Thread: I like the scraped planes less

Originally Posted by IanW

my preference for the old low knob has quite a bit to do with the look too!\

Cheers,

My two "favourite" smoothers. one has a small note, the other well, not so much, a very serious gallic knob. Guess this only says I like kicking upstream,,,,,

IMG_6336.jpg

Not discouraging anyone from scraping, by the way. I think I will probably when making an infill plane, scrape the sole flat. When making a plane for myself, I will scrape it and then lap it until I get what I want.

I generally draw file first (faster) and can draw file, then scrape and then lap to taste after that and it should be quick and accurate.

How would you scrape Mild steel though David? I brazed an old Thicknesser tungsten cutter on each end of a steel bar and had a go honing it on a diamond plate before trying it on MS and it just digs in and stops . Cast iron is no problem though . Shaves it like it’s chalk .

It had me wondering if the tungsten had a hone that had a fine heel like an Engravers Graver has , maybe that would work? Possibly tapping it along with a hammer because of the width?

I also wonder how those long Norris or Spiers jointers were made flat? File and lap as you mention probably?

well, the spiers plane is steel but it scraped without issue. I honed at slightly less aggressive than 90 degrees on the scraper and things seemed to go OK, but if it's mild steel, it could be just about anything, including a steel with enough carbon to not be so rubbery and be easier machining. Not sure.

I would think if you can get steel to scrape, the key will be making it aggressive enough to cut (the scraper) but not aggressive enough to dive - by adjusting the angle. It may not be much difference in angle to get there.

the question about the norris planes is a good one. I would bet it was mechanized one way or another, even if there was some trade discretion (like some kind of filing or machining setup followed by surface glazing?). Too hard to tell - my planes don't show surface grinding for sure, but they show some kind of scraping or linear work done on them.

I wonder if there is anyone here who is an enthusiast of old metalworking tools - is it possible that it was fixtured so that a metal planer would've done the surface work?

I studied the late-model Norris A5 I had numerous times to try & figure out the manufacturing steps. As David says, there were linear traces on the sole which could have been from initial flattening or from its working life, though they looked a bit too straight & parallel to be the usual scratches picked up in use. It may have been finished by draw-filing, the fitters of a couple of generations ago were dab hands at draw-filing surfaces to fine tolerances.

It's sad that we'll probably never know exactly how Spiers & Norris went about making & finishing their plane bodies. Much can be deduced by pulling old ones apart (like Peter McBride has done), but it doesn't give us the complete story. Oh for a time machine! For someone with a bit of experience in making infills, just a quick walk around the factory floor observing each step would be enough to get a very accurate picture. One thing I think we can safely say is that they would have evolved as efficient methods as the technology of the time allowed - they had more than 100 years of experience behind them by the end of the infill era. The people doing the work would have been pretty slick, through doing the same job day after day, on batches of the same model. I think they'd have been able to keep peening allowances to a bare minimum, and not only the amount of filing required would have been less (probably way less than I end up with!), the distortion would also have been minimal, making flattening easier.

Rob, mild steel can certainly be scraped, I guess it's a matter of finding the right methods. A bloke in Benalla built a series of wood lathes about the time I was living there. I once asked him how he levelled the ways & he picked up a length of metal about 500mm long (part of the hard edge insert from a dozer blade, he told me) & said "with this scraper". Unfortunately, I didn't get into the detail of how he used the scraper or checked progress but I was impressed by the apparent perfection of those ways. It must have been a pretty efficient method too, 'ços he made a half-dozen lathes over a fairly short period. Frank was one of those gifted people who could do anything with very little & one of the nicest blokes you could meet as well, always ready to help & full of ideas for the next challenge....

Cheers,

I assume you fellows have read this article?

3 machines are mentioned, lathe, 6 ft grinder, power press and a large surface table. lots of filing, clamps and emery..


Apprenticeship At T. Norris & Son - Norris Planes

Originally Posted by auscab

How would you scrape Mild steel though David? I brazed an old Thicknesser tungsten cutter on each end of a steel bar and had a go honing it on a diamond plate before trying it on MS and it just digs in and stops . Cast iron is no problem though . Shaves it like it’s chalk .

It had me wondering if the tungsten had a hone that had a fine heel like an Engravers Graver has , maybe that would work? Possibly tapping it along with a hammer because of the width?

I also wonder how those long Norris or Spiers jointers were made flat? File and lap as you mention probably?

The geometry of the edge is important. The edge should be radiussed (120-150mm) and negative raked. The internal angle shouldn't be 90º but somewhere between 93º and 97º. If the edge is digging in go for a less aggressive negative rake.

Originally Posted by mic-d

The geometry of the edge is important. The edge should be radiussed (120-150mm) and negative raked. The internal angle shouldn't be 90º but somewhere between 93º and 97º. If the edge is digging in go for a less aggressive negative rake.

Ahh thanks .
The cutters in these are something like 30 to 45 degrees positive rake. I’ll have to try grinding. I do have a diamond wheel but it’s very fine . May need something better?
They have a radius one side and straight on the other so I brazed one up each end with a radius and the other with the straight.

Did two of them and gave one away.

IMG_6151.jpeg

IMG_6153.jpeg

IMG_6152.jpeg

I was thinking it may be a great way of fine tuning a MS cap iron to fit a blade. I normally file or stone them. Thought it was worth a try so used sone scrap MS but got the digging in thing. So a re grind it is then. I’m keen to see if they have any other uses as well. So far it’s just the raised edge of crater like dings in machine tops I’ve tried it on. Works well at that.

Rob

Originally Posted by D.W.

That's one. it's preferable for the ends, which will usually have some bias just from technique (that is, the average person will remove less wood from the near end and it might fall off a little, and remove more from the far end and probably have it falling off). You learn what it is and counter it. the plane needs to come onto the board with a successful even start every time and work through the board the same way - even cut. obviously of the wood is tearing out or rebelling, the cut thickness isn't the same through the entire stroke and things don't work out that well. When this process is right, it's kind of like mowing the lawn - everything goes as expected after you deal with any one off stuff at the start.

<snip>

What's happening is the weight of the infill plane (well, two different ones) is creating a little bias as it goes off of the end, and it's very hard to correct without adding extra steps. In fact, I couldn't physically do it on a norris 13 because the plane is just a little too heavy at the nose. I resorted to as mentioned above, pushing the last of the shaving off with my hands on the back of the plane, which improved it but didn't totally solve it.

What I think is happening to cause the troubles with the scraped plane is your years of experience of hand planing and your muscle memory. It's linked to the parts of the quote I included above which you outline what has to be overcome by a novice.

What I think is happening is you're unknowingly taking a lighter shaving through the middle and a heavier shaving at the end. This is not to do with the weight of the plane and not to do with any error in your technique per se, but just that it needs tweaking for the new planes, as Ian and I suggested earlier.
I would try using a little less pressure on the toe to start, more pressure evenly through the middle and a little less on the heel/none on the toe at the end. All other things being equal (managing deformation etc as you mentioned in your reply), geometrically, there is no explanation for your difficulty coming onto and going off the work with a scraped plane other than pressure changes changing the thickness of the shaving. There is no reason the plane cannot begin with a 0.00x" shaving, maintain that through the middle and maintain it practically to the end*.

Well there it is, my explanation of what's happening based on the fact that a blade registered to the work by a dead flat sole simply can't take an uneven shaving by some geometric function of the arrangement and only by the accidental innapropriate force throughout the pass from legacy muscle memory. So it's just a matter of tweaking long learned memory. Can you offer a different explanation related the the sole/blade arrangment?

*[I say practically because as I mentioned in my reply to Martin, the plane is kept registered perfectly uniformly right until the point the front of the mouth slips off the work. The blade is maybe 1/50" from the end if you have a close mouth. Then, theoretically because there is a gap at the back of the mouth the thickness of a shaving, the heel will settle onto the work and bed the blade in up to one shaving thickness further into the wood. Practically there won't be a gap behind the mouth, just a lower pressure of the sole right behind the mouth, and as the front of the mouth slips off the work, pressure comes onto the sole behind the mouth, but you obviously don't hear a 'clunk' as the sole slaps down. This snipe of a small amount extra at the end is not possible overcome, it's part of the nature of the plane with a flat rather than stepped sole as on an electric plane/jointer. So the snipe on the first pass is maybe 1/50" from the end and maybe a shaving thick. With each extra pass it may move back 1/50", so it's meaningless in practical terms as causing the problem you have.]

Originally Posted by auscab

Ahh thanks .
The cutters in these are something like 30 to 45 degrees positive rake. I’ll have to try grinding. I do have a diamond wheel but it’s very fine . May need something better?
They have a radius one side and straight on the other so I brazed one up each end with a radius and the other with the straight.

Did two of them and gave one away.

IMG_6151.jpeg

IMG_6153.jpeg

IMG_6152.jpeg

I was thinking it may be a great way of fine tuning a MS cap iron to fit a blade. I normally file or stone them. Thought it was worth a try so used sone scrap MS but got the digging in thing. So a re grind it is then. I’m keen to see if they have any other uses as well. So far it’s just the raised edge of crater like dings in machine tops I’ve tried it on. Works well at that.

Rob

That's the problem then. See how fast the diamond wheel cuts, but it's better to hog it of on a green wheel then polish on the diamond wheel (if it's for polishing). The polish needs to be quite good to consolidate the fragile edge. I polish with 5000 and then 50000 grit diamond powder in mineral oil on a cast iron lap in my drill press.

Originally Posted by mic-d

What I think is happening to cause the troubles with the scraped plane is your years of experience of hand planing and your muscle memory. It's linked to the parts of the quote I included above which you outline what has to be overcome by a novice.

What I think is happening is you're unknowingly taking a lighter shaving through the middle and a heavier shaving at the end. This is not to do with the weight of the plane and not to do with any error in your technique per se, but just that it needs tweaking for the new planes, as Ian and I suggested earlier.
I would try using a little less pressure on the toe to start, more pressure evenly through the middle and a little less on the heel/none on the toe at the end. All other things being equal (managing deformation etc as you mentioned in your reply), geometrically, there is no explanation for your difficulty coming onto and going off the work with a scraped plane other than pressure changes changing the thickness of the shaving. There is no reason the plane cannot begin with a 0.00x" shaving, maintain that through the middle and maintain it practically to the end*.

Well there it is, my explanation of what's happening based on the fact that a blade registered to the work by a dead flat sole simply can't take an uneven shaving by some geometric function of the arrangement and only by the accidental innapropriate force throughout the pass from legacy muscle memory. So it's just a matter of tweaking long learned memory. Can you offer a different explanation related the the sole/blade arrangment?

*[I say practically because as I mentioned in my reply to Martin, the plane is kept registered perfectly uniformly right until the point the front of the mouth slips off the work. The blade is maybe 1/50" from the end if you have a close mouth. Then, theoretically because there is a gap at the back of the mouth the thickness of a shaving, the heel will settle onto the work and bed the blade in up to one shaving thickness further into the wood. Practically there won't be a gap behind the mouth, just a lower pressure of the sole right behind the mouth, and as the front of the mouth slips off the work, pressure comes onto the sole behind the mouth, but you obviously don't hear a 'clunk' as the sole slaps down. This snipe of a small amount extra at the end is not possible overcome, it's part of the nature of the plane with a flat rather than stepped sole as on an electric plane/jointer. So the snipe on the first pass is maybe 1/50" from the end and maybe a shaving thick. With each extra pass it may move back 1/50", so it's meaningless in practical terms as causing the problem you have.]

Actually, here is my procedure - it is toe down and tail down at the ends of the cuts, but through the middle, the cut is even. It's not so much a habit that i'm doing something uneven, it's that the nature of plane going off of the end of the board to have some weight off, even if it is minimal, will bias things a little to plane the ends off. You can counteract this with technique, but with a heavy shaving, the plane is pretty much going to remove an even shaving and stay in the cut - you don't have to impart much of anything. With experience, you can tell on a thin shaving how the sole is out based on how the plane behaves. A typical plane has a tail slightly low. if the board is flat, the plane will hiccup a tiny bit as the tail comes on no matter what you do. It's a dead giveaway every time as long as it's minor. if you plane a whole board convex, let's say the tail is low and the board is twice the length of the plane, to eliminate that hiccup, you have to plane it very far out of flat.

Where the rubber hits the road manipulating things here is with my habit - will joint off of the try plane if the wood doesn't tear out. that means I'm taking a some of brash shaving and planing through. If you keep going, eventually it will get a little hollow, but as soon as the plane feels like it's smooth through the cut and doesn't have any hill in the middle (if you're experienced and there is even a little hill, it will communicate itself to you clearly during the transfer.), then you get to planing fully through and take two shavings with intent with the front hand off of the plane to make sure the cut continues to the edge of the board. Sometimes it takes a shaving to get there, and then you're done.

In the process of dimensioning lumber, to be able to joint edges like this is important. There's almost no checking and there's no routine but planing through the ends. the same with faces. if you are planing and feeling nothing untoward, the board is good. Where I was stopping last friday and going hands to the end was just at the end of the board, and I went from uncomfortably pushing down only to the handle then pushing down only on the tail. The influence of the cut just doesn't allow. I believe that a slight high toe and heel makes up for the biases of the plane as it goes off and on and not the user.

I don't know if anyone but someone dimesioning wood would care. I'm unwilling to take extra steps because I find them aggravating - as the process could occur 6 times in a shop session instead of twice a month.

With a great number of repetitions and backing off of the shaving, i believe the plane would cut fine through the end.

If I picked up my wooden try plane, which is slightly proud at the toe and heel (lapped on wood), I would plane the edges until they felt square from end to end (the plane will tell you through the handle if it's moving even the slightest amount in vertical - tiny amounts, if you let it tell you), and confirm the shaving was uninterrupted - it's flat. if a visual anomaly like grain direction made an illusion that caused uniform slight out of squareness, two shavings to one side and the entire thing will be square from end to end - and flat.

I would bet each woodworker landed on maintaining something that worked like this in the past for ease, but would never have measured or know what it was or how much.

Contrast this with a stanley 8 that someone sold me. A fraud seller on ebay. The toe and heel were probably a hundredth proud. It is very difficult to get a continuous cut with it on a flat surface because it can rock so much. I worked most of the issue out of it, but it still will result in an edge that is hollow with normal effort. I should just throw it in the garbage and keep some of the parts like the frog and knob and screws and lever cap. In fact, I think I'll do that tomorrow. Life's too short to consider something like that ($150 including shipping -I knew the seller was a fraud as soon as I got the plane and the handle didn't fit it right, and then found one of the holes in the casting stripped and had to just get a longer screw for the frog - the one that was in it was a front handle screw, too, probably what caused it to get stripped).

I must've been feeling like a nice guy, or just felt like "anyone who would sell that is probably just going to be a pain to argue with"

Originally Posted by D.W.

Actually, here is my procedure - it is toe down and tail down at the ends of the cuts, but through the middle, the cut is even. It's not so much a habit that i'm doing something uneven, it's that the nature of plane going off of the end of the board to have some weight off, even if it is minimal, will bias things a little to plane the ends off. You can counteract this with technique, but with a heavy shaving, the plane is pretty much going to remove an even shaving and stay in the cut - you don't have to impart much of anything. With experience, you can tell on a thin shaving how the sole is out based on how the plane behaves. A typical plane has a tail slightly low. if the board is flat, the plane will hiccup a tiny bit as the tail comes on no matter what you do. It's a dead giveaway every time as long as it's minor. if you plane a whole board convex, let's say the tail is low and the board is twice the length of the plane, to eliminate that hiccup, you have to plane it very far out of flat.

I underlined a part of the quote that makes no sense to me. Taking the weight off a little is going to lighten the shaving a fraction and keep the ends high, not take the ends off. Unless you mean weight on the heel. But of course we're keeping sufficient weight on the heel to keep it down on the work.
I just had to go and do some jointing with my scraped #5 on a 600mm long board to see what's going on and how I plane. The board had come off the machine and so was straight. I made several passes without thinking about it and checked with a good straight edge, still straight, if anything ever so slightly concave as the light behind reads it, so slight that with a little pressure the light disappeared so I think the edge was riding on the grain (it is Australian red cedar), so I'm calling it straight. I've planed and planed that edge now and it's stayed straight. Even trying to plane badly, I just can't get it to take off the ends or get more than 0.04mm concave over 450mm.

My procedure is toe down , tail down too. Enough force on the front that the toe stays registered without a hand on the tote. Then I give a propulsive force on the tote and as the heel comes on pressure down on the heel. As the toe starts to exit the work, pressure off on the toe and perhaps a very little more on the heel. In the middle of the pass I can even remove my hand from the toe and the cut continues as normal. I just can't replicate the problem you are having. I put a video of some passes I did and testing the 0.04mm (0.0015")feeler here:

Pin on Pins by you

Are we going to see any results of stock planed with these experiments, which can't be held in a vice..
i.e soundboards or thick veneer?
which is likely two tests in itself, hardwood and softwood,
Two scenarios regarding either, is likely where one would notice something compared to more rigid workpieces...
i.e a difference when thicknessing, away from a clamp, so some chance for inconsistencies there with the toe off the work,
which is why I was curious about whether said planes, if of differing lengths, where they hinged from...

That first thicknessing experiment is actually two tests in itself.
One being thicknessing two sawn faces, gives a chance to see whether deflection being a factor,
whilst the other is more straight forward with a jointed face on the underside, with no inconsistencies between work and bench/planing board.

Planing those thin edges on a shooting board, being the other scenario, and whether a bias is helpful or not there too...
which could also be made into two experiments, with a specific shooting board plane having a track,
whilst the other more basic and used freehanded, (if you could call it that)

Quite a lot of tests there, and that's only what comes to my mind,
and I'd find it interesting to see if anyone else could come up with some more challenging/telling experiments which might highlight some
other factors.

Cheers
Tom

I also just did some planing with my scraped #3 and a fresh blade and the concavity of the board increased to only about 0.05mm. Planing off with the #5, first pass took the ends and missed the tiniest section in the middle, second pass was a full shaving and the gap was back to the 0.04mm or so. I tried my #7 which I'm about to scrape (I bought a big surface plate! yay!) which is concave by only 0.06mm and it immediately took the ends and left the middle. Continuing passes to a full shaving and the board was convex.

Tom, they are all great ideas but for me I just want to sort out the basics of what's going on first.