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

Originally Posted by Morbius

I think it takes a decent set of bouncing "round spherical objects" for a successful author and well-known expert to get up and admit a gap in their own knowledge and be able to admit that they can learn something from our predecessors.

Craig, well i wont go near his spherical objects, i'll leave that for the urologists, but really he didnt have much choice other than to do some back peddling did he to arguably salvage some credibility, as mentioned by someone earlier it must be somewhat embarrassing to put oneself forward as an expert and write a handplane book, not only to leave the detailed information out but to advocate to readers setting a smoother plane at 1/16" because thats as near as it can be before clogging (p.24) is counterproductive and poor advice, that might be a minor point to concede to a novice, but to someone experienced it indicates he doesn't fully understand the very basics of handplane use! you say he is a "well known expert", i would argue he is well known (not least of which on the internet) but i havnt read anywhere anything that qualifies him as an 'expert', no doubt his skills as an editor or journalist are high (although his research skills let him down on this topic) and that is where his skills lay, editing others, not so much as being the expert himself imo...looking on the bright side he will now write a revised edition for all to buy

Originally Posted by Morbius

Compare it to the behaviour of people online who bicker over the smallest of points and refuse to concede any possibility of any viewpoint but their own being right, and often continue to do so after being confronted with facts, just to save face.

not sure to whom or what your referring to, the internet in general or this thread, or perhaps to me within this thread, if me then its possible some of my comments are taken out of context as having gone back and re-read dereks OP (i still havnt re-read the others following) it now reads completely different to how it did at first, many of the points i had objections to have been removed and derek now writes about his own perspective concerning a video and other peoples discussions doing the rounds, so to speak, more or less. theres still one or two points i would argue but overall i dont have the same objections as i did to the original post as it was first written.

Originally Posted by Morbius

Mr Schwarz has put a lot more on the line by making such an admission than many internet pundits.

i'd reject he's put more on the line than me, or that i have never put myself on the line, if i was to be called one of the 'internet pundits', though i dont see that i could be called that, i only post on this little forum, its freindly (by enlarge), fun (for the time being ) and i have talked to some nice and interesting people that i am glad to have come across, internet pundit would seem to apply more to Mr S. (not in a derogatory manner, just by definition; on the internet he is called upon to give opinions, not me- and i dont want to be) but i think it fair to say i have probably spent a large portion of my life, investing my own time and money (not being paid as such) indenturing apprentices and training people (hopefully well) when governments made it more appealing not to invest the time or money to do so and for a number of other reasons its advantageous to only employ or work with qualified people, as is often the choice with many other tradesmen or people working in the manual arts if you like .
Mr S. admitting to this in the manner he does and blogging about it will likely only bring him more money via his internet site or fame..if i teach an apprentice poorly its a direct reflection on me to everyone he interacts with in the real world and not just in the short term but the long term and its something i have to bare the weight of and take responsibility for. i think it fair that if someone writes a book (for financial gain) that they are open to criticism of what they wrote and if they take money for teaching people most certainly. i think if you write a book as an proclaimed 'expert' then that credibility and qualification would be better coming from having the experience not the fame of writing blogs and books, thats like putting the cart before the horse

Originally Posted by Morbius

To me, it seems like a minor point he's conceded. However, I bet that since conceding that point, there are people itching to slag his books in Amazon reviews using that info.

I guess it won't cost me anywhere near as much to take a closer look at my chip breakers

as i said earlier not that minor a point really and i would not say 'slag', but warranted criticism that all authors are fairly subjected to. there are other inconsistencies in that book imo and much of the info in the book can be found on his blog or internet articles which in part reads like a compilation of those.
indeed some (perhaps) advanced info on planes that is not in the book i have come across on this forum, for example mic-d i think it was the other day i noticed something about him scraping the sole of a plane and there was a recent post where someone (a cabbie if i recall) went into great detail about scraping a clifton plane sole as well, many other posts too on various aspects of planes


cheers
chippy

Originally Posted by IanW

Incidentally, while I'm happy to recant a little on its functions, I don't see why we can't go on calling it a cap-iron. . . .


... "Cap-iron" is a good non-committal name (& shorter), with a long pedigree. With everyone having their Damascan moment concerning its other duties, lets not lose sight of the fact that it still serves the vital role of pre-tensioning the cutting end, as well as deflecting shavings. Anyone who needs convincing of that, try using a standard Stanley thin blade on some knotty pine, with the cap-iron set back as far as you can set it. If you want to be pedantic, 'shavings deflector' would seem to me a more appropriate term, anyway, since there are no chips (well, not with decent woods, though maybe with that stuff you are forced to work with over there.. )

Cheers,

hehe, recant a little! your a hard man to please


i'd agree with calling it a cap-iron, not that i care much what its called and i'm sure i have seen it referred to a ". . . or chipbreaker" in some old book(s) somewhere that i dont recall who wrote atm, but for some reason that term grates against me a little bit and i prefer cap-iron...as you say (as did i in another post) it also helps tension the cutting edge which also segue's to why my preference for flat grinding bevel advantages in some situations. and not that i can point to anything to validate my 'hunch' but i tend to like the design of stanley and clifton cap irons as opposed to lei neilsen flat cap iron that is more like a back iron (same dam thing of course) or flipped cutting iron, with the former design i think its lends itself to more easily getting the tension down to where its needed, with a flat cap-iron its important (perhaps a little harder) to get a good mating surface between the two, not that it cant be done but ...


cheers
chippy

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Hi B-D

Charles Haywood seems to be one of the more reliable writers in this regard (and in all areas, so it is not surprising).

yes that was a good quote to find by B-D, it spells it out very well, much the same as i was saying (or trying to) in previous posts but phrased much better than i

Originally Posted by derekcohen

Another I looked up was Garrett Hack. In the USA he is a god. Garrett has a couple of classic books to his name, perhaps the best being The Handplane Book. This details a vaste range of handplanes, along with their use and heritage. I was interested what he would recommend to tune a Stanley #4. Garrett does not describe any tuning with the chip breaker proximity. Instead it is the mouth size that he describes as the vital ingredient, along with a fine shaving.[/I]

Derek, he might not go into as much detail as you would like, in the section you are reading but it does say on page 41

"effectively curling and breaking the shaving depends on more than just the width of the throat, but also on the inclination of the iron to the sole, or pitch, and the presence or absence of a cap iron. . ."

he goes on to talk about curling the shavings etc, then mentions

"A cap iron (also known as a chipbreaker) presents a steeper angle than the pitch of the cutting iron, but at the cost of slightly greater resistance. The closer the cap iron is set to the edge, the more effective the cap iron. . ."

while he doesnt give specific measurements in the parts i've read it seems to read to me that he doesnt attribute reducing tearout to the mouth position alone and credits the cap iron adequately, he seems to give enough information to encourage the user to identify what the specific parts do and that they all contribute as a whole to the end result and with the information given leaves it up to the user to apply that information to various planes


cheers
chippy

Originally Posted by ch!ppy

there are other inconsistencies in that book
chippy

From my perspective this is a bit concerning Chippy. If I'm reading such a book, written by what I believe is an expert, how do I know if I'm being sold a pup at times, or being sold off short of info on other occasions? Have to remember that pretty much anything they're saying in the book will be news to me, and so I'm predisposed to believe it, or at least accept it.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

From my perspective this is a bit concerning Chippy. If I'm reading such a book, written by what I believe is an expert, how do I know if I'm being sold a pup at times, or being sold off short of info on other occasions? Have to remember that pretty much anything they're saying in the book will be news to me, and so I'm predisposed to believe it, or at least accept it.

its a dilemma FF

i guess that is the same risk for all subjects of books written about, but perhaps is more of a concern (to us here) about the manual arts (lol, that phrase amuses me today). e.g if a credible book or journal article in the field of medicine or phycology is written then it is usually peer reviewed (by qualified people) , even before going to print in some cases but certainly key points referenced which lends weight to its credibility, if a book on psychology is published without peer review, say, The Benefits to Beating Your Child it might sell bunches of copies written by Dr Weirdo (sorry if there are actually any psyc's named Weirdo out there ) but people are entitled to comment on it and if the academic fraternity condemn it then thats all that can be done i guess...the book still sells though eh!

with the manual arts i dont see that the same scrutiny applies (well we know it doesnt does it), its probably left up to the individual to read more books and weigh up for themselves what is legit and what is not so great, but sadly that could be expensive for many individuals and long road i would say, particularly if the books are promoted in such a way that make you believe they are peer reviewed. it would appear more commonplace now that people read a blurb from a seller that they might have some respect for and buy the book, its probably always been that way, of course it has.


being sold a pup?. well people enjoy pups they have some fun with them so it isnt all bad.


cheers
chippy

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

From my perspective this is a bit concerning Chippy. If I'm reading such a book, written by what I believe is an expert, how do I know if I'm being sold a pup at times, or being sold off short of info on other occasions? Have to remember that pretty much anything they're saying in the book will be news to me, and so I'm predisposed to believe it, or at least accept it.

Brett - no-one is infallible, so you are likely to get some wrong information from the most reliable sources. And all received wisdom remains open to question, in the light of further and possibly conflicting information. I used to tell the students at the beginning of the year that some of what they were about to learn in my course is undoubtedly wrong, and the worst of it is, I have no idea which bits are wrong. It's a paraphrase of what a wise old dean told a graduating class about the time I was born, but it's just as relevant a comment today. I always added that it's the job of their generation to find out which information was wrong (some will, some will never think about it again..... ).

Cheers,

If politics is the art of the possible then woodworking is the craft of the practical. Perhaps the best books to start with are those designed for the apprentice. Charles Hayward's books have been used for this as have those Australian ones by Lloyd and by Lloyd and Cowmeadow. Even mentioning them shows my age.
Cheers,
Jim

Originally Posted by jimbur

Charles Hayward suffered from one great disadvantage. Before he started to teach and write he actually worked as a cabinet maker for a living.
Cheers,
Jim

Some people will stop an nothing

Hey Derek,

Charles Haywood seems to be one of the more reliable writers in this regard (and in all areas, so it is not surprising).

Yep, he's the man! He also has the temerity to suggest a 4.8:1 (5/8" in 3") ratio for dovetails

I did comment on the writings of David Charlesworth and Garret Hack at the beginning of the thread. Here it is again, so you do not need to move a finger

In the same light, I looked up plane tuning with a couple of well known woodworking experts. David Charlesworth is known for his books and videos. I have chatted with him via email, and more often he is available on the UK forum. He has been involved with these discussions (there), and posted his experiences of late. It turns out that he has also never considered that the chip breaker could increase the performance of a smoother. He only saw the dangers it presented in degrading performance. In one of his books (I pulled out yesterday) he described filing the leading edge at a low angle, basically getting the chip breaker out of the way.

Another I looked up was Garrett Hack. In the USA he is a god. Garrett has a couple of classic books to his name, perhaps the best being The Handplane Book. This details a vaste range of handplanes, along with their use and heritage. I was interested what he would recommend to tune a Stanley #4. Garrett does not describe any tuning with the chip breaker proximity. Instead it is the mouth size that he describes as the vital ingredient, along with a fine shaving.

Yes, Chippy picked it. The proximity is covered (as I mentioned) on page 41, some distance before his section on plane tuning. Earlier, as it is something that is a given, no matter how much work need to be done to a plane?

All things aside, I do rather enjoy his writing, and I found it an entertaining book (for that matter, I rather enjoy Chris's writing too).

David has continued to discuss his recent experiences with chip breakers and is now a convert to their use for tuning. I'm not surprised that Chris Schwarz wrote it up in his blog - he could not ignore the discussions on Wood Central and Saw Mill Creek forums, especially the former.

David has, I'm sure I read somewhere, been teaching since the late seventies - so it's a slow coversion, but at a crowded nexus!

It now seems relevant to revisit a number of "laws". One in particular is mouth size. It has long been accepted that one closes up the mouth of a plane to reduce tearout.

Just wait until someone brings out a cap iron with a micrometer adjuster for depth and angle at the leading edge!

There will be versions for Stanley/Record (that goes without saying), and LN, and retrofitting Spier and Norris infills!

Derek, stop it now! Please don't ever mention such a thing again. This is well on the way to madness, and now you've suggested it....

cheers,
B-D

Originally Posted by ch!ppy

its a dilemma FF

i guess that is the same risk for all subjects of books written about, but perhaps is more of a concern (to us here) about the manual arts (lol, that phrase amuses me today). e.g if a credible book or journal article in the field of medicine or phycology is written then it is usually peer reviewed (by qualified people) , even before going to print in some cases but certainly key points referenced which lends weight to its credibility, if a book on psychology is published without peer review, say, The Benefits to Beating Your Child it might sell bunches of copies written by Dr Weirdo (sorry if there are actually any psyc's named Weirdo out there ) but people are entitled to comment on it and if the academic fraternity condemn it then thats all that can be done i guess...the book still sells though eh!

with the manual arts i dont see that the same scrutiny applies (well we know it doesnt does it), its probably left up to the individual to read more books and weigh up for themselves what is legit and what is not so great, but sadly that could be expensive for many individuals and long road i would say, particularly if the books are promoted in such a way that make you believe they are peer reviewed. it would appear more commonplace now that people read a blurb from a seller that they might have some respect for and buy the book, its probably always been that way, of course it has.


being sold a pup?. well people enjoy pups they have some fun with them so it isnt all bad.


cheers
chippy

Brilliant; I'm with Chippy. A league of peer (or better) reviewers akin to the true scientific process is long overdue Unless this forum counts already The Guild of Manual Handlers... er, maybe a better name is called for.

cheers,
B-D.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

From my perspective this is a bit concerning Chippy. If I'm reading such a book, written by what I believe is an expert, how do I know if I'm being sold a pup at times, or being sold off short of info on other occasions? Have to remember that pretty much anything they're saying in the book will be news to me, and so I'm predisposed to believe it, or at least accept it.

I'm pretty sure ChrisS would describe himself as an enthusiast rather than an expert. If I understand correctly, I believe Handplane Essentials *is* "just" a compilation of articles that he has written over a reasonable sort of period for PWW:

"Handplane Essentials" contains everything you need to choose the right tool for your budget and project, take it out of the box, sharpen it and use it successfully. The chapters in this book have been compiled from more than 10 years of the author's writing on the subject of handplanes in magazines, trade journals and blogs.

I'd say just putting the book together would be more of PWW leveraging their assets and his popularity, rather than his own desire to put together a handplane bible. Contrast that to eg Perfect Edge by Ron Hock that attempts to fully address a particular subject.

I don't have the full background, but I think that he has just progressed from eg a point where flattening the sole of a handplane was news to the majority of people, and retail workbenches were mostly bs - to digging up old books and info - eg the Holzapffel and other workbenches - through to Roubo and drawboring and etc.

And now he has left PWW for book publishing ... and I think many people respond to the info he delivers as a "professional enthusiast" rather than a "professional expert".

(IMHO)

Cheers,
Paul.

Enjoy Roy and Chris here:

(btw - Joseph Moxon - 33 words on smoothing planes)

Video: Hand Plane Essentials with Chris Schwarz | Watch The Woodwrights Shop Online | PBS Video

Just found this thread and a little shocked that such basics of plane operation and use could missed. It's taught to most 12 year olds in school or it used to be. Maybe plane makers should supply more tuning and technical information with planes but who reads instructions anyway. I'll through my settings into the ring, although it really all boils down to the depth of cut more than anything, smoother, very fine cut 1/64 or just keep it close to the cutting edge. No5/Jack plane, usually pretty deep cuts to remove meat is 1/32 - 1/16. Jointer can range from deep cuts to quite fine so from 1/32 - 1/16. Fine cuts a fine gap, deep cuts a larger gap. And I wouldn't try to over complicate such simple mechanics.

Originally Posted by Claw Hama

Just found this thread and a little shocked that such basics of plane operation and use could missed. It's taught to most 12 year olds in school or it used to be. Maybe plane makers should supply more tuning and technical information with planes but who reads instructions anyway. I'll through my settings into the ring, although it really all boils down to the depth of cut more than anything, smoother, very fine cut 1/64 or just keep it close to the cutting edge. No5/Jack plane, usually pretty deep cuts to remove meat is 1/32 - 1/16. Jointer can range from deep cuts to quite fine so from 1/32 - 1/16. Fine cuts a fine gap, deep cuts a larger gap. And I wouldn't try to over complicate such simple mechanics.

Exactly. This is why I got a bit hot under the collar earlier. This is a wheel, it's round
Cheers,
Jim