Hello! GG's

jsut read the latest FFW Smoothing Planes Article and although I liked
the pretty Pictures
it seemed to be lacking in technical information. I may have just been
the casual timber
of the article, but comments like it took 1 hour to flatten the back amd
another to
form the bevel,  I wnat to know why it took so long , what about the
plane was incorrect.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the article did not give me any
"ammo" to start comparison shopping of my own.

Oh and there was that twinge of pain when the brands that I have grown
up
with, hock, lie Nielsen St James Bay , are slighted in favor of the new
kid on the block.

Aaron taak

p.s.  give me details , not another Coffee Table article

p.s.2 I do have his book and Love it - great droolability index between
them thar covers

Aaron says:
>
>I guess what I am trying to say is that the article did not give me
any
>"ammo" to start comparison shopping of my own.
>
>Oh and there was that twinge of pain when the brands that I have
grown
>up
>with, hock, lie Nielsen St James Bay , are slighted in favor of the
new
>kid on the block.
>

Aaron & others:

I found the article more of an intro than a 'comparison'. The only
thing I came away with was that as a general rule you get what you pay
for. I for one, would have liked to see more detail concerning why the
SJB faired so badly. It sounds like the iron wasnt  heat treated
properly . I was also intrigued by the use of A2 tool steel in the
Holtey and perhaps Ron Hock can pitch in and educate us as to its
pro's/con's.

Overall, it was a good intro for JoeNormie as to what's available and
what to expect generally for his money. I think if we all dropped a
little email to FWW editorial staff thanking them for the article and
asking for more comprehensive followups, Garrett maybe could look at
shoulder planes, etc in more depth. I have always felt like JoeNormie
doesnt get why we use smoothers 'cause he has never seen a upclose
comparison article thats convincing with pictures before/after
finishing handtool vs machine.

In the past FWW didnt need to explain anything so basic, but I suspect
that many new readers have outgrown the Wood/Popular Woodworking
projects bend and are hungrier for the more 'meatier' aspects of Fine
Woodworking and projects requiring more skill and craftsmanship.

Anything we can do to encourage FWW/Woodworking/American Woodworker
towards more of these articles I imagine is taken into consideration
in editorial decisions on what to run.

Rick Garza

O000-oooh-

Here's one I've read.  I think that the reason Aaron found the article
unsatisfying (I did too, the first time through) is that his point of
view is about like a parent sitting in a third grade class desk.  We few
(tee-hee) who talk about planes every damn day are bound to have a pretty
sophistocated level of understanding about them.

Just for fun, try re-reading that article pretending that you are just
thinking about maybe trying one-a them things.  Would you know about the
importance of a flat sole, a heavy iron, a tight throat, the various
sharpening options?  They are all pretty much taken for granted in the
article, with just enough of a hint to let the unwashed get the point.

And really, weren't you surprised to see the brand-new steel soled
dovetailed infill?  He sure got me with that one....

Phil Koontz
Whose newest plane is a coffin smoother.

On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 17:09:08 -0500, Rick Garza wrote:

>I found the article more of an intro than a 'comparison'. The only
>thing I came away with was that as a general rule you get what you pay
>for.

Well, that's not strictly true, since the SJB didn't fare too well, but the
Record did pretty well.  In general, correct, though.  The L-N and Holtey
being compared with Anant or modern English Stanley is kind of like
comparing Bentleys and BMWs with Neons and Metros.  In that kind of
comparison, you do get what you pay for.

I think it was a decent comparison, not just an intro.  Not in-depth, but at
least as well-done as the comparison on tailed cabinet saws in the same
issue, which was much better than most p*w*rt**l reviews I have seen in the
magazines for years.  In both articles, the pluses *and minuses* were
spelled out, with a useful mix of fact and opinion.  Very good approach, and
a welcome alternative to polishing the boots of advertisers and reprinting
the manufacturers' specs, as some magazines formerly owned by Rodale have
been known to do.

>I for one, would have liked to see more detail concerning why the
>SJB faired so badly. It sounds like the iron wasnt  heat treated
>properly.

That was one failing, clearly.  But more importantly, the Norris-type
adjuster was recessed, completely obliterating one of its key features --
lateral adjustment.

>I was also intrigued by the use of A2 tool steel in the
>Holtey and perhaps Ron Hock can pitch in and educate us as to its
>pro's/con's.

I'll second that.  Also, Ron, could you comment on his evaluation of the
various replacement irons and the two-piece cap iron?  Either unbiased or
biased would be fine.  

>Overall, it was a good intro for JoeNormie as to what's available and
>what to expect generally for his money.

I liked the fact that he covered virtually all of the types of new smoothers
currently available, including the Primus woodies and the Rali
bizarro-planes.  The tailed demon review likewise covered a broad range and
had a sidebar on alternative big demons.

>I think if we all dropped a
>little email to FWW editorial staff thanking them for the article and
>asking for more comprehensive followups, Garrett maybe could look at
>shoulder planes, etc in more depth.

Now that Garrett Hack and Mike Dunbar are (apparently) regular contributors,
I think this magazine is going to be much more enjoyable.  We should all let
Taunton Press know we appreciate the attention to hand tools, traditional
furniture construction, and the techniques associated with them.

>I have always felt like JoeNormie
>doesnt get why we use smoothers 'cause he has never seen a upclose
>comparison article thats convincing with pictures before/after
>finishing handtool vs machine.

Well put.  Perhaps it would be good to have an article comparing hand and
machine techniques for one-off or small-lot projects.  Some JoeNormies might
be surprised at how little time hand tooling takes, given the diminished
need for jigs and fixtures.

>In the past FWW didnt need to explain anything so basic, but I suspect
>that many new readers have outgrown the Wood/Popular Woodworking
>projects bend and are hungrier for the more 'meatier' aspects of Fine
>Woodworking and projects requiring more skill and craftsmanship.

FWW needed to reinvent itself.  It had become a combination of high-end
production-oriented cabinetmaking and art furniture and had lost the art and
romance of woodworking.  AW had also lost the art and romance of woodworking
and was targeting itself down a couple notches to the production cabinet
shops and Normite amateurs who graduated from Wood and PopWoodworking.  FWW
tried moving the art furniture stuff to Home Furniture, along with a bunch
of good design- and philosophy- oriented stuff, degrading FWW into a
production cabinetmakers' magazine.  There are only so many people
interested in how to bag-laminate a $10,000 veneered table or design
fixtures and jigs for a $10,000 set of cabinets, and the skills involved
don't translate well to lower-scale, noncommercial woodworking.  AW has the
one-notch-up from Wood/PW for Normites niche nailed down, and Woodwork has
the Krenovite angle pretty well covered.  So it needed to come up with a new
focus.

What to do?  Target the professionals and sophisticated amateurs who are
interested in the skill, tools, process, design, craftsmanship, and
philosophy of woodworking.  To some extent, it needed to return to its
roots.

How to do it?  St. James Krenov and Nakashima are no longer available as
contributors.  Answer:  Make Mike Dunbar the new St. James and Garrett Hack
the new Sagdor Nagdalanzcy (??).  Mario Rodriguez fits the model well, too.
Weave in some articles about interesting furniture design that will be of
interest to the abandoned Home Furniture readers, including designers and
architects.  Result:  A pretty good mixture.  The magazine is getting better
with each issue.  They also put out good books.

>Anything we can do to encourage FWW/Woodworking/American Woodworker
>towards more of these articles I imagine is taken into consideration
>in editorial decisions on what to run.

I suspect AW is a lost cause.  FWW hasn't done a router table cover story
recently, and doesn't do an annual p*w*rt**l catalog^H^H^H^H^H^H^H issue as
AW does.  I still subscribe to both, but FWW is much more to my liking.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
               Michael D. Sullivan, Bethesda, Md., USA
          avogadro@b... (also avogadro@w...)
---------------------------------------------------------------------

> Aaron & others:
>
> I found the article more of an intro than a 'comparison'. The only
> thing I came away with was that as a general rule you get what you pay
> for. I for one, would have liked to see more detail concerning why the
> SJB faired so badly. It sounds like the iron wasnt  heat treated
> properly . I was also intrigued by the use of A2 tool steel in the
> Holtey and perhaps Ron Hock can pitch in and educate us as to its
> pro's/con's.

   I'm not Ron but the differance is the alloy formula and "cleanness"
or purity
of the alloy. It is an atmospheric quenching material as opposed to oil
quenching
of O1. It cost more and wears a little better than O1 in tooling
applications but
 is not as application sensitive as the more specialized tool steels
such as S-7 and
the like. A-2 is a more general tool steel much like O-1 in use. We use
it because the
heat-treating facility we use is air harding alloys only and it does
wear slightly
better due to its finer grain structure. It does however still contain
the high edge
capability of high carbon steels as opposed to the tougher but harder to
sharpen "high speed
alloys".

    Mike Yazel    Hoosier Tool

Mike describes A-2 very well. We don't use it because I've never found
it to contribute enough extra to the cutting edge (where the metal meets
the wood) to justify the extra expense (the metal, the machining,
grinding and hardening are all more expensive.) It's primary advantage
is its air-hardening ability which makes for politeness in heat-treating
(little warpage). It may hold an edge a little longer but you trade
sharpenability and considerable extra expense for a small difference.
And I still contend that the simpler alloys will get simply sharper (but
when I look at my boxes full of warped, rejected blades, I wonder...)

Ron

Mike Yazel wrote:
> > I was also intrigued by the use of A2 tool steel in the
> > Holtey and perhaps Ron Hock can pitch in and educate us as to its
> > pro's/con's.
>
>    I'm not Ron but the differance is the alloy formula and "cleanness"
> or purity
> of the alloy. It is an atmospheric quenching material as opposed to oil
> quenching
> of O1. It cost more and wears a little better than O1 in tooling
> applications but
>  is not as application sensitive as the more specialized tool steels
> such as S-7 and
> the like. A-2 is a more general tool steel much like O-1 in use. We use
> it because the
> heat-treating facility we use is air harding alloys only and it does
> wear slightly
> better due to its finer grain structure. It does however still contain
> the high edge
> capability of high carbon steels as opposed to the tougher but harder to
> sharpen "high speed
> alloys".
>
>     Mike Yazel    Hoosier Tool
>

I'm assuming it was Phil and not Debbie that wrote:

> Here's one I've read.  I think that the reason Aaron found the article
> unsatisfying (I did too, the first time through) is that his point of
> view is about like a parent sitting in a third grade class desk.  We few
> (tee-hee) who talk about planes every damn day are bound to have a pretty
> sophistocated level of understanding about them.

I'd agree here - we are way over the top in terms of plane knowledge thanks
to all of the generous contributors here on the porch. I think a little
reality check is in order in that not everyone shares our affinity with all
things handtool related.

I took the article and did something similar to what we do on the porch all
the time - take an idea and run with it.

Specifically the thickness of irons. The article listed all of the iron
thicknesses in each review and I never realized there was that much variation
between makers. So last night I did a wholly unscientific survey of iron
thickness on a whole bunch 'o irons. I only used dial calipers and didn't
even separate irons from caps - just snap and go. To my surprise one notched
logo 2" Stanley iron came in at 0.070" thick (or thin as it were) The
majority fall in the 0.080" to 0.085" that Garrett lists in his article. Oh,
BTW our very own Ron Hock's irons all came in at exactly 0.095" (yes, all six
of them) as listed in the little gray box on pg. 45.  I've got the complete
study at home that lists iron size, vintage and thickness will post it to the
list if anyone's interested.

To me it was fabulous to see even this general of a treatment in what has
become my favorite ww mag. But, I do have to say I was VERY disappointed at
the SJB showing from what I feel is a great guy and a first class operation.
(no financial interest - yada - yada - I just really like their stuff)

I showed SWMBO the Holtey - and she said, "Yea right - over my dead body." I
guess I have more work to do.

Also interested in the properities of A2 for hand tool use versus regular
high carbon stuff. (Ron - George?)

Dave Tobbe
Michigaloot

On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 Loganftp@a... wrote:

> I showed SWMBO the Holtey - and she said, "Yea right - over my dead body." I
> guess I have more work to do.

Nah, Dave, you missed the whole point.  You show her the Holtey and, when
she slaps that one down, you reply, "Well OK.  I guess I'll just have to
settle for second-best and get the Lie-Nielsen."

Dick Durbin                     "Who is out there to provide us with a
Tallahassee, FL                 personal example of virtue and
www.tfn.net/~ddurbin            self-sacrifice for a higher good?"-Calvin

Dave and others speak of blade thickness in the
FWW article:

snip:
Specifically the thickness of irons. The article listed all of the iron
thicknesses in each review and I never realized there was that much
variation
between makers.  (here talking of the 'factory issue' blades)

I found it interesting to note Garrett's apparent choices in replacement
blades to be Clifton, then Hotley and Hock & LN.  Both the Clifton and
Hotley are noticeably thicker than the Hock and LN.  (0.117" for Clifton,
0.110" Hotley).  Brother Ron says the Hock blade at 0.095" is usable in
most/all older Stanleys and that thicker can cause problems with adjusters
and mouth openings. (if I recall correctly from his web page)  LN must agree
as their Stanley replacement blades are the same thickness as Hocks.

Could it be that Clifton & Hotley are meant for newer (looser) planes and
might have problems in older planes; or that Ron & LN know a little more
about the replacement blade bidness?

Lanny Russell
N'Awlins

When it comes to the details of all things hand-toolish it's hard to
beat the collective knowledge, experience and technical expertise of
this group. Take your collective hands off that mouse and pat yourselves
on your collective back.

One thing not mentioned in the blade side-bar in the FWW article: while
discussing the advantages of the Holtey and Clifton blades he fails to
mention that thicker blades won't work in the standard Bailey pattern
planes. Since the blade adjuster dog must pass through the blade and
engage the breaker, too much additional blade thickness and the
mechanism won't work. You also have to back out the hold-down screw too
far for it to grip well or at all.

Caveat emptor,
Ron
(who hates to pick nits but is very tired of "experts" glossing over
technical inaccuracies, polluting the watershed of collective knowledge.
Want another one?: on pages 96-97 of the same FWW issue, there is a
question about overheating a blade on the grinder. The answer has
several critical inaccuracies and is much too short to do anything other
than confuse and frustrate.)

>
> I took the article and did something similar to what we do on the porch all
> the time - take an idea and run with it.
>
> Specifically the thickness of irons. The article listed all of the iron
> thicknesses in each review and I never realized there was that much variation
> between makers. So last night I did a wholly unscientific survey of iron
> thickness on a whole bunch 'o irons. I only used dial calipers and didn't
> even separate irons from caps - just snap and go. To my surprise one notched
> logo 2" Stanley iron came in at 0.070" thick (or thin as it were) The
> majority fall in the 0.080" to 0.085" that Garrett lists in his article. Oh,
> BTW our very own Ron Hock's irons all came in at exactly 0.095" (yes, all six
> of them) as listed in the little gray box on pg. 45.  I've got the complete
> study at home that lists iron size, vintage and thickness will post it to the
> list if anyone's interested.

GGs,

In support of Ron, in the same article about Lie-Nielsen's planes, I
quote:
"The iron, about half as thick as a standard Stanley iron, lapped flat
and
honed sharp in about half an hour and held a good edge."
Don't you suppose the author meant to say  - half *again* as thick as a
Stanley iron???  If I'm wrong, then my Stanley irons are waaay too thin.

Cheers,
Jack in NY

>In support of Ron, in the same article about Lie-Nielsen's planes, I
>quote:
>"The iron, about half as thick as a standard Stanley iron, lapped flat
>and
>honed sharp in about half an hour and held a good edge."
>Don't you suppose the author meant to say  - half *again* as thick as a
>Stanley iron???  If I'm wrong, then my Stanley irons are waaay too thin.
>
>Cheers,
>Jack in NY

Yup. But its correct in the hilight box at the top at .115" fro Blade thickness
.
I also was unsure of the 'never needs honing' aspect of the Rali plane. How wel
l
honed are they to start with? And does that mean you get just two cutting edges
and wooosh thats it? Think about if you had $7.50 for every couple times you
honed......

Or because like Garrett says their 'outof thier depth' with hardwoods, that the
blades stay sharp eternally since you cant use them......

Rick Garza

In a message dated 4/21/99 3:41:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
rrgarza@f... writes:

> But its correct in the hilight box at the top at .115" fro Blade thickness.
>  I also was unsure of the 'never needs honing' aspect of the Rali plane.
How
> well
>  honed are they to start with? And does that mean you get just two cutting
> edges
>  and wooosh thats it? Think about if you had $7.50 for every couple times
you
>  honed......
>
>  Or because like Garrett says their 'outof thier depth' with hardwoods,
that
> the
>  blades stay sharp eternally since you cant use them......

That's exactly it.  I went into a WoodCraft or some such place about a year
ago needing a scrub (thats when I got my LN #40 ) and they tried to sell
me this plane with a razor blade in it!!!  Well, I didn't know much, but I
knew enough to stay away from that kinda rinky dink.  The salesman figured it
would last awhile . . . he said he hadn't changed the razor in his utility
knife in a long time (or some such foolishness!).
-Shannon Salb

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Hock 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, 22 April 1999 01:32
Subject: Re: FWW Smoothing Plane Article


> And I still contend that the simpler alloys will get simply sharper (but
> when I look at my boxes full of warped, rejected blades, I wonder...)
>

Don't.  Whatever you do , do NOT wonder!  They are fine as they are
and we all thank you for making them available. They are easy to sharpen
and can be edged to atom splitting level by even the most dysfunctional
of us (me!).  Don't change a single molecule!       

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto@n...
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm

----- Original Message -----
From: Ron Hock 
Sent: Thursday, 22 April 1999 04:30
Subject: Re: Iron thicknesses was Re: FWW Smoothing Plane Article


> One thing not mentioned in the blade side-bar in the FWW article: while
> discussing the advantages of the Holtey and Clifton blades he fails to
> mention that thicker blades won't work in the standard Bailey pattern
> planes. Since the blade adjuster dog must pass through the blade and
> engage the breaker, too much additional blade thickness and the
> mechanism won't work. You also have to back out the hold-down screw too
> far for it to grip well or at all.

Thanx for pointing this out, Ron.  I had a similar problem early in Jan99.
As some of you might know, I have a couple of Ananti "orribles".  The #7
has gone to heaven as soon as I got my hands on the Satanly #8 Type 10
that now graces the underside of my bench.  But the #4 is still around
and doing duty as a "fore" plane until I can find a good condition #6.
Needless to say, I was never happy with the Ananti in its original
shape.  It got sanded, filed, you name it, until all the rough-and-not-square-
and-not-flat bits all disappeared.  Then it was time to look at the frog/blade.
The frog was filed flat and shaved in thickness until it properly matched
the sole cast.  The iron was just hopeless.  I re-used a german
"Boherer"(sp?) iron from a smoother that now sports a Hock iron.
This is much thicker than the original Indian, but not as thick as a
Hock or L-N.

Guess what?

Exactly the same problem that Ron talks about.  To aggravate it, I found a
yoke from an old Stanley at a tool sale.  Put it in instead of the pressed
sheet metal abomination that was there before and the problem just got
worse: the Stanley yoke's dog is shorter than the Ananti, so I just couldn't
adjust the blade at all.  Solution was to drill a new hole slightly higher
and above the old hole for the pin, but much nearer the top surface of the
frog.  This brought the whole yoke assembly further out and the dog
engages the cap iron properly now.  Because the original cap iron was
too low for the new dog position, I pressed into use one of those much
vilified Clifton split cap irons.  This has a hole for the dog in a higher
position than the standard Stanley cap iron.

So now I have a Ananti that MOL performs reasonably, although it's
far from being in the same class as a proper Stanley or L-N.  But
the problem with the dog not engaging the cap iron put me back
for a while and is something that is rarely if ever mentioned.

While I'm on the soapbox, another problem that happens with thicker
blades is when the bevel is incorrect for the frog/sole combination.
Yes, right at the edge where they meet and the end of the iron
bevel.  If you have an old plane with a narrow mouth, when you put
a thick blade on it you have to push the frog back to end up with
a mouth at all!  If the angle of the bevel of the new iron is not
correct, what then happens is that the base of the bevel will rest
on the sole instead of the end of the frog where it should be (remember,
the frog has been pushed back, so there is now a "lip" between its
lower edge and the rear end of the mouth in the sole). Result is
instant chatter.  Remedy is to change the bevel angle until its base
rests in the frog instead of the sole.  DAMHIKT, but the above
mentioned #8 now needs a Hock iron instead of the THICK new
Stanley HSS iron that is in there...

off-the-soap-box, back to the dark corner...

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto@n...
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm

Shannon Salb wrote about the Rali
>
>That's exactly it.  I went into a WoodCraft or some such place about a year
>ago needing a scrub (thats when I got my LN #40 ) and they tried to sell
>me this plane with a razor blade in it!!!  Well, I didn't know much, but I
>knew enough to stay away from that kinda rinky dink.  The salesman figured it
>would last awhile . . . he said he hadn't changed the razor in his utility
>knife in a long time (or some such foolishness!).

I went into the local WoodWorkers Club  (Norwalk CT) shortly after it
opened last year and John, the owner, showed me the Rali (razor blade
plane).

IMHO its lack of adjustability clearly makes it desirable only to a
complete novice. The laminated sole one I saw was set up to take
rather thick cuts and I found it completely unacceptable. I should add
that my level of plane knowledge has gone from 0 to .001 on a scale of
0 - 100 since I found this group and I continue to learn more every
day.

Gratefully,

Beck

~  -----Original Message-----
~  From: owner-oldtools@l...
~  [mailto:owner-oldtools@l...]On Behalf Of Ron
Hock
~  Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 1999 7:31 PM
~  To: oldtools@l...
~  Subject: Re: Iron thicknesses was Re: FWW Smoothing Plane Article
~
~  One thing not mentioned in the blade side-bar in the FWW
~  article: while
~  discussing the advantages of the Holtey and Clifton blades
~  he fails to
~  mention that thicker blades won't work in the standard Bailey
pattern
~  planes. Since the blade adjuster dog must pass through the blade
and
~  engage the breaker, too much additional blade thickness and the
~  mechanism won't work. You also have to back out the
~  hold-down screw too
~  far for it to grip well or at all.

Which brings to this sometimes-inventive mind the possiblilty of
locally increasing the thickness of the cap-iron in the area of the
yoke socket. Given accurate sizing of the socket, you could also
reduce some of the backlash (lost motion), though too close a fit
might generate problems. Sweating in place a couple of pads (silver
solder?) should do the trick. Their thickness should be no greater
than the thickness of the thinnest iron in your kit. Naturally, they
should fit into the cutting iron's slot.

The hold-down screw is a more serious worry, unless you have a friend
like Richard Wilson who made me a special with a deep cheese head that
facilitates adjustment of this screw to accommodate different blade
thicknesses.

Always assuming that thickness matters! 8-). Well, a change is useful
if you want to go from very fine mouth to a general duty mouth without
the bother of adjusting the frog.

Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Nuno Souto 
To: oldtools@l... 
Date: Thursday, April 22, 1999 1:51 AM
Subject: Re: Iron thicknesses was Re: FWW Smoothing Plane Article


> If you have an old plane with a narrow mouth, when you put
>a thick blade on it you have to push the frog back to end up with
>a mouth at all!  If the angle of the bevel of the new iron is not
>correct, what then happens is that the base of the bevel will rest
>on the sole instead of the end of the frog where it should be (remember,
>the frog has been pushed back, so there is now a "lip" between its
>lower edge and the rear end of the mouth in the sole). Result is
>instant chatter.  Remedy is to change the bevel angle until its base
>rests in the frog instead of the sole.

Can we explore this a wee bit further?

I've just started fooling around with my new Hock irons in a type 14 (or so)
#3C (small corrugated smoother, Jeff) and also in a type 11 #4 (smoother,
Jeff). In both, I'm still fiddlin the frog around to try to find the perfect
compromise between having no mouth at all versus having the frog so far back
that the iron rests on the lip of the sole instead of the frog.

IOW, with the frog back far enough to have an opening for shavings to pass
thru, the blade hits the rear edge of the mouth, and cannot bed properly on
the frog. If I move the frog forward a bit to make the leading edge of the
frog even with the rear lip of the mouth, there's almost no mouth at all,
and it chokes.

Do I need to regrind the bevel at a bit sharper angle? They've got the bevel
supplied by Mr. Hock. What angle should I shoot for? Don't want to start any
holy wars here, just my usual quest for knowledge and I'm not embarrassed to
ask stupid questions - don't know of any other way to learn...

- Bill Taggart
- At home in Califon, NJ, USA

Wanderin' Bill Taggart wrote:

>IOW, with the frog back far enough to have an opening for shavings to pass
>thru, the blade hits the rear edge of the mouth, and cannot bed properly on
>the frog. If I move the frog forward a bit to make the leading edge of the
>frog even with the rear lip of the mouth, there's almost no mouth at all,
>and it chokes.

Don't overlook the cap iron as a cause of choking with a narrow mouth.

My Type 11 #3C (small smoother, Jeff) has a Hock blade in it. The mouth
is very tight. I had problems with it choking until I realized that I
needed to back the cap iron up the blade a good 1/8-3/16" or so. The cap
iron is not really needed as a chipbreaker with the mouth set very fine.
It just gets in the way. Once I backed the cap iron off, the choking
disappeared.
****************************
Tom Price (TomPrice@a...)
Will Work For Tools
Survival Tips For Beginner Galoots are at The Galoot's Progress:
http://members.aol.com/tomprice/galootp/galtprog.html

----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Taggart 
Sent: Sunday, 25 April 1999 09:30
Subject: Re: Iron thicknesses was Re: FWW Smoothing Plane Article


> >instant chatter.  Remedy is to change the bevel angle until its base
> >rests in the frog instead of the sole.
>
> Can we explore this a wee bit further?
>
>
> Do I need to regrind the bevel at a bit sharper angle? They've got the bevel
> supplied by Mr. Hock. What angle should I shoot for? Don't want to start any
> holy wars here, just my usual quest for knowledge and I'm not embarrassed to
> ask stupid questions - don't know of any other way to learn...
>

I dunno if I'm the right person to reply but since I started it, here
goes what worked for me:

Grind a hollow ground angle.  Now, the trick is this.  Most hollow ground
instructions say that you leave two flat lips on the bevel, one near the edge
and the other near the heel of the bevel.  This is difficult to achieve IME
with a normal diameter grinding wheel.  But it can be done.  What I do
for these thick blades is to hollow grind all the way up to the heel of the
bevel
and leave the same flat portion near the edge. The end effect is that the heel
of the bevel is pushed back up the iron.  It now clears the lip on the sole in
a
frog that has been pushed back.  The exact angle to do this varies with the
iron and plane you're using.  Start easy then fit the whole lot together before
sharpening the edge, go back to the grinder and repeat until fine.  You may
have to "push" the heel of the bevel further up than it was before. No problem,
just change the angle to achieve this.  Then put the final edge on the narrow
flat with whatever angle you fancy.

Err on the side of under-grinding.  The net effect is one of reducing the
thickness of the iron near the edge.  The cap iron is more than enough
to compensate for this and I have yet to experience any serious chatter
this way. The rest of the thick iron also negates chatter.
YMMV, hence the warning.

To set the grinding angle accurately switch off the grinder, land the iron on
the toolrest (you need a big wide one for this, forget the little fancy jokes
they put nowadays on commercial grinders) then touch the iron to the wheel
with the toolrest loose and jiggle things around looking at it sideways.
Once the angle is what you think it should be, tighten up.  Remove the iron,
switch on and do a light pass to see if everything is okdokey. If not, switch
off and repeat until you're happy.  Grind away gently to not overheat.
It takes a while to do this with no overheating but it only needs to be done
once in a blue moon so take a cuppa and relax. H-C irons like Hock's are
easier to grind this way than the newer HSS or A-n whatever steel, so be
gentle.

HTH

One word of caution here.  This is only necessary in the old Stanley tools.
Their mouths were too tight for a thick iron and that's why the problem
is there.  On newer ones, the mouths are much wider so you may find
that none of this is needed when fitting a thicker iron.

As usual YMMV, IMHO, no animals were hurt in these experiments, etc.

Cheers
Nuno Souto
nsouto@n...
http://www.acay.com.au/~nsouto/welcome.htm