Tips, Techniques and Theory

[IanW]

I’ve been thinking we should have a separate thread where, in the spirit of this challenge, you can all share problems, solutions & general tips. Rather than clog up the “judges corner” thread, I thought it would be better to have a separate thread which I’ve labelled “Tips, Techniques & Theory”.

I’ll kick it off with some observations on cap irons – Matt (Simplicity) saw this in another thread & thought it might be helpful to some of you. I do not profess to be a guru of plane making, there are many, past & present, who have forgotten more about plane-making than I’ll ever know, so take any opinions or advice I offer with a pinch or two of the proverbial.

What I have found in making planes is that it’s often the subtle details that can turn a tolerably functional plane into a superb one. While I try to reason things out from basic principles, I can easily come to wrong conclusions (even for the right reasons!), so don’t be afraid to offer counter-opinions. I think we are all here to learn, and anyone who learns something useful is a winner.

OK, enough guff, let’s get the ball rolling with a short discussion on ‘theory & practice’ of cap-irons.

I think enough has been written & said about cap-irons for most of us to accept that they are not just to stiffen thin blades & provide something for screw adjusters to hold onto, but will help to control “tear out” when properly fettled &set. They are, therefore a desirable feature in any plane designed for fine work, when it is practical to include one.
If you do wish to include a chip breaker/cap iron in your masterpiece, there are plenty of factory made blade/cap-iron combinations available. However in the DIY spirit of the challenge, you may wish to roll your own & it’s not that difficult to do. The only extra tool that you might not have on hand is a tap for a retaining screw (unless you plan to use a “loose” cap-iron as on Japanese planes).

I like to use stainless steel for cap-irons because it polishes up nicely & doesn’t corrode, but mild steel will work (it’s what the vast majority are made from) and ideal thickness (imo) is 2- 2.5mm. You may find 3.2mm is easier to obtain, it’s a little harder to bend, but will do the job. Anything thinner than 2mm is going to be less stiff, and gives a very shallow thread for the retaining screw. (I’ve measured quite a few cap irons off Bailey type planes and they are usually around 1.75mm thick, which is probably the minimum practical thickness.)

Cutting & shaping is straightforward – use a hacksaw or cuttoff disc & tidy to the lines with files.

Now for the bend.
You can do this a couple of ways. The easiest is to clamp about 5-6mm of the end in a vise & push it over. Use a solid lump of wood to maintain pressure across the metal & keep the bend even. This tends to produce a rather sharp bend, which you can fair into a curve by filing.

To produce curved bends a bit more controllably, I’ve made a crude jig with some scrap steel & 19mm bar. I welded the two pieces of bar to the steel, but they could be bolted if you don’t have access to a welder. A third bar acts as the bending dolly & by choosing different diameter bars I can vary the sharpness of the curve : 482133

(continued...)

[IanW]

Although crude & simple, my jig does the job, and produces a cap-iron that does an adequate job: 482141

Now, for a blade assembly retained by a wedge, a single-bend cap-iron is perfectly satisfactory because it presents a straight, flat surface for the wedge to bear on. This style is what you’ll see on old woodies, but they also used very thick blades, so the thick, single-bend cap-irons don’t cause them to bow when the retaining screw is tightened. For a thin blade, a heavy, single-bend CI can cause a very pronounced bow in the blade when the screw is tightened up which in some cases, may cause you problems getting your blade to bed well: 482140

You can use this style of cap-iron with a lever-cap, but it’s often not ideal because a single-bend cap-iron/blade assembly is like a wedge, so when you tap your blade to increase the cut it loosens. This is less noticeable with wooden wedges, the compressible nature of wood usually maintains pressure to hold thins firmly for the short amount of blade movement, so your blade & cap-iron are unlikely to come shooting out of the mouth. Not so with a metal lever-cap, which is bearing on the blade assembly at just two points which means even a gentle tap often advances the blade far more than you intended. It’s a minor problem and I used single-bend cap irons for a long while, but they can be particularly frustrating when you are trying to set for that perfect 1 thou cut.

Enter the “double bend” cap iron. By bending the end of the cap-iron up and over in an arc, you can have your cake & eat it too. Now, the bulk of the cap-iron lies flat on the blade, (pic 2) and causes no flexing when they are screwed tightly together. The curve in the CI acts as a spring, and if you get the conformation right, the lever-cap compresses the curve just enough that moving the blade back & forth a mm or so doesn’t materially alter the pressure of the cap-iron against the blade (this is one reason why a Bailey type plane is easily adjusted without backing off the lever cap): 482139

OK, but of course it’s harder to make an accurate double bend with primitive gear, & to ensure that the top of the curved section will be precisely under the edge of the lever cap. That’s really only a problem if you are making a new cap-iron for an existing plane; if you are building the plane from scratch you simply fit your lever cap so it bears down in exactly the right place.

It takes a bit of fiddling to set up the blank for each bend, particularly the second one (& moreso for a skewed iron as this one is being prepared for), but with half a roll of duct-tape and a few choice expletives, it hangs together while I get it in the vise for a good squeeze: 482138

I first press a curve at the end, flip it over, and put the second bend in. Watch each bend and squeeze until you think you have the right amount of curve. Release the pressure carefully and watch how much it springs back – if you think it’s not curved enough, just give it a bit more of a squeeze ‘til it’s done to your satisfaction: 482137

With careful setting up, you can get a pretty accurate bend but even a slightly wonky bend can be straightened up with files and sandpaper (use a hard, flat block to back the paper). Refining the mating edge is the most critical part. It needs to be filed down until the cap-iron can be pushed down flat on the blade, applying plenty of pressure along the mating edge, without causing any appreciable flexing of the blade. Trial & error will eventually gey you there, & once you’ve got a nice fit, you can pretty up the rest of it. 482136

I don’t usually drill & tap for the retaining screw until the bending & shaping is finished, so that I can place it accurately at the end of the blade slot & ensure a maximum amount of usable blade. 482135

Bending doesn’t always go exactly to plan, and I may end up needing to chop more off the edge when tidying up the bend than I expect to. Or worse, I’ve had the bend go completely off the rails (like bending the wrong way for a skewed iron!), so I usually don’t cut the blank to length & shape the upper end until the bend has been formed in case I have to start over.

Polish the front of the curve up as clean & smooth as you can get it; this helps even the fluffiest 1 thou shavings shoot up the escapement instead of compacting themselves down in the throat: 482134

It has taken me quite a few years & quite a few planes to figure out some of these finer points of cap-irons, but it’s getting such small details right that turn a good plane into an absolute cracker…

Cheers,

[Cklett]

Ian, I think this thread is a great idea.

And I would like to share a variation to your cap iron bending jig. A while back I got a Stanley #2, but the cap iron wasn't right. I ended up making a new one out of an old #4 cap iron. That involved flattening the #4 iron and cutting to width. After that I had to roll a new bend at a different position.
I remembered Ian's jig but did not have any steel and welding abilities to make one. So I made one of hard wood by simply cutting a wide groove into it. And then using it the same way as Ian with a thick steel rod I had in the vice.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201003/cd785f76f017c88b22038f29ff83580e.jpg

After that I just had to cut it length and fitting to the blade.

Now the plane works a charm.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[IanW]

Excellent, Ck, a good solution! I suppose you could rout a rounded groove in your block with a cove bit to match the required bend. But your simple jig worked, so no need to fix what ain't broke. :)

That is just the sort of thing I had in mind for this thread - how to get something done with what you have to hand...

Cheers,

[Simplicity]

My lever cap design thoughts !

Following on from Ian’s thread on Chip breakers and Lever caps Cap Irons.
My at present idea is what I think is called a hung Cap(I may have just made that up).
What’s everyone opinions on this type of Lever Cap.
Pros and Cons.
I personally like the idea because it removes the fastener(Bolts)from the side of the plane.
Yes there’s more work involved, but it’s a Zen thing.
My plan would be to peen the ends of the cross bar(4 mm diameter),hopefully making them almost invisible!!.
I first saw this idea on the internet and then duly forgot about it.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201003/c1138fa2ef0b7e1a7663a23b94656bab.jpg
Cheers Matt.

[Ironwood]

Well Matt, it’s definitely a case of great minds think alike at work here. This is the same style lever cap I am planning to use, but I was gonna keep it under wraps till the end.
The cats out of the bag now:2tsup: .
I have seen another variation where the slot for the pin is on the top side of the cap, but I like it on the bottom side, like you have depicted in your drawing because it looks like a traditional lever cap from the top.

I also have seen on some of Karl Holtey’s planes where he mills slots into the sides of the lever cap, and has short stubs riveted into the sides of the plane for the lever cap to slide onto. I like this design also, but I don’t have the gear to do it properly, I think a milling machine would be needed.

The only thing I would be concerned with on your design is the thickness of material left after cutting the slot, it might allow your lever cap to flex. I am using 3/4 inch brass plate for mine , so should have enough thickness to retain strength.

[Chief Tiff]

I like it; but with two notes:

Firstly I think you’re putting the pivot too high up; all the lever caps I can think of have the pivot below the half-way mark.

Secondly; you can reduce the amount of filing needed by cutting out the middle section. What I mean is that you only need the “hooks” at the extreme ends of the caps; and probably only about 1/4” of “meat” at that. The bit in the middle can be carved out by whatever means you have available prior to filing the internal shape.

[Simplicity]

Well Matt, it’s definitely a case of great minds think alike at work here. This is the same style lever cap I am planning to use, but I was gonna keep it under wraps till the end.
The cats out of the bag now:2tsup: .
I have seen another variation where the slot for the pin is on the top side of the cap, but I like it on the bottom side, like you have depicted in your drawing because it looks like a traditional lever cap from the top.

I also have seen on some of Karl Holtey’s planes where he mills slots into the sides of the lever cap, and has short stubs riveted into the sides of the plane for the lever cap to slide onto. I like this design also, but I don’t have the gear to do it properly, I think a milling machine would be needed.

The only thing I would be concerned with on your design is the thickness of material left after cutting the slot, it might allow your lever cap to flex. I am using 3/4 inch brass plate for mine , so should have enough thickness to retain strength.



Brad,
This whole thing is about caring and sharing, can you not feel the LOVE.

Great mind think alike , I think I’ve seen the other versions as well,Brad, they look great too.

I also lack a Milling machine, tho it’s high up on the toy list.

My thinking is the cross pin is 4 mm,that leaves 3 mm either side on the Lever Cap.
My blade iron will be 6 mm.
You can only tighten the bolt with finger pressure.
I won’t be using my 1/2 inch breaker bar to tighten it lol.
So “hopefully” that’s enough, but I’m open to being told otherwise.

Cheers Matt.

[Ironwood]

Brad,
This whole thing is about caring and sharing, can you not feel the LOVE.

Great mind think alike , I think I’ve seen the other versions as well,Brad, they look great too.

I also lack a Milling machine, tho it’s high up on the toy list.

My thinking is the cross pin is 4 mm,that leaves 3 mm either side on the Lever Cap.
My blade iron will be 6 mm.
You can only tighten the bolt with finger pressure.
I won’t be using my 1/2 inch breaker bar to tighten it lol.
So “hopefully” that’s enough, but I’m open to being told otherwise.

Cheers Matt.
I am using a 6mm stainless cross pin, probably why I was concerned with the the thickness of your plate, plus I also tend to overengineer everything I make :-.

[Simplicity]

I am using a 6mm stainless cross pin, probably why I was concerned with the the thickness of your plate, plus I also tend to overengineer everything I make :-.

I to am constantly being told I over think over engineer everything, lol.

My cross pin will be Brass, so you may win out on being stiffer there using Stainless Steel.

Cheers Matt.

[Ironwood]

I like it; but with two notes:

Firstly I think you’re putting the pivot too high up; all the lever caps I can think of have the pivot below the half-way mark.

Secondly; you can reduce the amount of filing needed by cutting out the middle section. What I mean is that you only need the “hooks” at the extreme ends of the caps; and probably only about 1/4” of “meat” at that. The bit in the middle can be carved out by whatever means you have available prior to filing the internal shape.
Chief, you are on the money with the position of the pin, the lower it is, the more mechanical advantage you will get when tightening the screw.

I like your idea of just leaving the hooks at the sides, I think I will use that on mine if you don’t mind.

[Simplicity]

I like it; but with two notes:

Firstly I think you’re putting the pivot too high up; all the lever caps I can think of have the pivot below the half-way mark.

Secondly; you can reduce the amount of filing needed by cutting out the middle section. What I mean is that you only need the “hooks” at the extreme ends of the caps; and probably only about 1/4” of “meat” at that. The bit in the middle can be carved out by whatever means you have available prior to filing the internal shape.

Chief,
That was a five second sketch , but I agree I’ve got the pivot point too high.
Also I agree it won’t need much meat to hook on and stay in place.

An also I like your point about hogging out some of the Fat from it.
Just last night I put some stuff together like so(components)
It’s getting heavy already,and that’s not the end of it.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201004/86de2e774f42f4bf88699568ce9775e7.jpg

Cheers Matt.
I think there might be some more fancy filling coming, in the name of weight reduction.

[Cklett]

My lever cap design thoughts !

Following on from Ian’s thread on Chip breakers and Lever caps Cap Irons.
My at present idea is what I think is called a hung Cap(I may have just made that up).
What’s everyone opinions on this type of Lever Cap.
Pros and Cons.
I personally like the idea because it removes the fastener(Bolts)from the side of the plane.
Yes there’s more work involved, but it’s a Zen thing.
My plan would be to peen the ends of the cross bar(4 mm diameter),hopefully making them almost invisible!!.
I first saw this idea on the internet and then duly forgot about it.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201003/c1138fa2ef0b7e1a7663a23b94656bab.jpg
Cheers Matt.I like that design and have seen it before as well. If you have a drill press and can drill through from the side and then use a hack saw to cut to the hole, then the filing can be reduced.

But anyway I have a more general question to lever caps. There seems to be some anxiety around fitting lever caps and I do not understand why. Maybe because I have not done that yet myself. So maybe someone can elaborate a bit more on the pit falls when it comes to lever caps?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Ironwood]

Was just thinking, if you are using thinnish brass plate for your LC, you could probably braze a couple of tabs on the back to cut the hooks into.

[Ironwood]

But anyway I have a more general question to lever caps. There seems to be some anxiety around fitting lever caps and I do not understand why. Maybe because I have not done that yet myself. So maybe someone can elaborate a bit more on the pit falls when it comes to lever caps?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I think where the concern is, if you don’t get pivot holes lined up perfectly parallel with the face of the blade, you will have trouble getting even pressure across the blade applied by the LC .
I am a little concerned with this because I am going to drill my holes in the sides before I bend the sides and pein them to the bottom plate. I will be meticulous with my marking out and cutting, hopefully I can avoid any pitfalls. I will also allow a bit of extra meat on the end of the LC where it will contact the blade, so I can do a bit of fettling once it’s all together.

[Lappa]

Are we looking at the entire flattened section (say 2mm deep?) to sit flush with the blade or just the front edge? I’ve seen both methods talked about.
i see just having the front edge sitting flat on the blade easier to accomplish that the entire surface.

482237

[IanW]

……. There seems to be some anxiety around fitting lever caps and I do not understand why. Maybe because I have not done that yet myself. So maybe someone can elaborate a bit more on the pit falls when it comes to lever caps?....

The problem I have is setting out the holes in the sides for the cross-pin or screws accurately. Some people drill these before attaching the sides, but I find I can never fit each side perfectly. I set them out very carefully, but in the process of cutting & fitting each side, one always ends up a teeny bit off where it should have been, sometimes half a mm in front or behind the other. That would skew the pin if the holes had been pre-drilled, so I prefer to fit it after peening up the sides. Setting out on a square-sided plane is pretty straightforward, but it gets trickier for round-sided planes.

Not sure why you want to fit your lever-caps the way you plan, Matt & Brad, but they're your planes & you should do it the way you want! My thoughts are that the LC needs to fit very accurately. It will be difficult to make a deadly- accurate slot in the LC with hacksaw & files (EDIT: I should've said it would be more difficult for me, compared with setting the LC in a vise on the DP & drilling the pin/screw holes - but not impossible and perhaps even easy for a skilled metalworker), but drilling an accurate cross-pin hole is taxing enough for me!. However, if the slot is a little "off" you should be able to get it to sit straight with a bit of careful filing when you are fettling it all.

I use 'cheesehead' type screws to pivot the LC. Screws with 6.5mm heads & 6mm threads are standing up well in my large panel planes. For the smaller smoothers, I used 5mm screws with either 5.5 or 6mm heads, and even 3mm screws on the little thumb planes.

Spiers & Mathieson & Norris all used cross-pins peened into the sides. I don't know why they chose this method, it's tricky to do & all too easy to end up with the LC too tight after peening the pin. The main reason I prefer screws is because it's easy to remove & replace the LC, something I always end up doing several times in the final fettling, when getting the LC sitting nicely on the blade or cap-iron. Having a 'loose' LC as you propose will make that even easier.

Another reason why I always wait 'til last to fit my LCs is because just about every plane I've made so far was a 'prototype'. Although I always start out with a plan & an accurate scale drawing, I frequently change my mind about what blade or chipbreaker I use, or the stuffing ends up a little off the sweet spot & in tidying it up, the blade angle gets changed a little. All of these can alter the ideal position for the pivot point a bit.

Lastly, imo, where you set the pivot point on the LC isn't super-critical. Lever-cap crews can apply a lot of force, so unless your pivot point is very heavily biased toward the screw side, you can usually apply far more pressure on the business end than it really needs. In fact, we tend to apply more pressure than necessary with screwed lever caps. We generally set our Bailey type LCs to put quite a bit less pressure when clipped down. I do like to keep the LC as thick as possible around the pivot, since it comes under a fair bit of strain.

Cheers,

[IanW]

….i see just having the front edge sitting flat on the blade easier to accomplish that the entire surface.

482237

Lappa, how you've drawn the lower sketch is what I aim for when making a cap-iron or fettling an old one. Under-cutting the leading edge makes it far easier to get a clean, straight edge to mate with the blade. Also, when you tighten the lever-cap down, the cap-iron flattens a little & the leading edge will be pushed forward slightly, but by having it under-cut a little, it remains tight against the blade. (You've drawn it with a very pronounced under-cut for clarity, but bit doesn't need a lot, just enough to ensure the contact is only along the leading edge)..

Cheers,

[Simplicity]

After due consideration meaning, I slept on it.
I shall put forward my thoughts on a Hung lever Cap

The normal method I see is to attach the pivot points on the sides of the plane,
The Lever cap, then only pivot on these two set points,or rotate on its axis.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201006/9fcb824f117cfd89e383bee420170538.jpg
Meaning the contact point on the blade must be in parallel with the pivot point.


If the Lever Cap is made to float on top of the cross bar,It will find its own natural pivot position,
Especially if it is only sitting on to bearing surfaces at the edges of the Lever Cap.
The contact area of the Lever Cap will then not be so controlled by the Cross bar.
And will hopefully be able to fully sit on the blade.
With out being so controlled.

A few machinist Chanel’s I follow on YouTube (not that I’m a machinist by any stretch of the Imagination).
Hammer home if you can’t make something accurate make it adjustable.

My other considerations are , I want the “body” to be clear of fixings.
I think it just makes the plane nicer looking.
Hope that all makes sense.

Cheers Matt.
Ye I know I just have to have a go and see how it turns out,hence my R and D project https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201006/944be4cb8131116db21f861732cc886a.jpg

Cheers Matt,
Ps I could have this all completely wrong.

[IanW]

I can't see any flaws in your reasoning, Matt. :)

Indeed, fixing the LC with a through-pin does mean you have to work with a high degree of accuracy. You need to make sure the pin ends up parallel with the blade, and the hole through the lever cap is parallel with top & bottom surfaces of the LC & at right angles to it's ling axis so it swings in the correct arc and the end remains parrallel to the blade-bed when it's rotated. As long as you get these factors pretty close, it's easy enough to "adjust" the edge of the lever-cap until it bears evenly right across the cap-iron (or blade if you aren't using a cap-iron). That's where you put in a good effort during the fettling process: Fit LC. put in blade or blade/cap-iron assembly, tighten up, & see if you can get the finest blade of a feeler-gauge between the blade & blade-bed, and the LC & cap-iron. If a 1 thou blade won't slip in anywhere along either, you can take a bow & proceed to make some shavings. It sometimes takes me several assembly dis-assembly cycles to get everything seating perfectly, but getting those bits fitting snugly is vital if you want your plane to be a top performer.

Hanging the LC on a fairly loose-fitting hook arrangement will allow a bit more "self-adjustment" and you won't have to be quite so accurate with your setting out & hole-drilling (but you'll still need to be pretty close or make your hook a very loose fit on the cross-pin to allow the LC to twist a bit as it's tightened).

It has just occurred to me as I was typing that you could achieve the same ends with a through-pin - just make the hole in the LC fairly loose. You can still peen the ends of the pin & make it disappear, but a loose hole in the LC will allow a small amount of twist & self-adjustment as it's tightened up..

My method of using a screw either side as pivots is a compromise that I find easier to do. By making the screw-heads a loose (but not sloppy) fit in the sides, there is a bit of room for twisting slightly as the LC seats. Any gap betwixt screw head & side is too small to see.

But you should go with whatever method you feel comfortable with & reasonably confident you can carry off. You propsed system will give you the clean sides you desire, and a clean top face on the LC, like on the old Spiers and Norrises. I've looked hard at my A5 several times, & even with magnification, I cannot see so much as the faintest of lines to indicate where the cross-pin comes through. The chaps wielding the hammers on the Norris assembly-line knew their stuff, that's for sure!
:)
Cheers,

[Simplicity]

I can't see any flaws in your reasoning, Matt. :)

Indeed, fixing the LC with a through-pin does mean you have to work with a high degree of accuracy. You need to make sure the pin ends up parallel with the blade, and the hole through the lever cap is parallel with top & bottom surfaces of the LC & at right angles to it's ling axis so it swings in the correct arc and the end remains parrallel to the blade-bed when it's rotated. As long as you get these factors pretty close, it's easy enough to "adjust" the edge of the lever-cap until it bears evenly right across the cap-iron (or blade if you aren't using a cap-iron). That's where you put in a good effort during the fettling process: Fit LC. put in blade or blade/cap-iron assembly, tighten up, & see if you can get the finest blade of a feeler-gauge between the blade & blade-bed, and the LC & cap-iron. If a 1 thou blade won't slip in anywhere along either, you can take a bow & proceed to make some shavings. It sometimes takes me several assembly dis-assembly cycles to get everything seating perfectly, but getting those bits fitting snugly is vital if you want your plane to be a top performer.

Hanging the LC on a fairly loose-fitting hook arrangement will allow a bit more "self-adjustment" and you won't have to be quite so accurate with your setting out & hole-drilling (but you'll still need to be pretty close or make your hook a very loose fit on the cross-pin to allow the LC to twist a bit as it's tightened).

It has just occurred to me as I was typing that you could achieve the same ends with a through-pin - just make the hole in the LC fairly loose. You can still peen the ends of the pin & make it disappear, but a loose hole in the LC will allow a small amount of twist & self-adjustment as it's tightened up..

My method of using a screw either side as pivots is a compromise that I find easier to do. By making the screw-heads a loose (but not sloppy) fit in the sides, there is a bit of room for twisting slightly as the LC seats. Any gap betwixt screw head & side is too small to see.

But you should go with whatever method you feel comfortable with & reasonably confident you can carry off. You propsed system will give you the clean sides you desire, and a clean top face on the LC, like on the old Spiers and Norrises. I've looked hard at my A5 several times, & even with magnification, I cannot see so much as the faintest of lines to indicate where the cross-pin comes through. The chaps wielding the hammers on the Norris assembly-line knew their stuff, that's for sure!
:)
Cheers,

I take that first line as due consideration to my awesomeness by the judges then.

Cheers Matt.
Just tripping over my ego lol.

[Oldgreybeard]

I am proposing a "square" wooden pin . The wedge will contact the flat / parallel surfaces of both the pin and the blade. My blade is 6mm thick and I and not proposing to use a chip breaker.
My theory is that, so long as the pin holes are located with a fair degree of accuracy, there should only be a need for minimal filing of the flat on the pin to ensure parallelism between the 3 components - blade, wedge and pin. (yes, the pin will have a round tenon on each end where it passes through the cheeks).

I have a bit more CAD work to complete before I can upload a 'final' sketch, Do you have any words of wisdom before my sketch gets to the point where it would be easier to start again than incorporate major changes.

Cheers
Bob

[IanW]

Bob, I take it from the round tenons that your pin will be able to rotate, which is how Krenov used to make his planes. It allows the pin to snug up to the top of the wedge nicely & get a better grip without causing marks on your wedge. The bridges in metal planes that use a wedge are often fitted so they can rotate too, but some aren't. Of course you will be trying hard to keep the bridge parallel with your blade bed, but if you end up with it slightly out of parallel, it's not a major catastrophe, you just shave a bit off one side of your wedge until there is even mating across it. I always start with a wedge a bit over-size to give me room for adjustments should it be necessary.

Another 'trick' with wedges, is to scrape a very shallow concavity on the blade side, under the bridge or pin, to 'spring' it a little. This ensures you get pressure applied at the mouth end, where you need it most. It doesn't need much, just enough that the first 6-9mm of the wedge is making solid contact with the top of the blade.

Cheers,

[Bushmiller]

OGB

I have only just picked up on this thread, but I purchased a wooden plane a while back that had a rotating "thingy" to retain the wedge. The original was made of plastic and an abomination, but the replacement metal part was successful. Some more information here (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/steiner-1859-handplane-229965). It might give those of you following this technique some ideas.

Regards
Paul

[Oldgreybeard]

Thanks for the info Paul. I still like the idea of all wood and may steal the design of your aluminum replacement part. I have some jarrah which should work, I think. If not I'll just have to make another one out of aluminium.

Cheers
Bob

[Simplicity]

I am proposing a "square" wooden pin . The wedge will contact the flat / parallel surfaces of both the pin and the blade. My blade is 6mm thick and I and not proposing to use a chip breaker.
My theory is that, so long as the pin holes are located with a fair degree of accuracy, there should only be a need for minimal filing of the flat on the pin to ensure parallelism between the 3 components - blade, wedge and pin. (yes, the pin will have a round tenon on each end where it passes through the cheeks).

I have a bit more CAD work to complete before I can upload a 'final' sketch, Do you have any words of wisdom before my sketch gets to the point where it would be easier to start again than incorporate major changes.

Cheers
Bob

A square bridge would give you some scope for being a little “creative”Bob
Maybe some scroll work or carving??

Off course in the big scheme of things, I will naturally take all credit we’re due.

Cheers Matt.

[Bushmiller]

Thanks for the info Paul. I still like the idea of all wood and may steal the design of your aluminum replacement part. I have some jarrah which should work, I think. If not I'll just have to make another one out of aluminium.

Cheers
Bob

Bob

I only used aluminium because I had that metal, but no brass which is what I would have preferred. At the time I did not consider timber but that would clearly be another option if you have one of the strong dense hardwoods available.

Regards
Paul

[IanW]

How about a Cupid's bow? 482440

This one has a simple wedge and the bridge swivels on single screws.

When I fit a screw adjuster, this is not very convenient, you need to back off the pressure while you adjust the blade, and that is not so easy with a straight wedge. So I went over to a system with a fixed bridge & a thumbscrew to clamp the wedge, Like Norris used on his chariot & thumb planes with screw adjusters: 482438

The bridge in this case needs to remain fixed in position, which cn be done with a pair of screws on each side: 482441

Or pinned in for the "look mum, no hands" finish: 482442

This all works really well on low-angle, bevel-up jobs, not sure if it could work on a bevel-down standard pitch or higher plane. 482443

Cheers,

[Bushmiller]

Ian

I remember seeing a reference you made to a cupids bow in a thread of mine and it did not men much to me. I had meant to ask , but an indecent period of time elapsed and I left it alone. All is now clear.

Thanks.

Something that has become apparent to me in considering a bevel up plane is that because the angles are so different the same style of lever cap clamping might not be interchangeable. Once the blade is laid down at a low angle it is much more of a test for the clamp to resist the horizontal force of planing compared to, say, a high angle plane at 55°.

Regards
Paul

[Simplicity]

Ian



Thanks.

Something that has become apparent to me in considering a bevel up plane is that because the angles are so different the same style of lever cap clamping might not be interchangeable. Once the blade is laid down at a low angle it is much more of a test for the clamp to resist the horizontal force of planing compared to, say, a high angle plane at 55°.

Regards
Paul


Why,
I understand what your saying Paul,
But I don’t understand why there would be any differences.
If you put a piece of timber in your vice at a angle of 20 degrees or something.
Then started planing it,
Would the Lever Cap know any difference?

Cheers Matt.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[IanW]

..... Something that has become apparent to me in considering a bevel up plane is that because the angles are so different the same style of lever cap clamping might not be interchangeable. Once the blade is laid down at a low angle it is much more of a test for the clamp to resist the horizontal force of planing compared to, say, a high angle plane at 55°......

Paul, indeed, that's what intuition would suggest, but in practice, it doesn't seem to be so cut & dried. I've found that low-angle, bevel-up blades are no more difficult to keep in place than high-angle bevel-down blades. In all cases, you need to pay attention to fit & how the lever cap or wedge bears on the blade. I've had minor issues with blades wanting to retract under heavy going with both types, in all cases due either to poor fit of blade to bed or the LC or wedge not applying pressure in the right places. Those are two aspects to concentrate on getting right in the final fettling of your new plane.

Cheers,

[IanW]

........But I don’t understand why there would be any differences.
If you put a piece of timber in your vice at a angle of 20 degrees or something.
Then started planing it,
Would the Lever Cap know any difference? .......

Matt, I doubt the lever cap knows much about what angle blade it's clamping up, but there IS a difference in how the cutting force is distributed into high & low-angle blades. I made this quick sketch to try & illustrate it: 482447

This shows a high and low angle blade experiencing the same cutting force at their edges (F). Each blade is clamped near the cutting edge by the same clamping force (C)

Without resorting to a vector analysis (which I can't remember how to do!), I think you can see intuitively that the proportion of (F) that is transferred into the direction of the blade bed (f) is greater for the low-angle blade than for the higher angle. Imagine if the blade were lying flat, ALL of the cutting force would be trying to push the blade back. At he opposite extreme, if the blade was vertical, there woud be virtually no force trying to make the blade slide up the bed.

There should be (& undoubtedly is) a greater tendency for the low-angle blade to be pushed backwards under cutting pressure, reducing its set. What I'm saying is that in practice, it doesn't seem to be a major issue, as long as your blade bed is flat, and the clamping pressure from wedge or lever cap is even & adequate. In neither case does it take as much pressure as I used to think when I started out. I always compare with the pressure you would apply with a Bailey type cam-locked LC, it isn't huge, or it would make adjustment difficult.

As I said above, I have had problems with blades not wanting to keep their set. One was my very first infill, which has a bed angle of 55 deg. and one was a low-angle job with a bed at 15 deg. In both cases I traced the problem to an uneven, slightly convex blade bed. B*gg#r of a job fixing an uneven bed once it's pinned in the plane body, let me tell you! Setting in the rear infill is a job I do very carefully after those experiences!
:)
Cheers,

[Simplicity]

Ok that makes sense,

Cheers Matt.

[Aussiephil]

I made this quick sketch to try & illustrate it: 482447

Cheers,

Hi Ian,

The thing that jumped out at me with the sketch is that with the single pin point C you get different rotational forces being applied in the anticlockwise direction by F, the high angle plane should have a higher rotational force that would result in the blade not sitting as tight and potentially more likely to move.

It surprised me researching the Kanna planes just how tight and acurrately adjustable a plane blade could be held in nothing but wood when using a blade only.

Cheers
Phil

[Oldgreybeard]

Hi Ian,

It surprised me researching the Kanna planes just how tight and accurately adjustable a plane blade could be held in nothing but wood when using a blade only.

Cheers
Phil

I hope your research is correct Phil because that is what I am planning on doing - A single plane blade and a wooden wedge.

Cheers
Bob

[Aussiephil]

I hope your research is correct Phil because that is what I am planning on doing - A single plane blade and a wooden wedge.

Cheers
Bob

Well my research was about the Japanese Kanna planes essentially pre ww2 that used a wooden body and a metal blade, no wedge, no chipbreaker just 2 parts. The blade on those however is itself the wedge and is tuned exactly to the body it goes in.

The concepts though are similar to wooden plane using a wedge, accurate fitment is key, the rest should take care of itself .... and who says a plane with only two or three parts will be simple ....:)

EDIT PS: i do wonder if the concave surface on the Kanna Plane blades could offer some inspiration for the tradition wooden plane blade anchoring.

[IanW]

...The thing that jumped out at me with the sketch is that with the single pin point C you get different rotational forces being applied in the anticlockwise direction by F, the high angle plane should have a higher rotational force that would result in the blade not sitting as tight and potentially more likely to move....

Phil, indeed the rotational force on the cutting tip will be greater with the higher angle blade, independent of the blade retention mechanism.

If you are using a lever-cap, which bears on the blade across a single line behind the cutting edge (or should do), and the blade is not well-bedded at the sole end such that there is a slight gap between the back of the blade & bed near its end, the blade could flex slightly under load. That would ease the pressure at the bottom end, but should increase it under the thumbscrew, although that depends on where along its bed the blade is 'pivoting'. I'm pretty sure an un-flat bed was the source of my trouble with #1. I inked the back of the (lapped) bade & rubbed it over the bed, which showed up several dips & highs in both the wood of the infill & the metal part of the bed. After spending a lot of time (very carefully) filing & re-testing, I eventually had full contact of the blade along the lower half of the bed. After that, no more loosening blade & the plane had a much more solid feel.

Bob, there are many millions of planes that have been able to keep their blades in place very firmly with wedges, I'd say at least a couple of orders of magnitude more than the ones wearing lever-caps! So I don't think you need to fear your wedge won't do the job perfectly satisfactorily. If you are using the 'lamination' technique, at least you can cut & refine the blade bed part before assembly. If the bed is perfectly flat, but you get your pin slightly off-parallel with the bed, you should be easily able to pare a little off until there is even pressure from the pin all the way across. If you "spring" the wedge a little, so that it is applying most pressure at either edd whhen tapped home, I don't think you'll ever have problems with the blade coming loose in action....
:U
Cheers,

[Mountain Ash]

Hi Ian. Funny you should be talking about flatness. I spent over an hour this morning trying to remove rocking in my challenge plane. Both the depth adjuster/front of throat and blade/bed connections were assumed to be flat but guess what?....there is flat and there is FLAT! Pivoting of the depthe adjuster is driving me a bit batty but hopefully the re flattened parts will now stop this. It was much improved when I left the workshop this morning anyway.

[IanW]

Yup - believe me, I know the feeling! Nothing I can offer to help, just keep at it, marking the high spots with soot or whatever you are using (chalk for dark woods) & carefully, ever so carefully, refining the fit. It can be a very tedious & exacting task at times, so I tend to work at this sort of thing in short bursts so I can remain patient & not be tempted to rip into it too energetically....
:)
Cheers,

[Mountain Ash]

Can't seem to get away from filing! Because of access, I can't use a plane and instead are using the file teeth on the back of one of my rasps. Even got desperate enough to hunt down my feeler gauge set and after cleaning off some serious gunk, used the 0.015mm one to check. Actually quite helpful to find the lumps, may have to remember this :wink:

[Simplicity]

Can't seem to get away from filing! Because of access, I can't use a plane and instead are using the file teeth on the back of one of my rasps. Even got desperate enough to hunt down my feeler gauge set and after cleaning off some serious gunk, used the 0.015mm one to check. Actually quite helpful to find the lumps, may have to remember this :wink:

Would a metal file, work, especially a fine cut.
I can’t imagine your having to take too much wood off.

Cheers Matt.

[Simplicity]

For those looking for a smaller bottle size of
Layout Fluid.

From Amazon,

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201008/ba820dc8eda9d3b3dadc44d984ed21a4.jpg

Cheers Matt.

[Mountain Ash]

Would a metal file, work, especially a fine cut.
I can’t imagine your having to take too much wood off.

Cheers Matt.

I was thinking along the same lines but the rasp I'm referring to (Bahco "Oberg") seems to be just the right amount of bite. Some of my files just seemed to polish

[Mountain Ash]

Can't seem to get away from filing! Because of access, I can't use a plane and instead are using the file teeth on the back of one of my rasps. Even got desperate enough to hunt down my feeler gauge set and after cleaning off some serious gunk, used the 0.015mm one to check. Actually quite helpful to find the lumps, may have to remember this :wink:

Sorry all. I think my feeler gauge was 0.15mm

[Simplicity]

Sorry all. I think my feeler gauge was 0.15mm

We’re not going to worry about a 0 hear,

Don’t worry about it lol.

Cheers Matt.

[Ironwood]

Does anybody anneal their brass to make it softer for ease of peining?
Because I am using brass of unknown type that was previously a bolt-on lid/cover, I am assuming it will be the harder variety that doesn’t pein easily. Just wondering if I should look at annealing it before I go too much further.

[Simplicity]

Does anybody anneal their brass to make it softer for ease of peining?
Because I am using brass of unknown type that was previously a bolt-on lid/cover, I am assuming it will be the harder variety that doesn’t pein easily. Just wondering if I should look at annealing it before I go too much further.

I haven’t, but my thoughts are if you can it won’t hurt.
A little piece of mind, or if you can do a little test piece first.

Cheers Matt.

[Ironwood]

I haven’t, but my thoughts are if you can it won’t hurt.
A little piece of mind, or if you can do a little test piece first.

Cheers Matt.
I should get time later in the week to test a piece, might be able to do a comparison between a piece as is, and an annealed piece.

[Bushmiller]

Does anybody anneal their brass to make it softer for ease of peining?
Because I am using brass of unknown type that was previously a bolt-on lid/cover, I am assuming it will be the harder variety that doesn’t pein easily. Just wondering if I should look at annealing it before I go too much further.

Brad

Your brass may be one of the harder compositions in the first place and also it work hardens. Most of the information on the web seems to revolve around reloading cartridge shells, but basically heating brass softens it (does not harden the material as with steel) so it may well help you. This is a link, just as an example, but I suggest you look up more information than this:

Understanding Brass Annealing - The Bloke (https://thebloke.co.nz/understanding-brass-annealing/)

I would try a test piece as Matt has suggested. A while back I tried to fold a brass back for a backsaw. It was a disaster as the brass split, but I don't know what the composition was. While a 180 degree fold is more extreme it does identify the potential to fracture rather than move with ductility.

Regards
Paul

[IanW]

Yep, I'd advise testing any unknown brass. Just cut a sliver off a waste area and hammer the end. My rule of thumb is, if you can spread it to twice its width without cracking or flaking, it'll do nicely. (Have a look at post #2 here (https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/panel-plane-twist-1-a-232500), where I've demonstrated some Chinese H62 (soft) vs C3800 (hard) brass.

I have read of people annealing the brass as they went along (Peter McBride for one). If you are happy to do that, it will give you more leeway, but even with the hard machinable brass (C3800) like I've used on most of my planes, you shouldn't need to worry too much unless you are making brass to brass dovetails, in which case you want at least one of the pieces to be fairly malleable. If you are dovetailing brass sides to a steel sole, both mild steel and gauge plate are more malleable than C3800, but you can still use the hard brass if you arrange it so most of the peening is done on the steel.

If you cut the 'tails' on the brass, and 'pins' on the sole piece and get a reasonably good fit, the brass is already locked in the pins in the 'vertical' direction just like wooden d/ts. The 'heavy' peening is done on the projecting steel pins, to fold them over the edges of the tails. After the tails are locked in, you switch to the exposed ends of the tails. These should only need light peening to fill the inside corners and close up any small gaps along the sides.

I've only had the brass chip on me once, & that was because I was trying to fill a very large gap on my first curved-side plane. It was also my first dovetailed plane, so it was pretty stupid of me to try curved sides on my first attempt! By the time I got the sides to fit on the sole, there were a coupe of gaps close to a mm wide. Gaps like that take a LOT of peening to fill! Eventually, I managed to get the steel pins over, but when I turned to the sole side, there were a few scary voids that the brass had to fill. I'm surprised only one corner chipped severely. Fortunately, it wasn't as deep a chip as I first thought, it left only a small depression after after cleanup, & after many years of use there are the usual minor dings & scratches, so my tiny blemish is now lost in the background noise....

I had many "O shirt!" moments on my first plane build, but we got there in the end....
Cheers,

Edit: I meant to say that looking back with a lot more experience under my belt, I'm amazed at how well that first attempt at a dovetailed body turned out. There are a few small gaps here & there, but you don't notice unless you look hard for them. It's well over 10 years old now, has had a fair bit of use & even a short trip to the concrete floor :o on one occasion, but none of the joints has moved ....

[Simplicity]

Basic kit of metal plane tools.

First this is just what I’m using at present due to my circumstances.
And not to be taken as a moan,it is just what it is.
I have more an better tools at home.

So this is what I’ve been using,an to be totally honest it works it gets the job done, of course I get a bit frustrated , when I know I have other gear but Such is life.

So we a 300 mm Bastard file.
300 mm second cut(that really needs a vinegar bath).
Second cut 200 mm triangle Second cut
300 mm Rat tail Bastard cut.
A 200 mm second cut saw file with one face ground smooth.
A 200 mm square file second cut,with one side ground of.(safety edge)
A small square, small cheap micrometer(it sucks) small centre punch, I found a piece of small tool steal and made a chisel from that.
Blue markie pen thingy, blue is better than black to see a scored line in I reckon.
A bit of dowel and double sided tape,that I rap wet and dry paper around.
With wet and dry I use from 60 grit to about 2000 well that will be my plan!!
And either use water or WD40 as a lubricant.
I also had a 300/600 smooth tile as a basic lapping board.


My cordless angle grinder because now I get frustrated walking all the way to the van to grab an extension cord(my first world problem [emoji3064]).
A steel ruler.
A hacksaw with 24/32 TPI blades
My scribe was a piece of round brass I found, I drilled a hole with a 3 mm drill bit, then stuck it in with some liquid nails and ground a point on it.
$3 protractor from Amazon I think.
A hammer and a cheap Ball peen hammer from Super cheap.

A set of drill bits(You don’t need a full set I just have a full set in the work van).
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201012/87d2b430ae480c071ddd58823c54a3e5.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201012/3860968ce6b9c0761b8e766a03f41279.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201012/890e4b79cd7eb6aa986785a147be906f.jpg
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201012/19444d6dc247df33c320eb5cc629ebc8.jpg
Little pair of dividers too.

I like Wiltshire Files that I either Father in law has gifted me(I won’t discuss how he kept them [emoji35] but I am great full)
I have also brought them second hand,


Nicholson Hand Files 4" Half Round Bastard (coarse) 04695 Made in American (USA) | eBay (https://rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com.au%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F192408626052)
No Affiliation

Or there these guys

Jewellers Supplies Tools & Equipment | Australian Jewellers Supplies (https://www.jewellerssupplies.com.au/)

Hope that helps an gets some of you going





[doug3030]

And either use water or WD40 as a lubricant.

Have you ever tried Windex for the lubricant?

I used to use WD40 but when I learned knife-making I was introduced to Windex.

It seems to work faster and easier.

[Simplicity]

Have you ever tried Windex for the lubricant?

I used to use WD40 but when I learned knife-making I was introduced to Windex.

It seems to work faster and easier.

Funny you should mention that Doug,
Just last night I was watching a YouTube clip of a knife maker and he was using Windex, and I made a mental note to dry that.

So I will have to give it a whirl.

Cheers Matt.

[Mountain Ash]

Hi Matt I have some old files I would like to see if I can clean up. Have you used vinegar before? I am a bit of a fan of citric acid but happy to add to my arsenal.

[IanW]

Matt, I edited your post in Brad's thread about files so it brings you to this page rather than page1 of the thread. I didn't think you'd mind my not asking permission, but if you are upset, I beg forgiveness. :;

That is a really good post you've put up, I reckon, because it shows you are getting by with a less than optimum lot under your current restricted circumstances. While I'm sure you would add several more to the arsenal if you were at home, that lot is getting the job done for you. There's usually a file that's perfect for any given job, but lots of other files a little bigger, smaller, finer or coarser than the 'perfect' one can be almost as good. For example, I like using a large chainsaw file rather than a rat-tail, because they are a constant diameter, and I can use it to evenly draw-file the curvy bits. And where you are using a couple of 12 inch (300mm) files, I'd use a 10 inch bastard & second-cut, simply because I find that size suits me better. One size down also has a slightly finer cut, so they are a tiny bit easier to push around (gets to be an important consideration on a long filing job as aged muscles start to fade!). I also like to have a 10 inch smooth "mill" file for final cleaning up after the rough work has been completed with the coarser files. Mill files are cut much finer than "flat" files (stupid naming 'cos they are both flat), but even big places like Blackwoods seem to be carrying fewer sizes in mill files these days & it's getting hard to get the ones I want.

I presume the small flat file is for filing the mouth? Maybe we should have a bit of a chat about that at this juncture:

When you are making the mouth & bed-bevel, you usually begin by cutting a slot across the sole (I'm only talking bevel-down blades atm, BUs are another matter & I'll go there shortly). The width of the 'starter' slot is mostly determined by the blade you intend to use. I start by making the slot as wide as the blade is thick, or just a tad wider. The opening is eventually going to be wider than this because the blade will be coming through at an angle (for example, the mouth needs to be 1.414 x blade thickness on the sole side for a 45 degree blade to just fit through).

When you start filing the bed angle through your mouth slot, you need to begin with a very thin file. I use a 6" bastard cut "warding" file, which is ~2mm thick, about 2/3rds the thickness of a typical 6 inch flat file. This will fit through a 3.2mm blade slot with enough room to spare that it can be tilted down to file the back of the slot. It's almost impossible not to graze the front of the mouth with the file when you begin, & make a bit of a ragged mess of the front of the mouth on the sole side. That's why I like to leave a bit of extra meat there. Once the infiill is in place & I'm setting it up, I straighten & finesse the front of the mouth.

The first couple of blade beds I made I did entirely by filing, which takes slightly less than forever (and is almost enough to make you give up the whole stupid idea on a large plane & just go & buy a Holtey!). So I started cutting out as much waste as I can with a jewellers saw for a small plane, or use the jewellers saw to cut out a chunk so I can get a hacksaw in & finish it with that. It's difficult to keep the bevel cut on track so I stay well clear of the lines, but it still gets 80% or more of the waste out of the way & saves a heap of filing!

The lower the bed angle and the thinner the blade, the more difficult it becomes to file the bed angle without making a mess of the front of the mouth. Spiers & Norris used very thick blades, I'm sure for other reasons as well, but a mouth for a thick blade gives you a lot more room to file comfortably.

If the bed angle gets to less than about 35 degrees, it's not practical to try and cut the mouth in a solid sole with simple hand tools, so for low-angle, BU beds, the sole is generally split at the mouth, the bed formed & the two pieces fitted back together with a vee joint or a tongue & groove joint. I've always used a T&G joint, but lately I've been thinking the Vee joint would be a bit easier to adjust to get the two pieces fitting back exactly co-planar.

So there you go, filing that blade bed is possibly the most difficult part of the build, but if you take your time & use care, you'll get there. It's important to get it as close as you can because the blade bed plays a huge part in how well your creation performs...

Cheers,

[Simplicity]

Hi Matt I have some old files I would like to see if I can clean up. Have you used vinegar before? I am a bit of a fan of citric acid but happy to add to my arsenal.

Hi MA,
Yes I first tried Vinegar from that place we’re Karren didn’t wear a mask, it was a cleaning Vinegar it was useless.
Than Doug 3030 put me on to this
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201012/a061036079c799f30c0645b7673b1c9b.jpg

Highly recommend it,actually I refund you(Only You)
the $3 Australia dollars if your not happy lol.

I soaked some files for about 48 hours, then just put them on some kitchen towel to dry out.
For me it worked really well, they feel sharp,you can feel the teeth grab the skin off your hands.

There not new files and I’m not expecting them to cut like new files but I’m still pretty happy with them.

Cheers Matt.

[IanW]

Hi Matt I have some old files I would like to see if I can clean up. Have you used vinegar before? I am a bit of a fan of citric acid but happy to add to my arsenal.

M.A., I've only tried acid-treating files a couple of times and all it did for me was to make the file worse! A rusted or dull file is a pig of a tool, they clog more & take 10 times longer to do the job, which usually ends up far from satisfactory, so I understand people wanting to "fix" them. I know the internet is full of advice on how to "sharpen" files, but most of the serious metal-worker types say it's a waste of time. You will remove the rust, but the tops of the teeth will be uneven & dulled by acid etching. Better to chuck them in the container for conversion to some other tool down the track and buy a new file, imo.

If you are stuck in lockdown & have no choice, I guess you are keen to try even desperatemeasures, but give them a good clean & try these damaged files before you do anything, so you can compare the results of "sharpening". If you get an improvement, I'll be surprised, but also very happy for you....
:U
Cheers,

Edit: Well, there you go, two bits of conflicting advice, so take your choice. I guess you have little to lose but a bottle of vinegar, & much to gain if it works for you.

And you can always take up pickling to while away the hours if the files don't improve :D

[doug3030]

I might as well put my 2c worth in on the vinegar too.

I have put files in vinegar a few times with mixed results. At best they cut better but they are never the same as brand new - not even close. Other times they don't cut at all after. Might be some difference in the manufacturing. THe ones that yield a bit more life after a vinegar bath tend to be the older ones.

I do find old files useful for recycling into other tools as IanW suggested. To do this they need to be annealed first. To do this I put them in the forge when I am forging or heat treating (an)other blade(s) and just leave them in the forge to cool down when I turn it off. The slow cooling anneals them and they become soft enough to cut/file/mill/drill etc. Then you can heat treat the item you make them into for their second life.

As an aside, I once saw a bloke demonstrating HSS drills at a camping show, by drilling holes into files. This was impressing people and he was selling heaps of them. The only way this could have been happening is if the files were annealed. No, I didn't buy any. :rolleyes:

[Simplicity]

I’m reluctantly asking for opinions, my reason for being reluctant is I’m easily lead, and I’m sure eventually in this challenge the gloves are going to come off, and it will be all for one and one for all.

With many a partner having there ears assaulted lol.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201013/49d69037249afa6933bc4e54b682d628.jpg

Currently my little Cubits bow top edge is square to the face,
I’m inclined to think I should file the top edge to be horizontal with in line of the soul, this will give it a visual look of being thicker than it is.
My dearest and partner in crime thinks not!!!

Second issue how to attach the front piece to the sides,originally I was going to dovetail it to the sides,
once the sides are attached to the sole,
Difficult yes ,but not impossible!
I would cut the dovetails before assembly.
(Ian mention this in my build thread.)


But ,what I’m now thinking is, I will file the sides and the front piece at 45 degrees, making a mitre joint then screw them together using a M2 bolt from either side made in brass, then Peen the head flush.
This way I hope to get a neat looking joint from the top.

Opposite to this look
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201013/8d21f0e194016f05ff1b67e66ae3e3b0.jpg

I’m heading towards the mitre look.!


Cheers Matt.
Sorry forgot to mention Brass is 6 mm think.

[Mountain Ash]

What do some of the "professional" makers do (or have done in past)?

[Mountain Ash]

Hi MA,
Yes I first tried Vinegar from that place we’re Karren didn’t wear a mask, it was a cleaning Vinegar it was useless.
Than Doug 3030 put me on to this
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201012/a061036079c799f30c0645b7673b1c9b.jpg

Highly recommend it,actually I refund you(Only You)
the $3 Australia dollars if your not happy lol.

I soaked some files for about 48 hours, then just put them on some kitchen towel to dry out.
For me it worked really well, they feel sharp,you can feel the teeth grab the skin off your hands.

There not new files and I’m not expecting them to cut like new files but I’m still pretty happy with them.

Cheers Matt.

Closest Coles is outside my 5km radius :(

[IanW]

What do some of the "professional" makers do (or have done in past)?

Well, as I said somewhere else, the front piece is most often encountered in cast bodies. The only place I can think of, off-hand, where the front piece is typically added later, is on a box mitre. In his video series on making one, Bill Carter put the front piece in with dovetails. I think he used two each side, but Matt will be scratching for room on hs plane, so one will have to do. One should be plenty strong enough, there should be no forces trying to pull the sides apart once it's all assembled.

Matt, I reckon the bestest solution is to dovetail the piece in, but make a 45 mitre at the top, like is often done with blind D/Ts on box sides. That way, you can have your cake & eat it too! The layout & execution will be easier here, because you can make a half-lap D/T, which is going to disappear after peening, so the mitre only has to be a few mm deep from the top (which is convenient 'cos you don't have a lot of depth to play with there). You'll have to cudgel the old brain a bit laying it out, but it's not that difficult, & unlike wood, you can close up any small gaps with your trusty hammer (but I'd still do a practice run on some scrap if it were my plane.

A simpler way would be to cut the front piece to a neat butt-joint fit (with or without a mitre on the top 3 or 4 mm) then fit it with a couple of pins either side. You could thread a short piece of brass rod, screw that into the cross piece, then peen it down into a countersink in the sides & again there should be no evidence left.

But you don't need to thread the rod. You can use the 'clockmakers' pin method of tapping in a slightly over-size, gently tapered rod & peen that down. I've used both methods for putting cross-pieces in the back of chariot planes & both work well (I thought I'd done a post on it, but can't find anything, but I'm pretty sure it's covered in the "manual" in the section on the chariot plane). I made a practice joint with the tapered pin method & was amazed at how much force it took to get it apart. For a joint like your cupid-bow piece, with no lateral force to speak of, it would be more than adequate, imo.

Cheers,

[Pagie]

Woolworths have strong 8% vinegar too. I have some large horse shoe files or rasps in vinegar at the moment, been in for two weeks. They are coming up sharp. Some finer files too. The large 3 cornered file that I took out last week was very blunt, now it cuts very well. The car putty file that I put in broke when I went to use it. But it was sharp. It is amazing the amount of brown foam that is coming out of of the pipe I am using to soak the rasps in. I think it is worth trying the vinegar. I couldn't get one of my gidgie planes to cut. I found out the bed was not flat which was why I was looking to sharpen one of the rasps. It works much better now.

[Mountain Ash]

Thanks P. I was at the shops this morning! Should have checked this thread 1st.

[Pagie]

I wonder if you are within 5k?

[BEM]

I've used double vinegar on a few files. I found it worked pretty well.

Lyndon

[Mountain Ash]

I wonder if you are within 5k?

If you're near the southern end of the ridgeline I could be.

[Pagie]

I am near Emerald

[Mountain Ash]

I grew up in Emerald. Beautiful place. I have family still living there. I just checked on Woolworths website. Neither Monbulk or Belgrave stores stock the double strength vinegar.

[Pagie]

We got it a woolies Emerald last week

[Mountain Ash]

I'll keep my eyes open.

[Cklett]

Hi, I have a question regarding coffin shaped infill plane build. Like the one Ironwood is doing. But thought I ask this here.

I understand for such shape you first cut pins into the side profiles. Then bend them and then cut the tails in the sole.

But how do you transfer the pins accurately onto the sole plate?
I googled, but couldn't find good instructions for that step. Can anyone elaborate what best way for doing such body is?

Thanks

CK

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Ironwood]

I haven’t put a real lot of thought into it yet, but I will probably just sit the sides on top of the sole plate and scribe around the pins , I will cut leaving a bit of waste beside the lines, then sneak up on a good fit with the file. Hopefully I will get it right, I want very little gaps so I don’t have to move much metal around with the hammer.
After I get a chance to have a go at it, I will report back.

[IanW]

Different people seem to go about it differently. The way I do it may not be the best way, but it works for me (most of the time! :; )

First, you need to get your sides bent as close as you possibly can to the side curves of your sole. Obviously that is going to make for the most accurate scribing of tails to the sides of the sole. With my very first curved-side plane, I was a bit cavalier and just bent them 'near enough', thinking I would pull them into the sockets with clamps when it came to assembling the body. That meant I had to roll the sides around the sole as I scribed them, with the result that the transfer wasn't very precise, and I ended up filing a few sockets way too wide. Fortunately, I'd allowed plenty of steel protruding, so I was able to beat the metal over enough to fill the gaps, but it was nip & tuck on a couple.

Sooo, lesson taken to heart. I now make sure to get the sides bent as close as I can get them. It's a bit of a fiddle, because the amount of springback is really variable, it depends on how thick your sides are, and what alloy you're using -the softer alloys like 260 or the H62 I've used don't spring back as much. So you just have to make some guesses when you make your bending form -I've made a few suggestions in 'the manual' on guestimating how much 'extra bend' to put on your form. The good news is you can have several goes at it, the brass will tolerate the amount of bending involved very comfortably, so you can add a bit more or take a bit off several times without danger of cracking the brass.

Once I have a close fit (I aim for no more than a mm out at either end), I clamp the sole to a board which is roughly shaped to match the sole sides (I usually modify the convex bit of the bending form for this job), sit the side neatly on the sole & hold it there with one hand while I scribe the tails. This is where it pays to have decent layout dye, because all it takes is a light scratch against each tail to leave a clear mark.

Now you have to extend the side lines you've just made to the inner lines on the sole. If the sides are straight, you can use a small trysquare, but on curved sides, I just estimate a line perpendicular to the tangent of the curve at each point. Don't sweat it too much, small errors are easily filled by peening. I do try to fit the tails in their sockets as neatly as I can because the neater the fit, the easier the peening and the less extra metal you need to allow for it. I can get away with 1.5mm of pin protruding, but on your first plane, maybe allow 2mm. Every half mm means a lot more filing at cleanup time, but it's far better to have too much than skimp & not be able to pen your pins over properly - there ain't no 'fix' for that short of an arc welder!

One last thing while we're talking curved sides. Bill Carter says to bend the sides before you cut the profile. His reason is that the shallow parts of the sides tend to kink in the form rather than take a smooth bend. I saw this tip after I'd bent the sides on this one: 482985

You can see the sharp bend indicated by the arrows. It's actually not as bad as it looks, the lighting is making it more obvious, but it illustrates his point. Most of the problem was because I didn't fair the curve very carefully on the bending form. Since that one, I've been much more careful with my bending forms & haven't had that trouble since. The sides for this one were cut out before bending, but took a nice curve: 482986

But I thought I should bring it to your attention. It's a lot more hassle cutting out the profile if you bend the sides first; it's do-able, but I think I'll stick with cutting the profile and tails before bending. I would find it pretty difficult the get the bottoms of the tail cutouts perfectly level on a pre-bent side!

Cheers,

[Mountain Ash]

Hi Ian. What timber have you stuffed the planes with? And a little unrelated but I think I saw photos of saws you had handled with Silky Oak. Do you think this species would work as replacement totes and knobs for cast iron planes?

[IanW]

Hi Ian. What timber have you stuffed the planes with?...

The top one is Black Wattle, MA, not sure exactly which species, but it's a bit denser & harder than Blackwood.

The bottom one is "Solomon Island Ebony" (Xanthostemon melanoxylon). Really dense, really hard, but finishes to a beautiful tactile surface. You've got to be a masochist to overstuff a curved body with this stuff, but it's definitely worth it when you get there...


.... I think I saw photos of saws you had handled with Silky Oak. Do you think this species would work as replacement totes and knobs for cast iron planes?

I've only ever handled one saw with S.O., and that was by request. It's not my first choice for handle woods by a long shot, I find it too coarse and a bit too soft for handles, and it doesn't finish nicely. But I have used lots of She-oak for saw handles, and plane totes & knobs. The she-oaks are much harder & tougher and take a much nicer finish - they feel more like the Rosewood that was used on Stanleys & Records before WW2.

Here's a plane stuffed with She-oak: 483028

Cheers,

[Aussiephil]

Question that sort of fit's into the theory section.

One of the things I will be doing is making the blade from scratch and with the cost of O1 tool steel being what it is I've had my son dig through his scrap metal and find some leaf spring sections that he was dropping off on Saturday but forgot to throw in the car :) so i'm still waiting

When talking through what i was using them for he said he had some industrial sized paper guillotine blades but neither of us know what they are made of and some quick google searches didn't throw much up.

So question, does anyone know what sort of steel may have been/is used for them? and would they be of use?
Should i get him to drop at least one off?

Over to the brains trust

Thanks
Phil

[BobL]

Question that sort of fit's into the theory section.

One of the things I will be doing is making the blade from scratch and with the cost of O1 tool steel being what it is I've had my son dig through his scrap metal and find some leaf spring sections that he was dropping off on Saturday but forgot to throw in the car :) so i'm still waiting

When talking through what i was using them for he said he had some industrial sized paper guillotine blades but neither of us know what they are made of and some quick google searches didn't throw much up.

It depends on the guillotine. Paper is surprising abrasive so if its a high turnover guillotine it would not surprise me if int was made of an A (A2) type tool Steel. These steels are tough and can form a sharp edge. Heat treatment is problematic for a DIY but if all your have to do is cut it and grind then this should be.

Some guillotines claim to use "soligeng steel " which simply means any steel made in the German town of Solingeng. The soligeng steels used in guillotines include a special hard stainless through to something approaching 1095 (O1) steels.

[Aussiephil]

It depends on the guillotine. Paper is surprising abrasive so if its a high turnover guillotine it would not surprise me if int was made of an A (A2) type tool Steel. These steels are tough and can form a sharp edge. Heat treatment is problematic for a DIY but if all your have to do is cut it and grind then this should be.

Some guillotines claim to use "soligeng steel " which simply means any steel made in the German town of Solingeng. The soligeng steels used in guillotines include a special hard stainless through to something approaching 1095 (O1) steels.

Thanks Bob,

That is more than enough to get him to drop one of the blades off.

Yeah paper is some of the quickest ways I know to blunt a sharp knife so i was more concerned that the guillotine blades may be to hard to actually work with in the first place.

Reminded me of a story from a next door neighbor many years ago that when he was younger he was with a firm that made cutting knifes for slicing toilet rolls and the frequency of sharpening/replacement was high.

[Bushmiller]

Phil

How wide is the blade (front to back)? It will be OK if it is 100mm or larger. Also check to see if the cutting edge has an insert of different steel. Should be visible from an edge on viewpoint.

Regards
Paul

[Aussiephil]

Phil

How wide is the blade (front to back)? It will be OK if it is 100mm or larger. Also check to see if the cutting edge has an insert of different steel. Should be visible from an edge on viewpoint.

Regards
Paul

Paul,
Good questions and i don't have an answer but even if I don't use it for a blade may well find another use .... For my Kanna plane 90mm would be fine and i could get away with maybe 80 even based on the design and printed model.

I'm constantly amazed at what that boy ends up with in the scrap metal bins

[Bushmiller]

Phil

I have bought some moulding knives and planer blades for a similar purpose. I was anticipating having to weld an "extension" piece to the top part of the blade for some applications. depending on the steel, which itself may be an unknown quantity, it may or may not be feasible. I have not yet taken possession of these items so I can't offer further experience at this stage.

483061483062

Regards
Paul

[Mountain Ash]

The top one is Black Wattle, MA, not sure exactly which species, but it's a bit denser & harder than Blackwood.

The bottom one is "Solomon Island Ebony" (Xanthostemon melanoxylon). Really dense, really hard, but finishes to a beautiful tactile surface. You've got to be a masochist to overstuff a curved body with this stuff, but it's definitely worth it when you get there...



I've only ever handled one saw with S.O., and that was by request. It's not my first choice for handle woods by a long shot, I find it too coarse and a bit too soft for handles, and it doesn't finish nicely. But I have used lots of She-oak for saw handles, and plane totes & knobs. The she-oaks are much harder & tougher and take a much nicer finish - they feel more like the Rosewood that was used on Stanleys & Records before WW2.

Here's a plane stuffed with She-oak: 483028

Cheers,

That She Oak looks gorgeous and reminds me of Paul and Doug's Bull Oak. I have some Silky Oak pinched from the firewood pile and have turned some previously. It sort of feels spongy but looks lovely. I would imagine that making infill planes is partly an exercise in masochism anyway :D.

[IanW]

That She Oak looks gorgeous and reminds me of Paul and Doug's Bull Oak....

MA, Bull oak (Allocasuarina leuhmannii), Hairy oak (A. inophloia) and She-oak (A. torulosa), are similar in that they all have very large rays. Bull oak typically has the largest, followed by Hairy oak, then She-oak, but there is much variation between individual trees, and much overlap. Colour is a pretty good guide, Bull oak is a dark 'mink' brown, Hairy oak is more flesh-coloured and She-oak a much paler reddish brown, but all go quite dark after a while & it can be hard to distinguish them at times. I sometimes scratch my head over pieces that I dig out of my "useful scraps" bin trying to decide which is which. The acid test is to plane it: Bull oak is as hard as cast iron (well maybe a bit softer :) ), She oak is a bit easier, though still tough, while Hairy oak is fairly easy to plane.


...... I would imagine that making infill planes is partly an exercise in masochism anyway :D.....

No, mostly an exercise in masochism is probably more accurate...
:D
Cheers,

[Simplicity]

This was sent to me by a friend.
Watch till the about the end.


I thought you may be interested in this. Modern Edge Tools (https://toolsforworkingwood.com/store/more/met2012.html?v=v)


Cheers Matt.

[Bushmiller]

Thanks Matt

Most interesting and not quite as mechanised as I would have expected. I thought for a moment at the 2m 54sec mark we had a glimpse of the cleaning lady, but I was wrong. My destiny I suppose.

Regards
Paul

[Cklett]

Ok, here is a different request for tips and hint.

What is the best method of securing plane parts for a dovetailed infill plane on a temporary stuffing for peening? How do you make sure it does not move? What are you looking for and checking for during the process of peening that everything stays where it should be?

I am asking because my practise scrub plane build is not going the way I think it should.

https://www.woodworkforums.com/f44/infill-scrub-plane-237726


Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Chief Tiff]

I thought for a moment at the 2m 54sec mark we had a glimpse of the cleaning lady, but I was wrong. My destiny I suppose.

:rofl:

[IanW]

Ck, I don't know any 'best' way. I've peened a lot of planes by amateur standards, perhaps, but I'm certainly no expert, so all I can do is describe what has worked for me.

I've tried a few different ways to make the peening block. Originally, I followed the instructions I read in a magazine or book decades ago, & cut out the sides of the block to match the sides of the plane (i.e. a mirror image of he tops of the sides). The idea is to support the sides when you peen the dovetails from the sole side. This works pretty well if the block is made very carefully so you get good contact all along the tops of the sides. However, it's a lot of effort to go to for a "one-off". Being frugal, I try to find some scrap of hardwood that is about the right size, and more than once I've used some horrible stuff that's hard & splitty which makes it really difficult to make the cut-out for the sides with the required accuracy. This results in the sides not being supported as as well as they should be, and when I peen the bottoms of the tails, some are a bit "bouncy" because it's not being supported directly underneath where the hammer is striking.

So I followed another suggestion & switched to using bolts to support the sides & clamp them to the block. The more bolts you can use, the better, but you still end up with unsupported bits in between, and so I find myself holding the work on the edge of my anvil block to support the any bouncy sections, which is often very awkward with the bolts gettin in the way, & only a thin edge to rest on the anvil. That will cause bruising of the brass, especially when the narrow side slips off the edge of the anvil block, but the bolts can cause bruises too. Neither is a big issue as long as you don't make a total mess, it's usually quite easy to clean up the bruising on the tops afterwards.

A tip I got from watching/reading Bill Carter is to make sure there is clearance between the sole & the peening block so the sole can be pulled down hard into the side sockets. I put a cardboard shim between the sole & block when setting up, & remove it before I start hammering. I always start peening with the pins on the side, working from the outer edge towards the bottom of the socket to force the sole down firmly in the sockets. Once the pins have locked securely, I switch to the bottoms of the tails & snug them up a bit, which should also tighten the sole against the bottoms of the sockets in the sides.

Likewise, make sure the width of the peening block is exact. Quoting B.C. again, it should be exact, or ever so slightly under sized. The idea is that it won't stop the sides from closing up to the sole sockets completely.

Once he tails look like they are filling properly, I go back & finish peening he pins, then go over the tails again. One place I still get an occasional pin-hole is at the inner corners of those darned tails.

When you have closed the pins & tails completely, the bottoms of the sockets should be pretty tight, but there are always a few visible lines, due to tiny filing errors or the metal flexing away a bit (the teeniest gap shows up so much more on a metal joint than it does with wood!). These should be easy to close by peening along the edges.

Remember, having the work well-supported & using lots & lots of small blows are the go. Watch how the metal is moving & coax it where you want it to go. It takes a while to get the hang of it, but when you do, it is very satisfying to see that metal go where you want it to......

Cheers,

[Ironwood]

I am about to start cutting the mouth in my sole. I have worked out the geometry for marking the rear blade bed angle, but have stalled on marking out the front. I seem to remember reading somewhere that around 50 degrees was a good angle to allow the shavings to exit easily, but I am not sure. I just had a quick browse through Ian’s good book on planemaking, but I can’t find any mention in there.
Because I want to get started, I think I will cut in at 60 on both front and back, but on the front I won’t file the 60 angle all the way to the bottom, I will leave about 2mm at 90 degrees at the bottom with enough metal left to adjust for a tight mouth. Then at the end I can adjust the bevel to whatever angle is best.
Does anyone know what is considered the optimum angle for the front of the mouth ?

[IanW]

Brad, the optimum angle is the one that allows the shavings through. :) I doubt you will need even 50 dgrees, it doesn't need much more than75-80" of slope, in most cases.

The reason I don't give a set figure in the 'manual' is because it is a variable thing. Obviously, the higher the blade angle, the more forward slope you need to maintain a reasonable angle. For a single-iron blade, it doesn't need a very big angle because the cap-iron isn't blocking the throat & pushing the shaving forward where it might start to jam. If you are using a cap-iron, then you need to make sure there is enough clearance to get the blade & cap-iron down far enough to cut without blocking the mouth opening. And again, you can't give an exact figure, because cap-irons vary so much at that end.

So just estimate what you think and start with that, it's not that hard to file the front of the mouth when the plane is assembled, you can get at it reasonably easily, unlike the blade bed, having to adjust those after assembly is a right pita! I always leave a bit of extra metal at the front when I cut in the mouth, because it allows me to finesse the mouth opening when fettling, but I try to keep the extra metal to a minimum, 'cos I'm not that fond of filing.

Cheers,

[Ironwood]

Brad, the optimum angle is the one that allows the shavings through. :) I doubt you will need even 50 dgrees, it doesn't need much more than75-80" of slope, in most cases.

The reason I don't give a set figure in the 'manual' is because it is a variable thing. Obviously, the higher the blade angle, the more forward slope you need to maintain a reasonable angle. For a single-iron blade, it doesn't need a very big angle because the cap-iron isn't blocking the throat & pushing the shaving forward where it might start to jam. If you are using a cap-iron, then you need to make sure there is enough clearance to get the blade & cap-iron down far enough to cut without blocking the mouth opening. And again, you can't give an exact figure, because cap-irons vary so much at that end.

So just estimate what you think and start with that, it's not that hard to file the front of the mouth when the plane is assembled, you can get at it reasonably easily, unlike the blade bed, having to adjust those after assembly is a right pita! I always leave a bit of extra metal at the front when I cut in the mouth, because it allows me to finesse the mouth opening when fettling, but I try to keep the extra metal to a minimum, 'cos I'm not that fond of filing.

Cheers,
Thanks for the reply Ian. I got a fair bit done this morning till I had to stop to go into town to do the voting thing, and get some supplies while there.
I have left the front at 90 degrees so far, and a bit over a mm short of where it will have to be ( just in case :- ). I will leave it till the end before taking any more off, or at least until I get the chatter block in place, and I can get a better feel for how far forward the blade will sit. Will update my thread later with photos.

[Pagie]

Why are you all dovetailing your planes? Would not a piece of chanel, say 55mm square do as well?

[Simplicity]

Why are you all dovetailing your planes? Would not a piece of chanel, say 55mm square do as well?

Mr Bushmiller
Is actually using a piece of Chanel.

But it is not without its own issues,such as the radius fillet on the inside.
But some of us just enjoy the challenge(Pain at times)
Plus the appearance of course.

Cheers Matt.

[Cklett]

Mr Bushmiller
Is actually using a piece of Chanel.

But it is not without its own issues,such as the radius fillet on the inside.
But some of us just enjoy the challenge(Pain at times)
Plus the appearance of course.

Cheers Matt.I am with Matt. Yes you cannuse channel. There are many examples too.

But I do like the look of the steel and brass dovetails. Plus if you want to have the nice curved sides then a channel will not do.

And then if you need an ultra fine mouth with a low angle bed like a mitre plane. Then being able to do the sole in two pieces is helpful.

That's where I am working my way up to.

All that is just a matter of taste.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[Cklett]

Ck, I don't know any 'best' way. I've peened a lot of planes by amateur standards, perhaps, but I'm certainly no expert, so all I can do is describe what has worked for me.

I've tried a few different ways to make the peening block. Originally, I followed the instructions I read in a magazine or book decades ago, & cut out the sides of the block to match the sides of the plane (i.e. a mirror image of he tops of the sides). The idea is to support the sides when you peen the dovetails from the sole side. This works pretty well if the block is made very carefully so you get good contact all along the tops of the sides. However, it's a lot of effort to go to for a "one-off". Being frugal, I try to find some scrap of hardwood that is about the right size, and more than once I've used some horrible stuff that's hard & splitty which makes it really difficult to make the cut-out for the sides with the required accuracy. This results in the sides not being supported as as well as they should be, and when I peen the bottoms of the tails, some are a bit "bouncy" because it's not being supported directly underneath where the hammer is striking.

So I followed another suggestion & switched to using bolts to support the sides & clamp them to the block. The more bolts you can use, the better, but you still end up with unsupported bits in between, and so I find myself holding the work on the edge of my anvil block to support the any bouncy sections, which is often very awkward with the bolts gettin in the way, & only a thin edge to rest on the anvil. That will cause bruising of the brass, especially when the narrow side slips off the edge of the anvil block, but the bolts can cause bruises too. Neither is a big issue as long as you don't make a total mess, it's usually quite easy to clean up the bruising on the tops afterwards.

A tip I got from watching/reading Bill Carter is to make sure there is clearance between the sole & the peening block so the sole can be pulled down hard into the side sockets. I put a cardboard shim between the sole & block when setting up, & remove it before I start hammering. I always start peening with the pins on the side, working from the outer edge towards the bottom of the socket to force the sole down firmly in the sockets. Once the pins have locked securely, I switch to the bottoms of the tails & snug them up a bit, which should also tighten the sole against the bottoms of the sockets in the sides.

Likewise, make sure the width of the peening block is exact. Quoting B.C. again, it should be exact, or ever so slightly under sized. The idea is that it won't stop the sides from closing up to the sole sockets completely.

Once he tails look like they are filling properly, I go back & finish peening he pins, then go over the tails again. One place I still get an occasional pin-hole is at the inner corners of those darned tails.

When you have closed the pins & tails completely, the bottoms of the sockets should be pretty tight, but there are always a few visible lines, due to tiny filing errors or the metal flexing away a bit (the teeniest gap shows up so much more on a metal joint than it does with wood!). These should be easy to close by peening along the edges.

Remember, having the work well-supported & using lots & lots of small blows are the go. Watch how the metal is moving & coax it where you want it to go. It takes a while to get the hang of it, but when you do, it is very satisfying to see that metal go where you want it to......

Cheers,Thanks Ian. Turns out my scrub plane body still came out quite ok. But now I know where to improve for my challenge plane.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[IanW]

In his thread Ironwood has just riveted his "chatter block" or "blade block" on his sole, and it raised a coupe of issues I thought worth commenting on.

The first issue is that whatever metal you use for your sole, you should try to use exactly the same stuff for the rivets and chatter block. This isn't solely for disguising the joins & rivet heads, it's good insurance against galvanic activity occurring if moisture wicks into an area that isn't quite 'water-tight'. You will get some activity between any two dissimilar metals. Even when they are supposedly the same alloy, there can be enough difference in the mix to cause problems - back when I learnt surgery, it was always stressed that SS screws & plates always had to be from the same batch for that reason - sitting in a nice, warm bath of physiological salts can result in one part or the other being chewed away.

Fortunately, your plane is not sitting in nice warm saline solutions, so not such a big issue, but worth a passing thoughy. Of course we often want to join dissimilar metals in this business, like brass to steel, so we have to live with the risk, but we can minimise it by using the same material for the rivet as the 'outside' metal (& not leaving your plane out in the rain!). So if you are dithering about using steel rivets to hold the stuffing in a brass-sided plane or going for the contrast of steel rivets (or vice versa), using contrast is more decorative, but using the same material is the safer course. I see a lot of 'contrasting' rivets on 'modern' infills but I can't recall ever seeing them on the old planes - will time be less kind to them??

Ok, that's the theory, it's unlikely to be a big problem in our lifetime, but perhaps worth thinking about if you expect your hard work to be around in a few generations' time. A 'precaution' I observe with my planes is to bed the woodwork in with epoxy. This is to fill any small gaps and keep moisture out (& there have always been small gaps on the inside of every body I've peened up). I've seen a coupe of old infills gutted to replace woodwork, and one of them was a real mess of corrosion. It may have been left out in the weather, or something equally unpleasant, but it was enough to make me very cautious, especially as I have a penchant for using woods that are rich in tannins or other corrosive chemicals!

Finally, don't blame yourself if your rivets don't completely disappear when you clean them up after peening. I take care to select matching metals, I have even gone so far as to turn up rivets from scraps of the same piece the sides or whatever were cut from, and after cleaning up what I'm sure is very well-peened job, the rivet head is clearly visible as neat circle! I had a moan about this a while ago, & speculated that perhaps the peening causes a physical change in the metal that makes it reflect light a bit differently. Being colour-blind, I'm hopeless with colour, but acutely aware of shade & texture, so what is obvious to me isn't always so to others, I've learnt. I always check with my other half if I'm not sure if I'm seeing something real or not - she can usually see it too, so I'm satisfied I'm not making it up.

Anyway, two things seem to happen, either the metals tarnish over a few weeks and blend so the rivets heads do become invisible, or they become even more prominent as the metals tarnish to slightly different colours - it seems entirely unpredictable! This is why I said to Brad that I think it's more art than science. And perhaps it's why many makers opt for 'contrasting' rivets - if the darn things are going to show anyway, you may as well make a feature of them....
:)
Cheers,

[Ironwood]

Thanks for your thoughts on the matter Ian.
On my plane build, I went with the 304 rod for rivets because it was the easy option, and I have about 5 metres of it in the shed, I never really put much thought into the different stainless alloys being a different colour. But on reading up a bit, it seems that 304 might have a higher chromium content, so might appear lighter and shinier. Which seems to be the case.

[Cklett]

In regards to riveting I have another question. I understand traditionally the makers of infill planes have run cross pins through the stuffing and peened them in.
But hen I also saw people now going a maybe simpler way by using slotted cointersink screws and filing them off instead. Or some, e.g. Young Je, often doing nothing of that and just glue the infill with epoxy into the metal body without anything else.

What are the thoughts on that? Can it be that with the modern epoxy the cross pins might not be as critical?

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[IanW]

Ck, myself, I don't trust epoxy on a wood/metal bond, I've had too many failures, for reasons I've never been able to figure out. It certainly will stick sometimes, I had to remove the stuffing from one plane after glueing it in & it had stuck very solidly, I had to chisel out the wood & scrape & scratch the glue off the metal, & every darned bit hung on to the last. When it sticks, epoxy on its own certainly gives a strong bond.

I use epoxy for several reasons: to bed the woodwork in nicely; put a waterproof (or water-resistant, more accurately) barrier between wood & steel; & hold the stuffing in place while I drill & set the rivets.

Putting a few cross-pins in is really no big hassle (unless the drill bit wanders and comes out in the wrong place like it did on my panel plane :doh: ). I am a bit slack in that I don't bush my pins. The old makers usually set the stuffing in, drilled the holes for the pins, then pulled it out & reamed the holes to take steel bushes so that peening down the rivets pulled the sides firmly against the bushes. I assume the idea was that if the wood shrank, the rivets would remain nice & tight. I decided not to do that with any planes I've made so far, mostly because I have no way of making the accurate concentric holes for he bushes - I reckon if they are not put in snug in the wood, they are not much use. If the wood shrinks, you are going to have an unsightly gap anyway, whether you use bushes or not, and the wood is far less likely to expand and push the sides away from the rivets, so I decided they had little to offer. Laziness helps me convince myself of my own logic..... :roll:

So far, I've gotten away without problems on all but two planes. In both cases, I got a bit of shrinkage with the front buns - it was my own fault, I knew the wood I was using was probably not quite ready to use, but I took the risk (& lost). At least pulling out & replacing a front bun is much less of a job than replacing the rear stuffing, but it's still a pita, so I think I've learnt my lesson there.

That's my take on it....
Cheers