Shapton pro series or ohishi waterstones?

[section1]

I took out one from my 5 1/2 also an LN and that's how I discovered all of this but remember it was the 1/16 width that made it too short initially when I first started on it I only got about half of 1/16th done what ever that is and it worked fine but it didn't stop the tearout so it was when I kept going I ran into problems so much so that my adjusting knob and screw thread both together fell out.

[derekcohen]

S1

1/16" should no make a difference to the positioning of a chipbreaker. If it does, then there is likely to be a manufacturing issue.

Of course, you could remove 1/16" from the blade to even it up (not that this should be necessary, so this is just a theoretical answer).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[section1]

It's true it shouldn't make a difference but it actually does, this I discovered long ago before they told me this morning direct from the US, I've learned my lesson by not querying any further because it just ends up in silence if the questions are not to their likings which aren't very often but it happens.

[Pac man]

Sorry to hear of your issues.

it would help me to visualise what's going on to see both the chip breakers side by side and from both faces. Any chance of some photos?

[section1]

I have provided pics in earlier posts. You can easily compare it if you look on LN's website. It's just standard as any modern cap iron.

[IanW]

......Of course, you could remove 1/16" from the blade to even it up (not that this should be necessary, so this is just a theoretical answer)....

Um, no, Derek. You can take any amount off a blade & it shouldn't make any difference to the adjustment range. After all, blades wear & shorten considerably during their life (>20mm in most blades), but you still have the same degree of adjustment as you began with.

Decreasing the setback on a shortened chip breaker could cause you to run out of adjustment. I would think that losing 1/16" shouldn't tip you over the edge, but if the c-b was a bit of a mismatch to begin with, and had been already operating at it's limit, it could do it, I reckon.
You don't have a huge amount of leeway with a Baily style mechanism, the length of the chip breaker, from mating edge to the cam slot is critical, with a tolerance range of probably less than 3mm. I discovered this the hard way, by not checking the exact distance before putting a lot of effort into making a replacement c-b.

If the cam slot/edge distance is too short, and you set the c-b setback to an acceptable distance, the thumbscrew falls off the screw before the blade extends far enough to work, and if it's too long, you can't retract the blade enough to do anything sensible with it.

Cheers,

[derekcohen]

Probably Ian. I was not seriously suggesting shortening the blade.

I am aware that the LN blade/chipbreaker is set up to fit their own planes. I have attempted to fit the LV (Stanley replacement) combination to a LN without success - the LN frogs are machined slightly differently from the Stanley. Still, shortening a LN chipbreaker by 1/16" should be done without an issue. I have two LN bench planes that were treated this way (including a #4 1/2, which has the same chipbreaker/blade at the #7). There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of others on the USA forums that were also reportedly done exactly the same way.

If Section 1 has a problem setting up the chipbreaker, unless he has done something differently to the (common) advice I demonstrated, then there is something unusual going on with his #7.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[hiroller]

If the chipbreaker is too "short", won't grinding a bit off the blade fix the problem?

[IanW]

... If Section 1 has a problem setting up the chipbreaker, unless he has done something differently to the (common) advice I demonstrated, then there is something unusual going on with his #7. ...

Agreed, Derek. As I said, you should be able to get away with taking a 16th off, I've certainly taken off a mm or more squaring & cleaning up some old cap-irons without causing any problems. Just don't get too carried away, that's all.

I'm still having problems getting this microscopic setback to work on my standard Bailey smoothers, though. I cannot reproduce those silky shavings of yours unless I set it back about a 32nd, which is 0.8mm. I'm guessing it's the angle at which my irons meet the blade, they are all rounded, so the angle changes, but probably close to 75 or even more where they actually meet.... Haven't had time to have a proper muck about with them, yet, but one of these rainy afternoons (if we ever get any real rain again!)........

Cheers,

[Pac man]

If the chipbreaker is too "short", won't grinding a bit off the blade fix the problem?

See post #51

[section1]

Derek when I get the new cap iron I will send you my old one and you can keep it if you like but you will see I followed your instructions to the letter but where I believe the initial failure came from is when you originally said to make the width of the bevel 1/8" which I aimed for but later in your post you showed a picture of it being much less than that but it was too late as my now secondary bevel is just a tad over the 1/16th mark and that's what I believe has done it. Maybe the LN version aren't meant to be tampered width I just don't know but I would love for this to work as planing this God forsaken timber is an absolute nightmare. I'm now seriously contemplating on purchasing one of those Veritas scraper planes over the cabinet scraper I have which is good but for smaller work not so much for larger work.

[section1]

This is what Deneb had to say on this issue:

In the case of our Cap Irons, if you are going to use them as a “chipbreaker” and bring them very close to the cutting edge, then you may need to do some fine tuning to the mating surfaces. We precision grind the underside of the bevel so that there is a flat surface mating with the back of the blade, but we also leave a flat on the very tip of the edge so that there is stability and it does not get damaged in use. This flat is only about .020" thick, and does not interfere with anything if you are 1/32" or further back from the cutting edge. If you are going to try to use the tool with a much tighter setting, then I would dress the front of the bevel, either applying a 30 degree secondary bevel, or as I prefer to do, round and polish the flat on the tip, so that it is not an obstruction for the shaving as it tries to pass by. You should not need to do any work on the underside of the bevel, but if you find that you do, then you should do as little as possible and make sure that you are following the undercut that has been ground into the back of the cap iron. If you match the angle that the cap iron meets the blade, then when you tighten the screw, the cap will flex and you will potentially create a gap for shavings to jam.

You cannot apply the same procedure to all situations. If things are not working, then make a change, but always try to do the least amount of change necessary. Do things in steps, rather than all at once. What you are trying to do will work, and you may find that you need to do some fine tuning to the Cap Iron to turn it into a “chipbreaker,” but do the minimum that you need, or you may find yourself making work for yourself.

[FenceFurniture]

(if we ever get any real rain again!)........

Today is the day as I understand it.

[derekcohen]

S1, that quote of Deneb's is stating that LN do not expect one to set the chipbreaker, so the tolerances are only at a level for where the chipbreaker is out of the way. This is a rather archaic concept these days.

Here is a comprehensive article on setting the chipbreaker by David Weaver: http://www.woodcentral.com/cgi-bin/r...cles_935.shtml

Another DC, this time David Charlesworth, well known for his books and videos on woodworking, who does a grew deal of testing of pre-production LN tools, as well as designs for them, has recently become a strong proponent for the use of the chipbreaker. He recently noted (in the context of LN planes) "no manufacturers chipbreakers are ready to go. Front edges need work."

Regards from Perth

Derek

[section1]

Thanks Derek for that excellent link I skimmed through it and look forward tonight in reading it, this will be very informative indeed. Like I've always aid regardless how long a person has worked wood it's a never ending learning process and can get confusing at times like where I am at this point.