OldTools Archive

Recent Bios FAQ

262902 Bill Webber <ol2lrus@v...> 2017‑08‑15 Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
GG's

I'm pretty satisfied with the list the way it is.  I don't do FB or 
others, but  I wouldn't be without the internet for research or 
shopping.  Now to my subject du jour.

I  ordered a smoother plane kit from Gurd Fritsche.  Somewhere during a 
brief discussion of assembly steps I learned there is a difference 
between making the interlocking dovetails on Norris and Spiers planes. I 
think the following descriptions are correct but beware...

For both styles the basic tails and pins are cut in the same way.  The 
sides are cut with tails, the sole is cut with pins. Here's a picture of 
the basic cuts on some test scrap I have. 
http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/plane%20assy.JPG  As this assembly 
is pictured, the sole is locked to the sides such that the sole of the 
plane cannot be lifted straight up-away from the sides because of the 
tail configuration.  The sides can be easily separated from the sole by 
simply moving the sides left or right. It is the latter condition that 
is fixed by filing away metal of either the sole or the side pieces 
prior to peening.

For the Norris type, the tails on the side plate are beveled creating a 
tapered space between the tail and the pin on the sole plate..  The 
small gap thus created is filled when the pins on the sole are peened 
into the recess.

For the Spiers type, a small trianguler divot is filed into the side of 
the pin on the sole.  This gap is filled when the tail on the side is 
peened into the recess.

In both cases, the objective is to make certain the sides cannot 
separate from the sole.  My question: Is one approach better than the 
other?  Stronger?  With knowledge of the two methods, does it become 
simply personal preference based on tools, skills, point of view, etc?   
Gurd Fritsche provides instructions for the Norris approach.  I'm more 
familiar with the Spiers approach because of the Shepherd kits I built 
and my experience with some other planes.  Any comments?

-- 
Bill W.
In Beautiful downtown Nottingham, PA
262904 Mark Pfeifer <markpfeifer@i...> 2017‑08‑15 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
I’m once again humbled by The List.

I don’t hate metal tools but I love wooden ones, even the transitionals that so
many shun. In that vein, some years ago I’d picked up an odd stubby wooden
bodied spokeshave of sorts. I believe it to be a carriage maker’s specialty
tool, and I believe it to be very old, possibly 18th century. It’s stubby but
beautiful despite it. If you know the Douglas C-47/DC-3 airplane, this little
shave was pretty in the same way. And the wedge itself is a work of art. I
literally stare at it and admire it.

It’s rather like a “cigar” spokeshave, but it has a block in the middle, with a
45 degree iron secured by a wedge. The block is maybe 1.5” x 1.5” by 2.5” wide.
I’ve not measured it.

This little goober was even more unique in that the sole is radiused. Not the
tight half circle of say a nosing plane, but I’d guess the radius of the circle
to be maybe 9”. The iron’s 2” wide so you can imagine a pretty gentle curve.

It was *extremely* useful for so many little tasks. Taking the corner off a
board prior to running a beading plane on it; rough shaping stock to save lathe
time; and of course it’s probable intended purpose, making staffs, staves,
spokes.

But it had a design flaw in that the wedge was pressing across the side grain
and not into end grain, and the body had split many years before I ever got it.
It’s got glue in it but that isn’t enough to help. It has two brass rods
embedded across the grain and I suppose they may have helped but I didn’t have
the courage to pick the glue out of the crack, squeeze it in the vise and peen
the ends of the rods . . . this thing is old and I don’t want to destroy it.

For a long time I could make it work by keeping my thumbs on the wedge to
provide just enough “stick” to hold the iron. Alas that’s not working anymore so
I last week I resolved to make a new body for it.

Having seen it split using the original design, I came up with my own. I made
the “block” out of a piece of old Stanley transitional, and the wedge is now
oriented so it pushes into end grain. The geometry of it was quite a challenge,
as I didn’t want to thin the walls to the point where I’d risk a different kind
of failure. I had to try 3 times to get a wedge that worked. Note: spruce is
useless for wedges. My theory is the hard/soft grain doesn’t compress the right
way. The first one in maple worked fine.  I turned the handles on their own,
mounted each in a plinth of maple, and glued the plinths to the central block.

My design is large and crude compared to the original. But I’m not embarrassed.
Sometimes overbuilt is the right answer, and the design may be heavy but the
quality of the execution does me no shame, especially given this was my first
attempt to make a wooden tool. If I’d done it “krenov style” I probably could’ve
cut the size by 1/3 - 1/2 and not given up any strength. I may still give it to
the tailed apprentice band sawyer to see if I can take some bulk off without
sacrificing strength. But for now it feels good to use and I’m not unhappy with
it.

But knowing the work that went into my relatively simple tool, I’m utterly
humbled (and encouraged) to read that Bill understands this much about wooden
tools. I had to read it three times and I’m still not sure I understand the
difference between Spiers and Norris. Maybe the picture will help. But I’m
hooked on making my own out of wood. It’s unlikely that my already-ridiculous
collection of planes will wear out given my age and life expectancy but to the
degree I need tools I’ll be making them from wood going forward.

Mark.
262915 <gtgrouch@r...> 2017‑08‑16 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
I don’t hate metal tools but I love wooden ones, even the transitionals that so
many shun. In that vein, some years ago I’d picked up an odd stubby wooden
bodied spokeshave of sorts. I believe it to be a carriage maker’s specialty
tool, and I believe it to be very old, possibly 18th century. It’s stubby but
beautiful despite it. If you know the Douglas C-47/DC-3 airplane, this little
shave was pretty in the same way. And the wedge itself is a work of art. I
literally stare at it and admire it.

It’s rather like a “cigar” spokeshave, but it has a block in the middle, with a
45 degree iron secured by a wedge. The block is maybe 1.5” x 1.5” by 2.5” wide.
I’ve not measured it.

This little goober was even more unique in that the sole is radiused. Not the
tight half circle of say a nosing plane, but I’d guess the radius of the circle
to be maybe 9”. The iron’s 2” wide so you can imagine a pretty gentle curve.

=> While your description is vivid, perhaps a picture would help.

It was *extremely* useful for so many little tasks. Taking the corner off a
board prior to running a beading plane on it; rough shaping stock to save lathe
time; and of course it’s probable intended purpose, making staffs, staves,
spokes.

But it had a design flaw in that the wedge was pressing across the side grain
and not into end grain, and the body had split many years before I ever got it.
It’s got glue in it but that isn’t enough to help. It has two brass rods
embedded across the grain and I suppose they may have helped but I didn’t have
the courage to pick the glue out of the crack, squeeze it in the vise and peen
the ends of the rods . . . this thing is old and I don’t want to destroy it.

===>> I think I have an image of this in my mind, but a picture would resolve
doubt.

For a long time I could make it work by keeping my thumbs on the wedge to
provide just enough “stick” to hold the iron. Alas that’s not working anymore so
I last week I resolved to make a new body for it.

Having seen it split using the original design, I came up with my own. I made
the “block” out of a piece of old Stanley transitional, and the wedge is now
oriented so it pushes into end grain. The geometry of it was quite a challenge,
as I didn’t want to thin the walls to the point where I’d risk a different kind
of failure. I had to try 3 times to get a wedge that worked. Note: spruce is
useless for wedges. My theory is the hard/soft grain doesn’t compress the right
way. The first one in maple worked fine.  I turned the handles on their own,
mounted each in a plinth of maple, and glued the plinths to the central block.

=====>>> Pictures would help. Please!!

My design is large and crude compared to the original. But I’m not embarrassed.
Sometimes overbuilt is the right answer, and the design may be heavy but the
quality of the execution does me no shame, especially given this was my first
attempt to make a wooden tool. If I’d done it “krenov style” I probably could’ve
cut the size by 1/3 - 1/2 and not given up any strength. I may still give it to
the tailed apprentice band sawyer to see if I can take some bulk off without
sacrificing strength. But for now it feels good to use and I’m not unhappy with
it.

====>>> Pictures!! I'm dying here!!

But knowing the work that went into my relatively simple tool, I’m utterly
humbled (and encouraged) to read that Bill understands this much about wooden
tools. I had to read it three times and I’m still not sure I understand the
difference between Spiers and Norris. Maybe the picture will help. But I’m
hooked on making my own out of wood. It’s unlikely that my already-ridiculous
collection of planes will wear out given my age and life expectancy but to the
degree I need tools I’ll be making them from wood going forward.

====>> OK. Now I get it! But still, could you share a picture? <<===

Mark.
262932 "Adam R. Maxwell" <amaxwell@m...> 2017‑08‑16 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
> On Aug 15, 2017, at 10:01 , Bill Webber  wrote:
> 
> For the Norris type, the tails on the side plate are beveled creating a
tapered space between the tail and the pin on the sole plate..  The small gap
thus created is filled when the pins on the sole are peened into the recess.
> 
> For the Spiers type, a small trianguler divot is filed into the side of the
pin on the sole.  This gap is filled when the tail on the side is peened into
the recess.
> 
> In both cases, the objective is to make certain the sides cannot separate from
the sole.  My question: Is one approach better than the other?  Stronger?  With
knowledge of the two methods, does it become simply personal preference based on
tools, skills, point of view, etc?   Gurd Fritsche provides instructions for the
Norris approach.  I'm more familiar with the Spiers approach because of the
Shepherd kits I built and my experience with some other planes.  Any comments?

Without doing some kind of experiment, it's pretty much
impossible to tell. Either one is more than sufficient
to hold the sole together, in my opinion, so it really
comes down to the preference of the maker. I used a taper
saw file to put a divot on the corners of the sole pins,
at least partly because all of my pins and tails were
hacksawed at *ahem* inconsistent angles. 

I've never worked with a kit, but I expect the Norris
method is faster if you have machines/jigs for layout,
whereas the Spiers method will work with looser tolerances.

Adam
262941 paul womack <pwomack@p...> 2017‑08‑16 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Mark Pfeifer wrote:
> I’m once again humbled by The List.
>
> I don’t hate metal tools but I love wooden ones, even the transitionals that
so many shun. In that vein, some years ago I’d picked up an odd stubby wooden
bodied spokeshave of sorts. I believe it to be a carriage maker’s specialty
tool, and I believe it to be very old, possibly 18th century. It’s stubby but
beautiful despite it. If you know the Douglas C-47/DC-3 airplane, this little
shave was pretty in the same way. And the wedge itself is a work of art. I
literally stare at it and admire it.
>
> It’s rather like a “cigar” spokeshave, but it has a block in the middle, with
a 45 degree iron secured by a wedge. The block is maybe 1.5” x 1.5” by 2.5”
wide. I’ve not measured it.

 > This little goober was even more unique in that the sole is radiused. Not the
tight half circle of say a nosing plane, but I’d guess the radius of the circle
to be maybe 9”. The iron’s 2” wide so you can imagine a pretty gentle curve.

That sounds like a small "cooper's downright" (or "coopers shave").

   BugBear
262947 Bill Webber <ol2lrus@v...> 2017‑08‑16 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Thanks, Adam.  I pretty much agree with you.  I think I'm simply 
reluctant to follow my instincts and consider building  this plane in a 
manner other than what the manufacturer recommends.

Bill W.
In Beautiful downtown Nottingham, PA
262992 Peter McBride <peter_mcbride@b...> 2017‑08‑18 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Bill,
I made some both ways, and both are easily tight enough for the purpose.
My thinking is this that it only really matters if the sides aren't 
parallel, like a coffin smoother.
It is a little bit of a stretch to get the sides with tails to come in 
from the sides to go over pins on the base.

http://www.petermcbride.com/metal_plane_making/images/image05.jpg

compared to tails on the base coming up from under the pins on the 
sides, where the curve is irrelevant.

http://www.petermcbride.com/metal_plane_making/images/image16.jpg

These pictures are from presentation to our tool club, followed by an 
article I wrote for our tool club magazine in 2008.

http://www.htpaa.org.au/images/media/Tool_Chest_89_Cover.jpg

A link to the full article is here...

http://www.petermcbride.com/metal_plane_making/

Cheers,
Peter
262996 Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> 2017‑08‑18 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Peter

Thanks for the references - I had never taken the time to look closely at the
dovetails.  It makes perfect sense that there is a little recess filed to make
the pins into dovetails so the sides don’t come off the sole.

By the way, the article you cited as the “trigger” for you making planes is
dated July 2006, and the article you wrote is dated August 2008.  Does this mean
you made all of those lovely planes in 2 years?  Not very galootish.

Ed Minch
263014 Bill Webber <ol2lrus@v...> 2017‑08‑18 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Hey Peter,

Thanks for the reply.  I'm glad to see you are still watching. I've 
spent quite a bit of time on your web site and the linked article is 
helpful.

However, Mr. Frietsche espouses yet another way of locking the sides and 
sole together.  He puts tails on the sides and pins on the sole as you 
show in your first example #1 in your article. But, he has you file the 
side of the tail to create the locking dovetail.  In this picture you 
are looking at the edge of the sole and a side with the tail. 
http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/zum%20Vernieten%20vorbereitet.jpg

Note the space between the tail and pins; wide on the outside and tapers 
to nothing on the inside.  Mr. Frietsche states that peening starts by 
hammering the sole pins.  In doing this the assembly is held with the 
side plate against the anvil and jig plates are not needed.

He calls this scheme a Norris Style and your example #1 a (sic) Spears 
style.  I see no need to discuss the historical accuracy of who used 
what style.  I am still trying to figure out what approach I will take 
when the kit shows up.

On the one hand, I'm certain the metal for the sole of his kits is 
malleable enough to fill around the filed dovetails.  One the other 
hand, I think making the triangular divot in the sole is easier to do 
but then I need more information on how malleable his provided brass 
might be.  The idea of annealing it doesn't appeal as I don't have the 
the required torch or experience.

I'm probably over thinking this project, but I really, really do not 
want to screw it up.  I've seen too many poorly made dovetails and some 
were my own doing.

Regards,

Bill W.
In Beautiful downtown Nottingham, PA
263027 Thomas Conroy 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Bill Webber wrote: "On the one hand, I'm certain the metal for the sole of his
kits is
malleable enough to fill around the filed dovetails.  One the other 
hand, I think making the triangular divot in the sole is easier to do 
but then I need more information on how malleable his provided brass 
might be.  The idea of annealing it doesn't appeal as I don't have the 
the required torch or experience."


Hi, Bill,Probably that you have far more experience working brass than I do, but
for what it is worth I offer my impression that all copper alloys workharden
abnormally quickly. Like: one blow of the hammer and it moves and spreads as
sweet as you please, just as you want it to. Two blows of the hammer, it moves a
scutch more, not much. From the third blow of the hammer, you can wale on it
with a three-pound sledge all day and it won't move a bit until a big divot
cracks out of it. I made a few small bookbinders' tools with random brass, and I
ended up annealing it after every single blow. Even copper itself, which is
worked by bending, will workharden with shocking speed, at least when I am
dealing with it.
Just my 2 cents (and modern pennies aren't even copper any more. The world is
going to the dogs).
Tom Conroy
263028 Peter McBride <peter_mcbride@b...> 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
All alloys aren't created equal. 
A cartridge brass of about 70/30 is described as excellent cold working
properties. And it is able to be reduced in cross section by more than 50%
without a problem before the need to anneal. Leaded brasses, often called free
machining or extruded brasses are described as poor cold working properties.
So.... use the excellent one and avoid the poor one.
Working in alloys with excellent cold working properties is an absolute joy.
263029 Erik Levin 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Bill Webber wrote: "On the one hand, I'm certain the metal for the sole of his
kits is malleable enough to fill around the filed dovetails.  One the other 
hand, I think making the triangular divot in the sole is easier to do 
but then I need more information on how malleable his provided brass 
might be.  The idea of annealing it doesn't appeal as I don't have the 
the required torch or experience." and Thomas Conroy responded: 
> Probably that you have far more experience working brass than I do, but 
> for what it is worth I offer my impression that all copper alloys workharden 
> abnormally quickly. Like: one blow of the hammer and it moves and spreads as 
> sweet as you please, just as you want it to. Two blows of the hammer, it moves
a
> scutch more, not much.

It really depends on the alloy. I have bronze punches that are as hard as good
tool steels, and I have bronze punches that have been rearranging themselves in
a ductile manner for years, to the point where one is about half as long as it
started and a lot fatter, though some of this is the mushrooming at the ends. I
have done a fair bit of forming, welding, and forging of steels and red metals,
and learned early that you really need to know the particulars of the alloy (and
learned that much of what I learned in school an the field is incomplete or
misleading)

Most copper alloys are annealed by heat and rapid quench-- the opposite of
steels. The (simplified) explanation I have seen in a number of books and
learned in college is that the ductility is enhanced by trapping dislocations in
these metals. (the details depend, in part, on the underlying crystal structure
for many useful properties. For example, many aluminum alloys have low ductile-
to-brittle transition as temperature goes down, as they don't change phase t a
brittle structure like steels tend to.) It is really more complex, but I am not
a materials scientist, so I will leave it there.

For practical purposes with pure copper (such as making gaskets for high
pressure steam systems from deoxidized electrolytic copper rod up to about 6mm
diameter), quenching isn't generally needed for thing sections, as air cooling
is rapid enough to achieve dead soft condition.

For annealing smaller work in lighter material, like one might use for a plane,
annealing isn't a big deal. A plumbers torch (propane or air-acetylene) with a
heating tip (broad flame or rosebud, not pointed flame) will provide sufficient
heat. I have annealed copper for making gaskets using a BBQ,  gas cooktop, and
electric cooktop, as well. You don't need melting heat. For many red metals, the
ballpark of  550C (1000F) is what you want, with a water quench. Pure copper
might need to go to 600C or a bit more. Some alloys a bit higher yet. Some
alloys will lose the primary alloy element (tin or zinc) at the surface when
annealing, leaving a copper skin, with the usual oxides if not protected. This
is removed, with the oxides, by appropriate pickling.


*** This message was sent from a convenience email service, and the reply
address(es) may not match the originating address
263030 Peter McBride <peter_mcbride@b...> 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Bill,
I think you are in good hands!
Went to Frietsche's webpage, he uses Naval Brass, that is #464. It has a cold
working properties listed as "fair".
Like all these choices, the balance between desirable and undesirable properties
will need a close look. Where cartridge brass #260 excels in moving and
distorting it therefore looses in rigidity, but that may be offset with a
thicker section. Whereas naval brass will have the rigidity in a thinner
section, and have acceptable moving properties for peening dovetails. If it is
available in the required section, pretty good choice. Locally I find it hard to
source.
The worst choice would be to loose ALL cold working properties in the balance by
using #360 brass.
Cheers,
Peter
Sitting with a leg up, recovering from a badly rolled ankle ...
263031 Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
On Aug 19, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Erik Levin via OldTools  wrote:

>  For many red metals, the ballpark of  550C (1000F) is what you want, with a
water quench.


Eric

Does it become obvious that you have annealed properly when you start hammering
again?  Is it easy to tell when you need to anneal again?

Ed Minch
263032 Erik Levin 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
> Does it become obvious that you have annealed properly when you start
hammering again?  Is it easy to tell when you need to anneal again?

For many alloys, yes. With copper, many silver alloys like sterling, etc, a
little experience makes it very clear when the limit is being reached. When
drawing or hammering, the forces needed change dramatically. These are
considered good to excellent cold workability. Annealing properly takes a little
experience, especially small and thin sections, but the base rule of uniform
dull red heat and drop it in water works well enough for most of the alloys I
worry about. If it is done with air exposure (how many people have an inert or
reducing atmosphere furnace handy?) pickling should be done to remove scale
before further work, or the scale may be driven into the surface.


 I have not seen any red metal alloys (though there likely are some) that
tolerate no cold work at all, under any circumstances. The 360 brass Peter
mentioned is not practical to cold work (in the first handy reference I have to
hand says 360 is poor cold forming), but that does not mean it CAN NOT be. Just
not much without anneal or fracture. I have not done significant cold work--
generally single hit peen to lock a fastener or similar, a little light chasing
on a door escutcheon-- on the bottom of workablility red metals like 360, so I
can't say anything useful if you want to go there. If significant work is
needed, I try to use a material that is at least moderately good for it.
 *** This message was sent from a convenience email service, and the reply
address(es) may not match the originating address

    On Sunday, August 20, 2017 6:28 AM, Ed Minch  wrote:
 

 

On Aug 19, 2017, at 10:22 PM, Erik Levin via OldTools  wrote:

>  For many red metals, the ballpark of  550C (1000F) is what you want, with a
water quench.


Eric

Does it become obvious that you have annealed properly when you start hammering
again?  Is it easy to tell when you need to anneal again?

Ed Minch
263034 Bill Webber <ol2lrus@v...> 2017‑08‑20 Re: Assembling a plane - Norris vs Spiers
Hi Peter,

Deja vu is right!  That was 6-years ago and you were a savior then, too.

What follows is a too-long tale of why I'm back to kit making. When we 
were last chatting about plane making, I finished a dozen shoulder 
planes: http://billwebber.galootcentral.com/1112-003.JPG

After those I got a little more ambitious; too ambitious really.  I 
found the design for a jointer on line somewhere.  I made my drawings 
and then reworked the drawings to design a smoother and a miter plane.  
I adjusted the sizes so that the metal I needed was similar for all the 
planes; blade width, sole dimensions etc.  That was probably my first 
mistake.  I had trouble cutting the mouth with the tools I have, but I 
finally got some that looked like they would work.  I got the sides and 
soles peened together after making some more mistakes and buying more 
material.  I was trying to make 9 planes, three of each style.  I 
finally got so frustrated with all the mistakes and poor quality of my 
efforts I called it quits.  I sold the assemblies on Ebay to make 
certain I was thoroughly done with the project.  The moral of this 
little tale is that there is more to this plane making than meets the 
eye.  Buying small quantities of metals is cost prohibitive.  There are 
specialized and expensive tools needed for some of the machining 
operations, both for the wood and the metal.  If I had ever had dreamed 
of selling kit materials (I hadn't) I could never have produced anything 
worthwhile with the knowledge, skills and tools I have. ( I know, other 
folks do it, and I admire them greatly!) All, this to say the products 
Gurd Frietsche  produces seem to be a good value.  For the price you get 
solid historical designs, the required small quantities of wood and 
metal materials, manufactured items like the Norris adjuster, blades 
(sized, hardened and tempered) and much of the tedious metal cutting.  
The latter metal cutting is done on a gerbil powered laser, or so I'm told.

Anyway, Peter, thanks again, I remain in your debt.

Bill W.
In Beautiful downtown Nottingham, PA

Recent Bios FAQ