Hello,
I am just an amateur woodworker, who just awhile ago got into building
handplanes. I like krenovian approach (gives me an excuse to use
combinations of flashy hardwoods :). I have finished now about a dozen
wooden handplanes and conditioned (or actually re-built) some cast-
iron english Stanleys and one Anant smoother by machining their soles
and sides, mouths, beddings and assembly surfaces with a precision
milling machines and other such methods. I think they work now as well
as those expensive (and beautiful) Lie-Nielsens and Veritas planes.
Well, I'd say the Anant smoother costs now about 400-500 USD :).
Nothing further on that, just to say that now I have some preliminary
experience about making and conditioning planes to somewhat useful
woodworking tools.
Okay, during these exercises, it got me thinking one seemingly
fundamental design-based thing, on which I have not yet found
discussion or comments anywhere. It may be because english language is
not my native language and that's why I have missed something. But it
still bothers me, and I still I would like to receive some comments
and guiding in this matter, which actually fights against certain
fundamental classic design principles I have used to keep as rock-
solid approach when talking about woodworking handplanes.
Consider the side profile of for example Stanley #5, just to mention
one basic design. It's side profile starts as shallow at toe, rising
along the side where blade is and then again decreases to the heel.
This side profile says that the body construction is most rigid
against mechanical bending in the mid-section where the blade and it's
adjustments are.
The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
surface. Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
be no only incredibly flat to work well, it is in some cases also
difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
So, the bothering question is that why plane profile could not be
allowed to be a bit more flexible at that region where plane blade and
the surface area are? I do not mean paper-thin soles or clearly
"springy" action or such, but just enough to utilize that force
created by blade. It would still not mean loss of rigidity beyond
practical level.
This bothers me, the question why general design fundamentals consider
such an unforgiving structures for cast iron handplanes. I know, it
works, I have experienced and even created it by myself. I have also
experienced surprises that it does not work although everything should
be in order. Then again, I have found that I score with better
surfaces with wooden planes more often than with cast iron bodied
planes despite they are nominally more accurately adjustable. Could it
be that this "flexibility" is readily available in the more elastic
behaviour of the wooden sole? I somehow do not think that this
difference appears directly because of my contribution. For example,
due to my day job, I have access to machinery that makes really very
true surfaces (for flat surfaces manufacturing, human craftsmanship
has really no deal compared to how those machines do and measure their
job) and I have for a curiosity done surface truing for some
handplanes with them. The result is kinda clear, with similar settings
of planes (iron angle, mouth clearance etc.) wooden plane sole works
better more often than cast iron plane. To me, this result is also a
kind of evidence to support the existence of my current disturbing
thoughts of "flexible" sole. I say that I am not starting a crusade,
not even arguing anything but just presenting my experiences.
But because here in this newsgroup there seems to visit both
professionals and very advanced amateurs, I decided to ask this here.
Please, bear with me :)
Yours,
Samu
On May 16, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> surface.
The force vector against the wooden surface you speak of is virtually
non-existent - the reason being that the force is the result of
"pushing" against a very flimsy support - the wood shaving your are
cutting away while planing. Its been many a year since I took
Engineering mechanics, but I think if you draw a freebody diagram of
the plane blade itself and draw the arrows representing the various
force vectors, you'll see what I mean.
Bob
Hello,
On 17 touko, 04:30, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> : The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> : shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> : surface.
>
> Interesting point. The blade will also bend, and can create
> chatter when it repeatedly bends down, snaps up, bends down, etc.
> And this gives a messed-up surface.
Chattering of plane iron is of course a problem in some cases, caused
by the fact that plane iron is hardened steel or similar, providing
very low internal value for mechanical damping, and it is used to
machine wood, which is structurally and mechanically speaking both
anisotropic and periodical material. I think You have heard the high-
pitch howling, almost squealing sound emerging from plane throat while
planing. Plane advances about at walking speed, cutting these a few
micron of diameter regions of wood fiber in a row. The result for 1st
mode frequency is regularly at kHz levels. Higher modes follow,
contributing their part for the tone. Vibration of the blade is
therefore inevitable, but only thing to avoid is vibration frequency
for blade-bedding resonances, which is the main cause for devastating
chattering.
It is true that any length of plane iron, protruding from sole would
also have the momentum of it's length. When worked against
periodically composed material, it actually will vibrate, no matter
what kind of plane body structure there is. Factors like iron
thickness and plane body heft will affect in it, but will not remove
it because it is direct consequence of the working blade edge.
Infinitely rigid plane with minimum protruding length of plane works
only on surfaces needing no planing anymore, so to speak :)
My problem is still a bit different in details, I'm afraid. The wooden
surface to be smoothed is not flat, yet. Plane has to be used. It is
also so that real wooden surface will never be absolutely flat, also
plane sole surface is not absolutely flat. There does not exist
infinitely rigid surfaces, but there is great difference in rigidity
between wooden sole and cast iron sole. Like I said before, I score
with better surfaces more often with wooden soles. I like Stanley-type
of planes because they are incredibly comfortable to hold and appear
as "discrete machines" which is great, but they do not work so
reliably as wooden planes, because of those sudden surprises I have
experienced.
The downforce of advancing plane iron taking a shaving increases up to
some level along the planing speed. It must be reasonably high,
because everyone who has catched a just-planed shaving on the back of
the hand, can tell that it is warm. The heat implies to a significant
amount of energy needed to take the shaving off. Part of that energy
is undoubtly consumed in creating the downforce. The main problem
actually is that for finishing smoothing, the shavings are very thin,
like 0,05mm thick or such, and at that point the region in front of
the blade should really stay pushed against the wooden surface. This
causes the problem I have observed and would like to receive some kind
of satisfactory answer: why very well prepared cast iron sole does not
_necessarily_ provide the same consistent performance as wooden one?
Is it because of higher elasticity/compressibility of wooden sole?
Does wooden blade bedding provide more mechanical damping to resist
chattering (it does, but it is undoubtly not the whole explanation) ?
What else could matter here this much?
I am still not arguing anything, just asking quite a difficult thing.
I'd like to use more those metal planes because they feel good, but I
must say the wooden ones are as comfortable. I could shut my mouth and
stick with the woodies, but if I do not understand why some of my
tools do not work, it's just too disturbing not to talk about :)
Yours,
Samu
Hello,
On 17 touko, 09:07, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 16, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> > shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> > surface.
>
> The force vector against the wooden surface you speak of is virtually
> non-existent - the reason being that the force is the result of
> "pushing" against a very flimsy support - the wood shaving your are
> cutting away while planing. Its been many a year since I took
> Engineering mechanics, but I think if you draw a freebody diagram of
> the plane blade itself and draw the arrows representing the various
> force vectors, you'll see what I mean.
>
> Bob
Well, I could draw that easily, but what should I place as values for
other forces to solve that equation? For example, how should I measure
frictional forces at wood-sole interface during actual planing event?
I can imagine the measuring setup, actually I think it has been done
somewhere (cannot now remember where).
But I think it is not quite neglible, not necessarily. And solving
that is also not my reason for these posts here, although it would be
interesting to find out.
Yours,
Samu
Hello,
On 17 touko, 00:55, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 16 May 2007 14:21:03 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> >shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> >surface.
>
> While this is true as an observation, I don't believe it's a significant
> force in comparison to the downforce with which I push down on the
> plane body.
Precisely so. If I am an average Finn, of height 184 cm and weighing
90 kilos, I would think that the portion of my body mass I use for
plane operation would exceed the downforce created by blade. But I
think this is not yet the complete reason for different behaviour of
the different plane body structures I am experiencing, because the
question is actually how to keep the region in front of the blade
pressed against the wood surface in that case when plane body is very
rigid. If it does not stay there, there will appear some disturbing
tear-out. I also think that my planing as an operation is very much
typical and pretty much similar as seen in those educational DVDs from
master cabinetmakers.
When using a traditional bench plane, You press it against the wooden
surface at the end regions of the plane body. In front of the front
handle, as behind the rear handle there is some sole area, the most
important areas with the area right in front of the blade. You do the
same thing with both cast iron plane and wooden plane. In my case, I
think I have witnessed the difference between these planes, and I
would like to figure out actual reasons behind it.
> I'd also note that recent Anants are incomprably better to their
> production of 5 years ago. They're now better than modern Stanleys for
> build quality.
I am glad to hear it is possible to score with decent planes with low
expenses. I hope it would bring more people to the joys of
woodworking :)
Yours,
Samu
On May 16, 11:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> On May 16, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> > The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> > shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> > surface.
>
> The force vector against the wooden surface you speak of is virtually
> non-existent - the reason being that the force is the result of
> "pushing" against a very flimsy support - the wood shaving your are
> cutting away while planing. Its been many a year since I took
> Engineering mechanics, but I think if you draw a freebody diagram of
> the plane blade itself and draw the arrows representing the various
> force vectors, you'll see what I mean.
>
> Bob
the downward pull is slight, but seems to me like it would fluctuate
quite a bit with grain changes.... and remember that the force is
greatest right at the edge of the blade, where it is thinnest.
On May 17, 6:24 am, [email protected] wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 17 touko, 04:30, Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
>
> > : The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> > : shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> > : surface.
>
> > Interesting point. The blade will also bend, and can create
> > chatter when it repeatedly bends down, snaps up, bends down, etc.
> > And this gives a messed-up surface.
>
> Chattering of plane iron is of course a problem in some cases, caused
> by the fact that plane iron is hardened steel or similar, providing
> very low internal value for mechanical damping, and it is used to
> machine wood, which is structurally and mechanically speaking both
> anisotropic and periodical material. I think You have heard the high-
> pitch howling, almost squealing sound emerging from plane throat while
> planing. Plane advances about at walking speed, cutting these a few
> micron of diameter regions of wood fiber in a row. The result for 1st
> mode frequency is regularly at kHz levels. Higher modes follow,
> contributing their part for the tone. Vibration of the blade is
> therefore inevitable, but only thing to avoid is vibration frequency
> for blade-bedding resonances, which is the main cause for devastating
> chattering.
>
> It is true that any length of plane iron, protruding from sole would
> also have the momentum of it's length. When worked against
> periodically composed material, it actually will vibrate, no matter
> what kind of plane body structure there is. Factors like iron
> thickness and plane body heft will affect in it, but will not remove
> it because it is direct consequence of the working blade edge.
> Infinitely rigid plane with minimum protruding length of plane works
> only on surfaces needing no planing anymore, so to speak :)
>
> My problem is still a bit different in details, I'm afraid. The wooden
> surface to be smoothed is not flat, yet. Plane has to be used. It is
> also so that real wooden surface will never be absolutely flat, also
> plane sole surface is not absolutely flat. There does not exist
> infinitely rigid surfaces, but there is great difference in rigidity
> between wooden sole and cast iron sole. Like I said before, I score
> with better surfaces more often with wooden soles. I like Stanley-type
> of planes because they are incredibly comfortable to hold and appear
> as "discrete machines" which is great, but they do not work so
> reliably as wooden planes, because of those sudden surprises I have
> experienced.
>
> The downforce of advancing plane iron taking a shaving increases up to
> some level along the planing speed. It must be reasonably high,
> because everyone who has catched a just-planed shaving on the back of
> the hand, can tell that it is warm. The heat implies to a significant
> amount of energy needed to take the shaving off. Part of that energy
> is undoubtly consumed in creating the downforce. The main problem
> actually is that for finishing smoothing, the shavings are very thin,
> like 0,05mm thick or such, and at that point the region in front of
> the blade should really stay pushed against the wooden surface. This
> causes the problem I have observed and would like to receive some kind
> of satisfactory answer: why very well prepared cast iron sole does not
> _necessarily_ provide the same consistent performance as wooden one?
> Is it because of higher elasticity/compressibility of wooden sole?
> Does wooden blade bedding provide more mechanical damping to resist
> chattering (it does, but it is undoubtly not the whole explanation) ?
> What else could matter here this much?
>
> I am still not arguing anything, just asking quite a difficult thing.
> I'd like to use more those metal planes because they feel good, but I
> must say the wooden ones are as comfortable. I could shut my mouth and
> stick with the woodies, but if I do not understand why some of my
> tools do not work, it's just too disturbing not to talk about :)
>
> Yours,
>
> Samu
well, a test. make a wooden plane with the same configuration as one
of your iron ones- same weight, blade angle, toe length, heel length,
every factor you can think of, and use the same blade in both. compare
performance. one difference that remains is the material comprising
the sole surface- wood vs. iron. they have different textures, among
other things.
Hello,
On 17 touko, 20:33, [email protected] wrote:
>
> well, a test. make a wooden plane with the same configuration as one
> of your iron ones- same weight, blade angle, toe length, heel length,
> every factor you can think of, and use the same blade in both. compare
> performance. one difference that remains is the material comprising
> the sole surface- wood vs. iron. they have different textures, among
> other things.
Yes, there readily is such a wooden plane. I did not make it, I
inherited it from my grandfather who made it according to Stanley #5
dimensions and functions. It is not a wooden replica of metal Stanley,
but looks like a regular european style of wooden plane. But I think
just a wooden replica of metal Stanley may not quite compare, and
besides now when I have experienced this difference already with
conventional style of wooden planes, I think I should actually make
this other idea I have had for awhile.
I have one more english Stanley #5, to which I could the following
modification. It is possible to machine about 2mm off the thickness of
the sole, and replace it with a slice of rosewood or cocobolo of
similar thickness. I would think that some suitable flexible epoxy
adhesive would hold the piece there. The point for this experiment
would be to see whether the reason of this behaviour would lie in the
more elastic contact behaviour of wooden sole, or would things still
remain the same.
But before anything happens, I would like to hear if anyone has
already done something like this? The idea is kinda obvious, to
combine the smooth action of wooden sole with rigid frame and all the
adjustments. A bit different than those Stanley transitionals, though.
Yours,
Samu
On May 18, 7:27 am, Larry Kraus <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Good performance is readily achieved with simple lapping with a flat
> reference surface, silicon carbide sandpaper and patience. Lapping to
> "incredibly flat" may be time consuming, but is not difficult.
Yes, I did that with precision machining and polishing machines. I'd
say the achieved "flatness" is at submicron level over entire plane
sole of this English Stanley #5 and one other metal plane. I have a
reason to believe that human hands are perhaps not capable to perform
the same. And yes, the lever cap with blade was tightened during the
operation. I did the same with some wooden soles, but I think this
accuracy does not hold for long due to the living nature of wood. But
it is still incredibly flat, too.
> >it is in some cases also
> >difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
> >front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
> >be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
>
> Why would the sole not be pressed against the wood? If the area in
> front of the mouth is not pressed against the wood, that means the toe
> and heel of the plane are on higher spots, which will be cut off when
> the blade gets to it. If the body can flex enough to allow the blade
> to cut in the valleys, it would only be making a low area lower. You
> can plane the valleys when the hills are gone.
Yes again for the levelling phase of planing. But the problem is with
those final shavings, very thin ones giving the polished look. Woodies
work better there according to my experiences.
> As a matter of curiosity, I like the see comparative measurements of
> the rigidity of a Stanley cast iron plane and an equivalent woody. I'm
> not convinced that there is a significant difference.
I think too that it is so, total frame rigidity is not necessarily the
main cause for these anomalies. But I am starting to think that the
answer may lie in higher elasticity/compressibility of wooden sole,
which actually is another thing than total frame rigidity. With
similar force, You can compress wood more than cast iron, of course.
It could be that when I put a portion of my body mass over the
handles, those sole regions under the handles will be compressed to
slight elastic and reversible deformation, like some springy pad. That
leaves the mid-section of the sole as compressed, too, but now it
would have a chance to "live along", meaning that when the plane iron
edge contacts some stiffer or harder region in cranky wood, this
precompression of that particular surface in front of the plane iron
edge will have some holding reserve which would keep the smoother and
a bit softer, but more intensive contact there for slightly longer
time. Or something like that. Something has to happen there, because
this disturbing from-a-distance-visible tear-out seems to happen less
often with wooden sole. I can't believe I have confronted just a
statistical anomaly, nor I would not blame the wood because I have
planed the same surfaces with both metal and wooden planes. Go
figure :)
Yours,
Samu
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> I am just an amateur woodworker, who just awhile ago got into building
> handplanes. I like krenovian approach (gives me an excuse to use
> combinations of flashy hardwoods :). I have finished now about a dozen
> wooden handplanes and conditioned (or actually re-built) some cast-
> iron english Stanleys and one Anant smoother by machining their soles
> and sides, mouths, beddings and assembly surfaces with a precision
> milling machines and other such methods. I think they work now as well
> as those expensive (and beautiful) Lie-Nielsens and Veritas planes.
> Well, I'd say the Anant smoother costs now about 400-500 USD :).
> Nothing further on that, just to say that now I have some preliminary
> experience about making and conditioning planes to somewhat useful
> woodworking tools.
>
> Okay, during these exercises, it got me thinking one seemingly
> fundamental design-based thing, on which I have not yet found
> discussion or comments anywhere. It may be because english language is
> not my native language and that's why I have missed something. But it
> still bothers me, and I still I would like to receive some comments
> and guiding in this matter, which actually fights against certain
> fundamental classic design principles I have used to keep as rock-
> solid approach when talking about woodworking handplanes.
>
> Consider the side profile of for example Stanley #5, just to mention
> one basic design. It's side profile starts as shallow at toe, rising
> along the side where blade is and then again decreases to the heel.
> This side profile says that the body construction is most rigid
> against mechanical bending in the mid-section where the blade and it's
> adjustments are.
>
> The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> surface. Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
> that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
> region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
> means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
> be no only incredibly flat to work well, it is in some cases also
> difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
> front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
> be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
>
> So, the bothering question is that why plane profile could not be
> allowed to be a bit more flexible at that region where plane blade and
> the surface area are? I do not mean paper-thin soles or clearly
> "springy" action or such, but just enough to utilize that force
> created by blade. It would still not mean loss of rigidity beyond
> practical level.
>
> This bothers me, the question why general design fundamentals consider
> such an unforgiving structures for cast iron handplanes. I know, it
> works, I have experienced and even created it by myself. I have also
> experienced surprises that it does not work although everything should
> be in order. Then again, I have found that I score with better
> surfaces with wooden planes more often than with cast iron bodied
> planes despite they are nominally more accurately adjustable. Could it
> be that this "flexibility" is readily available in the more elastic
> behaviour of the wooden sole? I somehow do not think that this
> difference appears directly because of my contribution. For example,
> due to my day job, I have access to machinery that makes really very
> true surfaces (for flat surfaces manufacturing, human craftsmanship
> has really no deal compared to how those machines do and measure their
> job) and I have for a curiosity done surface truing for some
> handplanes with them. The result is kinda clear, with similar settings
> of planes (iron angle, mouth clearance etc.) wooden plane sole works
> better more often than cast iron plane. To me, this result is also a
> kind of evidence to support the existence of my current disturbing
> thoughts of "flexible" sole. I say that I am not starting a crusade,
> not even arguing anything but just presenting my experiences.
>
> But because here in this newsgroup there seems to visit both
> professionals and very advanced amateurs, I decided to ask this here.
> Please, bear with me :)
>
> Yours,
>
> Samu
>
<[email protected]> wrote
> So, the bothering question is that why plane profile could not be
> allowed to be a bit more flexible at that region where plane blade and
> the surface area are? I do not mean paper-thin soles or clearly
> "springy" action or such, but just enough to utilize that force
> created by blade. It would still not mean loss of rigidity beyond
> practical level.
I think that Samu and possibly others who contribute to this interesting
discussion might find some value in looking at the following on my web site.
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/bodydeflection/deflectionindex.htm
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/rectilinearcutting/rectilinearindex.htm
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/Skitter/skitindex.htm
As far as deflection and front lip of mouth contact is concerned, I have
found that when making extremely thin shavings to attack some tearout, that
pressing down with the left hand on the frog of a Stanley 04 smoother
(scraped sole
http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/flatsole/scraping.htm) makes a
difference between planing and not planing at all.
Of course, also having the finest possible shaving aperture and a very fine
set makes an enormous difference when planing gnarly grain.
Jeff
--
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
email : Username is amgron
ISP is clara.co.uk
www.amgron.clara.net
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> On May 16, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> Its been many a year since I took Engineering mechanics,
>>
>> Bob
>
> That's a way of putting it that I don't often see. May I ask where you
> studied Engineering mechanics?
University of Texas at Austin. My degree is electrical engineering but all
engineering disciplines had to take two semesters of engineering mechanics
in their freshman year.
Bob
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 16, 11:07 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>> On May 16, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
>> > shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
>> > surface.
>>
>> The force vector against the wooden surface you speak of is virtually
>> non-existent - the reason being that the force is the result of
>> "pushing" against a very flimsy support - the wood shaving your are
>> cutting away while planing. Its been many a year since I took
>> Engineering mechanics, but I think if you draw a freebody diagram of
>> the plane blade itself and draw the arrows representing the various
>> force vectors, you'll see what I mean.
>>
>> Bob
>
> the downward pull is slight, but seems to me like it would fluctuate
> quite a bit with grain changes.... and remember that the force is
> greatest right at the edge of the blade, where it is thinnest.
I think you are right Bridger. I don't want to make my head hurt to much by
thinking about it to rigorously. :-)
Bob
Andrew Barss <[email protected]> wrote:
> Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
> : that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
> : region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
> : means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
> : be no only incredibly flat to work well, it is in some cases also
> : difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
> : front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
> : be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
>
> True. There was a discussion of the degree to which soles flexed
> during use (and also during the tightening of the blade cap)
> on the Oldtools list.
Which is why when lapping a plane sole you must do it assembled and
tightened down. I took a 1930s Stanley smoother with a concave sole and
got it touching at toe, in front of the mouth and heel. It cuts
beautifully now, runs over knots in pine like a dream.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
On 16 May 2007 14:21:03 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
>shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
>surface.
While this is true as an observation, I don't believe it's a significant
force in comparison to the downforce with which I push down on the
plane body.
I'd also note that recent Anants are incomprably better to their
production of 5 years ago. They're now better than modern Stanleys for
build quality.
Would this flex still be an issue if the plane was built like a
(stationary, electric) jointer where the feed surface is lower than the
outfeed surface by the thickness of the cut? The back/outfeed of the
sole would have to be narrowed to the width of the blade I suppose.
Obviously this would require a new kind of adjustment mechanism, but
someone could sacrifice a wooden plane to make a nonadjustable version
and see what happens.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
> But because here in this newsgroup there seems to visit both
> professionals and very advanced amateurs, I decided to ask this here.
> Please, bear with me :)
An intriguing and thought provoking question.
I certainly hope someone can do the question justice because, if so, it
would sure be a discussion worthy of observation.
I wish us both luck! ;)
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 2/20/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)
[email protected] wrote:
>The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
>shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
>surface. Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
>that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
>region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
>means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
>be no only incredibly flat to work well,
Good performance is readily achieved with simple lapping with a flat
reference surface, silicon carbide sandpaper and patience. Lapping to
"incredibly flat" may be time consuming, but is not difficult.
>it is in some cases also
>difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
>front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
>be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
Why would the sole not be pressed against the wood? If the area in
front of the mouth is not pressed against the wood, that means the toe
and heel of the plane are on higher spots, which will be cut off when
the blade gets to it. If the body can flex enough to allow the blade
to cut in the valleys, it would only be making a low area lower. You
can plane the valleys when the hills are gone.
As a matter of curiosity, I like the see comparative measurements of
the rigidity of a Stanley cast iron plane and an equivalent woody. I'm
not convinced that there is a significant difference.
[email protected] wrote:
: The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
: shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
: surface.
Interesting point. The blade will also bend, and can create
chatter when it repeatedly bends down, snaps up, bends down, etc.
And this gives a messed-up surface.
Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
: that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
: region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
: means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
: be no only incredibly flat to work well, it is in some cases also
: difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
: front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
: be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
True. There was a discussion of the degree to which soles flexed
during use (and also during the tightening of the blade cap)
on the Oldtools list. It was several years ago, but the whole
list is archived at
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/
Jeff Gorman, who used to post here, did some measurement studies.
: So, the bothering question is that why plane profile could not be
: allowed to be a bit more flexible at that region where plane blade and
: the surface area are? I do not mean paper-thin soles or clearly
: "springy" action or such, but just enough to utilize that force
: created by blade. It would still not mean loss of rigidity beyond
: practical level.
I think it would, actually. The blade engages the wood by protruding
from the sole a small amount. Ideally, you want the horizontal
movement of the blade to be in a straight line. If the sole is flexing, the
blade would go further down, then snap up as the casting bewnds back,
over and over again.
Ideally, you'd like the blade to be, say, welded to a totally inflexible
plane body, so there's absolutly no up and down movement of the cutting edge.
If I remember the Oldtools discussions correctly, there is more
of this vibration than you would think, even on a hefty iron plane body.
-- Andy Barss
Might I suggest that you take your question to the Old Tools (Galoot) group?
There are people who know more about the use and design of planes than
almost anyone, and best of all they don't flame each other.
[email protected]
Might be very interesting.
Old Guy
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Hello,
>
> I am just an amateur woodworker, who just awhile ago got into building
> handplanes. I like krenovian approach (gives me an excuse to use
> combinations of flashy hardwoods :). I have finished now about a dozen
> wooden handplanes and conditioned (or actually re-built) some cast-
> iron english Stanleys and one Anant smoother by machining their soles
> and sides, mouths, beddings and assembly surfaces with a precision
> milling machines and other such methods. I think they work now as well
> as those expensive (and beautiful) Lie-Nielsens and Veritas planes.
> Well, I'd say the Anant smoother costs now about 400-500 USD :).
> Nothing further on that, just to say that now I have some preliminary
> experience about making and conditioning planes to somewhat useful
> woodworking tools.
>
> Okay, during these exercises, it got me thinking one seemingly
> fundamental design-based thing, on which I have not yet found
> discussion or comments anywhere. It may be because english language is
> not my native language and that's why I have missed something. But it
> still bothers me, and I still I would like to receive some comments
> and guiding in this matter, which actually fights against certain
> fundamental classic design principles I have used to keep as rock-
> solid approach when talking about woodworking handplanes.
>
> Consider the side profile of for example Stanley #5, just to mention
> one basic design. It's side profile starts as shallow at toe, rising
> along the side where blade is and then again decreases to the heel.
> This side profile says that the body construction is most rigid
> against mechanical bending in the mid-section where the blade and it's
> adjustments are.
>
> The plane iron itself, when you push the plane forward and blade takes
> shavings, will create a force which pulls the sole against the wood
> surface. Then again, when I think of the generally accepted principle
> that plane sole should be levelled at least at toe region, at heel
> region and especially at the area right in front of the blade edge, it
> means that if there is very rigid mid-section structure, the sole must
> be no only incredibly flat to work well, it is in some cases also
> difficult to avoid tear-out in very figured wood if the sole region in
> front of the blade does not stay pressed against the wood surface to
> be planed. Quite unforgiving system, I'd say.
>
> So, the bothering question is that why plane profile could not be
> allowed to be a bit more flexible at that region where plane blade and
> the surface area are? I do not mean paper-thin soles or clearly
> "springy" action or such, but just enough to utilize that force
> created by blade. It would still not mean loss of rigidity beyond
> practical level.
>
> This bothers me, the question why general design fundamentals consider
> such an unforgiving structures for cast iron handplanes. I know, it
> works, I have experienced and even created it by myself. I have also
> experienced surprises that it does not work although everything should
> be in order. Then again, I have found that I score with better
> surfaces with wooden planes more often than with cast iron bodied
> planes despite they are nominally more accurately adjustable. Could it
> be that this "flexibility" is readily available in the more elastic
> behaviour of the wooden sole? I somehow do not think that this
> difference appears directly because of my contribution. For example,
> due to my day job, I have access to machinery that makes really very
> true surfaces (for flat surfaces manufacturing, human craftsmanship
> has really no deal compared to how those machines do and measure their
> job) and I have for a curiosity done surface truing for some
> handplanes with them. The result is kinda clear, with similar settings
> of planes (iron angle, mouth clearance etc.) wooden plane sole works
> better more often than cast iron plane. To me, this result is also a
> kind of evidence to support the existence of my current disturbing
> thoughts of "flexible" sole. I say that I am not starting a crusade,
> not even arguing anything but just presenting my experiences.
>
> But because here in this newsgroup there seems to visit both
> professionals and very advanced amateurs, I decided to ask this here.
> Please, bear with me :)
>
> Yours,
>
> Samu
>
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On May 16, 5:21 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Its been many a year since I took Engineering mechanics,
>
> Bob
That's a way of putting it that I don't often see. May I ask where you
studied Engineering mechanics?
todd