Thread: Stanley Bench Planes Replacement Blade Bulk Order

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

What is the angle of the bevel on the chip breaker?
What are the dimensions to the screw?

Found a good picture of a hock chip breaker:

I should have mentioned that the Hock blade and chipbreaker I was measuring are brand new, so my measurements are 'straight from the packet'. Unfortunately I've only got the one size. I'll recheck the measurements tonight. (I'll try and drink a bit less, so they should be more accurate.)

I've given you the measurement to the centre of the screw hole in the chipbreaker - check my previous post. I'll take the bevel angle measurement tonight.

I rounded all my measurements to the inch (or part inch), because I assumed that a 7" blade that was 2 3/8" wide would use imperial measurements throughout its design.

IMO we don't need to break out the vernier callipers to take these measurements, I've had a think about it, and the only one that needs to be accurate is the dimension of the 'yoke hole' (the rectangular slot in the chipbreaker) to reduce slop.
This slot obviously needs to be centred laterally, but even if the vertical position is slightly out, the plane's blade adjustment mechanism will allow for that. I've read that other thread that suggested positional adjustments in the amount of 0.6 - 0.8mm were important, but I suspect that particular situation might have been a one-off. Don't forget that the chipbreaker gets moved upward when the plane is set for a deeper cut, and vise versa.

It points to the importance of getting the chip breaker and the blade just right, otherwise no mater how good the blade is it would be useless if you could not adjust it

As for the blade, clearly its length is not crucial (it will change over time) and as long as its not wider than the frog, then it will fit.

Originally Posted by SilverSniper

IMO we don't need to break out the vernier callipers to take these measurements, I've had a think about it, and the only one that needs to be accurate is the dimension of the 'yoke hole' (the rectangular slot in the chipbreaker) to reduce slop.
This slot obviously needs to be centred laterally, but even if the vertical position is slightly out, the plane's blade adjustment mechanism will allow for that. I've read that other thread that suggested positional adjustments in the amount of 0.6 - 0.8mm were important, but I suspect that particular situation might have been a one-off. Don't forget that the chipbreaker gets moved upward when the plane is set for a deeper cut, and vise versa.

Thanks Helmut.
One thing to watch here is that the yoke hole isn't set too high or the blade will project through the mouth even when the depth adjuster is fully retracted.
Regards
SG

Originally Posted by thumbsucker

Sorry Bobl I did mean to misquote you, I got excited as I was typing.]

No worries.

Just to put another side to this discussion - I have not seen any independent assessment of the 390 - everything we know about it comes from the manufacturer and the comparison chart provided is not quantitative.

It is still worth an experiment but I still doubt the average WW on this forum will pick out the difference in a blind test.

I will enjoy being proved wrong.

Cheers

Hmm, starting to get cold feet. Not sure I want to fork out $80 for an experiment. I'm all for research but I'm not into funding it

Originally Posted by SilverSniper

This slot obviously needs to be centred laterally, but even if the vertical position is slightly out, the plane's blade adjustment mechanism will allow for that. I've read that other thread that suggested positional adjustments in the amount of 0.6 - 0.8mm were important, but I suspect that particular situation might have been a one-off.

Don't forget that the chipbreaker gets moved upward when the plane is set for a deeper cut, and vise versa. (HUH??)

Well you're wrong If the distance to the end of the chipbreaker is critical. To long and the blade cannot be retracted in every case.

Cheers
Michael

Thumbsucker, dont you ever sleep ?

Originally Posted by BobL

No worries.

Just to put another side to this discussion - I have not seen any independent assessment of the 390 - everything we know about it comes from the manufacturer and the comparison chart provided is not quantitative.

It is still worth an experiment but I still doubt the average WW on this forum will pick out the difference in a blind test.

I will enjoy being proved wrong.

Cheers

Good point. Together with the fact no one seems to be doing this commercially yet, are we jumping the gun going with 390? Would we be better to stick with a proven technology? The 390 may have greater potential, but there may be problems the vendor isn't telling us.

It would be really helpful if someone who makes plane blades commercially could give an opinion on 390 steel.

Originally Posted by Ironwood

Thumbsucker, dont you ever sleep ?

To much nervous energy at this moment, I am knee deep in data sheets comparing types of steels.

I called up Bohler and got into them trying to find out more information. I spoke to someone in technical support, for a more detailed review of the types of steel available to us. He was unfortunately not very helpful. However he did have some interesting things to say. Which is good because the data sheet makes it rather difficult to make direct comparisons.

First Bohler does not stock S390 in flat sheet in Australia and it would need to be imported from Europe. The only material that they have in sheet is D2 and M2.

This leaves us with a choice, of sitting for six months again waiting for something to come from Sweden. However he says that their prices have remained stable even with the collapsing Australian dollar.

In regards to S390, he says that it will take a finer edge then M2 because of the powder metallurgy process and he said that it will outlast M2 in edge retention by a quantifiable measure, however he could not give me solid numbers, which is annoying.

However because of the powder metallurgy process S390 will be slightly harder to grind then M2. So sharpening would be more of a challenge. While this is a minor point for those with the right abrasive it could just make thing just that little bit harder for many. He also said that S390 is slightly less tuff, so if you hit a knot it "could" be more prone to chipping at the edge then M2.

The third point is the price, he says that powder metallurgy steels tend to be about 2 times the price of conventional steels like M2. So we find ourself in hard place, to make the Stanley plane blades we need sheet material and the only sheet material available is D2 and M2, without going to the delay of importing other materials.

So I called him back again, and asked my questions again, and he said something interesting. He said that the next step up from D2 would be M2, however M2 can be heat treated in three different ways, because it is a HSS.

The first way will give you more abrasive resistance, the second would give you more chip resistance and thirdly you can heat treat in a more general way. He is emailing me some more advanced data on heat treating M2. We can simple tell Oppy how we want it heat treated and they can heat treat to our specifications. Which leads us to the point about heat treating being as critical in the formation of cutting tools as the steel itself. He said while the three approaches to heat treatment for M2 which will allow us to accentuate the different properties of M2. However the annealing is the same regardless of what path we take in heat treating. So this part of the puzzle we know, because Academy saw blade are annealed to RC 63 -64

Looking at Academy saw blades. Paul Williams is able to get much better performance then most tools makers from his Bohler M2. I propose that this is because of the way he heat treats his M2. Now since he gets his M2 from Bohler just like us. If we can figure out the heat treating process that he uses and if we replicate it. We should in theory be able to duplicate his M2 blades making them virtually indistinguishable from the Academy saw M2 blades.

I will therefore suggesting that since M2 is really our only option outside of D2. In addition it is realistically our best choice in term of availability and price and our best way forward. Combined with the added bonus of this is that it would drive the estimate cost of manufacturing the plane blades, and we would be able to leverage proven technology, for our application.

Oh the fun of Material's Technology.

Would members be happy pursuing M2 as our material of choice? Here is the data sheet for M2. I am waiting for the Heat Treating Information to come across.

Originally Posted by mic-d

Well you're wrong If the distance to the end of the chipbreaker is critical. To long and the blade cannot be retracted in every case.

Cheers
Michael

I don't want to take this thread off topic, but have a look at this thread (among others) which explains that the chipbreaker position moves quite a bit in relation to the blade ht

If you read my post carefully (and note that I did preface it with "IMO"), you'll see that the point I'm making is that the position of the 'yoke hole' cannot need to be accurate to a tolerance of less than 1mm (as per the earlier linked thread). It is therefore not critical, so there is no need for the callipers. The reason is because the chipbreaker position can and does move more than 1mm vertically in relation to the blade during normal operation of a plane, in accordance with the user's preference.

We should give credit to Mr Bailey for designing a plane adjustment mechanism that functions so well without needing that degree of accuracy in it's machined parts.

I will send an email to Brent Beach since he has possible the most detailed knowledge of Academy saw blades through his systematic reviews and may have some insight into what approach to take in regards to heat treating.

Woodwould has sent me these files showing the CAD details for the plane blade and lever cap based on the measurements of a brand new Hock Blade and Lever Cap.

Very Nice work Woodwould.

Attachment 87238

Attachment 87237

Wow, look how much meat there is on that blade. I've never seen one like that!

nice work woodwould!

I'll compare your measurements with my measurements of my #4 1/2 blade and chipbreaker and let you know where the differences lie.

two further thoughts - I see from your drawing that the measurement for the 'yoke slot' in the chipbreaker is taken from the top of the chipbreaker. IAW the posts above, this measurement should be taken from the bottom of the chipbreaker, as this is the reference edge (this probably doesn't matter if its laser cut, but better to be safe than sorry)

Also, noting the above discussion on the location of that slot, IMO the best location for that slot may differ depending on the thickness of the blade. So if our blades are going to be the same thickness as a Hock blade, then the Hock chipbreaker should be used as the reference template, rather than Stanley or another brand designed for use with a thin blade.

I sent this email to Brent.

Hello Brent

I am not sure if you can give us any insight in this matter, however you are really the only person to perform systematic testing of plane blades. So it is my hope that you may have something to say on the matter of heat treating.

If you go to the thread https://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/stanley-bench-planes-replacement-blade-bulk-81527-post832621 we are having some difficulties choosing our raw material. We are also having a few problems sourcing s390, short of importing it from Europe, therefore based on the advice by Bohler we are considering M2.

However I would like your input about the heat treatment regiment of the ASW M2 steel blades. As I wrote in the thread:

"M2 can be heat treated in three different ways, because it is a HSS.The first way will give you more abrasive resistance, the second would give you more chip resistance and thirdly you can heat treat in a more general way. .... Which leads us to the point about heat treating being as critical in the formation of cutting tools as the steel itself. Bohler said while the three approaches to heat treatment for M2 which will allow us to accentuate the different properties of M2."

My question therefore is that in your opinion which one of these three heat treating options is the most likely one employed in ASW M2 steel blades. Since we are using the same supplier for our M2 and there are only three ways to heat treat M2, we could relatively easily replicate the qualities of the ASW M2 steel blades if we were to employ the same heat treating regiment.

Any insight you may have would be much appreciated.

It cannot hurt asking or can it Grasshopper