A chip breaker reminder

[David Weaver]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I just bought a Lie Nielsen because the Wood Rivers I was looking at had chip breakers that didn't even reach the edge of the blade. I don't have a dog in this fight, I just came across this wrangle, but I have to agree with Kees. Before coming across this new part of the thread it was obvious to me that the low angle chip breaker on my new and first-ever LN while it at least reached the edge did nothing much for breaking chips. In fact, it was so sharp and thin at the edge and the steel so soft that it curled and bent during use. With some trepidation, since we have all been taught to view LNs as perfect in some mystical way, I set about altering the cap iron. Recalling that all the old Stanley style caps had far higher angles, I dressed up the final part of the edge on to a much blunter angle. This took about five minutes. It now works better. Kees your references certainly seem to confirm that this was at one time considered the correct approach. It seemed commonsensical at the time I did it given that cap would not even stand up to use. Anyway, I feel more confident now after seeing Kees's references that I didn't do something foolish in altering a holy cow Lie-Nielsen

You did exactly the right thing. I believe most cap irons are completely unhardened, the exception being one that Cosman promotes that's sort of half hard, and full hardness cap irons that come on japanese planes.

It's not that important, though, because the edge isn't cutting anything, just deflecting something, and 50 degrees or so is a nice setting on a plane that will see softwoods and hardwoods.

[george wilson]

I had double bypass many years ago,Kees,but I'll keep you in mind!!

Charlie we sell through Artful Home,Guild.com,and our website.bijou graphique.

[Kees Heiden]

Michael. I'm happy you found the nerve to adapt your Lie Nielsen to your own liking. I never quite get that kind of reverence for tools. It's good stuff, but in the end it is just a tool. Never be afraid to change it so it suits yourself better.

[Mike Cogswell]

<snip>
Ohio Tool used to make them with prison labor. Maybe they were junk. I have one and it seems fine to me - best $25 I've ever spent.

While I wouldn't call them junk, the Ohio Tool planes certainly fall a good bit short of the quality of the planes made today by Larry or Matt Bickford. I have a mint, virtually like new, set of hollows & rounds and an excellent plow plane wilh all its irons made by Ohio Tool. They all suffer from quality issues that I think are related to short cuts that resulted from focusing on mass production and cost cutting. They are certainly serviceable planes, and I do use them, but they aren't as good as the current production by Larry or Matt or my late 19th century English planes.

[george wilson]

I like English planes better,too. The Ohio and Auburns are pretty bland looking also.

[David Weaver]

The english definitely held on to the style of their tools longer. Their late 1800s saws are much more tasteful than the stuff that disston was making - more hand work in the handles, brass backs and thinner plates.

[Mike Cogswell]

<snip>

P.S.: At least the Chinese haven't gotten into the business of making early Western wooden planes.

<snip>

Sadly, they have: http://www.leevalley.com/US/Wood/pag...=1,41182,46334

I bought one out of curiosity and have to say it is the one and only product I have ever puchased from Lee Valley that I found to be a disappointment.

[David Weaver]

I can't see the wedge on the iron at all on that plane, as it if might terminate way up at the top of the mortise. It must be a chatter machine.

If that's muji, it's a shame. The make or have made a few real pearls for cheaper than you could find a blank if you tried to make your own.

[Mike Cogswell]

Well, it's not like LV didn't warn me: "Best suited for use on softwoods (or with the grain on hardwood), as this type of blade is wedged farther from the edge, and is prone to chatter on heavier cuts".

The only "softwood" I have around the shop is SYP, which is far from soft. On any wood this thing chatters like a miniature jackhammer. I'll save the rosewood for some small item and set the blade aside for now. When I get some time, and if I can get a suitable blank of beech, I'll take a stab a making a rabbit plane using Larry's excellent video. Even if it's a poor first try it's bound to be an improvement over the present one. Hopefully the blade will be OK.

[David Weaver]

I don't know what the wedge mortise is like in that plane, but once you're able to make your own plane, you might be able to fit a wedge with some spring that will focus toward the end of that iron, and do a little bedding work to help the whole thing out.

There is probably potential there.

[george wilson]

I'm aware of those planes,but I'd hardly call them Western style. Must run.

[Mike Cogswell]

While I certainly agree that the English planes are more esthetically pleasing, the real issue with the Ohio Tool (and other American planes of that vintage e.g. Sandusky, etc) is production shortcuts.

For example, the mortise in the Ohio hollows and rounds is a vee shape with both the front and back surfaces straight lines from top to bottom:

x\xxx.xxx/
xx\xx.xx/
xxx\x.x/
___\. /___

The English planes, as well as those from Larry and Matt, have a mortise that looks like this from the side:

x\xxxxxx/
xx\xxxx/
xxx\xx/
___\ \___

That very small area at the bottom where the front and back is parallel means that any seasonal tuning that removes a bit a material from the sole does NOT open the mouth. Eliminating it no doubt made the planes easier to make, but it also eliminated a feature that had proved its worth for a few hundred years before machinery displaced quality in the name of production efficiently.

[george wilson]

That mortise is called the escapement. Every one of those angles has a name,which I used to know,but now have forgotten,like so many other things!! No kidding. There are things I WISH I could forget,but don't!! The bottom of the escapement isn't quite parallel,so it does open the mouth ,but not as much.

[Charlie Stanford]

While I wouldn't call them junk, the Ohio Tool planes certainly fall a good bit short of the quality of the planes made today by Larry or Matt Bickford. I have a mint, virtually like new, set of hollows & rounds and an excellent plow plane wilh all its irons made by Ohio Tool. They all suffer from quality issues that I think are related to short cuts that resulted from focusing on mass production and cost cutting. They are certainly serviceable planes, and I do use them, but they aren't as good as the current production by Larry or Matt or my late 19th century English planes.

Mine is a Jack with a wide open mouth anyway so it probably doesn't matter.

I do have a set of C&W hollows and rounds bought years ago when they were a third of the price they are now. They work great. I sweated bullets to come up with the scratch to buy them and I'm sure Larry worked just as hard making them. I was working as a rod buster (tying rebar) then - permanently etched in my memory. And my back.

[Kees Heiden]

This theoretical burnishing effect of the chipbreaker intrigues me. What is it exactly, how does it look like, does the chipbreaker have an effect?

So tonight I sawed an European oak plank into pieces. I got my Stanley #4 and dug out my eclipse honing guide. Then I proceeded to plane each stick with a different configuration. My finishing stone is a 8000 grit Naniwa Superstone. I used the guide to be sure I got the exact angle I wanted. And I polished the various bevels for up to 40 strokes, just to be sure it was a substantial microbevel. Planing was done with shavings close to 0.1mm thick. I planed both sides, with the grain and against the grain. These were the test configurations.

25 degree bevel without chipbreaker set close
25 degree bevel with the chipbreaker at 0.2mm
35 degree bevel without chipbreaker set close
35 degree bevel with the chipbreaker at 0.2mm
43 degree bevel without chipbreaker set close
43 degree bevel with the chipbreaker at 0.2mm
25 degree bevel and a 10 degree backbevel.

The results? Sorry, I didn't see any difference at all! All of them were rather dull. The vessels look cleanly cut. Even when looking with a magnifying glass (20x) I can see the smaller pores in all samples. Nothing looks burnished, in none of the samples.

So, just to be sure, I dug out one of the Russian maple pieces and planed it both with the backbevel and with the chipbreaker set close to the edge. Both were very similar with a light gloss. Finally I got some Jatoba, and again, I could detect no difference at all.

So, I proceeded to finish the oak sticks with some linseed oil. Letting the oil seep into the wood for a quarter of an hour and then buffing it with a cloth. And again, you may have guessed allready, no difference between any of the sticks.

Conclusion? I am still at a loss what this burnishing story is all about.