Thread: Taming tear out?

Originally Posted by Tools4Me

I was wondering - would a scraping plane work as effectively at taming tear out as a smoothing plane with a finely set chip breaker? Seems to me that a lot of effort has gone into getting a plane tuned to handle tear out when a cabinet scraper, or a scraping plane, could do it more easily. Or am I missing something?

What timber and plane?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

What timber and plane?

Not sure that's relevant to my question about whether a conventional plane is better than a scraping plane for the purpose. However, I notice it most in Tas. oak since that's what I use most.

Originally Posted by Tools4Me

I was wondering - would a scraping plane work as effectively at taming tear out as a smoothing plane with a finely set chip breaker? Seems to me that a lot of effort has gone into getting a plane tuned to handle tear out when a cabinet scraper, or a scraping plane, could do it more easily. Or am I missing something?

for starters

some woods have such interlocking grain that tear out from a poorly set-up plane is unavoidable -- a real problem with table legs

a well tuned plane will reduce the instance of tearout to a small area that is easily handled by a card scraper, or elliminate it entirely

a well tuned plane will essentially elliminate the need to sand

scraper planes are good for where a well tuned plane leave off

too many people don't know how to set up a plane properly for furniture work -- leading to the belief that it's a very hard thing to do.

planes produced by the major US manufacturer were, since about 1950, made and marketed to "handymen" not "craftsmen" leading to the expectation that a plane needs a lot of effort to get it to work.

Originally Posted by Tools4Me

Not sure that's relevant to my question about whether a conventional plane is better than a scraping plane for the purpose. However, I notice it most in Tas. oak since that's what I use most.

That depends upon what you mean by a conventional plane I suppose. Where I was heading was the effective blade angle. AFAIAC an HNT is a conventional plane with a high angle, which may well eliminate the tear-out problem without having to go to the slowness of scraper plane, the more frequent need for sharpening, and the heat generated (particularly if the temptation is to speed up to compensate for that slowness).

Is the Tas Oak figured or straight usually?

Hi Brett

Tas Oak is almost always supplied quater sawn and that is likely to be the issue re tearout. When cut on the quarter, the grain can appear to dive up and down giving you grief if the plane blade is a little blunt or the chip breaker is set too far back from the cutting edge -- the chip breaker setting (just back from the cutting edge) is probably more important than the width of the mouth

Cheers Ian. I was kinda heading towards an HNT (with its high angle and tiny mouth) being a solution, without a slow scraper plane (perhaps an HNT may have been regarded as a unconventional plane by the OP).

Originally Posted by ian

for starters

scraper planes are good for where a well tuned plane leave off

Why is that? Surely a finely set smoothing plane is working in the territory of a scraping plane for shaving thickness? Is there a difference in surface finish? Effort? What am I missing?

Don't people realise that they could be owning extra tools?

I've got well tuned Stanley smoothers an HNT Smoother/Scraper and a well set up NX60 all will some tear out at some stage.

Where as a card scraper with a good hook is great for localised areas, because, IMO, you can see where it's going not just where it's been and adjust the bend, angle of approach and pressure instantly.

Where some of this advantage is lost it you have to wait for the body of the plane to give you a clear view.

Cheers

Steve

Originally Posted by Tools4Me

Why is that? Surely a finely set smoothing plane is working in the territory of a scraping plane for shaving thickness? Is there a difference in surface finish? Effort? What am I missing?

Don't people realise that they could be owning extra tools?

If you have access to a copy of Leonard Lee's The complete Guide to Sharpening, there's a whole appendix devoted to how a plane blade works including experimental results showing the difference between a Type 1 chip (plane shaving) and a Type 2 chip (shaving from a scraper) -- I may have the order reversed as I'm working from memory.
Then last year a Japanese study from some time ago was discovered by the forums. This experimental study demonstrated the critical importance of the chip breaker in reducing tear out.

Taken together, a well set-up plane can go a long way before tear-out rears its head.
My "disadvantage" (good fortune?) is that I've hardly ever used a poorly set-up plane so I have little if any experience of planes which some would describe as a "worker" or "needs to be properly tuned"

I don't think it's quite as straightforward for the average would-be-woodie as Ian seems to suggest. Certainly, if you have been shown the 'right way' to set up a plane from day one, and practised good technique for years, you are probably going to handle most situations remarkably well, but for someone teaching themselves, it does take a while to learn how to get the best out of planes (DAMHIK!). Razor sharp blades, with close-set cap irons, nicely bedded in firm frogs & taking fine shavings, can handle most recalcitrant woods, but there are some that will defy the best planes in the world. If I had any of the Dead Finish that I recently worked left, I'd be prepared to bet London to a brick no-one could plane that stuff to a finishable surface! In such situations, I don't feel like my manhood has been compromised if I switch to a scraping plane (or a card scraper if the area is small) to get it where I want it.

It seems to me that a culture has developed that you aren't a woodworker until you can hand plane any wood in the world to a polishable surface. As far as I'm concerned, it's the end result that matters, and getting there by the most efficient manner you are capable of is ok. For instance, I loathe sandpaper, & try to minimise its use, but there are times when it is the most effective way for me to achieve a finished surface. There, I've probably lost any credibility I ever had, with that admission......

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

I don't think it's quite as straightforward for the average would-be-woodie as Ian seems to suggest. Certainly, if you have been shown the 'right way' to set up a plane from day one, and practised good technique for years, you are probably going to handle most situations remarkably well, but for someone teaching themselves, it does take a while to learn how to get the best out of planes (DAMHIK!). Razor sharp blades, with close-set cap irons, nicely bedded in firm frogs & taking fine shavings, can handle most recalcitrant woods, but there are some that will defy the best planes in the world. If I had any of the Dead Finish that I recently worked left, I'd be prepared to bet London to a brick no-one could plane that stuff to a finishable surface! In such situations, I don't feel like my manhood has been compromised if I switch to a scraping plane (or a card scraper if the area is small) to get it where I want it.

It seems to me that a culture has developed that you aren't a woodworker until you can hand plane any wood in the world to a polishable surface. As far as I'm concerned, it's the end result that matters, and getting there by the most efficient manner you are capable of is ok. For instance, I loathe sandpaper, & try to minimise its use, but there are times when it is the most effective way for me to achieve a finished surface. There, I've probably lost any credibility I ever had, with that admission......

Cheers,

Hi Ian
we could spend the rest of the week debating your first point

But I agree that without a point of reference you have nothing to go on
perhaps I was lucky in that my dad owned three pre-war Stanleys and when I was but a wee slip of a lad we used to occassionally visit an old carpenter who lived up the street and was older than my grandfather (grand dad was born in 1892 so that will give you and indication of when this carpenter was an apprentice)

Early on I remember trying to dress a 4x4 hardwood stick about 2.5m long
my Stanley #6, (I think it may have been one of the last ones made in Aus) wouldn't do much beyond raise a bit of dust. But my LN #5 had no problems, so the #6 went back into its box. Several years later I worked out what wasn't right on the #6 and got it to work like a bought one should, but in the intervening years I very much enjoyed and became enamored of my LN.
There was a time when I used to advise people to buy at least ONE top quality new plane (now days I'd say buy top quality new or a Jim Davey refurbished one) so that they had a reference towards which to work when tuning an old plane but personally I dislike spending hours getting an old plane to work -- too often what's around as "workers" was 2nd quality junk when new (eg Stanley 12-004s)


using a plane is a skill which will come with practice

setting up a plane so it works like a plane should is a skill you need to acquire or buy in -- Sydney's The Traditional Tools Group is a good place to go for inexpensive basic training. (that's my plug for the night)


However, I don't agree regarding your statement on the evolving plane using culture.
If after some prtactice, your smoothing plane is not leaving behind a near glass smooth surface on all but the most recalcigent woods there is something wrong with its set-up. Carpenters who trained before about 1900 could leave a bum ready surface on a church pew using nothing more than an aze.

Originally Posted by ian

..However, I don't agree regarding your statement on the evolving plane using culture.
If after some prtactice, your smoothing plane is not leaving behind a near glass smooth surface on all but the most recalcigent woods there is something wrong with its set-up. Carpenters who trained before about 1900 could leave a bum ready surface on a church pew using nothing more than an aze.

Well, I'm certainly not disagreeing with your principles, but I'm afraid my reading of magazines, blogs and Forum postings leads me to the conclusion that there is sometimes a bit too much emphasis on the idea that you can plane anything to a perfect surface, and that can be daunting to those in the early phases of their w'working careers. Perhaps some folks can get any wood finish-ready with a plane alone, no matter how recalcitrant, but I'd venture that the vast majority of us can't. But there are other ways to skin the cat, which may offer a more efficient & reliable method to achieve a satisfactory result. And much as we may enjoy the process, most of us are keen to have a good result. I'm quite confident I can plane most woods to a good surface, but I know there are some that I cannot. I'd venture the church pews you mention are made of Silky Oak, or some pretty mild wood - most 'old blokes' I knew were pretty reluctant to hog into hard, rowy woods with a hand plane! If forced to work with such woods, I'll use each tool to its limits (i.e. its limits in my hands), then reach for something else, until I get where I want to be.....
Cheers,

Originally Posted by ian

...Then last year a Japanese study from some time ago was discovered by the forums. This experimental study demonstrated the critical importance of the chip breaker in reducing tear out.

I've seen this video a couple of times and it's what hit home for me about the chip breaker position on the blade.

Originally Posted by ian

If you have access to a copy of Leonard Lee's The complete Guide to Sharpening, there's a whole appendix devoted to how a plane blade works including experimental results showing the difference between a Type 1 chip (plane shaving) and a Type 2 chip (shaving from a scraper) -- I may have the order reversed as I'm working from memory.

I don't. But this may be the answer to my question - if a scraping plane can take shavings of similar thickness to a well-tuned conventional plane, then why do people expend so much effort with conventional plane set up?

And I'm not sure I like the glass-like finish that is espoused as surface perfection. Personally I'm happy to leave some tool marks in a project so people know it was handmade. The glass-like surface that's espoused as perfection doesn't feel right to me. Wood shouldn't feel like that (IMHO).

Originally Posted by IanW

As far as I'm concerned, it's the end result that matters, and getting there by the most efficient manner you are capable of is ok.

Agree.

Originally Posted by ian

...using a plane is a skill which will come with practice

Not sure I agree. Using a plane is a skill that comes with having made lots of mistakes, now that I could agree too...

Originally Posted by Tools4Me

But this may be the answer to my question - if a scraping plane can take shavings of similar thickness to a well-tuned conventional plane, then why do people expend so much effort with conventional plane set up?

The answer to the first part of your question is, it doesn't. At least not in my hands. The shavings I get with my scraping planes or card scrapers are thinner than the finest shavings off any smoother I own. It seems to take several swipes with a scraper to equal one pass of the smoother, and about 4 times as long to remove small blemishes as it would if the plane could have handled it. I'm not a devotee of recalcitrant woods, & much prefer to stick with acknowledged "cabinet" woods. About 99% of the wood I use gives me little trouble, and I need to have a good reason to fight with ugly stuff. It's only when it ends up like this:DF_b.jpg DF_a.jpg

that it's worth the blood, sweat & tears....

Cheers,