Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 117

Thread: Source for high-angle toothing plane?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,534
    Zach & Rob. Appreciate you posting photo's of your toothing planes.

    Zach what width is your toothing iron.

    Stewie;

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,534

    http://www.gunpowderwoodworks.com/bl...-demonstration
    Incidentally, you will only find the toothed blade available for bevel up planes. Here's why: the "teeth" are created on the blade by milling channels into the back side of the blade. If you were to mount that blade in a conventional bevel-down plane the channels would be facing up. The "shavings" from a toothed blade are very fine and granular and they would all get jammed into the channels under the chip-breaker and quickly clog the plane. On a bevel-down plane there is no chipbreaker and the milled grooves are on the bottom of the blade making for a nice smooth operation.


    Last edited by Stewie Simpson; 01-13-2016 at 4:18 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Chase View Post
    I have to admit that while I started out enthusiastic about bevel-up planes, I've come to have a more "balanced" view over the past couple years.

    Bevel-up planes have been around for a long time, and yet it is only recently that we've come to convince ourselves that they're the answer to every planing problem. Tearout? just plop a high-angle blade in your 62! Still have tearout? Just plop a toothing blade in your 62!

    Professional woodworkers way back when had less real (inflation-adjusted) disposable income available for tools than we do today, and despite that economic incentive they didn't use the 62 or its predecessors as one-tool-fits-all uber-planes - they bought bevel-down bench planes, high-angle bevel-down toothing planes, etc.

    This is all a long-winded way of saying: I'm going to bet that the old-timers knew more than we do (as was unquestionably the case with cap irons...) and stick with a traditional toother in this instance.

    EDIT: For the record I have a 2-1/4" toothed blade for my LV BUS and LAJ. As I said in a previous thread, I think it works OK for bulk removal in difficult wood, not so impressed for refinement.
    Hi Patrick

    I do not have a problem with coffin shaped scraper type toothed planes. My understanding, however, is that they were principally designed to roughen the surface in preperation for glueing veneer .. and not for surface removal of interlocked grain, per se (that is, as an optional alternative to a scrub plane).

    When it comes down to surface removal, and especially when one wants to take deeper shavings, then ergonomics must come into the equation. A short and high-sided coffin smoother will have a high centre of effort. It will be significantly more effort to push (in this situation) than a LA Jack (with a toothed blade). Since the purpose described here is rapid wasting of wood, I am prepared to bet my farm that the BU plane will be a preferred choice in a side-by-side comparison.

    On the train to London

    Derek

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, MI
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by Stewie Simpson View Post

    Zach what width is your toothing iron.

    Stewie;
    I believe it is 2" but I would have to measure.

    Wooden toothing planes were used on many different surfaces. The assertion that they were designed only to prepare veneer is just wrong as proved by the tool marks left on surfaces that were never veneered (and the experience of those, myself included, who have used them to clean up / flatten stock). The Hay Shop Blog linked earlier even shows evidence of toothing plane use to plane down drawer dovetails / fit the drawer to the case (likely when the drawer side grain would force you to plane towards the drawer face, an obviously hazardous situation). The coffin-plane style toothing plane is a wonderfully versatile tool, as I am sure the BU style is if you prefer that style / maker.
    Last edited by Zach Dillinger; 01-13-2016 at 9:06 AM.
    Your endgrain is like your bellybutton. Yes, I know you have it. No, I don't want to see it.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    There is(or was) a nice Marples wooden toothing plane on Patrick Leach's January tool list. Suggest you google it. It was in new condition if I recall correctly. I have a 19th. C. one I bought for about $80.00 some years ago.

    Ed Wright,who writes the "Anthony Hay's" newsletter,linked to by Stewie,is the last of my old apprentices still there,now in his 50's. I hired him many years ago just out of college. You should read his articles as they are quite informative.

    I don't have a BU plane except for a LN miter plane. But,I believe that some of the LV BU planes do have a toothed blade available(possibly LN,too). They are used BU in the low angle planes they are intended to fit.

    In the old days though,toothing planes had nearly vertical blades as seen in Stewie's and Zach Dillinger's pictures(post #28 for Zach,I think). They scraped,rather than cut. This prevented any tearout,no matter how figured the wood was. They used toothed surfaces beneath veneered surfaces as well as surfaces in general where it was unseen,and wood might be glued to it. Years ago,the Department of Agriculture did a test and they found that SMOOTH wooden surfaces actually gave better adhesion than toothed surfaces. I'll still take the toothed surface myself!! Especially on the surfaces of OILY woods,such as rosewoods.

    The blades for these old toothing planes were chisel cut just like the teeth of files were cut. File cutters might have been furnished with annealed plane irons so they could cut the teeth and return them to the plane iron maker. I don't know if enough toothed blades were made for the iron makers to have an in house blade toother. Skills were carefully and legally divided into specialty shops in the old days. I believe it took about 19 different shops to make parts for a single flintlock pistol,for instance. There was a craftsman who only made rough forged breech plugs.There was even a "Screwer together" who assembled locks from parts supplied to him. He may also have been licensed to make and thread the screws used in the locks. Things were tightly controlled back then,in the old Guild system. London based workers had to be the very best in order to be allowed to have a shop there. Birmingham had a lot of less skillful workers(though certainly not all of them were less skilled). The town was derisively called "Brumigan" by more elite craftsmen. But,I have 2 BSA(Birmingham Small Arms) air rifles made in 1907 which are still in perfect order,and are the equal of any other old air rifles I have ever seen.

    Ed mentioned that early planes had their handles offset on the old days,but they didn't know why at the tie he wrote that article. When I looked at tools recovered from Henry VIII's ship,the Mary Rose,the planes had handles inlet flush with the edge of the plane by means of a single,wide dovetail. That was in the 1500's. English tools were pretty crude at that point. But,the old timers who pushed those planes all day long every day they lived knew the consequences of grasping a handle all the time: Carpal Tunnel. So,they made their handles too short to be grasped with all the fingers. The web of the thumb was used to push the blade,while the finger next to the thumb wrapped around the handle. The other 3 fingers rested against the side of the plane. This configuration prevented the onset of carpal tunnel,which they had no way of curing at that time.

    I have had carpal tunnel in both hands,and have had surgery 2 times on 1 hand,and need it done again on the other,because the surgeon was careless,and failed to snip all the way through the ligaments the first time. I wouldn't employ him a second time as he was too arrogant to admit that he screwed up. He retired any way. If you might be concerned that you have carpal tunnel,bend your thumb curled up tightly across your palm. As long as the big muscle of the thumb is bulging and tight,you are o.k.. I was told that by a surgeon who specialized in that work. Also,the surgeon was able to stick pins into my palm without me feeling it before I had surgery.

    By the 18th. C.,handles were not right on the edge of the plane,but were moved off center,and were still too short for all the fingers to be used. Gradually,this old knowledge became lost,and handles became centered on the plane body. Probably the onset of planing machines contributed to the loss of many important bits of knowledge,including the proper use of the chip breaker.

    Below are pictures of a mid 18th. C. style jack plane. One of the jack planes we made for the museum craftsmen to use. Note the offset handle,and the short handle that went to that plane. The blade of that plane barely cleared the handle,preventing even more,the use of all fingers to grasp the handle.
    If you want to make an authentic plane of 18th. C. style,use this as a pattern. It was made from measurements of an original.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by george wilson; 01-13-2016 at 10:44 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, MI
    Posts
    1,523
    Quote Originally Posted by george wilson View Post
    That was in the 1500's. English tools were pretty crude at that point. But,the old timers who pushed those planes all day long every day they lived knew the consequences of grasping a handle all the time: Carpal Tunnel. So,they made their handles too short to be grasped with all the fingers. The web of the thumb was used to push the blade,while the finger next to the thumb wrapped around the handle. The other 3 fingers rested against the side of the plane. This configuration prevented the onset of carpal tunnel,which they had no way of curing at that time.
    Dutch planes were this way too, well into the 18th century. The old timers knew a heck of a lot about the ergonomics of hand work, even if they didn't call it that. Here is a picture of an 18th c. Dutch plane and my version of it that I use a lot. Stubby little tote, three inches tall if I remember correctly, just the right height to ride in the pad between thumb and fore finger.

    dutch planes.jpgmy version 2.jpg
    Your endgrain is like your bellybutton. Yes, I know you have it. No, I don't want to see it.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    Quote Originally Posted by george wilson View Post
    ...But,the old timers who pushed those planes all day long every day they lived knew the consequences of grasping a handle all the time: Carpal Tunnel. So,they made their handles too short to be grasped with all the fingers. The web of the thumb was used to push the blade,while the finger next to the thumb wrapped around the handle. The other 3 fingers rested against the side of the plane. This configuration prevented the onset of carpal tunnel,which they had no way of curing at that time.
    This has been discussed here before I know, but referring to the old timers, their hands were simply smaller than hands of today. Over time people have gotten larger (on average). Not to say there weren't always large people of course, but the generality is that they were smaller and this is clearly proven by history. I also don't think there is science to prove that the old timers knew about carpal tunnel syndrome as that is pretty recent discovery in the annals of science / medicine. Safe to say that people now, using older tools, need to adapt their own hand grips to the older tools commonly used by smaller people.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by Derek Cohen View Post
    Hi Patrick

    I do not have a problem with coffin shaped scraper type toothed planes. My understanding, however, is that they were principally designed to roughen the surface in preperation for glueing veneer .. and not for surface removal of interlocked grain, per se (that is, as an optional alternative to a scrub plane).

    When it comes down to surface removal, and especially when one wants to take deeper shavings, then ergonomics must come into the equation. A short and high-sided coffin smoother will have a high centre of effort. It will be significantly more effort to push (in this situation) than a LA Jack (with a toothed blade). Since the purpose described here is rapid wasting of wood, I am prepared to bet my farm that the BU plane will be a preferred choice in a side-by-side comparison.

    On the train to London

    Derek
    Understood, though I'm discovering a lot of sources that describe use of a high angle toothing plane as a first-pass smoother, often followed by a scraper. That was the point that Stewie made in another thread and that set me to digging.

    I think that with respect to ergonomics and planing forces it's important to distinguish perceived forces from actual ones. Simple Newtonian mechanics tell us that for a given amount of cutting force, the force required to push the plane will always be equal (popularly stated as "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction"), regardless of the plane's tote configuration. It is simply impossible that a high plane would objectively take more effort to push through the cut. You may perceive that it does, but that simply means that you're mis-attributing what you feel.

    What *is* different is the distribution (but not the amount) of downforce required to hold the plane in the cut. When you push the plane from a higher hand position that shifts the downforce towards the toe of the plane, so to compensate you may need to apply more downforce at the tote and less at the toe. The magnitude of the required shift is actually surprisingly small for the range of heights we're discussing here, but it's real and may contribute to the [mis-]perception that higher overall force is required. This may also explain why you don't see upright totes on many wooden planes.

    Finally, wooden plane makers had a remedy for high tote position - the razee configuration. The fact that they didn't employ it very often should tell you just how much of a problem it really wasn't. Other have made good points about why that may be the case.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Charlotte, MI
    Posts
    1,523
    The difference in plane tote design cannot be dismissed as a simple function of the old myth that "people were much shorter back then" simply because they weren't. According to Colonial Williamsburg, the difference in average height between 1770 and 1950 was less than 2/3rds of an inch.

    http://www.history.org/foundation/jo...er08/stuff.cfm

    Another source, this a study by an economics professor at Ohio State, says that the average height for a male in the 17th and 18th centuries was less than 2.5 inches shorter than today's average of 5'9". http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm Even the minimal difference in hand size (assuming there is a definite correlation between hand size and height... which is a stretch) caused by a minor difference in in average height would not account for the rather large change in tote design.

    Old timers had to have known all about carpal tunnel; they just didn't call it that and probably didn't know the biomechanical causes of it. They just knew if you push a plane with the pad of your hand, you don't get the pain. Prep stock for 8 or 10 hours in a row, day after day, with a modern plane, then do the same with a properly designed period plane and report findings. I've done both and greatly prefer the shorter period tote. I even push modern planes around with the pad of my hand. It is much more comfortable.

    As said above, the old timers knew all about the ergonomics of hand work, they just didn't call it that.

    And now, back to your regularly scheduled discussion of toothing planes.
    Last edited by Zach Dillinger; 01-13-2016 at 4:49 PM.
    Your endgrain is like your bellybutton. Yes, I know you have it. No, I don't want to see it.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    Patrick,you make a number of assumptions that are not accurate. First,original records from the 18th. C. kept by the military in Williamsburg show that people were much the same size as they are today. A lot of research has proven this,though many people think men were smaller back then. 2 or 300 years is a drop in the bucket compared to time spans involved in evolution. George Washington was over 6' tall,and so strong he could bend a horse shoe with his bare hands.

    I spent 40 years in the museum,and every year we all had to attend lectures on every facet of 18th. C. life. I ought to have a doctorate after all that!! Think about 40 years of schooling. Every year 3 or 4 classes in everything from textiles to wagons and carriages!

    As for old timers knowing about carpal tunnel syndrome,they weren't stupid,and certainly knew about the effects of labor on the body,and the effects of repeated,prolonged tasks,even if they didn't use the modern name for those conditions. Consumption,most know,was their name for tuberculosis,for example.

    They worked at very specific tasks as I mentioned in my last post,and did those repeated tasks for many more hours a day than we have to,every day except Sundays. They knew what their aches and pains were caused by. You'd have to be really stupid to not to know that your hands got thus and so if you did thus and so work with them day after day. Wood carvers got "Carver's palm" from bumping carving tools along with the palm. This was a horse shoe shaped growth of thick,hard tissue in the palm. It got so bad that the hand eventually could not hardly open. This was surgically removed(very painfully!) by cutting the mass off with sharp knives.

    They had all kinds of conditions that we don't get so much these days. I had a very difficult childhood in Alaska,which was a life of pioneering conditions for our family for several years. I had to carry lumber uphill all Summer for some years ., Enough to build a house. I have a curved spine from that. I also hauled 3/4" steel cable for a stump puller a few Summers,drilled 3 foot deep holes into ten foot diameter stumps with a cross handle auger to set dynamite to blow the huge Alaska cedar stumps into sections so we could at least pull the sections one at a time. This after chopping the huge roots off below he surface.

    Carrying oil was an every day task. 30 gallons a day. At my age this was heavy work. So,my skeleton in general has many problems with worn out joints,back trouble,etc.. I have been putting off knee and thumb replacement for some years.The thumb is from finger style guitar playing since 1952. Just goes to show you. This is how people lived many years ago. We didn't have electricity for 3 years.

    My step father was gone on the buoy tender a lot of the time,so I had to take on these heavy tasks when too young to really be up to it.

    Anyway,original military records from the period listed ages,height,weight,etc. for those in the militia,and cannot be argued with.

    So,why is so much armor in museums small? Because the normal size stuff was used up. When I went to the Federal Surplus Center in Richmond,where,as a museum,we were allowed to shop,I saw a large bin full of flat brimmed hats like drill sergeants use. Every one of them were brand new,and all were very small. Surplus clothing was in small sizes only. The regular size clothing was used up and discarded.

    So,left over artifacts might not be giving you the correct story.

    Oh,I forgot: Oddball tools have survived in unused condition too. I have seem more incorrectly made tools in the museum's large collections than I can remember. They were usually someone's BAD idea that didn't work out. I hope that some day educated but NON CRAFTSMAN writers will not start posting pictures of tools that never worked represented as standard in future books. We have a very carefully made screw cutting wooden lathe in the museum. Someone put a huge amount of effort into it. It will not cut a thread because of gross errors in the maker's work. He apparently had seen French moving spindle lathes somewhere,and obtained a no doubt very expensive spindle for one. From his memory,he tried making himself a similar lathe. It simply does not work. Yet,the lathe was too valuable to throw out,and has survived in remarkable condition! It proudly sits in the Wallace Gallery. I was asked to make a threaded piece of boxwood to put on it,and a threading tool,which I did. But,that was a piece of fantasy.

    We also have a very large collection of original 18th. C. clothing that shows that sizes have not changed.
    Last edited by george wilson; 01-13-2016 at 4:58 PM.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    Patrick,razee lanes were made for boys in manual training,not full grown men. By the way,I have seen plenty of short,but powerfully built men who have hands larger than mine,and I was 6' 5"(now 6' 3" due to disc degeneration in my back),with large,ring size 14 hands. Marcus Hansen(one of my journeymen),had a father,an off the boat Norwegian,who had huge hands,though he was a LOT shorter than most men.

    Go to Patrick Leach's tool selling site. When he has a razee,he mentions it was for manual training by boys. He is a well known tool expert,and I was the Master Toolmaker in Williamsburg,since you are new here. But,I have known about razees even before I came to the museum in 1970,to be Master Musical Instrument Maker. I had 2 careers,sort of. In 1986 the director finally begged me into making tools for the historic Area since all kinds of incorrect tools were in use.
    Last edited by george wilson; 01-13-2016 at 5:13 PM.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by george wilson View Post
    Patrick,you make a number of assumptions that are not accurate. First,original records from the 18th. C. kept by the military in Williamsburg show that people were much the same size as they are today. A lot of research has proven this,though many people think men were smaller back then. 2 or 300 years is a drop in the bucket compared to time spans involved in evolution. George Washington was over 6' tall,and so strong he could bend a horse shoe with his bare hands.
    Pat (Barry) is the one who posted the argument about hand size and height, not me (Patrick).

    I recognized that line of argument as a likely quagmire and studiously ignored it :-).

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Dublin, CA
    Posts
    4,119
    Quote Originally Posted by george wilson View Post
    Patrick,razee lanes were made for boys in manual training,not full grown men. By the way,I have seen plenty of short,but powerfully built men who have hands larger than mine,and I was 6' 5"(now 6' 3" due to disc degeneration in my back),with large,ring size 14 hands. Marcus Hansen(one of my journeymen),had a father,an off the boat Norwegian,who had huge hands,though he was a LOT shorter than most men.

    Go to Patric Leach's tool selling site. When he has a razee,he mentions it was for manual training by boys.
    Yes, that was more or less my point. If tote/grip height had been an issue as Derek claimed then razees would have been much more widely used. As you say, they were not.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Williamsburg,Va.
    Posts
    12,402
    You have an unclear way of making a point! If you knew that razees were made for boy's manual training,you might have simply said so,no?

    Sorry,my error about PAT vs. Patrick. I read too fast as I'm trying to do 3 things at once.

    As far as using a scraper after a toothing plane,it is necessary because a toothing plane leaves a lot of fuzz that you don't want to veneer over,or to leave in general.
    Last edited by george wilson; 01-13-2016 at 5:22 PM.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Perth, Australia
    Posts
    9,469
    Patrick, I think that you are confusing matters. I have not said anything about razees. I simply stated which type of scraper plane was more ergonomic, a high sided coffin smoother with a vertical blade vs a low angle BU jack (with the same cutting angle) which is pushed from low down.

    However, if you want to get into razees as a design, my commentary has been about handle design and how they are pushed. What I have written about on my website are my observations that support the benefits of pushing low (and that a razee design aids in this area). The handle that George posted earlier is very much in line with the one I use on my razee jack. My handle is taller, but it has a similar angle, and is also pushed with the palm from low down. In other words, all this is about keeping the centre of effort low when the cutting angle is high.

    Regards from London

    Derek

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •