Thread: Chip breakers ... not cap irons .. and what they really do!

Man frank, we're just shooting the breeze, this isn't the 'saving the world from imminent destruction' forum. Does it matter if we advance the cause of woodworking or not?

Originally Posted by Berlin

Man frank, we're just shooting the breeze, this isn't the 'saving the world from imminent destruction' forum. Does it matter if we advance the cause of woodworking or not?

Love the analogy

Please feel free to list those advancements?



Frank.

Originally Posted by Berlin

Man frank, we're just shooting the breeze, this isn't the 'saving the world from imminent destruction' forum. Does it matter if we advance the cause of woodworking or not?

My sentiments exactly. Just treat this as a fun discussion, folks, that does have some serious implications, if you so desire. Knowledge is a light burden to carry......

I repeat, What Derek has done is show that setting the cap iron within some tight tolerances has a profound effect on planing efficiency, of & by itself. I'm just being a bit of a PITA by pointing out that it doesn't prove that it's because it is bending the shaving, though it may well be that it is the explanation.

And Chippy, I agree wholeheartedly that for everyday purposes, experience & the wood we are working with tells us roughly where to set the cap iron, and no two bits of wood of the same species are the same, let alone all the different ones we like to muck about with. Experience is definitely one of the most valuable tools in any trade!

But at the end of the day, when the shavings have been swept up, and the belly is full, and we all have a glass of something we enjoy in our fists, it's fun to sit around the fire, gaze up at the stars, & figure out how the universe began, init??

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

But at the end of the day, when the shavings have been swept up, and the belly is full, and we all have a glass of something we enjoy in our fists, it's fun to sit around the fire, gaze up at the stars, & figure out how the universe began, init??

Cheers,

Ian I think you forgot the compulsory brief period of navel contemplation that lies between sitting around and gazing at stars.


I agree with mic-d that the tests aren't up to the rigors of a double blind placebo controlled randomized controlled trial, they are observational, but what I find most reassuring is that the sun will still come up in the morning whether people think this topic or thread is relevant or not.

For me, who has all too little time to practice, and a little more time to read and learn, such details, clues, and information is useful.

In fact until this thread I'd probably thought very little about setting the breaker closer than 1/16" from the edge.

The discussion likely demonstrates some methods, techniques and processes that we all use in woodworking all the time, and how much we want to pay creedence to the minutiae or not is irrelevant - after all woodworking is surely the common thread for all of us here.

Nick

Still waiting on the huge mythical powers of the CI to hit me over the head

Frank, that conjures up interesting possibilities ....

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by nick_b00

For me, who has all too little time to practice, and a little more time to read and learn, such details, clues, and information is useful.

In fact until this thread I'd probably thought very little about setting the breaker closer than 1/16" from the edge.

And that, ladies & gentlemen, is the whole purpose of this thread, is it not?

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

And that, ladies & gentlemen, is the whole purpose of this thread, is it not?

Yep Brett, absolutely. I think it's wot several of us are saying, in our own ways......
Avagoodnight,

Amen to that!

Regards from Perth

Derek

Originally Posted by nick_b00

In fact until this thread I'd probably thought very little about setting the breaker closer than 1/16" from the edge.

Yes 100%.

I've read that the cap needs to be closed up to the edge ...
I'm sure I have even read "as close as possible" ...
but I would never have imagined putting the cap-iron closer than about 1/16" ... have never planed anything that would need it.

So regardless of anything else, I've learnt something.

And a good dig into old books is always fun.

Cheers,
Paul.

Looking through the library - internet slow and annoying -

Have a look at Holtzapffel vol2 pg497

Recommending a 40th or 50th of an inch in 1875.

---

Can be downloaded ... great book ...

Turning and Mechanical Manipulation by Charles Holtzapffel
manual_author17_holtzapffel.htm
Holtzapffel.org - A catalog and history of Holtzapffel lathes - Books and Publications

gotta run.
Paul.

"The Complete Japanese Joinery" : P 19: "..... .020 inch for a rough plane, .013 inch for a medium plane, and .010 inch+ for a finishing plane."
Just as a matter of interest for the discussion.

TM

Originally Posted by TermiMonster

"The Complete Japanese Joinery" : P 19: "..... .020 inch for a rough plane, .013 inch for a medium plane, and .010 inch+ for a finishing plane."
Just as a matter of interest for the discussion.

TM

That's 0.5, ~0.35, and 0.25 millimetres, for the Imperially-challenged (like me! )

Cheers,

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Hi Ian

The Japanese research used a wood that looked very similar to the quarter sawn Tassie Oak in this experiment (I included a photo in the experiment of the gran direction). In their experiments they planed into the grain. The aim was to see if the chip breaker could counter the expected tear out.

Tassie Oak was planed here in the same manner (into the grain). Consequently I do not see this as back sawn versus quater sawn, only how reversing grain is controlled by the chip breaker.

Do you see it differently? Do you see an issue that might contaminate the results?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Hi Derek
It's taken much longer than I wished to respond to this and the thread has moved on a lot since I wrote.

However, my thinking at the time was this:
the Tassie Oak is quarter saw (QS). When you plane it, either with or against the grain, you are cutting through the narrow sides of the cells. The surface you end up with is often fairly coarse (I'm not sure that "coarse" is the right adjective) regardless of palning direction. You can see what I mean by looking at the "pin cushion" in the shavings you produced, and Tassie Oak is one of those woods taht really needs a grain filler under a smooth flat finish.
the Jarrah is flat or back saw (BS). When you plane it (with the grain) you are cutting the wide sides of the cells and generally get consistent shavings without any "pin cushion"

now, my experience with Tassie Oak is there is not much difference between planing with or against the grain WHEN planing the QS face. However, there's a world of difference in respect to planing direction when you plane the flat sawn face. When planing against the grain on a flat sawn face it's possible to tear out splinters 3mm wide by 150mm long.

I'm not aware of other woods that display this characteristic.

Now I'm not sure if the characteristic for the face grain to splinter will have an effect on your results, but thnk you should be aware of it.

and I agree with you, I don't think it's about BS vs QS timber



The other issue I was aluding to was the propensity of us in Australia to try and draw comparisons between our timbers and those of North America and Europe.
Again reflecting on Tassie Oak, I suspect that the comparison is more in respect to visual character and its effect on cutting tools, but has little relevance to its true workability.


now to read the rest of the discussion ...

Well I've now read this thread

I'm surprised that no one has referenced Leonard Lee's excellent book on Sharpening, especially Appendix 1.
Much food for thought and controlled experimentation there.

Maybe even a PHD or two ...