AHill
Honored Veteran
Registered: 01/16/06
Posts: 5149
Loc: Antelope Valley, California
|
|
Gary, I have to disagree with at least part of your premise. Sharp doesn't solve every problem. I know several of the folks who have posted here, and I know they know how to get blades sharp. I'm pretty sure the Schwarz knows how to sharpen, and his observation was that things worked better when the chipbreaker was set properly. I have observed with bevel up planes that the cutting angle makes a huge difference in tackling figured maple. I'm anxious to experiment this weekend on setting my chipbreaker.
I think the big thing lost in this discussion is not the physics of how the chipbreaker works, but the mechanics of how to properly set one. For all of you who figured it out a long time ago, kudos to you. I, for one, am grateful that someone finally had the clarity to explain how to do it beyond a simple, "set it close to the edge." "Close" is an ambiguous term that can mean very different things to very different people.
toolemera said:
Here we go again, rethinking and overthinking and to what purpose? It's not any one part of the tool, it's how the whole shebang works in all it's parts, the particular piece of wood to be shaped, the humidity of the shop and for all I know, how far you are from the equator.
This modern attempt to examine and analyze the micro facets of tools is interesting but at times has me scratching my head.
It's been known for many dozens of decades that the cap iron does two things: it reduces blade edge chatter and it guides shavings into a circular pattern, preventing the shaving stream from catching on the wedge. The term chip breaker is a more modern term and that's all, producing a bunch of confusion.
I predict that if you learn how to sharpen a blade and do so when it begins to dull, all this talk of cap irons will become superfluous. Look to the texts that were written during the day and the advice is to stop planing or chiseling when the blade becomes dull, sharpen it and then return to work.
It's a dull blade that is more often the problem than it is an improperly set cap iron. Set the cap iron close to the edge of the blade, make sure the cap iron is straight across and has no gaps and go to work.
--------------------
Still Learning,
Allan Hill
|
mike77x
Member
Registered: 01/22/07
Posts: 123
|
|
Quote:
"Close" is an ambiguous term that can mean very different things to very different people.
kind of like "sharp"
|
Derek Cohen
Member
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 4452
Loc: Perth, Australia
|
|
LENPAM said:
Cornell and Derek I understand your points and I agree with your premise,but I still have some reservations about whether a bevel on a capiron or chip breaker is any better then one set very close to the edge of a well sharpened thick iron,and since the majority of my planes I use have thick irons I fail to percieve a great benefit in the bevel concept. I took a couple smoothers that I will try and bevel the capirons on to research this point on a first hand basis.While I remain pretty constant in my belief that a bevel isn't any better then a well meeted and low radiused capiron held cose to the edge of a iron I will try this to prove the difference to myself before being totally close minded toward this whole idea. I'm still wondering how this bevel is acheived uniformly across an edge which is rounded as most Stanley type cap irons are since few are adept enough to hand hold and sharpen this particular bevel. I'll give it a shot and find out,Len
Hi Len
I look forward to hearing about your experience. Note that I have argued (above) that one should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, that is, if you have a plane that works well, why change? I have a problem testing out the chip breaker effect on my Spier infill - the mouth is too tight for the experiment. And I am not going to open it!
I am most interested in knowing - and you are definitely the guy to go to for this information - the percentage of your infill smoothers and panel planes that come with tight mouths? These planes, I assume, use double irons.
Regards from Perth
Derek
--------------------
Articles on furniture building, shop made tools and tool reviews at www.inthewoodshop.com
|
Derek Cohen
Member
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 4452
Loc: Perth, Australia
|
|
Axehandle said:
Yep, David Charlesworth had it right years ago. You guys should read his works a little more.
Actually, David did not have it right at all. His idea was to file the chip breaker to a nothingness so as to get it out of the way. He, too, has been experimenting over the past month or so, and changed his view on how a chip breaker should be used.
Regards from Perth
Derek
--------------------
Articles on furniture building, shop made tools and tool reviews at www.inthewoodshop.com
|
Derek Cohen
Member
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 4452
Loc: Perth, Australia
|
|
mike77x said:
Quote:
"Close" is an ambiguous term that can mean very different things to very different people.
kind of like "sharp"
When one looks at the woodworking texts written over the past couple of decades, very few mention the chip breaker as a means of tuning the plane. Some do mention setting it at about 1/32" for best performance on difficult grain. The trouble is that one really needs to play around this mark, not assume it is the mark to use. It may be a bit less (usually is) and not more. Results vary for many reasons - mouth size, cutting angle, type of wood ..
Now I must make it clear that I do not wish this post to indicate anything new. We must acknowledge that this information has been around a long time. A recent thread here, started by Warren, supported by others, traced the history of the double iron back a couple of hundred years. So why was the information lost? Well it was not lost - just that it was not emphasised enough, and perhaps because we did not look hard enough or want to know. Who knows ..?
We are re-inventing the wheel. But this is OK - we all benefit from the knowledge.
To get started, one is helped by numbers. These also make it possible for others to reproduce what others try out. Numbers give you a starting point. Just remember that the numbers are expected to vary, and that you must experiment to find your own.
Numbers: aim for 0.3-0.4mm chip breaker from the edge. Mouth open. Chip breaker with a 50-80 degree polished leading edge.
Regards from Perth
Derek
--------------------
Articles on furniture building, shop made tools and tool reviews at www.inthewoodshop.com
|
Corneel
Member
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 1695
Loc: The Netherlands
|
|
Oh Gary, you still don't believe it, do you? Despite pretty overwelming scientifical evidence from the Japanese? Despite the fact that at this very moment woodworkers in shops all around the globe are trying it out for themselves and report succes? And I don't know what old woodworking books you are reading, but I find the old guys knew very well how to use the capiron and what effect it has on difficult wood.
I suppose you haven't really tried it out for yourself yet. So I suggest you get a nice old Stanley, one that is in technical good condition, and experiment for yourself. There has been enough instruction how to set the iron, but if you are still not sure: Hone a steep but small microbevel on the front of your capiron, set it about 0.2 to 0.3 mm from the edge, open the mouth, and go see how thick you can make shavings against the grain without tearout.
Then we talk again.
--------------------
seekelot.blogspot.com
|
illinimike
Member
Registered: 06/26/06
Posts: 1133
Loc: Northern Illinois
|
|
I think what may be missing from the discussion is the wood itself. You see the term "difficult", but what is that really?
Perhaps the reason the technique was considered heavily in the old days was the figured wood was sought out and used. Then history led to the good figured logs became veneer or they went to the chipper.
Then, today's world, with the advent of the internet shows us all the wildly figured stuff that is out there and sawmills again pulling more and more crazily figured stock.
It is this, in my opinion, that brings this discussion back to the top in importance.
If you are not using figured woods, you may not even be interested.
--------------------
Too Many Projects; Not enough Time
|
Corneel
Member
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 1695
Loc: The Netherlands
|
|
It's not only figured woods. Wood can look pretty simple, but still have a few nasty grain reversals. Or I like to have a knot in the wood (I like the "rural" look) and around the knot the grain can behave quite bad too.
With a very tight mouth, a sharp blade, and whisper thin shavings you could manage these too, maybe. But I don't like whisper light shavings. Always in a hurry.
So, shavings as thick as possible.
--------------------
seekelot.blogspot.com
|
jgourlay
Just Promoted to troublemaker
Registered: 12/06/02
Posts: 9838
Loc: Houston, Texas
|
|
Does this mean that bevel up smoothers are no longer the schizzle?
UpNorth said:
Interesting discussion. That was one the things that Graham Blackburn discussed at WIA last year. His comment was any plane, any direction, any wood, no tearout and the big secret was that the distance of the cap iron from the edge of the iron should be as close as possible to the thickness of the shaving you want to take. The same goes for the mouth opening. It definitely made a difference but there's a fine line between clogging and working well.
--------------------
MAKE: Void your warranty, violate a user agreement, fry a circuit, blow a fuse, poke an eye out... www.makezine.com
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
|
Hank Knight in SC
Gloaty McGloat pants
Registered: 05/26/05
Posts: 1321
Loc: Columbia South Carolina, USA
|
|
Derek Cohen said:
I have a problem testing out the chip breaker effect on my Spier infill - the mouth is too tight for the experiment. And I am not going to open it!
I am most interested in knowing - and you are definitely the guy to go to for this information - the percentage of your infill smoothers and panel planes that come with tight mouths? These planes, I assume, use double irons.
Regards from Perth
Derek
I would be interested in knowing that too. I have a Norris A5 that has always worked wonderfully for me. I have been puzzled, however, by the fact that, like all other A5s I've seen, it has what can only be described as a "gaping" mouth. It's mouth geometry seems to be contrary everything I've ever read about the absolute necessity of having a tight mouth in a smoother; yet the plane is generally considered one of the best hand plane designs ever. I think this discussion has solved the puzzle.
What say you, Len?
Hank
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Re: Chip Breakers byChris Schwartz
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
