Results 91 to 105 of 156
Thread: Tips, Techniques and Theory
31st October 2020, 12:05 PM #91
Brad, the optimum angle is the one that allows the shavings through. I doubt you will need even 50 dgrees, it doesn't need much more than75-80" of slope, in most cases.
The reason I don't give a set figure in the 'manual' is because it is a variable thing. Obviously, the higher the blade angle, the more forward slope you need to maintain a reasonable angle. For a single-iron blade, it doesn't need a very big angle because the cap-iron isn't blocking the throat & pushing the shaving forward where it might start to jam. If you are using a cap-iron, then you need to make sure there is enough clearance to get the blade & cap-iron down far enough to cut without blocking the mouth opening. And again, you can't give an exact figure, because cap-irons vary so much at that end.
So just estimate what you think and start with that, it's not that hard to file the front of the mouth when the plane is assembled, you can get at it reasonably easily, unlike the blade bed, having to adjust those after assembly is a right pita! I always leave a bit of extra metal at the front when I cut in the mouth, because it allows me to finesse the mouth opening when fettling, but I try to keep the extra metal to a minimum, 'cos I'm not that fond of filing.
31st October 2020 12:05 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Advertising world
31st October 2020, 02:39 PM #92
I have left the front at 90 degrees so far, and a bit over a mm short of where it will have to be ( just in case ). I will leave it till the end before taking any more off, or at least until I get the chatter block in place, and I can get a better feel for how far forward the blade will sit. Will update my thread later with photos.Brad.
31st October 2020, 05:59 PM #93
Why are you all dovetailing your planes? Would not a piece of chanel, say 55mm square do as well?I am learning, slowley.
31st October 2020, 06:16 PM #94
31st October 2020, 06:23 PM #95
But I do like the look of the steel and brass dovetails. Plus if you want to have the nice curved sides then a channel will not do.
And then if you need an ultra fine mouth with a low angle bed like a mitre plane. Then being able to do the sole in two pieces is helpful.
That's where I am working my way up to.
All that is just a matter of taste.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
31st October 2020, 07:38 PM #96
2nd November 2020, 08:34 AM #97
In his thread Ironwood has just riveted his "chatter block" or "blade block" on his sole, and it raised a coupe of issues I thought worth commenting on.
The first issue is that whatever metal you use for your sole, you should try to use exactly the same stuff for the rivets and chatter block. This isn't solely for disguising the joins & rivet heads, it's good insurance against galvanic activity occurring if moisture wicks into an area that isn't quite 'water-tight'. You will get some activity between any two dissimilar metals. Even when they are supposedly the same alloy, there can be enough difference in the mix to cause problems - back when I learnt surgery, it was always stressed that SS screws & plates always had to be from the same batch for that reason - sitting in a nice, warm bath of physiological salts can result in one part or the other being chewed away.
Fortunately, your plane is not sitting in nice warm saline solutions, so not such a big issue, but worth a passing thoughy. Of course we often want to join dissimilar metals in this business, like brass to steel, so we have to live with the risk, but we can minimise it by using the same material for the rivet as the 'outside' metal (& not leaving your plane out in the rain!). So if you are dithering about using steel rivets to hold the stuffing in a brass-sided plane or going for the contrast of steel rivets (or vice versa), using contrast is more decorative, but using the same material is the safer course. I see a lot of 'contrasting' rivets on 'modern' infills but I can't recall ever seeing them on the old planes - will time be less kind to them??
Ok, that's the theory, it's unlikely to be a big problem in our lifetime, but perhaps worth thinking about if you expect your hard work to be around in a few generations' time. A 'precaution' I observe with my planes is to bed the woodwork in with epoxy. This is to fill any small gaps and keep moisture out (& there have always been small gaps on the inside of every body I've peened up). I've seen a coupe of old infills gutted to replace woodwork, and one of them was a real mess of corrosion. It may have been left out in the weather, or something equally unpleasant, but it was enough to make me very cautious, especially as I have a penchant for using woods that are rich in tannins or other corrosive chemicals!
Finally, don't blame yourself if your rivets don't completely disappear when you clean them up after peening. I take care to select matching metals, I have even gone so far as to turn up rivets from scraps of the same piece the sides or whatever were cut from, and after cleaning up what I'm sure is very well-peened job, the rivet head is clearly visible as neat circle! I had a moan about this a while ago, & speculated that perhaps the peening causes a physical change in the metal that makes it reflect light a bit differently. Being colour-blind, I'm hopeless with colour, but acutely aware of shade & texture, so what is obvious to me isn't always so to others, I've learnt. I always check with my other half if I'm not sure if I'm seeing something real or not - she can usually see it too, so I'm satisfied I'm not making it up.
Anyway, two things seem to happen, either the metals tarnish over a few weeks and blend so the rivets heads do become invisible, or they become even more prominent as the metals tarnish to slightly different colours - it seems entirely unpredictable! This is why I said to Brad that I think it's more art than science. And perhaps it's why many makers opt for 'contrasting' rivets - if the darn things are going to show anyway, you may as well make a feature of them....
2nd November 2020, 11:22 AM #98
Thanks for your thoughts on the matter Ian.
On my plane build, I went with the 304 rod for rivets because it was the easy option, and I have about 5 metres of it in the shed, I never really put much thought into the different stainless alloys being a different colour. But on reading up a bit, it seems that 304 might have a higher chromium content, so might appear lighter and shinier. Which seems to be the case.Brad.
3rd November 2020, 04:20 PM #99
In regards to riveting I have another question. I understand traditionally the makers of infill planes have run cross pins through the stuffing and peened them in.
But hen I also saw people now going a maybe simpler way by using slotted cointersink screws and filing them off instead. Or some, e.g. Young Je, often doing nothing of that and just glue the infill with epoxy into the metal body without anything else.
What are the thoughts on that? Can it be that with the modern epoxy the cross pins might not be as critical?
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
3rd November 2020, 07:45 PM #100
Ck, myself, I don't trust epoxy on a wood/metal bond, I've had too many failures, for reasons I've never been able to figure out. It certainly will stick sometimes, I had to remove the stuffing from one plane after glueing it in & it had stuck very solidly, I had to chisel out the wood & scrape & scratch the glue off the metal, & every darned bit hung on to the last. When it sticks, epoxy on its own certainly gives a strong bond.
I use epoxy for several reasons: to bed the woodwork in nicely; put a waterproof (or water-resistant, more accurately) barrier between wood & steel; & hold the stuffing in place while I drill & set the rivets.
Putting a few cross-pins in is really no big hassle (unless the drill bit wanders and comes out in the wrong place like it did on my panel plane ). I am a bit slack in that I don't bush my pins. The old makers usually set the stuffing in, drilled the holes for the pins, then pulled it out & reamed the holes to take steel bushes so that peening down the rivets pulled the sides firmly against the bushes. I assume the idea was that if the wood shrank, the rivets would remain nice & tight. I decided not to do that with any planes I've made so far, mostly because I have no way of making the accurate concentric holes for he bushes - I reckon if they are not put in snug in the wood, they are not much use. If the wood shrinks, you are going to have an unsightly gap anyway, whether you use bushes or not, and the wood is far less likely to expand and push the sides away from the rivets, so I decided they had little to offer. Laziness helps me convince myself of my own logic.....
So far, I've gotten away without problems on all but two planes. In both cases, I got a bit of shrinkage with the front buns - it was my own fault, I knew the wood I was using was probably not quite ready to use, but I took the risk (& lost). At least pulling out & replacing a front bun is much less of a job than replacing the rear stuffing, but it's still a pita, so I think I've learnt my lesson there.
That's my take on it....
3rd November 2020, 08:23 PM #101
At the same time I want to make sure it works. It's good to get the different perspective.
Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
21st November 2020, 09:04 PM #102
Tips, Techniques and Theory
Found this on a Facebook site, but now canít remember weíre I found this
Iím fairly certain it was either 15 or 16 century, from Germany.
Thought it was a little quite here and this might get a few of interested.
I need to get my glasses checked, bottom right corner of pic [emoji3064].
21st November 2020, 11:42 PM #103
23rd November 2020, 09:35 AM #104SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Mt Waverley Vic 3149
Further to Simplicity's post # 102, here is some further info from Jim Bode Tools
25th November 2020, 05:22 PM #105
I am about to start making the rear infill and handle for my plane. I have been planning all along, to make the handle, and have two separate cheek pieces that fill in the gap to the sides. I think this is how most people do them, but I have seen them made out of one piece, which would need a fairly large lump of wood to begin with.
But have also seen them made with 2 pieces, one piece for the infill, and a separate handle, which I assume is mortised into the lower part. I think some Holtey planes are made this way. If he is doing them this way, there must be some merit to doing them like this.
I am trying to weigh up the proís and cons of each method, anyone care to offer their thoughts on the subject ?Brad.
Agreeable TheoryBy Breslau in forum WOODIES JOKESReplies: 4Last Post: 23rd August 2013, 10:07 PM
Theory on workBy Allan at Wallan in forum WOODIES JOKESReplies: 1Last Post: 5th September 2011, 10:14 AM
Lathe Bed TheoryBy brendan stemp in forum WOODTURNING - GENERALReplies: 26Last Post: 3rd January 2011, 09:37 PM
The Buffalo TheoryBy Bazza in forum WOODIES JOKESReplies: 0Last Post: 31st January 2002, 05:33 PM