Gary Blum said:

---

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

---

Hi Gary,

I apologize, I may still not been clear-- enough. I am going to explain this as I see it. I am hoping this will be clearer.

If you follow the link Lightwood provided, and read what the Leonard Bailey wrote himself with 2 witnesses, you'll see his intention to use thin plane-irons required a stiffener. I am sure you have seen a Stanley chatter, yes? we all have.

Can we agree that no matter what, a Stanley Bailey design requires a cap iron to stiffen the blade at all times? I accept this as a fact personally.

Can we agree that yes the cap iron can function as a chipbreaker if set up as such?

Can we agree that if the cap iron chipbreaker is positioned near to the cutting edge, say .004 inch or closer, that it will likely function as a chipbreaker, IF the plane is set up as a smoother, the iron is lightly cambered if at all, and the iron is set for a thin shaving of likely less that .002?

Can we agree that the Bailey design if set up as such needs that same cap iron to function as a plane-iron stiffener?

Can we agree that if the chipbreaker is moved away from the cutting edge, say 1/16th inch or so, that it will no longer function as a chipbreaker, meaning the plane is now rendered no different or better than any single iron plane bedded at 45 degrees?

Can we agree again, that the Bailey design if set up as such STILL needs that same cap iron to function as a plane-iron stiffener?

If we can agree, then this piece of metal called a cap iron is actually doing the job of blade stiffening than it is chip breaking. It isn't even needed to be a chipbreaker at all on most Jack and fore work, and to a degree it is optional on jointers. he chipbreaker really shines as a smoothing tool.

If you cannot agree, then we may have different understandings of this tool. I know you are a plane maker, so what you likely understand isn't lost on me.

Yet the Stanley Bailey in all it's incarnations was a carpenters plane with such a huge range of possible set ups that it is hard to contemplate all the possible permutations one could set them up as.

I have a type 17 #4 in original condition. The location of the Bailey patent bend looks sprung away from the plane iron when removed from the plane but when you install it, the lever cap straddles this bump and likely clamps the cap iron against the plane iron as Bailey would have wanted. I wish I could see this through the side of the sole, to confirm it, but I can see the defection in the cap-iron as I flip the lever on the cap tight.

Who is to really say that the lever cap isn't in fact compressing the Bailey patent double connection every time when the lever caps tightens, and on every plane? Lightwood assumes he has only seen a few "mechanics fettle this, but I am not sure it isn't happening automatically anyway. But eh I can't really see it through the sole, and neither can anyone else.

I cannot get past the fact that Bailey himself said that without the cap iron, the plane iron will fail. So that is the basis for a full time blade stiffener, that you need no matter what. That makes the point I made which you quoted. I mean Gary, you can't mean to say that Bailey himself's admission of the blades inability to function alone, does not precede the want for inclusion of a chipbreaker? I am thinking that is what you meant by "ORIGINAL INTENT", Yes?

C'mon. You can't break chips if the plane wont even plane.

The a priori truism is that the chipbreaker on the Bailey cap iron is rendered immaterial if the blade stiffener aspect of the same piece of metal does not provide the plane the capability of planing at all. This means that the cap iron, with or without Bailey's patented upgrade is needed so the thin iron will produce any work. I guess this is a chicken egg tail chase. Let's call it a draw. The only way to win at tic tack toe is to not play.

Personally, I simply do not care about these thin ironed planes. I've had my share of them, and in many ways I came to love planes with no adjusters, no frog, and thicker irons. I found I could plane any wood I wanted with thicker single irons while never suffering chatter for a second. I found setup to be quick, easy, direct and required zero fettling. I had to fettle, flatten, bend and flatten every Stanley chipbreaker I ever had. Why didn't Stanley works assure this would work before it left? Further, where is the owners manual that explains the operation of this process? Perhaps it is so transparent it needs no explanation?

I noticed as well as read that the rate that wood fibers fail is directly related to the angle the shaving encounters right after cutting it, and that irons bedded directly at higher angles do this as a function of that final angle.

I like that direct thing better Gary. I refute that a chipbreaker is required at all, and in fact it isn't.

Whether you choose to use them is a personal choice. So what is left to debate? I have agreed they work, I disagree that they are magical, and I completely refuse they can cause a common pitch plane to act as if it were pitched as half pitch ever. I think the chipbreaker as supplied on most planes is good for the effect of having 10 degrees added pitch max. I'd still rather use a single iron instead, anyway.

Respectfully,

--------------------
~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

Post Extras:

chscholz said:

---

Sorry folks, I don't buy into the buckling theory, at least not in the sense that bucking is used today. With all due respect to Mr. Bailey, patents are written to keep the competitors out, patents may be technically flawed and still get issued/approved.

Also, a cap iron/chipbreaker does not change the stiffness of the blade in any way (using the concept of stiffness in the sense of Euler, Riccati and Young).

But what the capiron/chipbreaker does do is to change the second moment of inertia, which, which is really what I believe y'all refer to when you talk about stiffness.

---

In my thinking, a thicker iron requires no such extra apparatus.

I prefer that, actually. Clean, simple.

Bailey is passed, and Stanley Works is gone. LN, has overcome a lot of this issue by simply building a more robust tool, and it does work better, actually.

Thanks!

--------------------
~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

Post Extras:

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.

---

Post Extras:

evenfall said:

---

CedarSlayer said:

---

<snip>
unless you are way OCD, secondary bevels are too much work to maintain,
Bob

---

You know that's right!

Now if you'll just admit that Double Iron Planes are tunable planes with limits that they cannot routinely exceed, that they are not be all end all magical, and cannot always prevent tearout, That sometimes you may have to resort to a different tool with a high pitch angle to solve the problem, I might be inclined to lean forward in my chair.

Thanks Bob!

---

The fact that I have learned to appreciate the value of a chipbreaker does not mean I have turned into some sort of strange woodwork vampire that sparkles in sunlight and throws away single ironed planes. It simply means that I have learned to appreciate the value of a chipbreaker.

I will definitely admit that in my hands, a Double Iron Plane is a tunable plane with limits. I have to pull out scrapers every now and then, so double irons, at least in my hands, do not solve every problem.

Double irons have been sold with thick cutting irons on all the bench planes, so I cannot agree that they are smoother only or just for stiffening a thin blade. They let planes transit from softwood to hardwood, even with jointers. For example, Holtey puts them on his infill panel planes. There were a few rabbets sold with double irons as well, so final smooth surfaces may or may not have been the only issue here.

The fact that they were sold side by side with high angle planes without a double iron, toothing planes and the like, also supports the concept that craftsmen of the day, still found the need for more extreme methods of dealing with difficult grain and wood. A lot of these tool makers are still held in high respect today, so long evidence is that they were doing quality work and had more than hype in their designs. Despite the advantages of scrapers and toothing planes, they are not however the all around ideal plane. Faster, easier to use planes that are not as good at handling extreme woods, are always superior, except when they are not.

A standard angle plane despite being less capable of handling some of the more difficult woods, is in general faster and easier to use. A jack can be used effectively and easily as a scrub, panel and smoother as long as the work is not too demanding. Adding a functional chip breaker to this plane and increasing it's range of wood handling is wonderful as long as the chip breaker is not adding complexity without benefit.

A well tuned and adjusted chip breaker improves the performance range of a faster and easier to use plane. Sadly the training, setup and adjustment issues involved in using a chip breaker may prevent quite a few brilliant woodworkers from taking advantage of these benefits. Additionally some chip breakers are actually worthless as chip breakers and are hardly worth the time to try and make them functional.

If you are doing good work without having to cope with double irons, then I am not saying that you need to switch to double irons. I am saying, that I have used double irons, and found them to be able to do the work of several planes. I am not a collector, so for me this is a rather nice thing.

Miters, as long as we are talking the same thing, can and should be used with a double iron. You have to tune both irons and match profiles however.

Double irons work.

I am not saying, 'Throw away your infills.'

I am saying, 'I get great effect from double irons, and so have a lot of better woodworkers than I.'

If you are happy with your plane set and are doing good work with them, there is no desperate need for you to learn how to tune a double iron. None of the angels I know are going to cry over this.

I am sure that there are collections of planes that will do a lot of things that a double iron can't and may even be close to equal doing what a double iron will do at it's best.

Holtey has double irons on both his infill smoothers and his infill jointers. I tired to point this out humorously in a previous post, but apparently my humor is either too subtle or too weak. The iron is quite thick, and the top iron is much thinner. I think that Holtey's chip breaker is in fact a chip breaker. Apart from aesthetic considerations, there is not a lot of reason apart from improving the planes range of performance for this top iron. I am pretty sure these planes do just fine in the tight mouth, tuning and angle departments.

Since Holtey puts a chipbreaker on his jointer I think there is ample reason to suspect that an infill may be able to benefit from the presence of one.


Bob

--------------------
toolmakingart.com

When you have eliminated all unnecessary wood, then whatever remains, however well formed, is too small to serve as originally intended.

Post Extras: