Shapton pro series or ohishi waterstones?

[IanW]

...... If this step didn't exist I wouldn't have an issue with flattening but it does and I cannot figure out exactly how to lay it on the stone or diamond plate....

S1, I may be mis-undersanding your problem, but to my mind, there is no difference in principle between the curved end of the Stanley/Record cap iron and the 'modern' LV/LN style. The bend or curve is simply to get a good chunk of metal below the plane of the underside of the cap iron, so that you can flatten it, & that flattened area (or preferably, just the very front of it), will bear firmly against the blade when the screw is tightened down.

The actual angle isn't super-critical, but has to fall within a range that allows firm contact with the blade along its front (essential!) and for that contact to remain as the screw is tightened. There is a small built-in design flaw with the new 'bent' caps. Using a simple bend to get the nose down means the end rotates up slightly as you tighten the screw, & if you haven't got enough clearance on that flat you've struggled so hard to produce, the front end will be lifted from the blade slightly. The further back from the end the bend is placed, the greater this effect. It is less of a problem with the old curved end design, because the cap iron curves right over & meets the blade near-vertically. There is still a small rotation because the tangent of the curve is <90 deg. where it meets the blade, but it is substantially less and requires less 'clearance' to keep the front tight as the screw is tightened. I suspect Mr. Stanley was well aware of this little quirk of cap-iron geometry, and is the reason he made his that way - after all, it's more bother to put that curve in the cap iron than a simple bend! I hadn't given this aspect any thought, until I discovered it empirically, in my early attempts at making my own cap-irons! I'd be surprised if LV and LN aren't aware of it, too, but in this cost-conscious age, decided to go with the simpler (= least cost) method & have mucked about a bit to get just the right bend, at the right distance from the end, so their irons mate firmly enough & maintain good nose contact.

The way I flatten & establish the angle for the underside of a cap iron is to use a piece of wood of the appropriate height beside the stone. Rest the end of the cap iron on that as you hone back & forth. It takes a bit of trial & error to establish the right height, to get the angle you want, but you only need to do this once in the life of the plane, as a rule. I don't think it matters if the angle gives you a bit more clearance than absolutely necessary, but don't go hog-wild, or you might make the end a bit fragile.

Something you must pay particular attention to is to keep that iron flat on the stone (& I'm using the term generically, because really, a diamond plate is far & away the best choice for this task). If you start rocking ever so slightly, you'll quickly make those little duffed areas at the edge that the bloke in the video showed. You will get some duffing of the edges, whatever you do, because as I've argued elsewhere, it is an inevitable effect of honing anything. As the swarf & any loose abrasive particles go under the leading edge of the advancing metal, they wear the initial contact area more. To minimise duffing to the fraction of a thou necessary to keep shavings out, hone lightly on the finest grit that will do the job. If the edge is in very poor shape, as it can be on old, abused cap irons (some folks insist on using the cap iron as a screwdriver!), don't spend any more time on the coarser grits than absolutely necessary, and watch those edges as you move to finer grits - as soon as you've cleaned up from the coarser plate, move on....

Cheers,

[D.W.]

Welcome aboard David I would very much like your opinion on this topic. Derek was explaning about using the chipbreaker effectively to eliminate tearout by honing a secondary bevel of 45° or greater and flattening the underside perfectly flat. He used a veritas cap iron to describe this method and I tried it on my LN cap iron which resulted in it being too short for the adjustment mechanism to advance the blade. It also reduced the width of the underside to almost nothing as I thought it would because the underside of the LN chipbreaker is not smaller in width than the veritas version.

Many of the lie nielsen cap irons have a design defect, and that is that they are too short past the slot for the adjustment pawl (or whatever you'd call it) to reach the end of the cap iron. They must be made to something more blunt than their stock 25 degrees or once the step on the front of them is removed, they will be dented by a heavy chip. I had a friend who did just that, they received his cap iron back and replaced it and informed him that the stock angle was too shallow.

I don't know what service is like there if you're in australia, and I think you mentioned you ordered another cap at a very high price. They should replace any cap iron that cannot reach the end of the iron because it is a critical part of a double iron plane, something they chose (and pardon me for being blunt) to copy and then "improve" without actually understanding how it works to limit or eliminate tearout. As the customer of their good, if you're using an LN cap on an LN plane (if I understand correctly it is that), then it is not unreasonable to expect them to provide you with something that will work once it's set up.

The contact point under the edge can be less than stock by a lot without issue, so I wouldn't worry about it being thinned if it's not eliminated, but if the cap iron cannot reach the sole of the plane and protrude slightly through at the limit of its adjustment, it will never be proper to use.

Like I said, their customer service here is nothing short of spectacular, so if they are set up to remedy your situation, they will.

If it's a stanley plane (which I don't think it may be given the thickness of the iron you show), then all bets are off because the hole in the cap iron that accepts the adjuster is not in the same place on at least some of their planes. I found that out personally with a #8, and sent them my cap from the stanley 8, which was worn through on the leading edge, but still usable as a template. They weren't aware of it at the time. That's probably nearing 10 years ago now that that occurred.

I wish they'd get some sense and start instructing their customers on the function of a cap iron, but they are catering to beginners because that's who spends money in volume. I suppose there is a condition that someone needs to be able to see and use their plane as a rank beginner, but we are not beginners for very long.

I eventually sold off my LN bench planes, the stanley planes have a weight and design that feels a little more clattery as the adjuster clangs around, the iron is thinner, the cap iron is thinner, etc, but I prefer it in actual use for several reasons, including the friction issue of the perfect sole that I mentioned above.

I also wish that if they thought they were to "improve" a cap iron, that they would've just made a more stout stanley type cap iron. The way they "improved" the cap iron is similar to claiming that you'd improve a passenger car by removing the suspension. The spring in the hump on the stanley cap is a very valuable part of the design in terms of tightening the lever cap. Without the spring, lever cap adjustment is very abrupt, and there's no reason for it. Again, because they attempted to improve something that they didn't actually know how to use. That's my opinion, I've never had a discussion with them about it because I'd imagine it's one they're not interested in having!!! I'd never be jumping ugly hurried to talk to me either!!

[IanW]

...I also wish that if they thought they were to "improve" a cap iron, that they would've just made a more stout stanley type cap iron. The way they "improved" the cap iron is similar to claiming that you'd improve a passenger car by removing the suspension. The spring in the hump on the stanley cap is a very valuable part of the design in terms of tightening the lever cap. Without the spring, lever cap adjustment is very abrupt, and there's no reason for it......

David, I am right with you here. As I said above, the curve in the cap iron also brings the mating surfaces together in a way that minimise the tendency of the edge to move forward when you tighten the locking screw. I'd forgotten to mention the bleeding obvious, that the 'spring' effect also serves to help maintain even pressure on the irons when the lever cap is locked down. I've tried to make curved cap irons with my last couple of attempts, but it ain't easy when you have no real metal-working gear. I even considered making a small press expressly for the job, but the day is distant when I'll find the time for that!

I've developed a grudging respect for the old bog standard Bailey planes over the years - the cam operated lever cap & 'sprung' cap-iron work extremely well. My main users are 3 Bailey styles (4, 51/2, & 7). I've long since gotten used to the couple of turns of backlash in their adjusters - once the slack is taken up, the blade moves easily & controllably - adjustments are easily made with thumb & forefinger, on the fly, no need to take your hand off the tote. Compare that with a screw type lever cap & Norris style adjuster. You have to fiddle about, loosening a lever-cap screw, then if the lateral adjuster is set at a compensatory angle (as it usually is), the blade skews a little as it moves forward or back, necessitating lateral re-adjustment. When the double-screw mechanism wears, there is significant backlash, & the blade tends to move in jumps rather than smoothly. And after all that, the depth of cut alters slightly when the lever cap screw is re-tightened.. Stanley's system is more sophisticated than a superficial appraisal suggests......

Cheers,

[section1]

Deneb from LN has suggested to minimise tearout that I switch to low angle planes with a 60° bevel which will yield a 72° effective cut. Since there seems to be no solution to the "new and improved" chipbreakers this may seem to be the only solution I have to work with. Rather than parrot what he said I will paste here his thoughts and suggestions for you to read.

Salko,
To use another colloquialism, “There are many ways to skin a cat.” All of the things that you have mentioned work to control tearout, the most important factor though is an extremely sharp edge. I think the important thing to do is figure out a method that works for you, and then master it. If you do not have tools with a high angle frog, then you need to either use a back bevel or "supertune"your chipbreaker so that you can bring it within about .004" of the tip and have it work as a “Chipbreaker”. The most versatile and easiest to manipulate are the Low Angle or Bevel Up tools. Since the bevel faces up, you can change the effective cutting angle to be as steep or as shallow as you like, depending on what you need, by simply changing the secondary bevel on the blade.
For the timbers that you will be working with, I would use a 60 degree secondary bevel, this will yield a 72 degree effective cut. Combined with a thin cut and sharp blade, this should give you the results that you are looking for. If you need to take aggressive cuts to level things out, I would use a freshly sharpened Toothed Blade in one of the Low Angle Jack Plane, this will give you results without tearout. The tooth marks can then be cleaned up by switching over to a blade sharpened at 60 degrees. The beauty of this approach is its simplicity. If you are going to work this way, then I would recommend having a Low Angle Jack, Jointer, and Smoother, that way you can keep them set up the same way for everything that you do.
If you are going to be using traditional style planes that have high angle frogs available, then you should be able to get good results with sharp tools and thin cuts. If you find that the frog does not achieve a high enough angle, then you will need to use either a back bevel, or the Chipbreaker approach that is en vogue today. If you choose to use the chipbreaker then you will need to apply a secondary bevel of between 30-45 degrees, depending on the frog angle. If you have a 45 degree frog, then use a 40-45 degree angle. If you have a 55 degree frog, go with 30-35 degree secondary bevel. With our chipbreakers you should not need to dress the underside of the bevel, but if you do, just support the back end of the chipbreaker so that you match the bevel angle on your stones. The tricky part is getting the mating area for the blade and chipbreaker clean and polished, and setting the chipbreaker within .004" of the edge.
In my mind, the chipbreaker method is a way to get what you have to work, if you are not willing or able to get a tool that is set up to do it. The only problem with it is that you have to be able to supertune your chipbreaker. If you cannot do this, then it will not work properly. We are not going to set tools up this way, because it would add a significant cost, and we have other options that work just as well or better. If you need more help with this or any other information on the tools that we have that can help you, please let me know. You do not need to spend your time figuring out different ways to “skin the cat”, if you already have a way that works.
Cheers,
Deneb

[planemaker]

https://hocktools.wordpress.com/2010...lane-geometry/

[derekcohen]

Hi Salko

What Deneb has to say is essentially correct and reflects comments I have made in the past: in a nutshell, there are a number of ways to skin a cat - high angles, back bevels, chip breaker, scraper, and sanding. Each comes with pros and cons.

The bottom line is, however, that LN do not advocate using the chipbreaker and do not prepare the chipbreaker specifically as a tool in its own right. Deneb admits as much. To be fair, no plane maker does this - all chip breakers require some tuning.

For many years - indeed from the outset - I have been a strong supporter of a high cutting angle in a bevel up plane. One of the absolute best smoothers is the Veritas BU Smoother. With a 50 degree bevel (creating a 62 degree cutting angle) it will plane just about anything you throw at it.

I have a number of high angle bed planes as well. The issue I have with any high bed Bailey plane is that they are hard to push (a high bed could be a high angle frog via LN, or a back bevel on a common angle frog). A waxed sole does help a great deal. Far better are the hammer-adjusted HNT Gordon range. These have a lower centre of effort and slide along the boards. I like them (and own them) but they are not everyone's cup of tea due to the way they need to be held/pushed and adjusted.

Then along came the rediscovery of the chip breaker as a way of controlling tearout. What this has done is opened the way for an inexpensive Stanley #4 to become a serious user on interlocked grain. The issue they have is that the learning curve is steep and it does take time. However it can really be worth it. Still, the suggestion of using a BU plane, with its very short learning curve, starts to look better and better for those who work with harder woods.

There is an argument that high cutting angles do not produce as good a finish as a lower angle plus chipbreaker. In the main I think that this is true (hence my purchase of the LV Custom Smoother with a low 42 degree frog), however it applies more with some woods than others. Most do not evidence any difference once a finish is applied.

What of the chipbreaker design? David and I have gone around on this one. I am not a lover of the Stanley chipbreaker for the very reason he likes it: its flex. Most I find have too much flex and this makes it more difficult to set them accurately than the LV and LV, which are stiff. With the latter it is a case of position, tighten, and go. I find that they have enough flex to lock positively. I'll have to say more in another post (need to get back to work).

Regards from Perth

Derek

[derekcohen]

https://hocktools.wordpress.com/2010...lane-geometry/

Stewie, that is an out-of-date observation as the article was written in 2010. I wonder what Hock would now write? Do you have an opinion?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[planemaker]

Hi Derek. As a way of increasing F (the angle of attack), what Ron Hock has suggested makes perfect sense to me.

[derekcohen]

What is it that makes such perfect sense to you, Stewie?

What is the advantage of a double bevel? Surely it doubles the work one is required to do in maintaining an edge?

Also, keep in mind that Hock wrote this article in 2010, before the re-emergence of the chipbreaker. What opinion do you have of the chipbreaker set close in a plane with a low bed?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[D.W.]

My experience with stanley cap irons (about a dozen of them) isn't the same. The only cap irons that I have that move after initial tightening are some old wooden ones (that have pitting damage or where an iron and cap iron haven't been properly matched), and infill caps where the nut isn't properly made or properly sized to the iron slots.

I've set the cap iron in several of my videos and not found movement a problem.

I have noticed some movement in "improved" types. The strange thing is that one of them goes the opposite way that any other cap iron I have goes, it goes backwards increasing the relief on the cap.

But this talk all makes it sound more complex than it is. On every clean stanley iron and cap iron that I have, the set is immediate and steady.

As far as deneb's description of a cap iron just being a making do situation with what one has, and "super tuning", that's overblowing the situation. One just has to hone the front edge of a cap iron and remove the burr. There's nothing "super" about it. The .004" number that gets thrown around is confusing, too, a user is better off just setting the cap iron so they can only see a small sliver of light and not worrying about the measurement.

The blinding sharpness suggestion that is always given is not practical. I've made several planes, including two cocobolo smoothers, sharpening an iron with just a washita stone (a stanley #4 stock setup in that case). The cap iron protects against tearout in the event of a thick chip, and what prevents dullness in the surface of a thin one is not cutting cross grain and keeping the chip thin enough that it can't lift. It doesn't require extreme sharpness, which one will find out is very transient, anyway (you may wish to us a 1/2 micron powder to set up an initial edge, but you'd find within a couple of strokes, the edge no longer cuts hair off your arm if you take the plane apart and check). It's the thin shaving and not perfect sharpness.

And lastly, there is still this notion purported by a lot of the instructors that it's somehow cumbersome and fiddly to set the cap iron, but it's not fiddly to set planes up with goofy angles on blades, and switch blades around or have several planes to do the job that one plane will do. It's less cumbersome to have a single plane and learn to do everything with it in the same amount of time. Once its mastered, it's many times less cumbersome to have one single plane around that it is to juggle a bunch.

My opinion, that anyone who learns to master the cap iron will eventually forgo all of the stuff they thought was so ideal, and prefer it for every single situation. Unless their objective is to play with planes rather than do work. Deneb may not get there, because its his job to tell a beginner something that they can do in 5 minutes rather than learn in 5 days. But I am so happy to be finished with all of that cumbersome junk about super sharpness being a necessity for a finished surface (acceptable sharpness is fine) and back bevels, etc. I'd hate to have a case or a drawer dovetailed with tricky wood and then have to plane off the ends of the tails with a plane honed at 70 degrees, just to avoid damaging the drawer side wood. Especially on something that flexes - as such a plane has much less tendency to stay in the cut than a common pitch plane. downpressure on a case or drawer side can just end up pushing the assembled case or drawer side in, making for inconsistent cuts.

[planemaker]

It's no different to changing the value of (B) on a Bu. The fact that it was written in 2010 has a zero value to the discussion. The use of higher attack angles to overcome tear out is a long well established fact. You dont think LV worked that one out by themselves.

[derekcohen]

Stewie, each method has a primary bevel. However the double bevel requires that the angle be calculated to hone two bevels, while a BU requires the calculation of honing a single secondary bevel.

Anyway, this thread is about using the chipbreaker, about which I have asked your opinion. Still waiting.

Ron Hock's article was written in 2010, which is of relevance since the re-emergence of the chipbreaker came around 2012. Hock was writing to a readership that had little awareness in this regard, and it is likely that he did not have any experience or knowledge here either. Hock's introduction to woodworking blades came via Jim Krenov, whose woodworking school he began making his plane blades for. I very much doubt that Jim Krenov set the chipbreaker, if the example Jim sent me is anything to go by.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[planemaker]

Derek. The use of a higher attack angle to control tear out does have relevance to the discussion on the importance of a chip breaker. Hasn't the Bu proved that.

[derekcohen]

The use of a higher attack angle to control tear out does have relevance to the discussion on the importance of a chip breaker. The Bu has proved that.

Thanks for the discussion, Stewie.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[section1]

What little understanding I have of this and I mean little is this, all the closely fit chipbreakers is doing is physically applying a steep back bevel to a BD blade. The logic behind this it's easier to maintain a single bevel on a blade than it is a double bevel, the potential failure is that there is a chance that between pieces if there is a gap, shavings will jam.

I don't doubt your suggestions Derek but having screwed up one chipbreaker I'm reluctant to give it another go, since you've made mention that no chipbreakers underside are completely flat and ready to go I do not see the point in back beveling for the very reason I mentioned above. However I do have two options available to me, either purchase a high angle frog or purchase a spare blade and hone a 60 deg angle on it.

so is it fiddley to install a high angle frog or simpler just to replace blades when I need to.