Playing with planes

[george wilson]

Is there something new about this finding?

[Jessica Pierce-LaRose]

The only thing new I heard in these pieces is that apparently people are saying the reason you ought have a low bench so you can bear down on the wood, an argument I can't say I've ever heard as the reasoning for bench height, (and one that strikes me as wrong) and that someone out there is recommending a 28 inch height, which seems very low indeed. Most heights I've heard recommended are based on body measurements, as far as I can remember, anyway.

If I want my bench closer, I sit on a chair.

[Pat Barry]

OMG - Is this pulling our planes with a rope going to be the the new normal? Or just the standard of excellence?

As for bench height, to each his own. Its an ergonomic thing, depends on what you are doing, how you are doing it, and lots of things. All of us could benefit from and adjustable height workbench. I'd say +/- 4 inches wold work good for me

[bridger berdel]

the thing to remember here is that he is writing for beginners. the number one beginner mistake is trying to power through planing with a dull cutter. this "lesson" of his will tend to correct that. once you settle into an actual planing practice the amount of pressure to use will become second nature.

[Adam Cruea]

I saw this on Reddit about 2 hours ago.

My bench is 32 or 34 inches high. Works for me.

Though I'd love to see him pull that plane through some hickory or Jatoba, then try to say you don't need any downforce. *snicker snicker*

As usual, each situation has it's merits. Do you need to set a Mack truck on your plane? No. Can you plane with 0 downforce? No. There's got to be *something* pulling (or lightly pushing) the plane down, be it the weight of the plane or the blade angle.

Simple matter of physics. You have to have more force being applied down than up and across if you want the plane's blade to stay in the wood. Same with an airplane; if there isn't sufficient lift being generated by airflow over the wings, the airplane is going to drop like a brick. I guarantee if he zipped that plane straight across the wood, it would jump out of the cut.

Why do people have a need to state the obvious?

[Jack Curtis]

I mostly use Japanese planes and need apply very little if any downward pressure, almost all of it is horizontal.

[Simon MacGowen]

One thing I like about Paul Sellers (no, I am not one of his Masterclass students) is that he energizes the woodworking craft, the people practicing it, as well as the people talking about it (like here in this thread). He is also different from many traditional woodworkers in that he thinks outside the box (wooden or not) a lot and it is no coincidence that he has so many followers. I met him once at a US tradeshow and I told him that as controversial as some of his views might be, he should keep on expressing them.

As for his insistence that a high workbench (38" or what not) is better, doesn't it resemble the tails-first-or-pins-first argument? It's like arguing which plane is the best or which sharpening method or jig is the best. The English Woodworker's (Richard M.) 29" workbench is too low for me and Paul's recommendation too high for my height. But I welcome both of their contributions, the least of which is that they have encouraged us (or me at least) to give some consideration to our work vs our workbench height. One-glove-fits-all solutions never exist in woodworking.

Simon

[Malcolm Schweizer]

We sometimes spend more time debating the minor details and less time building stuff. 2" in bench height starts an argument. If it works for you it's the right height.

[Jim Matthews]

Richard Maguire, who knows a thing or two about benches, has a nice rejoinder to Sellers here.

I took the 9 day taster course in New York and found the benches a literal pain in the neck.
My bench is set at just below the height of my belt buckle. Higher than that, I must plane with my elbows tightly flexed.

Mortising at that height was excruciating.
I was chastened by the other attendees when I asked for a platform to stand on.

The 38" height is optimized for Mr. Seller's eyesight, and puts everything in very clear focus at the distance he stands off from the workpiece.
A bench that high puts workpieces too close for me to see through my bi-focals, and forces me to crouch closer
to see what's going on.

I think the reason so many take pot-shots at Mr. Sellers is his pure conviction that his methods are the correct ones.
I took away more things of use than stumbling blocks - as with so many that are trained by strong-willed teachers.

Look up the ineffable body of work from Gere Osgood. He was trained by Tage Frid, for whom everything was straight and in teak.
It's up to the student to make the most of what actually works, in their own shop.

Gere Osgood desk.jpg

[Brian Ashton]

More fun stuff with Paul Sellers. Planing without downward pressure.

http://paulsellers.com/2014/01/bench...lanes-planing/

This is a well known phenomen. The shaving exerts a downwards force on the edge, until the wearbevel on the backside grows so large that you end up without clearance and the force on the edge inverts. So you can plane with very little downwards force, as long as your blade is sharp. Of course, with a very fluffy shaving this doesn't really work.

Probably also one of the reasons why very light planes like beech smoothers work so well.

Bet he can't do that on the moon. Just think how hard it would be to pull it on the sun… That's if he could get the plane to stop melting before he got the rope around the knob…


That could be a great party trick. When everyone is completely wrecked drag a plane up the back of the first person to pass out…

[Roderick Gentry]

"We carried out tests on the bench to try to show that bench planes, in fact all planes, do indeed pull themselves ‘into” the wood as they are pushed forward over the surfaces being planes."

This is the error in his thinking. In the main, western planes are pushed through the work not pulled. The genius of Japanese planes is that they are pulled. (Both types have a somewhat secondary player in the weak hand which on western planes is on the knob, body etc... And on Japanese planes is behind the blade.) He has arranged his rope to pull the plane through the work, when it is pushed by the rear handle If he took his rope over the plane to the rear handle, and put it about where the main power comes, about half way up the handle, he would probably not get a satisfactory result. The western plane works like pushing a snow shovel, and when it encounters resistance it tends to hiccup up, causing chatter. The Japanese plane works like an anchor, and self-seats in the work. This is why a Japanese plane can be so light, and even dull, and it just keeps cutting almost no mater what you throw at it. The obvious downside being that the way it is set-up is a little tiring to some hands, though that would be easily solved if there was any reason to do it.


"I think this does help to see the theory proven. With the lightest of all practical bench planes, the #4, followed by the slightly heavier brother the #4 1/2, balanced on the surface of a board, I literally pulled the plane to see if the plane iron would bite into the wood and so pull itself to task. You can see the results for yourself:"

The demo still shows something, down pressure is not necessary to get a refined mid cut plane to take an extreme finishing shaving from an already finish planed stick. There does seem to be a tendency for modern workers to think that the various planes are all just different length finishing planes, without contemplating the way they were actually designed to work, or the surfaces they would cut, etc... And this is as it should be when teaching modern students, who will probably use power for a lot of their work, or do small amounts of work. The calculations are different. Whether the article style chosen should be the rebuttal is another mater. There is the option of just saying what you want to say about the work, to a given student.

[Simon MacGowen]

We sometimes spend more time debating the minor details and less time building stuff. 2" in bench height starts an argument. If it works for you it's the right height.

+1 Well said.

I think in the pre-Internet days, hobbyist woodworkers spent more time in their shops as doing time in front of a monitor didn't exist. We, of course, gain a lot from forums in return, at least for those who are not addicted to spending time here, just talking about woodworking and not really doing it in a proportional manner.

As a hobbyist, I do about one new project in every 6 to 8 weeks (longer if I am on vacation, at least twice a year). After I retire, I think I may be tempted to spend more time on the Internet, if I am not teaching or have had enough projects built. At least, I know a guy from another forum who logs thousands of entries but has not presented any finished project in the past 14 months. But he does enjoy his time with the keyboard (and he buys a lot of new tools, too).

Simon

[Tom Bussey]

As far as bench height and so on, as well as how you use the plane, do what ever pleases you. The more you use a plane the more second nature it will become and then you won't have to worry about what other people think. As far as bench height goes, raise the bench on blocks or saw off the legs or stand on a box. It is yours to make do with the type of work you want to do. Your work and what type is up to you and you are the only person that you have to please. The bench is the most used tool in the shop make it work for you.

Tom

[David Weaver]

At least, I know a guy from another forum who logs thousands of entries but has not presented any finished project in the past 14 months. But he does enjoy his time with the keyboard (and he buys a lot of new tools, too).

Simon

(not trying to be contrary) That could very well be what he'd do without the internet, just exchange a local social woodworking club for the internet. Whatever floats everyones' boats, as long as they don't harass other people. If I had tons more money, I probably would buy tons more tools.