (30-40 microns) is comfortably withine that limit.

However, for a fine shaving of 25 microns then the maximum offset would be 12.5 microns. This would be very difficult to set in practice and and a very small inaccuracy would be massive in percentage terms.

The article then went on to advocate thicker blades that did not rely on a chipbreaker to minimise chatter, and to advocate a higher blade angle to reduce tear out, thus rendering the CB redundant.

Wish I could find the source. Any views?



Fair Winds

Graeme

Hi Graeme

Around 2012, when discussions began about the chipbreaker, notably on the WoodCentral (and also the WoodNet) fori, the focus was the results of a video made by Professor Yasunori Kawai and Honorary Professor Chutaro Kato, Faculty of Education, Art and Science, Yamagata University. This may be found here ..

https://vimeo.com/158558759

The video was for training purposes, and the numbers offered were really for Super Smoother machines, however they illustrated what happens at the chipbreaker at different distances.

David (DW) wrote a wonderful article, here: Setting a Cap Iron

A number of us were completing our own research, my own focussed on the relationship between bed angle and chipbreaker distance. Others were doing the same, and the results were consistent. Kees van der Heiden wrote an excellent article summarising this here:

Cap Iron Study: Cap Iron Study by Kees van der Heiden

What it boiled down to was this ...

1. the leading edge of the chipbreaker needs to be between 50 - 80 degrees

2. the higher the angle of the bed, the less steep the leading angle of the chipbreaker

3. the less steep the angle of the chipbreaker, the closer it needs to be to the edge of the blade

4. the thicker the shaving to be taken, the further back the chipbreaker may be set.



As you can see, definitive numbers are difficult (if not impossible) to state since these variables interact. As a Rule of Thumb, consider ..

1. start with the chipbreaker back about 0.3 - 0.4mm (you can do this by eye after a while. Actually quite easy).

2. the shaving will become crinkly and concertina if the chipbreaker is too close. The plane will feel hard to push. The surface is likely to be degraded slightly.

3. the shaving will be curly if the chipbreaker is too far back. The chipbreaker effect will not be present.

4. the shaving will straighten when the chipbreaker is in the ideal position.

5. fine shavings may not straighten up as they can lack the strength to do so.



Regards from Perth

Derek

Derek you just answered the question I was going to ask. Looking at the picture of the Luban blade and chip breaker I noticed how different the chip breaker is to the one's on my Stanley planes. I brought two of them with me into the house to take pics of - which I will do anyway - to ask if the chipbreaker on the Luban would act differently.

The third picture is of two Stanley blades and chip breakers - obvious I guess - with the hump at the end the chip will be pushed upwards at a fairly steep angle. (Not sure if it is acute if it's less than 45*) The CB blade pair on the right are from one of three planes I got recently (bought from a forum member) that were used at Swinburne Tafe. The front of the chip breaker has been filed to a slightly steeper angle. This is the area that ideally we want 50* yes? This is why the 25* chip breaker needs to be closer - in order to push the chip up to the same extent.

The first and second pictures are just to confirm my use. The one on the left is closed up (ignore the condition it isn't cleaned up yet) and on the right is grabbed out the plane I was using last. Using without regard to the chipbreaker. I often have it between the two.

This was part of the one above but I am putting it as a separate post. Just cut and pasted.

Damm, I just realised I am not 100% clear on the process of tear out so I will come back to that at the end. This is the end now so; I'm guessing that tear out is when the fibres 'tear out' before the plane cuts them. Higher angle of cut reduces it - is that because the edge of the blade has less chance to lift the fibres? Does a chip breaker bending the shaving give the edge more access to cut the fibers before they tear or does it actually break the shaving slightly so that any tear is much shorter? Sorry for the hassle.

Steve Elliott has a wonderful website dedicated to planing. He does a great job of describing the differences between Type 1, 2 and 3 chip formations ..

Shaving Formation

In a nutshell, the closed up chipbreaker creates a Type 2 chip, that is, it bends the shaving at the edge of the mouth before it is allowed to split the wood. The splitting ahead of the mouth is what we refer to as tearout.

Low cutting angles encourage the splitting further ahead of the mouth; high cutting angles (and scrapers) encourage splitting closer to the mouth. The chipbreaker bends the chip close to the mouth, in other words, high cutting angles and chipbreakers end up with a similar shaving, but for different reasons.

I recommend you read Steve's website: Tuning & Testing Infill Planes

Regards from Perth

Derek

Tanks Derek. I'll have a look at that.

I had a look at your site and through it I found and read David's article about setting the chip breaker. That made me think that there is information out there and I simply don't know where it is so I would love any other recommendations you have. Otherwise I will end up asking for everything here.

I think I will start a thread asking for suggestions actually. There are probably other people who can benefit too.

I don't have any real suggestions. The cap iron is a nice thing to learn, the more you work by hand, the more you'll use it.

Aside from that, I'd say something that will really teach you quickly is to make a few things entirely by hand. Like truly entirely by hand, and try to do it with limited tool purchases.

I learned more working by hand than I ever learned from reading things on the internet (and my surge toward the cap iron - which was before the K&K videos came out - was because I knew there must be something better for dimensioning than single iron planes. Dimensioning was agonizing with them).

I sold my bandsaw and my large tablesaw not long thereafter. Once in a while, I regret selling the bandsaw (I just made two telecaster bodies by hand - it'd be nice to cut them out with a bandsaw and clean the up with a router, but with a little extra time doing them by hand, it's given me a chance to use a drawknife, heavy scraper, spokeshave and incannel gouges more than I ever would otherwise. Everything I learn with hand tools is something i can do in the future with nothing more than the ability to mark out a design (vs. the ability to fit the design into the power tools that i have).

Down the road, I hope to make a grandfather clock, and i'm thinking about whether or not I'd like to make the face and movement, too. I'm sure those were all different trades. If I didn't depart into the nether regions of hand tool work, I don't think I'd ever consider any of that.

Hand tool speed is sometimes frustrating, especially once you get tired, but you can get lost in a happy world of engagement vs. planning, station to station woodworking and disaster prevention (which is how I'd describe power tool woodworking to me - disaster prevention). I never start hand tool woodworking on a project where I have enough stock to do every single thing one time only and worry about whether or not something workable will come out of it. That appeals to my selective cheapness somehow.

OK, please read this carefully before bagging me!!!, i challenged the seller because i had heard from him only once after several emails (in which he said had contacted the company), i had to inform him of the fact that i was supplied with a faulty product!

After his not very happy email he said "return the plane", which i did via express satchel on Tuesday, today i get a sarcastic email asking where is the plane, i reply the plane should arrive today via the satchel tracktable number.

Tonight i get the email saying my paypal account has been credited with $99.55, but the purchase price was well above that - the seller informs me that it was 2 years ago that i purchased the plane, with a 5 year warranty.

i informed him tonight that the purchase price was well above $99.55, that he re-payed me for a FAULTY product.

Not happy Jane, i don't give a flying f@$% that he is a family business, if he supply's a faulty product he is responsible to fix/replace or refund for the said faulty item.

i am NOT here to be ripped off, i will be seeking legal advice by what ever means, i will NOT be spending any of my hard earned money on a seller that does NOT back up his customers.

Just to note his emails were NOT of a professional response!

Before you fire any bullets on his behalf just remember what would you do in my situation? i believe i have been fair and responsible allowing him plenty of time to respond.

Angry
Stevo

ps

here is the current price for the #5 luban, judge for yourself!!!

https://www.finetools.com.au/collect...no5-hand-plane

I would have modified the cap iron, but I'm further down the road than you may be with that kind of thing.

If the seller was going to give you a partial refund, he should've stated that before you sent the plane to him.

it's my opinion that he's being lazy and evasive because he doesn't think it's worth the trouble to do anything else, and I'm sure he doesn't care if you won't buy from him again. If he's never used a cap iron to good effect, he probably thinks you're in the wrong at this point, but even if he was able to figure out why the setup is no good, there's unlikely to be any way that he could manage to get a cap iron that was cut properly.

When this occurred with LN, they requested people send their cap irons to them (or perhaps it was planes) because they wanted to fix it. Luban copied the plane in the first place. I doubt they have any clue about making the planes above and beyond copying them. It supposedly took Rob Cosman and Woodcraft a bunch of effort to get the V3 version made with LN elements switched back to something closer to bedrock planes, but that, too, may have had more to do with avoiding trouble with LN after whatever their experiment was there went sour.

Stevo, while I'm essentially on your side, there is a problem with the time gap - imagine trying to get a refund on a 2 year old car, even if you'd not driven it!? You no doubt have perfectly good reasons why the plane was in storage all that time, but it doesn't eliminate the fact it's been a very long time since it was purchased. This is a situation where you'd need to rely on the goodwill of the seller, who seems a bit short on that virtue. I would've thought a replacement might have been in order, but the seller is obviously not in agreement with us on that score.

This is a very poor outcome for you - you now have no plane and are a good many $$$s out of pocket. If I were in the situation you're in now, I'd take a deep breath, swallow a bit lot of pride, & start negotiating politely (albeit through gritted teeth). The more the situation deteriorates, the less likely it will be you'll get any real satisfaction. We can be close to 100% certain the problem all hinges around that chipbreaker, so I would promptly return his $99 (resisting the temptation to tell him what to do with it ) & ask to have the plane returned to you either with a new chipbreaker, or as-is. Offer to pay for the damn thing, it will still only cost you 30-40 bucks, which is a lot less than the $130 price gap for a new plane, though this experience probably won't encourage you to buy another Luban any time soon! If he can't supply a new chipbreaker, a LN chipbreaker will probably fit, and also still cost far less than the price-gap for a new plane.

Like D.W., I'd have tried modifying the Cb rather than be bothered with returns, & if that wasn't satisfactory, as I still suspect might be the case due to the cam slot being below its optimum position when the blade is engaged, I'd have just made a new one. It isn't all that difficult, but it does require a few basic metalworking tools that you may not have to hand...

Cheers,