Thanks Thanks:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Needs Pictures Needs Pictures:  0
Picture(s) thanks Picture(s) thanks:  0
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 54
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    10,810

    Default Planing end grain - a little experiment

    I had a little free time today and decided that I would take a few pictures of my efforts at end grain planning to demonstrate that the mouth size of a block plane has no effect on the result. Just for the disbelieving (since a small mouth is stated by many here as a necessity for preventing tearout).

    Firstly, in my experience (limited by my amateur status), end grain does not tear out if the blade is sharp enough. I do get tearout on some timber, notably awful stuff such as construction-grade Radiata Pine (no one should attempt end grain planning with this timber – it is heart breaking!), but this does reduce (never completely) with a really sharp blade.

    Secondly, a lower cutting angle requires less effort but even a high angle plane will cut end grain. For example, I have successfully used a HNT Gordon Try Plane (60 degree cutting angle) on a shooting board. On the other hand, a low angle jack plane will do the same job with less effort, and produce a smoother cut.

    When it comes to small block planes, I’d rather use a low angle (such as my Stanley #65) than a high angle (such as a Stanley #18). But the question is often raised whether one would choose from a block plane such as a LN #102 (which is a low angle plane but has a wide mouth) or a LA block plane with an adjustable mouth. I would say that one should get the adjustable mouth, but because it is useful for planing interlinked face grain rather than as a specialized plane for end grain.

    So as a test I chose two pieces of timber, one Scandinavian pine and the other American Cherry. The plane used was my Stanley #65 block plane, which has a low cutting angle and an adjustable mouth. It is well tuned and uses a Hock blade. The blade was sharp but not especially sharpened for the experiment. Photos were taken of the results: both timbers with the mouth closed down and with the mouth as wide open as possible.

    The results were clear. I could not tell the difference in performance when the mouth was open or closed.

    I tell you what – here are the pictures and YOU say which was which!

    About the pictures: those with the cherry came out better than those with the pine. My apologies, but I did not get a chance to examine them until later. Still, they should do the job.

    The first two sets of pics are Cherry, the third set is Pine.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    kyogle N.S.W
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,844

    Default

    Your spot on alright derek.........I have shooting planes setup made up out of old 4 and 1/2's .......I stuffed up with one of them when I skewed its frog....and opened the mouth poorly,,,,too big and uneven, I supposed I should have tried harder and got it right but the fact that mouth size doesn't matter made me a bit complacent I surpose......

    But It didn't affect their performance.......

    I went to town describing these shooting boards in that 'ramped shooting board' thread of yours if interested........

  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Over there a bit
    Age
    17
    Posts
    2,511

    Default

    Very interesting point you raise Mr Cohen. Whilst end grain will never tear out the same as long grain does. I still would've thought a closed mouth was needed.



    Myth Busted.

    How closed/open did you have the mouth for this little speriment?
    Boring signature time again!

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    65
    Posts
    11,997

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by outback
    How closed/open did you have the mouth for this little speriment?
    Usually just enough for the tongue to protrude slightly to aid concentration.

    Derek's observation makes sense, as cutting across the grain slices the fibres and, since they are at 90 deg to the edge, there is little tendency for the blade to porpoise through the wood, causing tear out.

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Perth
    Posts
    10,810

    Default

    Outback asked
    How closed/open did you have the mouth for this little speriment?
    The "closed mouth" state was fairly closed but not as closed as one could achieve.

    The "open mouth" state was as wide as the mouth could be opened, from memory about 10mm.

    Regards from Perth

    Derek

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Over there a bit
    Age
    17
    Posts
    2,511

    Default

    Thanks Derek, we're certainly talking a heap big enough difference for any changes to show up.

    All food for thought isn't it.
    Boring signature time again!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    26

    Default

    I'm sure all you experienced people know about this but it was a revelation to me:

    I was planing the end grain on a large piece of unnamed eucalyptus the other day. The first couple of slices were pretty rough. Then I got through into the "unseasoned" (read wet) timber and the plane sliced through so beautifully I couldn't believe it.

    Does this always hold true?

    Mike

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Pambula
    Age
    58
    Posts
    12,779

    Default

    I agree, I wouldn't have thought mouth size would have made much difference to tear out in end grain. Wouldn't it be more down to the sharpness of the blade?

    When you're planing end grain, the fibres are on end. As the blade begins to cut, it pushes the fibres in the direction of planing and they bend. If the blade is blunt, then more resistance is present and the fibres bend more, then they are finally cut and spring back once the blade has passed, or are snapped off leaving a hole. That's why you get a rough surface or actual tearout.

    I'd guess that the low angle plane tends to cause less flexing of the fibres given the same sharpness of blade but I have no evidence for that. In any case, I can't see how the mouth opening would have any affect on this at all. You can get very smooth results paring with a sharp chisel and it has a mouth opening of infinity.

    When planing long grain, the mouth opening controls the size of the chip and that is an entirely different set of physics to what is going on with end grain planing, don't you think?
    "I don't practice what I preach because I'm not the kind of person I'm preaching to."

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gorokan Central Coast NSW
    Age
    79
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    When I open my mouth too wide the Boss usually tears me out a new a..hole.
    Yes folks, I'm baaaaaakk!

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Over there a bit
    Age
    17
    Posts
    2,511

    Default

    When I stop and think about it, which I rarely if ever do.

    Yes, Yes and Yes.
    Boring signature time again!

  12. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Perth hills
    Age
    45
    Posts
    1,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pelorus32
    I'm sure all you experienced people know about this but it was a revelation to me:

    I was planing the end grain on a large piece of unnamed eucalyptus the other day. The first couple of slices were pretty rough. Then I got through into the "unseasoned" (read wet) timber and the plane sliced through so beautifully I couldn't believe it.

    Does this always hold true?

    Mike
    Taking that concet further, if you dampen the endgrain slightly.....well try it and see. Thanks to Peter Byrne for that trick
    Cheers,

    Adam

    ------------------------------------------

    I can cure you of your Sinistrophobia

  13. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ottawa, Ont., Canada
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Hi Derek -

    It's all about the failure modes of the wood - chip types and all that....

    Tear-out occurs with type I wood failure - and closing the mouth (and taking a finer cut) are treating the symptoms of the problem - but are not the cure...

    What you're after - is getting the wood to fail right at the blade edge (type II failure), and that's really a function of blade angle.

    When sharpening a blade - you strive to have to lowest possible blade angle consistent with type II chip formation. Of course, wood isn't a homogeneous material - so it still helps to close the mouth and take a finer cut - even if you've selected the correct blade angle for the wood you're working...

    For end grain - you're after the lowest possible blade angle - so that the horizontal severing component of the applied force is maximized - (the other component is the lifting component). With end grain - you'll see two effects - the grain being pushed sideways by a dull blade, or the wood fibres fracturing below the surface if the angle is too high (they get lifted)... A clean cut in end grain has a "wet" look...

    Skewing a blade (or the body of a regular plane in use) has the effect of lowering the effective cut angle - the wood "sees" a lower cut angle - and the cut is cleaner.

    Now if you really want to experiment - why is a chip-breaker necessary, if the wood fails at the blade edge?

    Cheers -

    Rob

  14. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Brisbane (western suburbs)
    Age
    77
    Posts
    12,093

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Lee
    Now if you really want to experiment - why is a chip-breaker necessary, if the wood fails at the blade edge?
    Rob
    You know this better than most, Mr. Rob, and you're just being provocative!

    'Cos it ain't a bleedin' "chip-breaker", but a cap-iron! If your cap iron is contacting the chip during the "breaking" phase, you've got it set a bit fine!

    You need to pre-tension thin cutting-irons on a standard Bailey frog if you don't want it chattering to you all day. This is a sum of the effect of the thin cutter and the fact that the bed usually ceases supporting the blade somewhere above the back of the bevel (depends on the individual frog design, in which there is some minor variation over time)

    Having thicker cutting irons reduces the need for a cap iron, but the damping effect of pre-tensioning is still beneficial up to a point. And I'd like to have the time and equipment to do the experiments to show at what point thicker blades become counter-productive, as the support bed gets further from the cutting edge with the thicker blades (assuming the same grinding angle). I suspect Rob's mob have done this, since he's on record as saying that blades over an 1/8" have no extra benefits, and my own experience points to this as about the convergence point, alright.

    So the trend to bevel-up planes has all sorts of things going for it, such as a simplified mechanism, the potential to have the blade supported almost right at the cutting edge, not to mention the ease of altering cutting angles....

    Do I get the jellybean, Mr Lee??
    Cheers,
    IW

  15. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    kyogle N.S.W
    Age
    50
    Posts
    4,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Lee
    Hi Derek -
    When sharpening a blade - you strive to have to lowest possible blade angle consistent with type II chip formation. Of course, wood isn't a homogeneous material - so it still helps to close the mouth and take a finer cut - even if you've selected the correct blade angle for the wood you're working...
    Rob
    I imagine this could be helpful though still rare...if shooting a mitre in a spot where the grain starts to reverse.........but I can't see it ever happening when shooting 90 degrees to the grain, unless maybe your planing a knot !!! ....something only Forest Gump would do.....


    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Lee
    For end grain - you're after the lowest possible blade angle - so that the horizontal severing component of the applied force is maximized - (the other component is the lifting component). With end grain - you'll see two effects - the grain being pushed sideways by a dull blade, or the wood fibres fracturing below the surface if the angle is too high (they get lifted)... A clean cut in end grain has a "wet" look...

    Skewing a blade (or the body of a regular plane in use) has the effect of lowering the effective cut angle - the wood "sees" a lower cut angle - and the cut is cleaner.

    Rob
    This is something I feel is quite subjective......agreed the lower the better.......but how low can you go.....you've got no choice with a bevel down plane.......but with a bevel up plane your also limited.....your not going to get much lower than the 45 degree bevel down frog.......because you can't sharpen your bevel much lower than 25 degrees or else it will get too weak right ? .........which means the entire advantage in bevel up planes is essentially that it supports to the very tip so less flex in blade......

    And for skewing I think thats limited as well......not only (in my opinion) does the effective pitch drop but also the clearence angle , you know the angle between wood and blade......which is significant in end grain , I would think, because of springback.......so there must be a point where you can skew too much or else the fibres will push up on your blade after cut causing another kind of chatter I'd imagine........so the ideal bevel and setting in plane must be within a small range.......

    So, in my opinion, the most ideal shooting plane is a bevel up, slightly skewed plane with a thick blade.........but in practise I don't think it would improve your work.....other things like planing style, sharpening skills, choice of tools for wood type etc would carry far more significance to your chances of success........I mean a regular stanley on its side with a thick sharp blade works 90% of the time........

    very interesting stuff.......

  16. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Boyne Island, Queensland
    Age
    51
    Posts
    929

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apricotripper
    ......agreed the lower the better.......but how low can you go.....you've got no choice with a bevel down plane.......but with a bevel up plane your also limited.....
    On page 113 of "The Handplane Book" by Garrett Hack, there is a technique for getting a 27 degree cutting angle from a 12 degree bedded plane. This is achieved by using a 15 degree main bevel and a 5 degree back bevel. I haven't tried it yet but it sounds like fun.
    Dan

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Planing an end grain bevel.
    By LineLefty in forum WOODWORK - GENERAL
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 8th April 2005, 01:27 PM
  2. Block Cutting & End Grain Turning
    By smidsy in forum WOODTURNING - GENERAL
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 7th March 2005, 06:26 PM
  3. Planing end grain - a 5 minute experiment
    By derekcohen in forum HAND TOOLS - UNPOWERED
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 1st December 2004, 03:58 PM
  4. Turning End Grain
    By Babytoolman in forum WOODTURNING - GENERAL
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 27th July 2004, 03:04 PM
  5. Favorite Tool for End Grain Hollowing?
    By Marshall Gorrow in forum WOODTURNING - GENERAL
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 12th June 1999, 02:32 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •