Thread: I like the scraped planes less

I was expecting you to say the planes were stickier when super-flat, but I think you have been treating cast iron soles only, which are more self-lubricating than steel, so it probably has no discernible effect on stickiness?

But you have raised an interesting point. I've long said that a slight (very slight!) convexity on a smoother sole is preferable to dead flat (the opposite renders the tool almost useless!). It probably doesn't apply to longer planes used for levelling, but some relief at the toe is always desirable, I would think. I always put a small rounding at toe, heel & sides of my planes to minimise dings if the plane is placed awkwardly on the work piece, and years of use on hard woods produces a tiny taper under the toe. I doubt any of my planes is flat to fractions of a thou from the very tip of the toe to the tip of the heel.

Something I've prattled on about for years is that the user has at least as big an influence on how a tool performs as the "perfection'' of the tool itself. There are some "faults" that are easily managed by a user, and some that aren't, of course. I would expect you'd soon adjust to the dead-flat soles if you persisted and it would become automatic to bear down a little more or less at start & finish of the stroke as required to maintain perfect flatness??

Cheers

I’d give it some more time, they’re like new planes. How long have you been planing with the old planes and how long with the scraped planes?

A bunch of planes sounds quite interesting.
Have you found they hinge in the same spots, or does things differ at this tolerance?
I'd also find it interesting to read some experimentation on jointing softwood soundboards or tropical backs or say an acoustic guitar,
that I'd imagine might be a stark contrast to wider stock, likely possible, as the downforce of the plane with cap iron is seemingly reduced
on such thin stuff.

Keen to read some more on your findings.
Tom

Originally Posted by IanW

I was expecting you to say the planes were stickier when super-flat, but I think you have been treating cast iron soles only, which are more self-lubricating than steel, so it probably has no discernible effect on stickiness?

hand scraping reduces friction, lapping is what increases friction. Scraping makes a number of points planar, it doesn’t make the surface dead flat.

Originally Posted by mic-d

hand scraping reduces friction, lapping is what increases friction. Scraping makes a number of points planar, it doesn’t make the surface dead flat.

I guess that's obvious now you point it out - scraping leaves that characteristic patterned surface so it's not like a surface lapped to a fine polish.

Cheers,

There's no difference in friction that I can discern, but rather the issue is being able to come on to the board end and off in a very heavy cut and have a flat surface. With the plane dead flat scraped, it just is much much more physically difficult to do without stop shaving.

This becomes a big problem when dimensioning, it adds a lot of time and effort. It may be no issue if not dimensioning, but I particularly like dimensioning wood kind of all in rhythm.

I flattened some curly cherry with a Norris 13 panel plane and has to put both hands on the back of the plane behind the handle to get things right. This obviously isn't practical in a very heavy cut. The little bit of flexibility of the to and heel just slightly high is very important for dimensioning to dead flat all at the same time as removing wood roughness. But much of that, too, can become detrimental and make it hard to keep a plane in a rocking cut. Filing and lapping seems to make the best user due to the slight bias.

Originally Posted by D.W.

There's no difference in friction that I can discern, but rather the issue is being able to come on to the board end and off in a very heavy cut and have a flat surface. With the plane dead flat scraped, it just is much much more physically difficult to do without stop shaving.

Hi David,

Are you saying that you prefer a slightly convex plane? Is this to counter the tendency to plane slightly convex (edit), ( as the front of the plane comes off the the end, geometry forces the blade to drop in deeper - hence the slight concave effect).

Pretty skilled to be able to come off dead flat, without some sort of correction - I have never even consider trying.

Cheers

Originally Posted by MartinCH

Hi David,

Are you saying that you prefer a slightly convex plane? Is this to counter the tendency to plane slightly concave, ( as the front of the plane comes off the the end, geometry forces the blade to drop in deeper - hence the slight concave effect).

Pretty skilled to be able to come off dead flat, without some sort of correction - I have never even consider trying.

Cheers

The effect you're talking about would tend to plane a slight convex given enough passes, but it is so minute as to be immaterial in practise. The plane bears on the front of the mouth and the heel until that point at the end of the pass when the front of mouth leaves the work, then the blade is maybe 1/50" from the end of the work. Since there was theoretically a gap between the sole and the wood at the back of the mouth the thickness of a shaving, the blade could in theory settle one more shaving thickness in that last 1/50" before it exits the wood. After 50 passes, you've theoretically got an inch long section at the end of the wood that is one shaving thickness lower than the preceding edge.

Originally Posted by D.W.

There's no difference in friction that I can discern, but rather the issue is being able to come on to the board end and off in a very heavy cut and have a flat surface. With the plane dead flat scraped, it just is much much more physically difficult to do without stop shaving.

This becomes a big problem when dimensioning, it adds a lot of time and effort. It may be no issue if not dimensioning, but I particularly like dimensioning wood kind of all in rhythm.

I flattened some curly cherry with a Norris 13 panel plane and has to put both hands on the back of the plane behind the handle to get things right. This obviously isn't practical in a very heavy cut. The little bit of flexibility of the to and heel just slightly high is very important for dimensioning to dead flat all at the same time as removing wood roughness. But much of that, too, can become detrimental and make it hard to keep a plane in a rocking cut. Filing and lapping seems to make the best user due to the slight bias.

Hi DW,
I typed a reply and lost it. We need to eliminate confounding factors. I assume flattening cherry means a panel wider than the width of the sole. This is different to jointing because the sole bears fully around the blade and will ride on the higher points of your scalloped planed surface, which the plane can see but you can't. Also a thin panel may deform and confound the experience in a way you've described. We need to be sure this is not happening.

I can describe some ways to do tests for jointing if you like. I have always said the flatness is more important to jointing matched edges than smoothing/flattening. If you have your straight planed edge and rest your plane on it (imagine the blade is retracted for this thought experiment), you will see the front and rear inch of the sole doesn't touch the work. You need to explain how something that is essentially not there makes the planing experience better than the scraped plane. Would you say a scraped plane that's the same length as the contact surface of your lapped plane would be worse than the lapped plane? Like in the sketch where a scraped #6 is the same contact surface as a lapped #7

IMG_0393.jpg

The confounding factors we need to eliminate are deformation of the work and the initial flatness of the surface, we should for example support the work well and start with true machined edges to eliminate the factors of a crowned or hollow edge. I rushed this second reply so I hope It makes sense and that I didn't forget something.

Originally Posted by MartinCH

.... Is this to counter the tendency to plane slightly concave, ( as the front of the plane comes off the the end, geometry forces the blade to drop in deeper - hence the slight concave effect)....

You've got me confused here, Martin. What you seem to be describing is a tendency to plane a convexity, not a concavity (as I was told when very young, the easy way to remember which is which is that a "cave'' is a hole, so 'concave' means it dips in).

In any case, planing a convexity into a surface, especially with a short plane & a short piece is what I find many beginners struggle with a lot (as I did myself). I "discovered" a cure when a very ancient #4 (pre-lateral adjuster) with just a low nubbin of a front knob fell into my hands about 30 years ago. I simply could not wrap a hand around it, just place my palm on it. That means I naturally bear down on the toe as I begin the cut, then ease off until I am applying no or almost no pressure on the knob towards the end of the cut, only on the tote/handle as the blade approaches the edge of the board. Suddenly, my convex board problem was no more.

It took a little while to adapt to the 'new' way but it wasn't very long before it became second nature, and I decided the lower, flat-topped knobs suited me so much better I ended up putting 'low' knobs on all of my Bailey types. I was a bit reluctant to shorten the studs at first, not having any way to lengthen them again should I decide to go back to original knobs, but it's 30 years down the track & I have never regretted changing any (& I now have a good 12-20 die and can make new studs in minutes, anyway ).

I turn my knobs wider & flatter at the top than the old low-knob originals, but it makes them more comfy for my arthritic hands...
Proper LC.jpg Rehandled 5.jpg 16.jpg



Cheers,

This gap you're talking about is doubled on wide boards, but the thickness of the shaving in heavy work is also about .008" or something, though that's probably more like .005 or .006" in work.

when working by hand, because matched panels and things can be wide, we want really no error at all. We're shooting for a rub joint, but it's not possible with this set up without a lot of extra work. We sort of come to it before planing an edge hollow with a plane with a bias.

I figured when I noticed this, it may not play that well as a big issue for most because this edge work and face work is tune up work, and not trying or jointing from a jack plane. it's this trying or flattening step where it's a problem, or jointing edges. For the smoother, it won't matter.

Here's an example of a just off the plane glue joint on a guitar. this is a two piece body of limba, 8/4. There's not that much flex but the glue line is right in between the third and fourth strings.

I don't know how much extra work i did to get this - it's obviously not a match planed joint, because it would've been about 4" wide wood.

I can't see the glue joint, but this will be true of all glued panels that have matched grain.

If I still used power tools more, I'll admit I wouldn't care, but let's say this is even a 3 thousandth inch gap or a little less the last couple of inches - it'd be a huge problem here. You can't close it with clamps.

there is something about the small bias that makes it practically an offset for the tendency of a dead flat plane to create this problem at the edges. It's a problem of pressure and balance and not flatness. That is, there is a bias left even with a lot of effort using an actually flat plane, and that like you say is a tiny convexity. For a hand tool only woodworker, this becomes really aggravating.

Before this, I never really considered that it might just be blind luck that the slight convexity of the plane that's lapped (figure very, slight convexity) is an offset for the error created by pressure, but it appears it is.

At one point, I had a LN 8 at spec (.0015" hollow) and I pondered what to do with it. It was at spec, so I didn't feel right asking LN for another one and just sold it disclosing that. It was extremely aggravating to use on an edge of any length - even if you managed to get an edge with stop shavings - one that wasn't falling off, two shavings through to create a constant edge and the ends were relieved again. At that point, I mentioned somewhere - and I don't know if this is possible, that LN would be far better to target a machining bias that's like .001" of convexity with a .0025 convexity lower bound and .005" of concavity the opposite end. Their planes would be better for it.

I have no idea how something like that would be accomplished, but it may not be standard machining practice. To make something to hold the castings in place slightly concave would do it, though.

Originally Posted by D.W.

This gap you're talking about is doubled on wide boards, but the thickness of the shaving in heavy work is also about .008" or something, though that's probably more like .005 or .006" in work.

when working by hand, because matched panels and things can be wide, we want really no error at all. We're shooting for a rub joint, but it's not possible with this set up without a lot of extra work. We sort of come to it before planing an edge hollow with a plane with a bias.

I figured when I noticed this, it may not play that well as a big issue for most because this edge work and face work is tune up work, and not trying or jointing from a jack plane. it's this trying or flattening step where it's a problem, or jointing edges. For the smoother, it won't matter.

Here's an example of a just off the plane glue joint on a guitar. this is a two piece body of limba, 8/4. There's not that much flex but the glue line is right in between the third and fourth strings.

I don't know how much extra work i did to get this - it's obviously not a match planed joint, because it would've been about 4" wide wood.

I can't see the glue joint, but this will be true of all glued panels that have matched grain.

If I still used power tools more, I'll admit I wouldn't care, but let's say this is even a 3 thousandth inch gap or a little less the last couple of inches - it'd be a huge problem here. You can't close it with clamps.

there is something about the small bias that makes it practically an offset for the tendency of a dead flat plane to create this problem at the edges. It's a problem of pressure and balance and not flatness. That is, there is a bias left even with a lot of effort using an actually flat plane, and that like you say is a tiny convexity. For a hand tool only woodworker, this becomes really aggravating.

Before this, I never really considered that it might just be blind luck that the slight convexity of the plane that's lapped (figure very, slight convexity) is an offset for the error created by pressure, but it appears it is.

At one point, I had a LN 8 at spec (.0015" hollow) and I pondered what to do with it. It was at spec, so I didn't feel right asking LN for another one and just sold it disclosing that. It was extremely aggravating to use on an edge of any length - even if you managed to get an edge with stop shavings - one that wasn't falling off, two shavings through to create a constant edge and the ends were relieved again. At that point, I mentioned somewhere - and I don't know if this is possible, that LN would be far better to target a machining bias that's like .001" of convexity with a .0025 convexity lower bound and .005" of concavity the opposite end. Their planes would be better for it.

I have no idea how something like that would be accomplished, but it may not be standard machining practice. To make something to hold the castings in place slightly concave would do it, though.

You're obviously taking thick shavings to dimension, before finishing with a finer setting (I assume the same plane). But is the convexity present in the rough wood? Is it present after the heavy shavings? Difficult to argue it's the plane if we don't know the starting state. If the wood is long enough to deform in the middle you'll also plane a convex

Ian, MicD

You gentlemen recorrect, have edited my post. Late night rambling are questionable but then I tend to post late night, so there no escape for you...


As was mention pressure changes are coming into effect as well, and likely dominate in the effect - cause it easy to super convex edge,.

Ian, like you low knob and theory. I thought I just liked like the look of low knobs and now I have detailed hypothesis, with 30 years of extensive R&D to support my aesthetic preference,.


Cheers

Originally Posted by MartinCH

...... now I have detailed hypothesis, with 30 years of extensive R&D to support my aesthetic preference,. ....

Dunno about that Martin, my preference for the old low knob has quite a bit to do with the look too! I haven't seen anyone else espouse my theory, so we have an experiment where n = 1 - never a good look in any scientific endeavor. But if you try it & it works for you, we will have increased the sample size by 100%....

And before someone else beats me to it, I should point out that the low knobs were prone to splitting & in truth, all 3 low-knob planes that have come my way had split knobs, which in each case someone had tried to repair very crudely. Stanley ditched the low knobs and made a modification to the body castings at the same time; they put that raised ring around the boss for the knob. The ring is said to have prevented the splitting problem so presumably it was not the low knob per se that was to blame. The replacement knob I put on the original low-knob #4 is still going strong after 30 or more years, so I don't know what you have to do to bust them??

Cheers,