Couple of neander questions ...

The back bevel does help on a standard stanley blade, but a thicker
iron is, as you have found, a great help as well. I finally got around
to flattening the back of my veritas A2 2" blade and replaced a flaking
SW era blade. When working with some purpleheart with two reversing
streaks in it, both will still tear it out. Neither will make it
perfectly smooth. It takes a scraper to finish it off.

I also have a Steve Knight smoother, it takes only a few minutes to get
it figured out, they are awesome to use. I learned the fingertip
method Steve talks about, I even got to meet Steve in his shop and feel
what he was teaching.

With my finger tips keeping the blade just a touch inside the body, I
set the wedge. This causes the blade to drop down just a bit below the
surface. A couple of tries and I have it set. Although I don't own
one, a small brass blade adjusting hammer would be beneficial. I
currently use a hard plastic hammer which I have to whack pretty hard.

There is a second blade I have with a back bevel I bought from Steve (I
put the back bevel on it), but I have not tried it yet on that piece of
purpleheart. Might give it a go today.

After the smoother I bought the scrub plane. The chips can really FLY
out of that one!

arw01 said:
"I also have a Steve Knight smoother, it takes only a few minutes to
get
it figured out, they are awesome to use. I learned the fingertip
method Steve talks about, I even got to meet Steve in his shop and feel
what he was teaching. "

I'll concur with arw01 on the Steve Knight smoother - I love mine and
adjusting it is fairly easy. I have not had the proveledge of meeting
Steve in his shop....."

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote

> I gather not much stands up to a Norris, although I haven't used one.

You might find that the Norris adjuster can be as difficult as some wedged
planes. Combining the lateral adjuster and the feed is not a good idea.
Change one and you can find that the other has shifted.

For the results obtainable from a bog standard, relatively inexpensive cast
iron smoother, you might like to try my web site - Planing Notes - Coping
With Gnarly Grain.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net

"Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote

> ............my minimum mouth opening has been limited by clogging. The
> minimum
> mouth opening I've been using is wider than in your photos (I'd guess
> mine is somewhere around three quarters of a mm).

Try moving the cap iron backwards a little. Though it helps to have it as
close as possible, I've found that the position is not as critical as is
somethime made out.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net

"Conan The Librarian" <[email protected]> wrote...

> Jeff Gorman wrote:
>
>> Try moving the cap iron backwards a little. Though it helps to have it as
>> close as possible, I've found that the position is not as critical as is
>> somethime made out.
>
> One of my best smoothers (C&W woodie) doesn't have a cap-iron at all.
> And on my #4-1/2 I've set the cap iron back at least 1/8". With the
> leading edge of the mouth filed to remove any burrs, you can really close
> up the mouth. When the mouth is closed up that much, I suspect the
> cap-iron serves no function besides lending support to the iron (and
> clogging the mouth with shavings if it's set too close).
>
> I haven't looked at your site for a while, but didn't you put forth the
> position that on a plane with an extremely tight mouth, the leading edge
> of the mouth/sole actually functions as the chipbreaker?

Sorry, not guilty of this one!

My view is that principally the cap iron serves as a deflector. Of course it
is an essential part of the Stanley/Record system (and Norris also) and
might possibly act as a dampening device.

Jeff G

--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net

On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 07:49:36 +0100, "Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>You might find that the Norris adjuster can be as difficult as some wedged
>planes.

Or maybe not.

>Change one and you can find that the other has shifted.

I've never found this. Not with Norrii, with Lee Valley planes, or with
Bristol Designs planes, using either pattern of Norris adjuster (single
or differential thread). It's the thing I like most about this design.

It's possible that lateral adjustment will affect the depth setting -
this is pretty much inevitable, given the geometry, but if depth
adjustment is affecting the lateral shift, then something is sticking or
wobbling where it shouldn't.

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:00:00 GMT, Nate Perkins <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I hate to ask a stupid question here, but why is lots of weight
>desirable in a smoother?

Fashion - everyone seems to think that it's a good idea, hence the
fetish for English infills like the Norris and the way Stanley went from
a #4 to a #4 1/2, supposedly more to make it heavier than to make it
wider.

Personally I find a heavier smoother helpful and I think it's to do with
increased inertia, rather than weight. There's a "flywheel" effect -
when it's moving, then it carries on moving, even if you hit a tougher
knotty bit. This can be useful on irregular or figured timbers. If you
do get tearout, this is normally associated with a point where the plane
"stuttered" and you stopped moving it so smoothly for a moment - whether
this is because of the speed changing, or the angle tilting, I don't
know..

On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:45:34 GMT, Nate Perkins <[email protected]>
wrote:

>1. Does anyone use a backbevel on a standard Stanley plane blade (e.g., a
>10 degree backbevel to increase the effective cutting angle for figured
>woods)?

Nope. If I'm planing something awkward, I want a thicker and heavier
iron than a Stanley. I use my Norris, or else an ancient wooden coffin
with a thick iron in it.

>2. Has anyone had personal experience with the ECE Primus reform
>smoothers? What do you think of them?

They're a nice combination of wooden lightweight and a good adjuster.
Lovely bench planes, or for framing work where you're working on some
awkward beam on trestles, not a piece lying flat on a bench.

However for smoothers I'd want some extra weight, and as I adjust it
carefully once then leave it alone, then the nice adjuster is of less
benefit to me.


--
Cats have nine lives, which is why they rarely post to Usenet.

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 06:45:34 GMT, Nate Perkins
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>1. Does anyone use a backbevel on a standard Stanley plane blade
>>(e.g., a 10 degree backbevel to increase the effective cutting angle
>>for figured woods)?
>
> Nope. If I'm planing something awkward, I want a thicker and heavier
> iron than a Stanley. I use my Norris, or else an ancient wooden coffin
> with a thick iron in it.

Right, I was thinking about doing it on a Hock blade. For some reason
I've become really attached to an old Stanley #3 I have that is fitted
with a Hock. I love its size, weight, and feel. The only problem I
have is occasionally with figured woods.

I got a scraper plane but I've been disappointed with it. It's very
tricky to make an edge that cuts the fibers rather than tearing them,
and even then it's prone to chattering.

I've thought about a Knight, but my experience with using wedged irons
has been mixed at best. I haven't figured out how to finick them
accurately.

I gather not much stands up to a Norris, although I haven't used one.

>>2. Has anyone had personal experience with the ECE Primus reform
>>smoothers? What do you think of them?
>
> They're a nice combination of wooden lightweight and a good adjuster.
> Lovely bench planes, or for framing work where you're working on some
> awkward beam on trestles, not a piece lying flat on a bench.
>
> However for smoothers I'd want some extra weight, and as I adjust it
> carefully once then leave it alone, then the nice adjuster is of less
> benefit to me.

I hate to ask a stupid question here, but why is lots of weight
desirable in a smoother?

Patriarch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> A couple of neander questions for you, please ...
>>
>> 1. Does anyone use a backbevel on a standard Stanley plane blade
>> (e.g., a 10 degree backbevel to increase the effective cutting angle
>> for figured woods)?
>
> Really gnarly woods are why I bought one of Steve Knight's smoothers.
> And a high angle blade on last year's Veritas bevel up Smoother.

Hi Patriarch,

I have shied away from Steve's smoothers because I am not partial to
adjustments on a wedged iron. I've never quite got the hang of it. I
recall in a post a couple of weeks back you mentioned that Steve might
be coming up with a plane that uses a more conventional adjust, but I
searched the archive and his website and couldn't find the reference.

I've been thinking about a bevel up smoother but I haven't reached the
point of coughing up the cash yet.

> The Stanley 4 is used for routine tasks, and the 4.5 for tasks where
> the weight is an asset. Mostly, it takes up a slot in the tool shrine
> these days.
>
> To redo an old Sweetheart blade wouldn't take too long, though, and it
> certainly would do no lasting damage.

I guess you're right. What the heck, I'll give it a try.

>> 2. Has anyone had personal experience with the ECE Primus reform
>> smoothers? What do you think of them?
>
> I have not. Sorry.
>>

Thanks again, guys.

Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Hi folks,
>
> A couple of neander questions for you, please ...
>
> 1. Does anyone use a backbevel on a standard Stanley plane blade
> (e.g., a 10 degree backbevel to increase the effective cutting angle
> for figured woods)?

Really gnarly woods are why I bought one of Steve Knight's smoothers. And
a high angle blade on last year's Veritas bevel up Smoother.

The Stanley 4 is used for routine tasks, and the 4.5 for tasks where the
weight is an asset. Mostly, it takes up a slot in the tool shrine these
days.

To redo an old Sweetheart blade wouldn't take too long, though, and it
certainly would do no lasting damage.
>
> 2. Has anyone had personal experience with the ECE Primus reform
> smoothers? What do you think of them?

I have not. Sorry.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Nate

You're welcome.

Patriarch

Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>

>> Really gnarly woods are why I bought one of Steve Knight's smoothers.
>> And a high angle blade on last year's Veritas bevel up Smoother.
>
> Hi Patriarch,
>
> I have shied away from Steve's smoothers because I am not partial to
> adjustments on a wedged iron. I've never quite got the hang of it. I
> recall in a post a couple of weeks back you mentioned that Steve might
> be coming up with a plane that uses a more conventional adjust, but I
> searched the archive and his website and couldn't find the reference.

Try this:

http://www.knight-toolworks.com/web_temp_pics/cocobolobrass.jpg

Patriarch,
really _not_ a paid Steve Knight endorser, as though he needed one...

Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 15:00:00 GMT, Nate Perkins
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I hate to ask a stupid question here, but why is lots of weight
>>desirable in a smoother?
>
...
> Personally I find a heavier smoother helpful and I think it's to do
> with increased inertia, rather than weight. There's a "flywheel"
> effect - when it's moving, then it carries on moving, even if you hit
> a tougher knotty bit. This can be useful on irregular or figured
> timbers. If you do get tearout, this is normally associated with a
> point where the plane "stuttered" and you stopped moving it so
> smoothly for a moment - whether this is because of the speed changing,
> or the angle tilting, I don't know..

I see. Thanks, Andy. I am learning :-)

Patriarch <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Nate Perkins <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
(snip)
>>
>> I have shied away from Steve's smoothers because I am not partial to
>> adjustments on a wedged iron. I've never quite got the hang of it.
>> I recall in a post a couple of weeks back you mentioned that Steve
>> might be coming up with a plane that uses a more conventional adjust,
>> but I searched the archive and his website and couldn't find the
>> reference.
>
> Try this:
>
> http://www.knight-toolworks.com/web_temp_pics/cocobolobrass.jpg

Thanks, Patriarch. That's a nice looking plane.

> Patriarch,
> really _not_ a paid Steve Knight endorser, as though he needed one...

Yep, I noticed the big Steve Knight fan club ... He must be doing
something right!

"Jeff Gorman" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> "Nate Perkins" <[email protected]> wrote
>
>> I gather not much stands up to a Norris, although I haven't used one.
>
> You might find that the Norris adjuster can be as difficult as some
> wedged planes. Combining the lateral adjuster and the feed is not a
> good idea. Change one and you can find that the other has shifted.
>
> For the results obtainable from a bog standard, relatively inexpensive
> cast iron smoother, you might like to try my web site - Planing Notes
> - Coping With Gnarly Grain.

Hi Jeff,

I've read your site many times, for many different topics ... handcut
dovetails, chopping mortises by hand, tuning planes, etc. It is an
excellent site and a great resource for the rest of us. Much
appreciated. Following the instructions there (and elsewhere) have
gotten me most of the way there, but I still have trouble from time to
time on the most highly figured woods.

Looking again at your website, there are some things on there that I can
still try. I have not filed the upper lip of the inside of the mouth,
and my minimum mouth opening has been limited by clogging. The minimum
mouth opening I've been using is wider than in your photos (I'd guess
mine is somewhere around three quarters of a mm).

The other place where I've been remiss is that I've not lapped the sole
of the plane. It "seemed" close enough by straightedge and I hesitated
to scrub off all that nice patina (it's a very good condition #3,
probably good enough to collect). I guess I ought to just bite the
bullet and lap it.

Regards,
Nate

Jeff Gorman wrote:

> Try moving the cap iron backwards a little. Though it helps to have it as
> close as possible, I've found that the position is not as critical as is
> somethime made out.

One of my best smoothers (C&W woodie) doesn't have a cap-iron at
all. And on my #4-1/2 I've set the cap iron back at least 1/8". With
the leading edge of the mouth filed to remove any burrs, you can really
close up the mouth. When the mouth is closed up that much, I suspect
the cap-iron serves no function besides lending support to the iron (and
clogging the mouth with shavings if it's set too close).

I haven't looked at your site for a while, but didn't you put forth
the position that on a plane with an extremely tight mouth, the leading
edge of the mouth/sole actually functions as the chipbreaker?


Chuck Vance