Source for high-angle toothing plane?

[Patrick Chase]

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.

My point was that if height-of-effort really mattered, then those planes would have been made as razees instead of coffins. It doesn't, and they weren't.

I've long since learned to very skeptical any new "innovation" that was actually both widely known and feasible all along. Low center-of-effort is one of those - everybody has known for centuries (literally) how to implement that. The fact that they didn't consider it worth the bother says something very important (and as I said, engineering analysis agrees - there is no significant difference in pushing effort).

[Derek Cohen]

Patrick, I shall leave you to go your own way on this. Issues of ergonomics have been discussed here at length - long before you began posting on this forum.

Regards from London

Derek

[Patrick Chase]

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.

To be clear, I didn't know they were for training. I just knew that:

1. Everybody knew that the razee configuration could be used to lower center-of-effort

2. Nobody bothered for the most part. I didn't realize that the exception was for training, I just knew (based on the used tool market) that it wasn't all that common.

3. Taking (1) and (2) together it is clear that they didn't view height-of-effort as a serious ergonomic issue.

Sorry about the lack of clarity.

[george wilson]

Derek: My 18th. C. jack plane handle IS NOT pushed with the palm. It was designed to be pushed with the WEB of the hand. Or,am I missing something in your statement,Derek? You said your handle is ALSO pushed with the palm,and that is not correct for my handle.

That was my whole point about early plane handles that helped prevent carpal tunnel.

[Derek Cohen]

Hi George

My error. The handle you posted looks so similar to a couple I like (however yours is shorter, and I can see that it is used differently). I tend to push with the heel of my hand low on the handle. I found pushing with the web of my hand (stretched apart) on the body of a woody (both coffin and Krenov) stressed my hand. Keeping the heel low on an upright handle I find is the best execution I have found. Others may prefer something else.

Regards from London

Derek

[Pat Barry]

It is clear that there is data available regarding height that shows a clear message that heights are increasing over the past 100-200 years.
height.PNG

The following chart shows the significance of the relatively recent height increase.
height2.PNG

Similarly data pertaining to soldiers shows height increasing over time.
Height3.PNG
"By comparing the heights of soldiers in the US army with countries that enforced conscription we can see the bias more clearly. In countries that had conscription, the average height of conscripts was increasing over the period, meanwhile in the US where entry was voluntary, the heights of soldiers was falling"

I find George's points regarding the idea that the regular size clothing, for example, being used up and the small sizes being what is available, but my great grandfathers civil war uniform is comically small (maybe it shrunk over the past 150 years), so small that I couldn't fit into it when I was 12 and he was a fully grown young adult at the time he wore it in the Civil War.

Go back to historic settlements and look at the chairs and beds - they are smaller than todays by a significant amount. Why? Some other reason than they were smaller?

Go back to ancient buildings - doorways are much lower as are hallways - why? Why would they make them so small that they bump there heads entering rooms?

Wiliamsburg data is not the only data out there. In fact it may be biased (I don't know) but at least another source thinks so.

My data source for the above is http://ourworldindata.org/data/food-.../human-height/

Akso interesting is this website pertaining to the Dutch http://www.huffingtonpost.com/randal...b_5544085.html

As noted by someone with a similar name, this is an argument we'll never settle here. Peace. I will have no further input on this

[Stewie Simpson]

Razee planes

October 9, 2013October 9, 2013
What exactly is a razee plane? The name is derived from the nautical term razee, a sailing ship that has been cut down to reduce the number of decks. The name is derived from the French vaisseau rasé, meaning a razed. In a similar context, the rear part of the wooden plane is lowered in a cut-away style, lowering the totes position on the plane. Lowering the tote allows for better balance, and more precise control by lowering the centre of gravity. It also aligns the force being applied right behind the blade. The planes are generally made of a hard wood such as Lignum Vitae, which is resistant to wear, but heavy. Razee planes are quiet unique in the genre of planes, often used by shipwrights. One form of the plane, the “technical jack plane”, is touted to have been used in school workshops, making for a lighter tool and easier to use for the beginner. In one book, “Woodworking A Book of Tools, Materials, and Processes for the Handyman”, (1906, Paul Hasluck) identifies a razee as a “sunk handle jack plane with closed toat“. The plane is shown below.https://workingbyhand.wordpress.com/.../razee-planes/

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick, I shall leave you to go your own way on this. Issues of ergonomics have been discussed here at length - long before you began posting on this forum.

Regards from London

Derek

I shouldn't, but I can't resist...

Is that sort of like how the "forum consensus" held that cap irons were really just for stiffening the blade until a few short years back?

I've also long since learned to ignore Internet groupthink. You can learn quite a lot about mob psychology, but that's about it. To be quite honest there were about 5 people whose opinions I was hoping to elicit with this thread. For the post part they've replied, and for that I am hugely thankful.

[Mel Fulks]

I think the two height sources cited in Zachs post are in obvious conflict. George posted while back about height records for revolutionary war soldiers and they showed they were tall. Those are probably accurate numbers but they are for a job that seems to need and does tend to draw big guys. Tables used by physicians to show average height and weight of children around 1900 are significantly different from tables used today. Compare that difference of one hundred years,it can be done with real medical records. Saying people are now a "lot taller"...might be stretching it.

[Stewie Simpson]

Anyone that has used a highly bedded toothing plane will know that you can not compare its required forces to that of a similar bedded plane fitted with a standard iron. The shaving actions are totally different.

Stewie;

[Zach Dillinger]

Saying people are now a "lot taller"...might be stretching it.

And that is the only point I was trying to make. An overall difference of a couple of inches is not going to make enough difference in hand size (after all, there are men shorter than me with bigger hands, and vice versa) to completely invalidate the theory of the proper way to push a plane, namely with the area between the thumb and forefinger. This does two things; it puts the arm bones directly behind the tote and allows you to use a very loose grip, both excellent ways to avoid carpal tunnel. The pointer finger, in this picture, is just resting forward, but it can also be wrapped around the tote which assists in the return stroke.

Here is an admittedly bad picture I just took of the proper way to push a plane like this.

pushing a plane.jpg

[Patrick Chase]

And that is the only point I was trying to make. An overall difference of a couple of inches is not going to make enough difference in hand size (after all, there are men shorter than me with bigger hands, and vice versa) to completely invalidate the theory of the proper way to push a plane, namely with the area between the thumb and forefinger. This does two things; it puts the arm bones directly behind the tote and allows you to use a very loose grip, both excellent ways to avoid carpal tunnel. The pointer finger, in this picture, is just resting forward, but it can also be wrapped around the tote which assists in the return stroke.

Here is an admittedly bad picture I just took of the proper way to push a plane like this.

pushing a plane.jpg

I've been intentionally avoiding this one, but I think Zach hit the nail on the head here.

Let's assume just for kicks that people are a full 6" (~15 cm) taller now than in the 18th or 19th century. Note that this is a much greater increase than anybody in this thread has claimed. 6" is about 9% of the height of an average human male.

If all limbs scale proportionally, then that would correspond to a ~1/4" change in palm width. That is nowhere near sufficient to account for the difference in tote sizes shown earlier in this thread.

In other words, it doesn't matter for the purposes of this argument whether woodworkers have become taller, so there's no reason to continue to argue about it (though this being the Internet I'm sure we will)

[george wilson]

The only part of the British Army that sought large men were the grenadiers. This was because 18th. C. grenades were more like round cannon balls with a hollow interior for black powder. They were considerably heavier than modern grenades,which have much thinner walls,and are grooved to break into fragments(except for certain specialized grenades.

In a small town like Williamsburg,they recruited whoever they could get.

According to the logic some are using,cave men would have been sub dwarves. Not even Hobbits! Maybe like dolls? Actually,some prehistoric men were pretty large. They left skeletons to measure. Now,when you go back to 3 million years,they are pretty small!

The existing clothing we have,which is quite a large selection,and the 18th. C. militia information still show,in spite of graphs,that there is not much difference in height over only 200 years. How fast do you think evolution works?

[Patrick Chase]

The existing clothing we have,which is quite a large selection,and the 18th. C. militia information still show,in spite of graphs,that there is not much difference in height over only 200 years. How fast do you think evolution works?

I agree with you about how quickly heights have changed, but have to note that while evolution proceeds slowly on average, it can also move very quickly indeed with the right forcing function. for example these papers recently got a lot of press, but IIRC there are plenty of other examples.

[Stewie Simpson]

Anyone want to get back on track with the OPs discussion on toothing planes. If not; I got better things to do with my time.

Stewie;