Ray T Smith wrote:
>
>  I hope Jeff is asleep this time around....maybe I can slip this
>  past him :^)

Refusing to rise to bait point-by-point, 8-), might one respectfully 
suggest that those who wish critically to evaluate Ray's enthusiastic 
summary, look into the depths of the archives where I estimate that 
we have covered all his points (ad nauseam to some no doubt, with 
only one ad vitriol that I recall).

Whazza 604 anyway? 8-).

However, since lever caps, adjusters, friction and all that have been 
recent interesting topics, here's an previous posting from my store:

"Given a long and strong enough lever and a suitable fulcrum, it is 
said one
could lift any load. This is because the user's end can be made to
move a greater distance than the load end. The ratio of the distances
being known as the "velocity ratio" (ie the distance moved by the
effort divided by the distance moved by the load). It plays a
fundamental part in determining the efficiency of a machine.

The blade-shifting system in engineering terms, is a machine. The
distance moved by the effort is related to the diameter of the
adjuster knob.

I measured the increase in set by means of a dial gauge resting at
right-angles to the sole of a 51 year old Stanley #4 smoother and a
late production Norris smoother. The actual distance moved by the
blade, measured along a 45 degree frog will be 1.4 times the actual
set.

(At Patrick Leach's instigation, a few of us discussed the bed angles
of Norrises some time ago, and those who a responded showed that most
have an angle, as near as makes not much difference, of 45 degrees, 
ie
the same as a standard Stanley smoother, whatever some writers may
say).

The diameter of the Norris adjuster is about 22.5mm. Playing
mathematicians tricks, one can say that the distance moved by the
effort will be 22.5 x pi. One revolution of the Norris produces a set
of approx 1mm. So the velocity ratio is 22.5 x pi/1 x 1.4 = 16pi. .

The Stanley adjuster diameter is 31.7mm approx. One revolution of my
Stanley #4 smoother adjuster knob, gives a projection of approx 
0.3mm.
So the velocity ratio is 31.7 x pi/0.3 x 1.4 = 75.5pi.

(Sorry about the metric, but my dial gauge has seen the light).

So the velocity ratios, and hence the efficiency of the adjusters in
overcoming friction will be 75.5pi/16pi = 4.7.

(Note that the Norris compound screw makes for a coarser adjustment, 
not a finer one as is sometimes believed.)

Of course one cannot fully quantify the difference between the
adjusters of the two planes because the actual relative frictions
between the frogs will not be known. However, the differences would 
have
to be in the order of 4.7 to bring the effort to be the same. This 
would
take some doing, so I reckon one could justifiably say that the feed 
on a
Stanley is significantly easier to adjust than on a Norris. Anyway my
fingers tell me so, so there! 8-). There are other factors, such as 
the
ability to tweak the adjustment of a Stanley smoother while still 
retaining
the grip on the tote.

The weaker adjuster might explain why I and some infill users /have 
to/ ease the lever
cap screw to adjust the blade, yet the Stanley/Record owner need not
do so, and in fact until this discussion arose, I had never heard of 
a
plane being adjusted with a cam-type lever cap released (and at one
time I related to well over a hundred woodworkers).

Now I understand why a one-presssure lever-cam is OK for the Stanley,
but perhaps less suitable for the Norris. Of course, fine adjustment
of the lever cap is easy with this type of plane, but is not
accomodated by the design of a Bailey mechanism. Funnily enough UK
Record are now producing planes with a screw-adjusted lever cap. I
find it unsatisfyingly small in diameter.

One snag with loosening the Norris lever cap for a preliminary
adjustment is that if there is some give between the frog and the
blade (or maybe for some other reason), tightening the screw can
increase the set. In fact I was taught that this was the way to do 
the
final setting on this type of plane, and while this has been 
confirmed
by other users, it reportedly does not always work. It certainly does
on my plane, and because this also upsets the lateral adjustment, 
this
is one reason why I don't use it. (No, it isn't for sale. It will do 
as
a photo prop sometime, 8-)).

The mechanics of the lateral adjustment is also interesting. For 
homework,
to the lateral adjustment systems, apply the principles
outlined above, /assuming/ that the blade pivots about a point just
behind the bevel."

Then ask yourself whether the Stanley, having independent feed and 
lateral adjusters, is not a better-conceived design.

Apologies if the layout of the re-post section comes out badly 
formatted at your ends.

Jeff
--
Jeff Gorman - West Yorkshire
Jeff@m...