I dislike chipbreakers because they have limited use in my woodworking
and they prove problematic outside of those limited uses.

 I get my wood from dealers who sell stuff that is furry yet mostly
 flat. Most boards have the usual amount of wind. I have never had a
 true need for a scrub plane. I start off with a jackplane having a wide
 mouth and a blade that has a crowned profile. I next move to a jointer
 plane having an intermediate mouth and a blade having the corners
 rounded over. The next step brings to bear a smooth plane with a narrow
 mouth and the corners slightly ?killed?. Edge jointing is done with a
 jointer plane having an intermediate mouth and a blade ground to a
 slightly cambered profile as described by Jeff:

http://www.amgron.clara.net/planingpoints/edgeplaning/squareedgeindex.h-
tm

        I find the chipbreaker useful for the jackplaning. I find it a
        PITA for everything else. If set close to the edge of the blade
        (as one would expect to do when taking finer shavings), and if
        the blade is set close to the front of the mouth (as one would
        want to do when taking finer shavings) the chipbreaker prevents
        the blade from being set close as it bumps into the wear.

        This is one of the reasons I decided to make the blade for the
        Buck Rogers smoother without a chipbreaker. The thickness of the
        blade was selected to just fill the mouth with enough room for a
        thin shaving.

http://www.frontier.iarc.uaf.edu/~cswingle/archive/get.phtml?message_id-
=155895#message

        The quick fix for planes with chipbreakers is to move the
        chipbreaker back to prevent it from hitting the wear. That has
        its own problems. Coincidentally, before Tom and I fired up the
        forge this past weekend to harden the blade, chipbreakers became
        the topic of the day. I was gloating about my new MDF power
        strop and Mr. Skeptical was in his Showme-State mood. I handed
        him a plane with a newly honed blade and he allowed as it had ?a
        pretty sharp? blade, but that the chipbreaker was set wrong.
        This led to a discussion about the tradeoffs of moving the
        chipbreaker back away from the edge to prevent it from
        interfering with setting a narrow mouth. If it is set back just
        enough to prevent interference, the shavings will jam. If set
        back even further to prevent jamming, the depth adjustment range
        is totally off and it becomes a problem to set a fine depth. I
        have settled on a compromise setting where the mouth is fairly
        narrow but the blade could be adjusted for depth. ! Tom prefers
        the narrowest mouth and settles for no depth adjustment.

        This is a crappy compromise to have to be forced into. I
        wish the damned things were never invented. They are the
        tool of a carpenter, not a cabinetmaker. This has been
        bugging me all week.

        It bugs me all the more because what I was doing before Tom
        arrived was filing a chipbreaker on a jointer plane that was
        having shavings jammed between it and the blade. It still jammed
        after the chipbreaker was flat and smooth. That is when I
        noticed that the blade was not flat across the back. I had to
        spend time to flatten the blade on a wallpaper sanding screen.
        These darned chipbreakers require a lot for the little benefit
        they give. I?m considering modifying the chipbreakers to allow a
        better setting. I?m also considering moving to single iron
        planes. I?ll make no rash decision, I?ll think about it for a
        year or ten.

        Just commiserating.

Regards, Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve is having a little trouble with chipbreakers, including one on a 
blade with a cupped back.

> It bugs me all the more because what I was doing before Tom arrived was
> filing a chipbreaker on a jointer plane that was having shavings jammed
> between it and the blade.  It still jammed after the chipbreaker was
> flat and smooth.  That is when I noticed that the blade was not flat
> across the back.  I had to spend time to flatten the blade on a
> wallpaper sanding screen.  These darned chipbreakers require a lot for
> the little benefit they give.   I?m considering modifying the
> chipbreakers to allow a better setting.  I?m also considering moving to
> single iron planes.  I?ll make no rash decision, I?ll think about it for
> a year or ten.

First, if you call it a cap iron, it won't bug you as much. My testing 
shows that most of the time, the cap iron does not break chips. My ideas 
about cap irons are here

   http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/jig%20faq.html#caprion

Second, in most situations the force of the level cap acting through the 
cap iron would flatten the blade against the frog, removing the gap between 
the cap iron and the blade. If you try to use abrasives to flatten a cupped 
blade, the pressure you apply to the blade tends to flatten it, removing 
the cup! I had a blade like that. The cupping was probably only about 1 
thou, but it took some time to get a good straight edge. Just using back 
bevels was enough though.

Third, I have been experimenting with clearance angles lately. The 
question: does the clearance angle affect the rate of blade wear? The test 
would be best if I could use the same blade with very different clearance 
angles. To do this I ended up using the blade from an LN62, where it is 
used bevel up, in an infill, where it was used bevel down!

The mouth was wide enough, but the screw in the screw cap was not long 
enough. I had to improvise ...

   http://www3.telus.net/BrentBeach/Sharpen/1%20100%20detail.jpg

Plane worked just fine with no cap iron and a block of wood under the 
screw. So, you can use thick blades without cap irons. The only problem is 
depth adjustment. Tap tap tap ... Or a depth adjust like they use on bevel 
up planes. You can just see the depth adjust slot on the LN62 iron in the 
picture.

Using this blade in this plane bevel up would give you the equivalent of a 
75 to 80 degree bedding angle - almost a scraper. I have not tried that, yet.

Brent
-- 
Victoria, B.C., Canada
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wait, wait, hold on a little longer, it's coming..... coming
 OK, my brain is thick as winter morning river fog with the flu as it 
has been most of a month.
Everything going in an out like coming through a long buried culvert.

 But cap irons or chipbreakers are soft as butter. You can easy lop an 
1/8" off the end or so and rebend,  reform, or whatever the word I'm 
desperately trying to think of here, hit it over a rod with a hammer.
  Up out of your way, in the adjustment range and a close, or tight, (or 
isn't there a better word here too?)  mouth.
 I know for sure I've done this more than once but you think I'd have 
even a chance of getting pix or even finding the victim or anything 
right now? Maybe next week
    yours, bleary,  Scott

********** Scott Grandstaff, Box 409, Happy Camp, CA 96039 ********* 
Tools:http://users.snowcrest.net/kitty/scott/scotts/tools/tools.html 
PageWorks:http://www.snowcrest.net/kitty/hpages/

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gee, Steve, maybe you just need a better one.

We started offering cap irons a couple years ago and the reports back
from users are that they improve performance considerably. The bevel on
the cap iron is 35 degrees which is shallower than the ramp created by
the rounded-over Stanley cap iron and our cap iron is 3mm thick (.118")
which is almost twice as thick as the stock ones. The added thickness
adds stiffness at the cutting edge and I get reports that users can even
hear a difference when planing.

I agree that calling it a chipbreaker is probably a misnomer. While it
may be that the breaker lifts the shaving to allow the blade to shear
the fibers, if the mouth is set for a very fine shaving and the mouth's
leading edge is sharp and holding the shaving down securely, then I
suspect the "breaker" is really just adding strength to the cantilevered
cutting edge.

Ron

Steve Reynolds wrote:
> I dislike chipbreakers because they have limited use in my woodworking
> and they prove problematic outside of those limited uses. snip

--
Ron Hock HOCK TOOLS http://www.hocktools.com 16650 Mitchell Creek Dr
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
(707) 964-2782 fax (707) 964-7816

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve mounts a (civilised and erudite) tirade against chipbreakers
and says. . .

>They are the tool of a carpenter, not a cabinetmaker.

Well, - yes. The conventional, mass produced iron plane with adjustable
frog and lateral lever etc is indeed the tool of the carpenter - made in
millions, when millions of carpenters made millions of houses from
billions of trees.

Why wouldn't a carpenter appreciate the values of the chipbreaker? A
good, all purpose solution to the needs of the moment.

Cabinetmakers have long been appreciative of the less forgiving metal
infill type plane. They may have been made by Spiers and such like, or
hand made in the cold dovetailing process we all know about and admire.
The thick, rigid blades and tight mouths of these devices are indeed the
province of the cabinetmaker.

Now we're all turning dilettante yuppie woodworker with the leftovers of
the forest clearances, then of course we all want, need, appreciate, and
can afford the high spec YB planes, or Clark & Williams. We do tend to
forget that we're dealing with many trades and the tools that supported
entire families. I suppose, like most here, I can outfit a couple of
'kits' - there's the tools for odd jobs round the house - the
carpentering - No 4 & 5, fairly sharp, medium set up. and there are the
cabinetmaking tools- kept 'very' sharp and well housed. Sometimes at the
bench I'm carpentering, sometimes I'm cabinetmaking, sometimes I'm
joinering. - Different trades, different tools, different standards.

So many trades to master, so many tools to acquire and learn to use.

Richard Wilson Yorkshireman Galoot

----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

For information on Christian Salvesen visit our website at
www.salvesen.com.

The information contained in this e-mail is strictly confidential and
for the use of the addressee only; it may also be legally privileged and
/ or price sensitive. Notice is hereby given that any disclosure, use or
copying of the information by anyone other than the intended recipient
is prohibited and may be illegal. If you have received this message in
error, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail.

Christian Salvesen has taken every reasonable precaution to ensure that
any attachment to this e-mail has been swept for viruses. However, we
cannot accept liability for any damage sustained as a result of software
viruses and would advise that you carry out your own virus checks before
opening any attachment.

Christian Salvesen is a trading name of the Christian Salvesen Group.
Christian Salvesen PLC (Company number SC7173) is the ultimate holding
company within the Christian Salvesen Group whose registered office is
at 16 Charlotte Square, Edinburgh EH2 4DF.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there a single iron, metal bench plane or would this require going to
wooden planes?

Larry

Steve Reynolds wrote:

>[snip] It bugs me all the more because what I was doing before Tom
>arrived was filing a chipbreaker on a jointer plane that was having
>shavings jammed between it and the blade. It still jammed after the
>chipbreaker was flat and smooth. That is when I noticed that the blade
>was not flat across the back. I had to spend time to flatten the blade
>on a wallpaper sanding screen. These darned chipbreakers require a lot
>for the little benefit they give. I?m considering modifying the
>chipbreakers to allow a better setting. I?m also considering moving to
>single iron planes. I?ll make no rash decision, I?ll think about it for
>a year or ten. [snip]
>
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott you wrote:

cap irons or chipbreakers are soft as butter. You can easy lop
> an 
> 1/8" off the end or so and rebend,  reform, or whatever the word
> I'm 
> desperately trying to think of here, hit it over a rod with a
> hammer.
>   Up out of your way, in the adjustment range and a close, or
> tight, (or 
> isn't there a better word here too?)  mouth.
>  I know for sure I've done this more than once but you think I'd
> have 
> even a chance of getting pix or even finding the victim or anything
> 
> right now? Maybe next week
>     yours, bleary,  Scott
 
Scott--
   So sorry, this turns out not to be the whole case---take too much
off the end of a Bailey-style cap iron and it won't reach the mouth
of the plane anymore.  Because of the slot in the cutter, the depth
adjuster bears on the keyhole in the cap iron, and the throw of that
little pawl ain't so grand---probably could take an eighth off OK but
think it over first, ultimately it's a date with destiny. DAMHIKT....
               with love and respect; gAM, West Seattle

Save the contractor from the fuzziest of all thinkers, himself.
 

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 27, 2006, at 8:08 PM, L.A. Root wrote:

> Is there a single iron, metal bench plane or would this require going 
> to wooden planes?
>
>

	Are some infills single ironed?  I don't know, that is a crowd I don't 
hang around with, those FOYBIPO.

	Your message got me thinking about the start of chipbreakers/capirons. 
  How much is their birth and growth tied into that of metallic planes?  
Hard to think about a Bailey style plane without one.  Woodies have the 
luxury of doing what they want.

Regards,
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ed,

I had to go look, because I couldn't remember (old age is h*ll).  My 
Stanley #9 does not have a chipbreaker/cap iron.  I can't guarantee they 
are all like that, because I only have the one. I guess maybe I need to 
start looking for a backup or two.  :-)

Frank Sronce (Fort Worth Armadillo Works)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michele Minch" 

  I have never
> seen a arn bench plane with a single arn, but does than #9 (Stanley's 
> miter plane, Geoff) that Mr. Holloway so brazenly paraded have one?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Reynolds wrote:

> 
> Are some infills single ironed?  I don't know, that is a crowd I 
> don't hang around with, those FOYBIPO.
> 

I'm sorry to tell you there Mr. 'Just One More Drill Index And Then I'm
Done' but that Wayne Anderson chariot plane places you firmly in the
ranks of the FOYBIPO. You better start attending the meetings and paying
attention.

> How much is their birth and growth tied into that of metallic planes?
> Hard to think about a Bailey style plane without one.  Woodies have
> the luxury of doing what they want.

I believe that double-iron planes were common by the time the metallic 
planes got rolling.
****************************
Tom Price (tomprice03@g...)
Will Work For Tools
The Galoot's Progress Old Tools site is at:
http://homepage.mac.com/galoot_9/galtprog.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Frank Sronce wrote:
>
> I had to go look, because I couldn't remember (old age is h*ll).   
> My Stanley #9 does not have a chipbreaker/cap iron.  I can't  
> guarantee they are all like that, because I only have the one. I  
> guess maybe I need to start looking for a backup or two.  :-)
>
> Frank Sronce (Fort Worth Armadillo Works)

Frank et al.

I have seen these planes with a conventional bench plane depth  
adjusting mechanism.  Does the blade have that little rectangular  
piece that engages the yoke?

Ed Minch
Suffering from short term memory loss and short term memory loss.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 28, 2006, at 5:45 AM, Ed Minch wrote:
> I have never seen a arn bench plane with a single arn, but does  
> than #9 (Stanley's miter plane, Geoff) that Mr. Holloway so  
> brazenly paraded have one?  Is the little tab on the adjuster yoke  
> that sticks up into the blade longer on this model??  Could present  
> possibilites.

     The L-N version of the #9 mondo block and miter plane does not  
have a cap iron.  The tab of the adjuster yoke engages the slot in in  
a "Yoke Plate" that is held by a large (but short) screw in the slot  
up the middle of the blade, as if you had cut the upper end off a  
normal Bailey-type cap iron and used it to engage the tab on top of  
the adjuster yoke.  The yoke plate can be placed along the slot to  
best interact with the adjuster yoke tab, without reference to the  
location of what would be the front edge on the normal bench plane  
cap iron of the usual Bailey configuration.
     But relevant to the larger discussion:  This plane, like Peter  
McBride's Spears model recently mentioned (and shown)
www.petermcbride.com/mitre1.jpg
are examples of *low-angle, bevel-up* planes so dear to Derek's  
heart.  AFAIK, the bevel-up family does not normally have a cap iron.
     In the older double-iron bench planes, including woodies, as  
well as the early Ohio models that continued the heavy tapered blade  
tradition, the cap iron is normally of similarly heavy stock, with  
little spring.  Leonard Bailey's innovation (not saying "advance" in  
this context) was to use a thin iron (i.e., cheap to make by the  
millions) in conjunction with a similarly thin and springy cap iron,  
the top of which had the slot to engage the "Bailey-type" depth  
adjuster yoke.  It's a design package that apparently combined enough  
advantages, both technical and economical, to give it a certain  
sticking power.  But now that we're back to focus on the technical  
and not be so concerned about cheap mass production, I'm one of those  
who will spend as much on a Hock blade *and* cap iron as the used  
plane itself cost me, for the improvement in performance that a  
thicker, harder blade and a stiffer, better fitted cap iron will  
provide.
         Tom Holloway,
recognizing that Jeff Gorman's "Versitile Shuteing Board" has several  
advantages over his own rudimentary effort, recently crowed about in  
this forum.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 28, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Tom Holloway wrote:

> , I'm one of those who will spend as much on a Hock blade *and* cap 
> iron as the used plane itself cost me, for the improvement in 
> performance that a thicker, harder blade and a stiffer, better fitted 
> cap iron will provide.
>

	Ron commented I might find favor with one of his blade/capiron pairs 
and stop hating chipbreakers.  I don't see how that is possible unless 
they are designed in a way that the chipbreaker edge and the depth stop 
can be set independently.  It is because the OEM chipbreakers are made 
to a set size (that is, the distance between the edge of the 
chipbreaker and the hole for the depth adjuster) that leads to the 
problem.  I assume the Hocks are the same, no?  The Yoke Plate would be 
a nice thing to have on all planes.

	Oh, Brent, thanks for the comments about chipbreaker/capiron 
terminology.  However, conversely from roses, a 
chipbreaker/capiron/topiron by any other name would stink out loud.

Regards,
Steve

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve asks
www.petermcbride.com/mitre_and_smooth.jpg
www.petermcbride.com/mitre1.jpg
www.petermcbride.com/mitre2.jpg
www.petermcbride.com/mitre3.jpg

Regards,
Peter...FOYBIPO
In Melbourne, Australia

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Jan 31, 2006, at 3:46 AM, John Manners from Brisbane wrote:

> Regarding chipbreaker furnished planes, Steve Reynolds says:
>
>> They are the tool of a carpenter, not a cabinetmaker.
>>
>>
> Poor old James Krenov.  So that is where he went wrong.  Chipbreakers 
> in his
> planes.  And all the time he was unaware that he was simply a 
> carpenter (Do
> we have a problem with carpenters?).  Little wonder he was obliged to 
> call
> himself "The Impractical Cabinetmaker".
>

	No, John, no problems with carpenters, Krenov, or anyone who has or 
likes chipbreakers.  Just because I don't favor the conventional design 
of them (that yoke plate still has me thinking) is no need to think I'm 
criticizing those that do.  My specific problem is with metallic planes 
wherein the placement of the edge of the chipbreaker in relation to the 
edge of the blade is interlocked with the setting of the depth adjuster 
hole.  Krenov would never have this problem with his wooden plane 
design as it does not have a depth adjuster.  By the way, I like and 
own a few of Krenov's books.  I'm no detractor of him.

	I didn't get all these planes in my shop to do carpentry, I want to do 
cabinetmaking.  I want them to perform at a cabinetmaking level.

Regards,
Steve - asking politely not to have words or connotations I did not 
explicitly state associated with things I do state.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding chipbreaker furnished planes, Steve Reynolds says:

>They are the tool of a carpenter, not a cabinetmaker.
>
>
Poor old James Krenov.  So that is where he went wrong.  Chipbreakers in his
planes.  And all the time he was unaware that he was simply a carpenter (Do
we have a problem with carpenters?).  Little wonder he was obliged to call
himself "The Impractical Cabinetmaker".

Regards from Brisbane

John Manners
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you John!

I've been wondering about this for quite a while, too,
but now it becomes clear.
What I did not understand was why static deflection
matters! Who cares if the blade deflects as long as it
is not beyond the plasticity limit into the region
close to failure? (AFAIK this never happens) Even if
there was some plastic deformation of the blade, that
could be easily adjusted by grinding the cutting angle
at an appropriate angle. 
I continued to hypothesized (and still do) that what
really matters is the dynamic properties of the blade
(or blade/capiron assembly). Here is why: When
pressure is taken off the blade, as a response the
blade springs back. Applying pressure again (obviously
wood is highly anisotropic) makes the blade go through
the same cycle of springing back and forth. This leads
to what we call in the Aerospace community self
induced vibrations (civil engineers have the same
problem by the way). In the woodworking business self
induced vibrations should manifest themselves as e.g.
chatter and probably surface roughness in general. 
It turns out that key properties (frequency/amplitude,
etc.) of self induced vibrations does not only depend
on the stiffness of the system but also on the damping
(probably compounded by the fact that wood exhibits
visco-elastic properties as someone pointed out a
while ago). For that reason I reasoned that laminated
blades might have an advantage over solid blades (and
are easier to sharpen, too). I still owe you a
conclusive prove of this hypothesis. But, yes, lateral
bending, completely forgot about that. Fascinating
systems these planes are, indeed.

Thanks!

Chris in Atlanta, GA.

Forwarded Message
From:	"John Manners" 
CC:	"Old Tools Forum"

To:	"Ron Hock" 
Date:	 Wed, 1 Feb 2006 19:18:28 +1000
Subject:	 Re: [OldTools] Why I Hate Chipbreakers
Plain Text Attachment [ Download File | Save to Yahoo!
Briefcase ]
Gentle People

His Worshipful Eminence the Reverend Ron Hock and I
have exchanged a 
note
apiece concerning the perplexities emanating from
consideration given 
to the
matter of chipbreakers a.k.a. capirons and I thank Ron
for his most
informative and illuminating comments which have
helped me put some 
sort of
framework to my own thoughts and observations on the
matter.

[...] lot of good stuff deleted.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Long interesting discussion of the behavior of the plane iron and cap iron 
in a plane snipped. 

I've lost the link to a study (perhaps made by a listmember) several years 
ago about the dynamic movements of a metalic plane (like a jack plane) 
when under use. This study was mainly to look at "how flat" the plane sole 
needed to be: The plane actually flexed (lengthwise) several 0.001's under 
normal use conditions. 

This could also affect the behavior of the iron at the cutting surface. 

tim 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gentle People

His Worshipful Eminence the Reverend Ron Hock and I have exchanged a note
apiece concerning the perplexities emanating from consideration given to the
matter of chipbreakers a.k.a. capirons and I thank Ron for his most
informative and illuminating comments which have helped me put some sort of
framework to my own thoughts and observations on the matter.

I mentioned in the course of our correspondence an old Mitchell iron which I
own in circumstances where it is the thickest one I have (3/16") and
speculated as to why someone in its chain of ownership had apparently
considered it necessary to cut a hole and slot in it and fitted it with a
slightly undersized capiron (iron, 2 1/2" wide, capiron, 2 1/4" wide) of the
old, brass nut variety.  Ron speculated that the iron, as is, may be in its
original form.

I think I have to stick with my view that the Mitchell iron had the hole and
slot cut in it by one of its owners.  The sides of the slot show the
remnants of small drill holes and the usual rule of thumb is that metal can
be cut with a cold chisel if it can be cut with a file.  Certainly the
Mitchell iron can be cut with a file as could all of the irons and chisels I
have ever tested in this way to get a bit of an idea of how hard they were.
The trick is, of course, to use a proper cold chisel, one that has its edge
shaped to an included angle of 60 degrees or a bit less which has been
hardened to just short of file hardness for about half an inch with the rest
of the stock pretty much annealed progressively from behind the hard bit to
the top where mushrooming from hammer blows is always to be expected and
should be ground off from time to time. A long bevel leading to the edge
bevel aids in arriving at this arrangement. Although cold chisels are common
enough tools, the making of good ones at the forge and anvil was regarded as
a skilled and tricky business by the blacksmith of the town of my youth.

I incline to the view that the moments of force generated at the edge of a
plane iron in use will produce less lengthwise deflection in a thicker iron
than in a thinner one to the extent that, at a certain thickness, all other
things being equal, the iron will cease to deflect along its length to any
significant degree.  At the same time I have no doubt that a capiron will
reduce the lengthwise deflection in an iron which otherwise would be subject
to such deflection in use simply because the moments of force are then
confronted with, essentially, the resistance to deflection of the combined
thicknesses of two pieces of steel held captive together.  The particular
manner in which a capiron is attached to an iron and the obvious results
encountered over time of the overtightening of the screw sufficient to
exceed the elastic limits of the components indicate that there is
deflection or a tendency towards deflection downwards in the middle of the
capiron and at the ends of the iron, more particularly at the cutting end of
the iron because of the arrangement of the parts and that this circumstance
would resist, perhaps to the optimum for the purposes required if all things
go well, the lenghtwise deflection of the iron in use.

Whilst appreciating that the iron thins out at its bevel it is thought that,
because of the relatively short length of lever, inappreciable deflection
during use would occur solely over the bevel part of the length of the iron
because of the reduction of the moments of force due to the short lever
length between the cutting edge and the top of the bevel.

Ron expressed the view that , "If your cap iron is catching shavings, it's
not tuned properly" and I have to agree with that.  The trick is, how to
tune the capiron.

Many standard sorts of capirons I have seen, either new or with their edges
untreated in old planes, display the signs of having been cut to length with
a shearing press in that the tops of the cut edges are slightly depressed
and the bottom of the cut edge shows a line where the metal has finally been
wrenched apart rather than cut, that is, one can quite easily see the "rough
grain" of the metal.  This is no real problem as the rough part of the cut
can easily be refined on the oilstone.  Then comes the setting of the
capiron after the iron has had its back flattened and has been sharpened.

The capiron can be held in place on the blade with moderate finger pressure,
the screw loose, and, with luck, no light can be seen where the capiron
meets the iron.  If light is seen, then el-cheapo lipstick is placed on the
back of the blade and the capiron is again put in place by finger pressure
and then removed, revealing the high spots on the capiron's mating edge,
back to the oilstone and then re-try, usually with success on the first
go-round.  The lipstick is also useful for indicating just where the capiron
should be honed. Then the screw is tightened to a firm but not massive
pressure and, sighting again, light appears at both or one of the outer
edges of the capiron, indicating clearly, one would think, that the capiron
has grown a bit of a belly.  Nope!  What has happened is that these
ineradicable moments of force, all centered around the screw, have deflected
the iron and the capiron in a compound manner, causing not only deflection
from end to end but also from side to side.  The particular villain of the
piece in this side-to-side deflection is, I believe, the slot in the iron
whereby the iron's resistance to being deflected downwards at the sides (or,
rather, having its middle deflected upwards) has been considerably weakened
by virtue of the circumstance that a large part of its transverse span has
gone missing.  Therefore, to "tune" such pieces of equipment as described
one really needs to put a slight concavity along the edge of the capiron.
Doing this by trial and error is very frustrating but I have had some
success draw-filing the middle section of the capiron's edge with a chainsaw
file.  Most times I don't bother.  Doing it "scientifically" requires a good
fitter's workshop or a Fellow in Foreign Orders in the railway's workshops.
Depends on who is in the pub that night.

One answer to this problem is NOT to get a thick, inflexible capiron as the
slender iron will still deflect.  Another, somewhat expensive, answer is to
get a thick iron which will not deflect under the moderate pressure of the
attachment of a capiron or, somewhat more expensive, an even thicker iron
with a minimally sized slot which will not deflect lengthwise in course of
use and having a depth adjustment plate and longer replacement screw,  the
capiron being abandoned.

A quick measurement of a randomly selected Bailey pattern jack plane tells
me that the iron has a slot 14/32" wide and that the lateral adjustment
lever disk is 12/32" in diameter whilst the two-piece depth adjustment
toggle is 6/32" wide.  It seems that nothing much would be lost were the
diameter of the lateral adjustment lever disk to be reduced to 6/32" in
diameter and the slot to 8/32" in width and that considerable additional
resistance to the lateral deflection of the iron might thereby be gained.

Another means by which I have satisfied myself regarding the existence of
lateral deflection of plane irons brought about by the reasonably firm
tightening of the capiron to the iron is the otherwise inexplicable
phenomenon which occurs whilst setting a square blade in a square mouth in a
flat sole.  As the edge slowly emerges it is the middle of the edge which
first appears, followed then by the outer parts of the edge, giving the
illusion that the sole must be laterally concave, notwithstanding that a
straightedge denies all passage of light between it and the sole at the
mouth's leading edge.

All of this seems to establish that, with the ordinary sort of iron and
capiron, on the tightening of the capiron screw, each deflects towards the
other in the region of the screw with certain consequent outward deflections
of the margins of the two components, most critically at the corners of the
leading edge of the capiron and along the cutting edge of the iron itself.

So what's to be done?  If one is like me (not in too many respects, God
forbid!), one furiously begrudges spending anything other than time in
upgrading the jack bought fair and square at the flea with all of its
components intact.  In my own particular case, the hauling out of the No.10
fruit-can furnace fired with the old kerosene blowtorch and a sorting
through the small pile of old car springs usually prompts a spousal rush to
examine the insurance papers.  I therefore make do in most cases with what I
have, being content enough to plane 1 3/4" shavings with a 2" iron and so on
up the scale of plane iron widths and occasionally clearing clogs at the
corners of the capiron.  In other words, I disassemble the latest
acquisition, de-rust its components, clean them up, apply a little grease
where necessary, true up and sharpen the blade to shaving quality, hone the
unsatisfactory capiron flat at its mating surface, have a go at flattening
any out-of-whack sole with a smooth-cut file, clean up the file marks and
reassemble with judicious placement of the frog.  I then proceed happily
from there.  If I want to remove a lot of material with a rank setting I
simply adjust the frog to the rear, pull the capiron back out of harm's way
and go at it with very few cloggings encountered, that is, if I can't
remember or find the plane that I set up that way on a previous occasion.
And yes.  I fettle and re-mouth old wooden bodied monsters, also bought fair
and square at the flea, with their thick irons and, sometimes, thick
capirons, and contentedly plane 2 1/8" shavings of bum-fluff thickness with
their 2 3/16" irons if that is what is required.

Time for a beer.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners
------------------------------------------------------------------------

:  -----Original Message-----
:  From: oldtools-bounces@r...
:  [mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...]On Behalf Of Timothy A
:  Collins
:  Sent: 01 February 2006 18:28
:  To: oldtools@r...
:  Subject: Re: [OldTools] Why I Hate Chipbreakers
:
:
:  I've lost the link to a study (perhaps made by a listmember)
:  several years
:  ago about the dynamic movements of a metalic plane (like a jack plane)
:  when under use. This study was mainly to look at "how flat" the
:  plane sole
:  needed to be: The plane actually flexed (lengthwise) several
:  0.001's under
:  normal use conditions.

For some information on flexure, try my web site - Planing Notes - Plane
Body Deflection (ill-titled, come to think of it).

Jeff Eyeore
-- 
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
http://www.amgron.clara.net

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can't help wondering...
Since the 'invention' of planes, we have learned how
to fly, walk on the moon, build high-performance cars,
high-speed railways, etc. All of this requires a fair
amount of low weight, high stiffness/low flex parts. 
It appears to me as if we don't quite understand how
planes work. There seems to be little to nothing
available on dynamic properties of planes, blades, the
action of planing, etc.
Why not apply our learing to build a better plane? Or
are the planes we have today good enough?

Chris, Atlanta, GA

Forwarded Message
From:	"Jeff Gorman" 
CC:	
To:	"Timothy A Collins" ,
oldtools@r...
Date:	 Thu, 2 Feb 2006 10:12:57 -0000
Subject:	 RE: [OldTools] Why I Hate Chipbreakers
Plain Text Attachment [ Download File | Save to Yahoo!
Briefcase ]

:  -----Original Message-----
:  From: oldtools-bounces@r...
:  [mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...]On
Behalf Of Timothy 
A
:  Collins
:  Sent: 01 February 2006 18:28
:  To: oldtools@r...
:  Subject: Re: [OldTools] Why I Hate Chipbreakers
:
:
:  I've lost the link to a study (perhaps made by a
listmember)
:  several years
:  ago about the dynamic movements of a metalic plane
(like a jack 
plane)
:  when under use. This study was mainly to look at
"how flat" the
:  plane sole
:  needed to be: The plane actually flexed
(lengthwise) several
:  0.001's under
:  normal use conditions.

For some information on flexure, try my web site -
Planing Notes - 
Plane
Body Deflection (ill-titled, come to think of it).

Jeff Eyeore
-- 
Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK
http://www.amgron.clara.net

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

GG,

  I was thinking about the whole chipbreaker thing.

  Wouldn't the problem be eliminated by bars (creating
slots) in the slot of the blade which would be used to
control depth of cut.  I'm thinking that the bars
could be sawn out as they outlive their usefulness,
allowing the chipbreaker to move back further as
sharpening decreases the overall length of blade?  The
depth adjustment yoke would have to be short enough
not to contact the chip breaker.  The math could be
worked out as to how tight the slots would have to be
together in order to make this work...

Anything I'm missing?

Ken Cutting

PS - the hole in the slot, for the cap iron screw,
would have to be toward the cutting edge as well

OH! Some really cool info can be accessed about chip
breakers through Brent Beach's site - in his links go
to (I think) Steve Elliots pages...  really cool stuff
about cap irons as chipbreakers! Go figure!  To sum it
up - 50 to 80 bevels on cap irons set very close to
the edge (around .005" I think) produce excellent
surfaces with no throat.  Check it out!  I'm sure that
this will spark a debate that, set that close, it is
really just scraping but still seems like and idea to
me... I already checked with Lie-Nielsen and they
would regrind their bevels on their chipbreakers if
requested - Reverend?

Ken Cutting
Really signing-off this time

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
------------------------------------------------------------------------