The problem with the use of oils to stabilize wood is that they don't do it.
What oils actually do, for a short period of time, is to add bulk to the
cells of desiccated material.  However, the oils tend over time to weaken
the wood, and to chemically react to things present in the wood (such as
tannins) and to outside influences (such as air pollutants and who knows
what that comes in contact with the wood).  These reactions can under some
circumstances be very bad for the wood.

It is possible to use various kinds of polymers to semi-permanently
strengthen and bulk the cells of the wood.  These treatments have not yet
been commercialized, but they are used in some of the top archaeological
preservation labs.

It is a question of longevity.  Oil today may help today, but may assure
that the tool does not last another full generation.  Does one care?

Joe

Joseph Sullivan

 
-----Original Message-----
From: oldtools-bounces@r...
[mailto:oldtools-bounces@r...] On Behalf Of John Manners
Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2008 7:08 PM
To: Don McConnell; oldtools List
Subject: Re: [OldTools] finishes for beech planes

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
>
>

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