evenfall
Cow Tipper
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 5370
Loc: Sacramento Area, CA
|
|
Hi Allan,
I have found that the double iron sets that were made for use in wooden planes work really well. but the wood body of the plane bedded the iron with greater dampening, and at the same time the double iron set was thicker, which is to say that both the plane iron and cap iron were thicker, each unto itself and as such when fastened together.
But, in my observations, a single iron with the wood planes is thicker, than that of the components that make the double iron set.
The wedge was shaped not only to better hold the blade in place on the bed but also had a cut out so as to aid the escapement of shavings.
Most of the double iron woodies I have seen are bedded at common pitch, just like a Stanley, and the cab iron's purpose is to be the vehicle that contains the adjustable chipbreaker on the end of it.
I understand Leonard Bailey as saying that since the intention was to use a thin blade with his design, and that the thin blade was found to be lacking in stability over a range of various conditions, the cap iron could be employed to help stabilize a thin blade as an assembly, and still contain the original intent for the cap iron which is to be a carrier for an adjustable chipbreaker.
On a separate thought about the cap iron a'la Bailey, there has to be some spring in the cap iron to offer compression to the assembly, the movement in the cap iron would be seen as deflection, but this defection would be counteracted by the planes bed under the blade.
I will also note again. The original chipbreaker on my type 17 would be of the Bailey design, but the second connection near the chipbreaker end of the cap iron does not seem to contact the blade until the lever cap compresses that part of the cap iron against the blade.
Thanks Allan,
--------------------
~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
|
|
Corneel said:
This is such an entertaining thread!
I wonder, the Hock chip breaker seems to be more of the classic design, which causes "buckling" according to the Bailey patent. But people seem to be very happy with the Hock chip breaker, even when used with the old thin Stanley blade.
How does the Hock chipbreaker press down the front of the blade without that double bend?
It's sprung. It seems to push down just fine. I've never noticed chatter with it.
|
evenfall
Cow Tipper
Registered: 04/19/05
Posts: 5370
Loc: Sacramento Area, CA
|
|
Hi Gary,
I appreciate your perspectives and observations.
You said that you did not read in Bailey's Patent where he said he was having issues with the blade failing.
I'll quote him again:
"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;"
I too, like Mr. Bailey would consider buckling and chattering as a failure of the blade to perform. You may not. That's fine. Bailey went on and on about the inability of a thin blade to remain stable while planing. In your test, you did not observe this, but I have used Stanley's that had chatter issues until I did the needed fettling. It seems he may have made observations that you may not.
This is obviously an YMMV kind of thing. I did take Bailey as having observed a problem with blade stability.
As to the distance the chipbreaker is from the cutting edge, I understand your observation. There are variables. I will say that the further away from the cutting edge a chipbreaker is, the longer an unbroken wood fiber could become, and that would be a problem if the fiber were to become levered out of the grain before it could be cut. So while the chipbreaker could work further back, I think if it is needed at all, then the best insurance policy would be to set it as close as you can. The goal is to prevent defects to the finish surface.
I would consider the chipbreaker at 1/16th back as being out of play, and generally not expected to prevent anything.
I personally have upgraded Stanley's with Hock offerings so as to have thicker, more stable blades. I have read of others on this forum going as far as filing the mouths of Stanley's so that LN blades and chipbreakers, which are thicker than Hocks, can be fitted, and all in the search of greater stability and a better performing plane. This means even though you did not observe this as an issue, other people have, and in fact, I have.
Basically, even though you are not inclined to agree with most of the general points of contention I have observed, it does not cancel the fact that I have witnessed them, which is factual experience for me, nor do your observations correct the issues for others who have alleged to have experienced them. I am happy to hear that the plane you tested performed well. It sounds like a nice tool, and that you should be pleased it works so well. I would be. 
I am not advocating against chipbreakers so much as I personally just prefer not twiddling with them. I personally prefer York Pitch on hardwoods over that of common. I feel it is less likely to tear, and while a little harder to push, it isn't that bad. I certainly do not push 55-60 pitched planes for the sake of it. Most of us wouldn't either  But you have to admit, it is nice to have a plane in that pitch range that can be called on to solve a problem.
Another persons frame of reference may not allow them to understand why I have some disdain for them, but that is cool, I just evolved my experience towards a workflow I prefer, and it largely doesn't include chipbreaker equipped planes. I have a couple left and they work fine. My spokeshaves have chipbreakers too, and it does in fact help them be a better spokeshave in some conditions than they would be without.
There is no question in my mind that it simply a choice we have available to make. It is good to have choices like this.
Thanks Gary,
--------------------
~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
|
AHill
Member
Registered: 01/16/06
Posts: 2914
Loc: Antelope Valley, California
|
|
DW Pgh said:
Corneel said:
This is such an entertaining thread!
I wonder, the Hock chip breaker seems to be more of the classic design, which causes "buckling" according to the Bailey patent. But people seem to be very happy with the Hock chip breaker, even when used with the old thin Stanley blade.
How does the Hock chipbreaker press down the front of the blade without that double bend?
It's sprung. It seems to push down just fine. I've never noticed chatter with it.
As well, it is thicker than a classic chip breaker. I've not seen or handled a plane using the Hock chipbreaker with a vintage blade, but I don't doubt it works better than a vintage Stanley. Hock replacement blades are also thicker than vintage Stanley blades.
--------------------
Still Learning,
Allan Hill
|
janus frey
Avatar Challenged
Registered: 03/08/08
Posts: 12628
Loc: West Chester, PA
|
|
--------------------
"These new regulations are going to fundamentally change the ways in which we try to avoid them"
http://www.fcdynamo.kiev.ua/en/
|
DW Pgh
mean spiriteD
Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 9503
|
|
I can't even vouch that it works better once set up. What i can vouch for is that it works well, and is easier to set up, and unlike most old stanley breakers, it's flat to start. I haven't seen an NOS breaker on a stanley plane, they were probably a lot better than the mangled or worn out ones I run across.
I also think it's clear that the chipbreaker does not perform as well as altering the bevel on the plane, which takes 30 seconds and a finish stone, and can be honed off with the next sharpening in another 30 seconds if desired.
Maybe it's more useful in heavy chips or limiting tearout before smoothing, even if it doesn't eliminate it like altering the bevel of the iron does when smoothing. With the mouth of my plane open, i definitely got less severe tearout with the cap iron set, enough that I could easily have sanded it out with 220.
|
Corneel
Member
Registered: 12/28/07
Posts: 477
Loc: The Netherlands
|
|
I really don't doubt the Hock chipbreaker is a good deal. I just don't get a graphic image in my mind how it get the blade pressed down both at the edge and somewhat higher up. With the Stanley design it is very easy to see how the clamping force on that double bend gives good pressure at the very tip and somwhat higher up.
Not so long ago I updated my Stanleys with Ray Illes irons. Boy what a difference! My #4 was a chatter prone beast, but now it is a very usefull smoother, on any mild mannered wood.
I am not so happy with my 49 degree infill though. It's not bad, just not a whole lot better then the Stanley. There are some issues with the bedding I suspect. I did allready wrap my head around the problem, just need some time.
--------------------
seekelot.blogspot.com
|
DW Pgh
mean spiriteD
Registered: 04/16/07
Posts: 9503
|
|
I think the removal of chatter is something related to a bigger iron hiding problems that a smaller one can't - that the problems are still there (but it doesn't really matter if they're not affecting performance). It's my impression that the reason that the thicker irons make a plane seem so much better isn't because they solve problems wrong with the other iron, but because they cover up problems with the plane and setup that the thinner irons can't.
As far as the stanley chipbreaker applying more pressure, that's something I just don't quite follow, and the reason for that is that the end of the lever cap on both ends is still has to apply equal pressure, adjusted for the difference in distance there might be from the lever cap screw.
What I could understand is if the stanley version effectively makes a shorter spring for the front part of the chipbreaker, maybe that has some effect.
I don't know, just looking for the "real answer" in terms of what make the planes work best, and so far as I can tell right now, worrying less about the chipbreaker and more about the effective pitch of the iron is much more effective for getting a final smoothed surface without tearout.
I guess the other question is what stanley really intended bench planes to be used for. Were they intended to work softwoods very well, and do OK in hardwoods (i mean really hard woods, not like cherry or anything), or were they intended to do really well in all woods? I don't think the latter to be the case, or there wouldn't have been such an aversion to figured woods until recent history.
Just my guess.
Edited by DW Pgh (03/12/10 07:19 AM)
|
Blacky's Boy
Moderator
Registered: 06/17/07
Posts: 3238
Loc: Buck's County PA USA
|
|
janus frey said:
Wow, I am so there!
--------------------
See ya around,
Dominic
------------------------------
Wesley Snipes in Blade: "Some ***** are always trying to ice skate uphill."
|
Gary Blum
Member
Registered: 05/02/07
Posts: 44
Loc: Walnut , Iowa
|
|
Hi Rob,
You are misquoting what Bailey said. And it makes a big difference in how one looks at his remarks. Here is what you are quoting:
Quote:
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;"
Here's the actual quote:
"My object is to use very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing, I find that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, whcih causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxilliary point of contact between the cap and 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 additon to that at the cutting -edge, whcih firmly holds this thin plane iron to its' bed."
I have read that patent over probably a dozen times. NOWHERE, does Mr. Bailey go on and on about the ability of a thin blade to remain stable while planing. It's the old style cap iron that CAUSED the blade to lift off the bed and chatter. He has SOLVED that problem by this invention of providing a double point of contact. Why would he still be complaining about his bladeset chattering? That would be an admission there was something wrong with his plane.
You might be wondering, why am I arguing this point so much? Welll, I might wonder the same thing about you. This is a very critical point. This idea that a chipbreaker is only meant to stiffen the iron has become almost a 'taken for granted' mantra that has inflluenced untold numbers of woodworkers. I have been watching the forums now for about 3 years, and I couldn't count the number of times I have seen that mantra quoted. It is now just assumed as common knowledge. What do you suppose the advice is when a newbie woodworker writes in to his friendly forum asking for advice on which plane to get or 'why won't my plane work without tearing out the wood'?
There are those of us who have a vested interest in these types of things. If I got on a forum and said a shooting board was just an oversized bench hook originally intended just for sawing, what would you do? I think you would get on the forum and try to set the record straight.
I happen to believe that the double iron plane is a valuable thing, and people need to know how to use it. Not just be told it's an anachronism, only meant to stiffen the iron, so just move it out of the way. I guess that is up to we who believe in it, so I will definitely be emphasizing it much more than I have in my literature.
Kind Regards,
Gary Blum
--------------------
www.blumtoolco.com
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Re: Does a chipbreaker really break chips?
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
