Don McConnell writes:

> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a
> plane I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used
> for a short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to
> stick in place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs
> to be because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.

Ah, the old "stickiness in the escapement" syndrome! Stickiness in that
patch of air between the front of the plane's throat and the top of the
wedge through which the shavings endeavour, through the stickiness, to
escape unless, of course, we are referring to a side-escapement plane.
Can't say I've ever experienced it myself. Better stickiness in the
escapement, one supposes, than stickiness on the plane's bed or on the
surfaces of the slots of the abutments. And recurring over short periods
of time. Preferable, perhaps, to short periods of whatever else is
susceptible to being divided into short periods.

On the other hand, although, doubtless, some may regard it as perverse,
it is a comfort to others that, when set, a plane's iron assembly and
wedge tend to stay stuck in the given position. Some might even claim
that such a phenomenon is downright desirable but perhaps they are yet
to become acquainted with hitherto unsuspected functions of the wedge.

It verges on the cathartic, mixed with despair, to come to the
realization that all of those planes over the years which first were
difficult to adjust as required had no need of all of the bed-
flattening, abutment-scraping and wedge-paring which, notwithstanding
the New Enlightenment, gave one the impression, now suspected to be
false, of resolving their adjustment problems.

We are also informed that those who oil their planes seek,
unsuccessfully, to "stabilize the wood" and we are all grateful for
being made the giftees of that insight into the futility of our actions.
If the displacement of water in timber with an oil which does not
evaporate from the timber like water does but dries in situ without any
appreciable loss of volume is not "stabilisation" then there is,
doubtless, another word for the process. If the application of oil on a
desiccated plane body with the result that its cracks close is not "re-
stabilisation" then, also, someone will eventually give us the correct
noun for this phenomenon.

It is not thought that Tom Holloway, quoting from Bernard Jones, or
anyone else has advocated the oiling of a wooden plane for the purpose
of increasing its weight. Even Bernard Jones strikes the correct note in
saying: "If the plane, therefore, has not been oiled, or is too light,
it should be soaked in raw linseed oil or other suitable oil until it is
a suitable weight." Jones clearly understood, it is inferred, that the
weight of a tool is a subjective thing, dependent upon the preferences
of the user whose preferences are usually guided by his own strength and
fitness. It is thought that, if optimally seasoned timber had some or
most of its water replaced by oil, it is unlikely that there would be
any weight gain and it seems that Jones was considering a dried-out
plane when mentioning a plane which is "too light". It is a nonsensical
and disingenuous setting up of a knock-em-down doll to run the weight of
a plane and the and the workman's downwards pressure on it into the same
paddock. Where a plane must be moved to perform its work, it is the
momentum of the tool, after the workman has overcome its initial
inertia, which sees it moving forward against the resistance of the cut
and friction. The combination of high velocity and low mass or low
velocity and high mass can result in the same momentum and it all really
comes back to the workman's preference in getting the job done.
Naturally, the plane must be held down to the workpiece but all the
downwards pressure in the world will not plane it unless the plane is
moving forward.

It would be of interest to the List, it is thought, if the name of the
"contemporary wooden plane maker" was made known and his pronouncements,
in their original form, given an airing.

Regards from Brisbane,

John Manners

----- Original Message ----- From: "Don McConnell" 
To: "oldtools List"  Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008
5:19 AM Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

>
> Thomas Ellis wrote:
>
>> Anyone have any idea how long it would take a plane treated like this
>> with raw oil to dry well enough to use?
>
> Almost exactly thirty years ago, I tried this very treatment on a
> plane I'd just made. Never again! To this day, if it hasn't been used
> for a short period of time, the wedge/iron assembly still tends to
> stick in place. And, it has always been harder to adjust than it needs
> to be because of the "stickiness" in the escapement.
>
> As to adding weight, as one who has done long planing sessions over a
> number of years, any extra and unnecessary weight just adds to the
> work load. Consider that many of the 19th century patents for metallic
> planes included claims regarding lessening the weight of the planes.
> Also, consider that the small amount of weight added by the oil is
> completely inconsequential when compared with the downward pressure we
> can, and do, apply to the plane during the stroke.
>
> There may be some slight lubricating advantage to this practice, but
> keeping some means of lubricating the sole of your planes at the ready
> on your bench obviates this.
>
> Finally, as to claims for stabilizing the wood body of wooden planes -
> again, I think there is no clear evidence for this. One contemporary
> wooden plane maker habitually soaked all of his planes in oil and made
> very strong claims about the stability this engendered. After a couple
> of years of feedback from his customers, he completely reversed
> himself regarding any such claims - and ... quit soaking them in oil.
> In line with this, it's been my observation that very few of the
> antique wooden planes I've encountered over the years show evidence of
> this kind of treatment.
>
> Don McConnell Eureka Springs, AR
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ: http://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... http://ruckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version:
> 7.5.549 / Virus Database: 270.9.10/1812 - Release Date:
> 25/11/2008 19:53
>
>

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