It sort of tells us like we suspected yesterday, that it may be an issue with (or with a batch of) the frog family that includes 4 1/2s, 5 1/2s, 6s and 7s.
Guest
It sort of tells us like we suspected yesterday, that it may be an issue with (or with a batch of) the frog family that includes 4 1/2s, 5 1/2s, 6s and 7s.
Member
After reading all of the posts, I decided to chime in. I just went out and looked at my LN 4 1/2 to see what I had for clearance on the CB hole. MY CB is/always set to within .010 or less of the iron edge (I just see a hint of polished reflection on the edge of the blade), because I only take very light cuts with it and it just seems to give me a nice surface finish that way.
The mouth is set to where it just passes the shavings without jamming up, I can barely see any light passing. The clearance hole in the LN CB (improved model) is fairly much centered on the screw, maybe slightly towards the top half of the clearance hole, but I could extend the CB past the edge and still have room.
My point is as others mentioned, I'd contact Lie-Nielsen and see if you have a bad one.
Last edited by Steven J Corpstein; 05-08-2012 at 9:30 PM.
Steven
Guest
Do you remember about when you got yours? I'd say my 7 is probably from 2009, or 2008. I guess I could look on the box.
Member
If you were referring to when I got mine, I've had it for about 4 years, right before LN started offering the higher frog option.Originally Posted by David Weaver
Steven
[OP]
Member
I got it the first week of January 2010
Member
Did anyone hear back from LN about their thoughts on this?
Guest
If the chipbreaker fits the flat side of the blade then the fix is to move the frog back a little to open up the mouth.
[OP]
Member
I still never have called them. I had a baby a few days after we created and discussed this issue. I am moving to Atlanta next month and when I get my shop set back up I will ( really want too ) experiment with this some more and perhaps call LN and try to talk with somebody. But ultimately, I would suspect that is a just a design issue, not in a negative way, but just in a way that they never saw any reason to produce the CB so that it could be set up this way. When it is back about 1/8" , it works perfectly. In the mean time, I am going to start shopping for another Stanley 3 or perhaps a 4 and mess with it. ( probably a four, I really really want a bronze three from LN ) I want to try to hone a 50 or 80 degree edge on a hump back CB and try it out on some pretty wild grain Sapele I have saved.
Guest
You'll be most satisfied with the stock chipbreaker if you just clean up the edge of it and get a tight fit. The stock angle is fairly steep, it's probably somewhere between those two where the chip meets the edge. It works very well as it is, I think you'll be pleased with it.
[OP]
Member
You are referring to the Stanley humpback , correct ? I read your article on wood central and saw where you mentioned that perhaps less is more ..... So just flatten out the underside ( undercut if necessary ) and clean up the top side and give it a try? That is the plan and then see where that takes me......
Has anyone tried this set up on a LN number three ? Did it work ? Is the CB set up to accommodate this set up compared to the arrangement of the 5.5 ?
Guest
Right, the stock stanley "humped back" chipbreaker, if anything, it might be a bit steep, but you can't do anything to make it more shallow, it'll get too thin. Yep, just clean up the front of it and do just enough on the underside to get a good tight fit between the leading edge of the chipbreaker and the back of the iron. If you find it's too steep stock and bulling chips, then just back it off a little. It'll still be close enough that it will affect a chip that gets thick enough to cause tearout against the grain.
Member
If my LN planes have that problem,I'll put the irons in the vertical mill and mill the hole longer with a carbide end mill. LN does need to know if they are not making their CB's properly.
Guest
The trouble with them (mine too) is the location of the chipbreaker slot, where the adjuster fits. It is just barely at the bleeding edge of not being adjusted when the cap iron is all the way forward. Fortunately, it is a jointer and doesn't need to be as finely set.
I'm going to drill mine (chipbreaker) some day when I remember it, about a millimeter ahead of the current adjuster hole in the chipbreaker, and file it out square.
Last edited by David Weaver; 12-19-2012 at 1:19 PM.
Member
Has anyone tried to reproduce the Kawai and Kato experiment WITHIN a plane body? If I remember correctly, they concluded that a chip breaker with a 80 degree bevel angle set back 0.3mm from the edge produced a better balance between low tear out and smooth shavings compared with a 50 degree bevel angle set back 0.1mm from the edge. In other words, it was a balance between low tear out and clogging the plane - you couldn't get the best of both worlds.
Someone needs to sacrifice their new LN #4 by shearing off a side of their plane body so the results can be clearly filmed. . . Anyone? It's for science. People will speak highly of you!
Last edited by Phillip Dejardin; 12-19-2012 at 5:00 PM.
Contributor
It could likely be done with a mirror temporarily mounted on the plane with a cell phone camera.Someone needs to sacrifice their new LN #4 by shearing off a side of their plane so the results can be clearly filmed. . .
As my comment in another thread and a book page from 1892 posted by Jason (hope that is the correct credit given) indicate, it isn't so much the visual evidence as it is a practice that seems to have been working for those who take the time to try it and find the sweet spot.
jtk
"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote