Gary Blum
Member
Registered: 05/02/07
Posts: 44
Loc: Walnut , Iowa
|
|
Hi David,
I did see Warren's comments. I don't see where he was saying anything negative about single iron planes. He was talking about double irons and using them. I saw that only as a response to the assertions that chipbreakers don't work . Now, I might not word things quite like Warren, but you have to admit he says what he thinks and I find that admirable. 
Kind Regards,
Gary Blum
--------------------
www.blumtoolco.com
|
AHill
Member
Registered: 01/16/06
Posts: 2914
Loc: Antelope Valley, California
|
|
This will be the 161st reply to the OP's question.
Simply, the answer is: Yes. Chipbreakers (properly set up) really break chips.
--------------------
Still Learning,
Allan Hill
|
Andyman
Witty Title Goes Here
Registered: 05/23/07
Posts: 3492
Loc: CNY,USA
|
|
AHill said:
This will be the 161st reply to the OP's question.
Simply, the answer is: Yes. Chipbreakers (properly set up) really break chips.
Whew! Glad we got that figured out. 
See you all in another year? 
Andy
|
lightwood
Member
Registered: 06/16/08
Posts: 103
|
|
Interesting discussion, as far as it has got so far.....
in 50 or more years of using Stanley planes with a back iron, I am still to see any of the plane "experts" or sharpening guru's report that they have set up the blade and back iron as Leonard Bailey intended....or even that there is an important feature at the end of the back iron.
The 1867 patent for the back iron, as LB called it, was designed with a hump at the bottom for a reason, and that was to make contact down there at two places. That is, above and below where the front edge of the lever makes contact.
What moved me to contribute was the illustration where a Stanley back iron was obviously inferior to some new expensive back iron, and to illustrate the failings they show something which isn't what I find with LB's patent double contact. A competent mechanic should be able to set up a back iron as LB intended, but why is it such a neglected step? Every plane "tuning" treatise I have read in 25 or more years has said to bend the front edge so as to make a good firm contact on the cutting blade at some specific distance from the edge. Not a word about the secondary contact that must be also made at the top of the hump.
It would be advantageous to read the patent, and perhaps to set a plane up that way before condemning your back iron and thin blade or even the plane to the scrap heap.
L. Bailey Patent #72443 - Dec 24, 1867
I know this style of back iron was still being used on Stanley planes made in England and Australia up until the 1960's and beyond.
As to the OP's question...I've got no idea, but what I do know is that I have seen many thousands of planes with LB's patent back iron, and only three or four were ever set up correctly. One I recently found was in the working tools of a Swedish migrant to Australia in the 1920's...a 1910 pat date # 5 1/2 with a Swedish blade by Jernbolaget, and the back iron set exactly as LB intended. I believe a Bailey type plane with the thin blade and back iron set up as LB intended is a far superior piece of kit than one that has been adjusted as per the instructions of EVERY plane and sharpening "expert" I've ever seen.
Regards,
Peter,
In Melbourne, Australia.
|
leonard_bailey
Catchy title wanted
Registered: 01/10/07
Posts: 5080
Loc: In A VaN DoWn By ThE rIvEr
|
|
lightwood said:
Interesting discussion, as far as it has got so far.....
in 50 or more years of using Stanley planes with a back iron, I am still to see any of the plane "experts" or sharpening guru's report that they have set up the blade and back iron as Leonard Bailey intended....or even that there is an important feature at the end of the back iron.
The 1867 patent for the back iron, as LB called it, was designed with a hump at the bottom for a reason, and that was to make contact down there at two places. That is, above and below where the front edge of the lever makes contact.
What moved me to contribute was the illustration where a Stanley back iron was obviously inferior to some new expensive back iron, and to illustrate the failings they show something which isn't what I find with LB's patent double contact. A competent mechanic should be able to set up a back iron as LB intended, but why is it such a neglected step? Every plane "tuning" treatise I have read in 25 or more years has said to bend the front edge so as to make a good firm contact on the cutting blade at some specific distance from the edge. Not a word about the secondary contact that must be also made at the top of the hump.
It would be advantageous to read the patent, and perhaps to set a plane up that way before condemning your back iron and thin blade or even the plane to the scrap heap.
L. Bailey Patent #72443 - Dec 24, 1867
I know this style of back iron was still being used on Stanley planes made in England and Australia up until the 1960's and beyond.
As to the OP's question...I've got no idea, but what I do know is that I have seen many thousands of planes with LB's patent back iron, and only three or four were ever set up correctly. One I recently found was in the working tools of a Swedish migrant to Australia in the 1920's...a 1910 pat date # 5 1/2 with a Swedish blade by Jernbolaget, and the back iron set exactly as LB intended. I believe a Bailey type plane with the thin blade and back iron set up as LB intended is a far superior piece of kit than one that has been adjusted as per the instructions of EVERY plane and sharpening "expert" I've ever seen.
Regards,
Peter,
In Melbourne, Australia.
cool post Peter...I enjoyed the info and insight.
Chibreaker with those horrible thin Stanley blades in action..Gasp 
--------------------
In the early days, the internet was plagued with trollers. They ruined a bunch of forums.
|
evenfall
Cow Tipper
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 5370
Loc: Sacramento Area, CA
|
|
Leonard says early on in the narrative of his patent on the improvement of carpenters planes:
"My Object is to use very thin steel plane-iron and cap-iron, and in so doing I find that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and the plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-iron tends to buckle or rise from it's bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to the that at the cutting edge, which firmly holds this thin plane iron to it's bed."
He goes on to say he puts an additional bend which is about abou 3/4 inch back from the lower end of the cap-iron so as to near against the base of the plane when the blade projects beyond the base and through the mouth without support.
Leonard Bailey firstly describes his invention as a blade stiffening, anti chatter device, and forgive me but Timberwolf has mentioned this without raising any other point more than once. I know I mentioned it plenty too.
So Bailey's improvement to a chipbreaker was to aid it in being an improved anti chatter device for use with thin plane irons, by providing that additional bend. Stanley supplied Millions of them but it would apper that their Quality assurance people did not affirm that Bailey's patent was properly adjusted for "maximum smoke" on most of the ones that left the works. Sorry, still no earth shattering chipbreaking improvement there, but that is his writing in the narrative of the link provided. Two witnesses attest it was Leonard himself.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=EZwAAAA...;q=&f=false
He also said this about thick irons:
"when thick plane-irons are used, their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap sufficiently to prevent the buckling or rising of the plane iron from the bed..."
Even Leonard realized he had to keep that thin iron carpenter plane from buckling it's iron when the pressure exerted upon the iron was extended beyond the bed. His invention is simply an additional bend in the chipbreaker that extends its ability to bed the iron over a wider range of settings.
Everyone who ever called this thing a blade stiffener is right. but please note, Baileys contribution does not improve it's ability as a chipbreaking device at all, unless of course you consider the need for this stabilizer to help the plane work in the first place, then I guess there's that.
Clint's photo proves that a Stanley can take nice shavings, but that has never been at issue.
Andy, I know my horns are probably showing a little but eh.... Yes these things do help chips break, sometimes. But there are limitations. It can influence a chip to break in smaller increments indirectly, after the iron cuts, but the same effect is achieved by simply planing with a plane that beds the iron more steeply, the the chip instead has to break at the same time the iron cuts. Some woodworkers prefer one style of plane over the other in both directions. Neither is superior if the results achieved are adequate.
Disavowing that chipbreakers are superior to single irons is neither smart nor dumb, a method of walking on thin ice or a possibility of being subjected to ridicule. Saying things like that is like quoting Stevie Wonder out of context, and applying it in the wrong way. "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer". Some of us understand chipbreakers better than some may think and prefer not using them. No harm no foul.
I am glad to have helped beat this dead horse for you, it's been fun, and I suppose I'll see you in a year when Warren considers it worthy of continued beatings... er discussion, and for us to rehash it a fourth time. I am sure by then, that the chipbreakers on Stanley planes will be granted the status similar to that of "miracle elixir' or thought to be as mysterious as "absinthe".
But Timberwolf will still be right. On the Bailey design, this device the "cap-iron/chipbreaker" is first and foremost meant to be a blade stiffener. Thanks Jack! 
--------------------
~Rob
http://www.evenfallstudios.com/woodworks
Woodworking Knowledge, Skill Development, Discussion
"It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw."
Calvin & Hobbes
|
DW Pgh
mean spiriteD
Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 9503
|
|
It was probably me who made mention that the new chipbreakers, which are really the old chipbreakers, are preferable to tune and set up vs. the stanley chipbreaker.
I still think that's the case. The only benefit I see to the stanley chipbreakers is the extra spring, but a lot of them on old planes have been bent so far out of whack or honed so the front is a banana that they are relatively useless. They also give you little flexibility in setting up the front bevel - they're blunt, and the curvature on the front makes them a nuisance to tune if you're really into that sort of thing.
Do they work? Sure. Is new (stanley) better than old (sprung woody style chipbreaker). In practice, I don't believe there's anything about it that's actually better. I do believe it was a cheaper design, it's just a stamping with a punched hole.
I believe clint's plane would do the same work as in that picture if the chipbreaker were at 1/16th of an inch or 1 1/160th of an inch.
|
DW Pgh
mean spiriteD
Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 9503
|
|
Gary Blum said:
Hi David,
I did see Warren's comments. I don't see where he was saying anything negative about single iron planes. He was talking about double irons and using them. I saw that only as a response to the assertions that chipbreakers don't work . Now, I might not word things quite like Warren, but you have to admit he says what he thinks and I find that admirable.
Kind Regards,
Gary Blum
He does, quite often. He also did a botch job on a marcou. I recall that vividly every time I try to figure out "he knows everything, and he's probably right, and I probably have to figure it out" or "he's set in his ways and has come to a conclusion long ago, regardless of evidenc and there's no magic i'm missing here".
My contention isn't that a chipbreaker doesn't work, it's that it's not necessary to begin with, unless you are limited to common pitch planes or you've been dealt a set of tools with no chance of expanding upon them.
I have yet to see evidence that they work *better* than a properly made single iron infill plane.
|
Gary Blum
Member
Registered: 05/02/07
Posts: 44
Loc: Walnut , Iowa
|
|
Quote:
But Timberwolf will still be right. On the Bailey design, this device the "cap-iron/chipbreaker" is first and foremost meant to be a blade stiffener. Thanks Jack!
I sure don't see it that way, Rob. The Stanley chipbreaker was there from the beginning. If they just needed a place to hook the depth adjustment into, they could have just settled for a plate at the top of the iron. If they wanted to eliminate the chatter, they could have just eliminated the cap iron, or possibly made the iron a little thicker. Probably would still have been cheaper than making that cap iron. They wanted to use the cap iron for its' intended purpose, but it's traditional design was causing a problem because of the thinness of the iron and the unique bedding problem of the adjustable frog metal plane. The solution, ( to be able to keep the cap iron for its' intended purpose ) was to do a double bend, thus keeping the cap iron from lifting the iron off the bed of the plane and causing chatter. The fact that they had to modify the cap iron to accomplish this, thereby stiffening the iron in the process, says nothing about the ORIGINAL INTENT of the cap iron.
Kind Regards,
Gary Blum
--------------------
www.blumtoolco.com
|
DW Pgh
mean spiriteD
Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 9503
|
|
Should we split the discussion into parts?
That is, the effectiveness of the chipbreaker for reducing tearout in two cases:
1) heavy cuts
2) light cuts
The light cuts are where I'm not seeing as much benefit to breaking chips.
The heavier cuts, well, I haven't really studied too much into those yet, but I would imagine there could be some benefit there in reducing work done smoothing.
There is something else not discussed enough that a craftsman would probably much prefer about the secondary iron - the expulsion of chips from the plane. A plane with a secondary iron expels chips much better than one without. They shoot out of the plane almost, and the only reason you need to stop work is if you land the plane on a chip that is coming out of it. There are a lot of single iron planes where that isn't the case.
But for smoothing, I'm still unmoved. I did fiddle with my plane again some last night with about a 2 thousandth shaving on a maple board that's straight grained along one edge, but where the grain turns vertical right up into the edge, sort of like a burl. I used the chipbreaker from slightly back all the way until it was interfering with the cut. The trouble with it being so close to the edge is that in jointing this board and a couple of others, the edge was dulled enough and moved back that I would need to remove the iron from the plane to be able to take that depth of a shaving. Bevel angle on the chipbreaker is, I would guess, in the range of 35 - 40 degrees.
Still, in the range of chips taken and in the range of settings with the chipbreaker, the surface left was "acceptable" but was improved significantly by a single-iron small infill bedded at 55 degrees. It isn't sharpness, either, as the infill hasn't been sharpened for several weeks of intermittent use.
If there is a woodworking show near here in the next year or two (Pittsburgh), I will bring along this horrible looking little infill and challenge anyone with a common pitch bench plane to smooth anything cherry or harder, and produce the same results. I can imagine the professionally made versions with closer tolerances could only be better. Mine probably has a mouth of about a half millimeter, maybe slightly less.
I had a long discussion with the guy from St. James Bay tool company yesterday, because he is starting to make inexpensive dovetail infill kits, and I want to try a decent smoother kit along with my mangled monstrosities, and he did mention that some of the older infills have large mouths and still seem to work despite that, and that looking at them under a microscope, the file marks appear to indicate that the planes were filed like that since new, so it may not even be the mouth that makes infills work better.
I didn't bring up woodnet, so there was no intent with the discussion, I was only asking him about the way his infill kits are made as they are only $175 (I know the non-infill fans are saying "only? and you still have th provide the wood and clean up the lever cap". Yes, Only..in my experience so far, that's pretty cheap, and it may be worth letting his mills do the heavy work of roughing the pins and metal out and cutting the initial mouth.
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Re: Cap irons
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
