OldTools Archive
Recent | Bios | FAQ |
48 | Doug Dawson <dawson@p...> | 1996‑02‑02 | Bedding angle controversy!! |
Patrick L. wrote, > Jeff Gorman |
|||
116 | leach@b... (Patrick Leach) | 1996‑02‑06 | re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
dawson@p... writes: |
|||
120 | ledzep@e... (Carl Muhlhausen LZ 1B-115L x3052) | 1996‑02‑06 | re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
I found something interesting relating to this in Tom Witte's reprint of the Norris catalog (obtained from John Zimmers). On pg 11: "Patent Norris High Pitch Setting Device" "With the aid of this ingenious device, the user can sharpen a plane iron in such a manner as to convert an ordinary plane into a higher pitched plane giving *most satisfactory results* on hard or curly grained material." "To be attached to plane iron as shown while setting. Printed instructions for use given with each device." "Price 1/6" The illustration shows a bent metal gizmo screwed to the back of a plane iron. It looks like it was meant to take the place of the cap iron and allow you to install the iron bevel up in the plane giving a "cutting" angle >90 deg. I guess the device also helped close up the mouth with the bevel up. Functionally like the scraper attachment that Lee Valley is now selling. I wonder if Norris sold many of these? Carl Just say: Doesn't say anything about how it will work on Wenge. |
|||
155 | RayTSmith@a... | 1996‑02‑07 | Re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
In a message dated 96-02-06 07:48:29 EST, Patrick Leach, hoarder of cove planes and debunker of perfectly good infill rumors, writes: > Perhaps some more measurements are needed. How about the others following >this string, who own yb's. Care to measure yours (this means you Randy, Mike, >Ray, Andrew, Pete, Jeff, Vince, et al)? When I first got mine, I stood it in line with a Bailey #4 and sighted the blades as if they were winding sticks. The A14 blade was slightly more upright than the Bailey, so I figured the 50 degree story was true and never thought much more about it. Now that I have measured them, my sliding bevel and cheap protractor put the Bailey dead on at 45 degrees, and the Norris squarely between the 47 and 48 marks. I guess if somebody has to be different, it may as well be me.... Ray T. Smith |
|||
209 | groberts@s... (Gary Roberts) | 1996‑02‑07 | re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
Ok, so I looked at my Spiers jack. At first glance it appeared to be bedded at 45 deg. So I went to a Brown and Sharp proctrator and tried again. 47 deg! However, the blade, a tapered blade that appeared to have been in place for a good long time, was ground to a fairly low angle bevel. Makes me wonder if, due to the thickness of the blade, if you could get away with a lower angle bevel than you would with a thin, modern blade. Then again, Spiers probably did not use a Brown and Sharp protractor. How about this? All English infill planes are descended from one common ancestor. This ancestral plane was bedded at 47 deg, for an arcane reason known to and understood only by a past great master. Far be it for us lowly modern neanderthals to attempt to understand the true meaning of 47 degrees. Don't worry, I'll ask my spirit guide tonight for enlightment. Gary Roberts |
|||
228 | Jeff@m... (Jeff Gorman) | 1996‑02‑08 | re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
Patrick Leach wrote: ~ It's also possible that Mr. Kingshott measured a single example of Norris' ~ work, with his particular one was pitched at 47.5 (Norris would custom make ~ stuff to order), and then proclaimed this to be the standard. ~ Perhaps some more measurements are needed. How about the others following ~ this string, who own yb's. Care to measure yours (this means you Randy, Mike, ~ Ray, Andrew, Pete, Jeff, Vince, et al)? I've just measured my dead-loss-gaping-wide-mouth-Late-Norris smoother. With the protractor from a Starrett Combination Set, I make mine to be 46-1/3 degrees! (Stock of protractor against the sole and the rule sighted against the underside of the blade). Now what do we make of that? I have measured as carefully as possible with this equipment. ~ I've gotten perfect results on the bitchiest curly maple with my common ~ pitch smoothers. I have often wondered just how much difference 2-1/2 degrees can make. When backfacing an iron to increase the cutting angle I reckon I got nearer to 60 degrees or even more, which still planes wood, if a bit grudgingly. This is fine for acrylic resin sheet and Formica since the edge lasts longer and is less fierce on the resin sheet. Basically, I agree about the standard pitch. All you need is a highly tuned Stanley or Record, ;-), with the finest mouth possible. This takes precedence over cap-iron setting, whatever some books and other writers may say about "chip breaking". -- Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire jeff@m... |
|||
230 | Jeff@m... (Jeff Gorman) | 1996‑02‑08 | re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
Carl Mulhausen wrote: ~ "Patent Norris High Pitch Setting Device" ~ The illustration shows a bent metal gizmo screwed to ~ the back of a plane iron. It looks like it was meant ~ to take the place of the cap iron and allow you to ~ install the iron bevel up in the plane giving a ~ "cutting" angle >90 deg. I guess the device also ~ helped close up the mouth with the bevel up. ~ Functionally like the scraper attachment that Lee ~ Valley is now selling. Out of curiosity, To enable a Stanley blade honed at 30 degrees to be fitted bevel-up, I have just sawn the last 5/16" from the head of a spare Stanley cap-iron. No weak puns about de-cap-itation please. 8-). The shaving aperture is now cavernous, of course, but a trial on a 7" x 1-1/4" (or so) piece of some fairly hard flowering cherry, even with a pretty fine set, caused it to violently skitter for the whole length. I doubt that the shaving aperture size has much to do with this. It worked after a fashion on some pine, but required much extra effort. Conclusion of a very brief trial: under these circumstances, a 75 degree cutting angle with a 45 degree clearance angle is impracticable and not worth perservering with, but someone must have made his gadget work well enough to satisfy Norris and go to the trouble and expense of getting a patent. ~ Just say: Doesn't say anything about how it will work on ~ Wenge. Now you know why! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rather academic speculation follows. Ignore according to your inclination. Tell me if I've got it all wrong, but it /is/ useful to have somewhere to bounce ideas against! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Trusting some very rusty trigonometry and school physics, I think that the turning effect from the reaction on the end a beam inclined at differing angles to the horizontal, when biffed by a horizontally-acting force against a vertical face, might be proportional to the cosines of the angles. The beam is the plane blade. The angles are the cutting angles. The cutting angles are the inclinations of the upper face of the cutter to the sole. The horizontally-acting force is you, pushing the plane. The vertical face is the end of the workpiece. Gerrit now? Sorry about that, but what can one do without a decent diagram facility? Cos 75 divided by cos 45 = 2.74, hence the greater likelihood of the plane involuntarily lifting from the shock of the edge when it first engages with the leading edge of the workpiece. This quantifies (I hope) what one perceives intuitively. It is appreciated that this applies to the special case of the iron at the start of the cut, but intuition also suggests that it will be somewhat applicable to cuts started within the body of the workpiece. One conclusion? Lower cutting angle = less chance of skitter. A Lower cutting angle is easier to obtain with a low-angle bevel-up plane. A question remains, however. I have made rather casual backfacing work on wood. The casualness might have meant that the cutting angle was maybe about 60 degrees. Does the greater clearance angle have any ill-effect? Off-hand, I can't think why it should, but am open to rational explanations. I suppose that the flexing effect (golly, I nearly said "chatter") on the un-damped (since no effective cap-iron) 75deg. cutting edge could be 2.74 times as great, hence a release of stored energy would increase the lifting effect, or would it? Engineers/physicists to the rescue please! Enough of this self-indulgence. Work to be done! Jeff. -- Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire jeff@m... |
|||
243 | leach@b... (Patrick Leach) | 1996‑02‑08 | Re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
RayTSmith@a... writes: > Now that I have measured them, my sliding bevel and cheap protractor put >the Bailey dead on at 45 degrees, and the Norris squarely between the 47 and >48 marks. I guess if somebody has to be different, it may as well be me.... I wonder if the toteless models, equipped with the adjusters, such as yours are pitched slightly higher since they are shorter in length than the toted models? If they were pitched at 45 degress with the length that they are, there might be insufficient room to make a comfortable grip. I'm gonna email my pal, WeeWee, and ask him to measure his, which is the same as yours (it's also a good excuse to rip his arse for sending me a postcard of Michelangelo's David's crotch from his recent visit to Florence). I'll let you know what comes of it. The angle, not the crotch, that is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- HBK Just say None of you bootlicks are worthy of my greatness, with my being the sahib of sawdust. Drop on your hands and knees, the lot of you, and start swabbing the floor with your tongues. etc. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|||
245 | Randy Roeder <RROEDER@c...> | 1996‑02‑08 | Re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
I measured my late model Norris A-5 last night. My technique was to take an adjustable carpenter's square, one with a 45 degree angle built into the handle, align the handle on the sole, and sight along the blade. It looks to be a dead-on 45 degrees. Has anyone wondered, given the fact that the iron rests on a wooden bed, if the company didn't care if the angle of the cutter was off a degree or two? Maybe the tolerances for the bedding angle weren't all that precise. Randy |
|||
252 | RayTSmith@a... | 1996‑02‑08 | Re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
Patrick Leach, Admirer of Fine Arts, writes: > I wonder if the toteless models, equipped with the adjusters, such as yours >are pitched slightly higher since they are shorter in length than the toted >models? If they were pitched at 45 degress with the length that they are, >there might be insufficient room to make a comfortable grip. Thats a good theory, but it would not have made a huge difference. The 2.5 degree change is so slight that it isn't really noticeable unless you compare it side by side with a common pitch plane. Lined up with a Bailey, the top of the Norris iron was about 1/4" or less forward of where the top of the Bailey iron rests. Angling the adjuster back 1/4" would not matter much to me, but then I have smaller hands than the average cave-dweller. It *might* be a problem for someone with big mits. And you just might be right. >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >HBK >Just say None of you bootlicks are worthy of my greatness, with my being > the sahib of sawdust. Drop on your hands and knees, the lot of > you, and start swabbing the floor with your tongues. >etc. How much longer do I have to keep this up, your greatness? The walnut dust wasn't half bad, but this pine dust tastes like crap. Ray T. Smith |
|||
253 | RayTSmith@a... | 1996‑02‑08 | Re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
In a message dated 96-02-07 20:10:36 EST, Gary Roberts writes: > However, the blade, a tapered blade that appeared to have >been in place for a good long time, was ground to a fairly low angle bevel. >Makes me wonder if, due to the thickness of the blade, if you could get >away with a lower angle bevel than you would with a thin, modern blade. The blade in mine (non-tapered) was ground to a low angle also. Looks to be about 20 degrees or so, then they honed a steeper working angle. I think it was done this way because a previous owner was lazy and didn't want to hone a full width bevel on the thick blade. It gives up some blade support from the bed, which should be a positive feature. I had a problem with it only once though, about halfway across a piece of white oak, I ran into some grain reversal and the blade chattered enough to leave a half dollar sized area with ripple marks at about 1/32" intervals in it. A subsequent skewed pass cleaned it up nicely, but if the iron didn't have that long bevel, I don't think it would have happened to begin with. Norris steel being precious, I just hone a 30 degree secondary bevel on it. I'm not going to hone it back to a straight bevel since it would take about an 1/8" or so off the blade. My Hock replacement is on order, and will be my 'working' blade when it arrives. Ray T. Smith |
|||
257 | RayTSmith@a... | 1996‑02‑08 | Re: Bedding angle controversy!! |
In a message dated 96-02-08 09:20:40 EST, Randy writes: >. Has anyone wondered, given the >fact that the iron rests on a wooden bed, if the company didn't care if the >angle of the cutter was off a degree or two? Maybe the tolerances for >the bedding angle weren't all that precise. > Judging from the ones I've seen, I don't think they ignored tolerances anywhere. Ray T. Smith |
|||
Recent | Bios | FAQ |