HNT Gordon video's.

[Stewie Simpson]

Sharpening plane blades. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yktEHsd7m7E


Bevel Up versus Bevel down Planes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v9X9Cgtl7c

[Stewie Simpson]

I like the idea of the small dimensional 10mm glass plates to flatten the water stones. Terry uses 180grit wet and dry sandpaper. I will look into getting a few made up using 12mm laminated glass, that will allow me to have a good selection of finer grits available. 180#,220#,320#,400#. I might look at feasibility of fitting trowel handles to the top surface of each glass to make them easier to control when wet and slippery.

Placed an order for the wet and dry sandpaper, and 4 x 115mm x 280mm of 12mm laminated glass. Dimensions of sandpaper sheets are 230mm x 280mm.

[Derek Cohen]

Stewie, regarding Terry's comparison of BU vs BD blade longevity (which focuses on the wear bevel), I made the following points on the Ubeaut forum, where it was also posted ...

It is not as clearcut as Terry appears to make it.

Firstly, I agree with the wear bevel issue on a BU, as described (although I would say that it is over-represented in his video. There are many tens of thousands of happy BU plane users around the world, and they have not complained). Importantly, I do not think that the "shape" of the bevel (in Terry's cutouts) is necessarily accurate. This is the fertile imagination of Brent Beach. I know the microscope Brent uses - I have the same one! - and the resolution is very low end. You definitely will not see a shape such as the one described. I have done many blade tests, and the microscope images were only to add information. They were never used as "proof". Example: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...g-5Steels.html

The position of the wear bevel on the BU plane blade makes it an ideal candidate for using David Charlesworth's Ruler Trick. This 2/3 degree back bevel would remove the wear bevel and prevent it occurring. In other words, BU planes benefit from a different way of sharpening.

Secondly, BD planes with a high bed experience a problem of their own (compared with planes with lower beds, such as common angles) - the higher the bed, the greater stress on the bevel edge. High angle (such as 60 degrees) planes do not have the edge longevity of lower angle planes (again, such as a common angle or 45 degrees).

Further to this, the tests I ran on a shooting board demonstrated conclusively that BU plane with a 12 degree bed + 25 degree bevel blade far outlasted a BD plane with a 45 degree bed. Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html

Thirdly, there is the argument that a high angle bed is the weapon of choice against tearout in interlocked grain. But what about the performance of a common angle using a double iron (blade + chipbreaker), such as a Stanley #4, versus a high angle, single iron configuration, such as a HNT Gordon Smoother. The common angle will last longer and control tearout better than the single iron plane with a high bed.

Please understand that I am not taking a swipe at Terry. I own and use several of his planes, both bench and joinery, and they are excellent. I also have been involved with the development of BU planes for yonks, and they are excellent. My preferred users today are Bailey pattern BD planes - because they are excellent.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek; I think its a little unfair to be questioning the work of Brent Beach and Steve Elliot. As Terry rightly points out within his video from 1.30 - 3.00 min, the work of these 2 gentleman is based on science, and is in no way biased or influenced by any of the manufacturers.

As you rightly point out within your own comments;

I also have been involved with the development of BU planes for yonks,

There is indeed the potential that within your own findings on Bu planes, a certain level of conflicting interest may be present.

Nothing personal Derek.

1.30 - 3.00 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v9X9Cgtl7c

[Derek Cohen]

Derek; I think its a little unfair to be questioning the work of Brent Beach and Steve Elliot. As Terry rightly points out in his video from 1.30 - 3.00 min, the work of these 2 gentleman is purely scientific, and are not biased or influenced by any of the manufacturers. As you rightly point out within your own comments. As such, there is indeed the potential that within your own findings on Bu planes, it could reflect a certain level of conflicting interest.

Nothing personal Derek.

1.30 - 3.00 min.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5v9X9Cgtl7c

Stewie, I don't believe that you understood the comments I made.

Read them again - just try and remain bias free.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek; you rightly point out that this video was recently posted on the Ubeaut Forum. There has been a total of 4 comments made in relation to that video, your comment being the last one.

The following details the 3 previous comments made;



#That blows a few assumptions away.


#I think that's really great. I admit that it took me a while to figure out that the reason my planes were "skating" (my word. he says "balking") over harder woods was that they were dull. The correlation was there, so I now keep them sharper and have improved my sharpening technique considerably, but I never really had a solid grasp of the physics behind it.

The "lower wear bevel" concept, however, now makes that absolutely crystal clear. It always concerned me that a plane that wouldn't cut in a hard Eucalypt would cut in something more medium like Silky Oak, but now it makes perfect sense. The silky oak is easier to press down, thus clearing the lower wear bevel and engaging the remaining cutting edge.

Thanks for sharing! This has been a significant "Aha!" moment for me.


#Not sure what your assumptions were, Chris, but it was certainly an informative video!

I do like a bit of good analysis, and what Terry said makes perfect sense (not least because it re-enforces my own mild prejudice agin' bevel-ups as bench planes ). They have their place, I agree, but I've always found BD planes with higher bed angles worked best for me on cranky hardwoods. Hadn't thought about the radii of the trailing bevel wear & the clearance angle relationship before, but I've long known that maintaining as high clearance angle as the blade steel will allow makes for better planing. Now I've watched that video, I understand why!

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/h...-angles-207302

[Derek Cohen]

Derek; you rightly point out that this video was recently posted on the Ubeaut Forum. There has been a total of 4 comments made in relation to that video, your comment being the last one.

The following details the 3 previous comments made;



#That blows a few assumptions away.


#I think that's really great. I admit that it took me a while to figure out that the reason my planes were "skating" (my word. he says "balking") over harder woods was that they were dull. The correlation was there, so I now keep them sharper and have improved my sharpening technique considerably, but I never really had a solid grasp of the physics behind it.

The "lower wear bevel" concept, however, now makes that absolutely crystal clear. It always concerned me that a plane that wouldn't cut in a hard Eucalypt would cut in something more medium like Silky Oak, but now it makes perfect sense. The silky oak is easier to press down, thus clearing the lower wear bevel and engaging the remaining cutting edge.

Thanks for sharing! This has been a significant "Aha!" moment for me.


#Not sure what your assumptions were, Chris, but it was certainly an informative video!

I do like a bit of good analysis, and what Terry said makes perfect sense (not least because it re-enforces my own mild prejudice agin' bevel-ups as bench planes ). They have their place, I agree, but I've always found BD planes with higher bed angles worked best for me on cranky hardwoods. Hadn't thought about the radii of the trailing bevel wear & the clearance angle relationship before, but I've long known that maintaining as high clearance angle as the blade steel will allow makes for better planing. Now I've watched that video, I understand why!

http://www.woodworkforums.com/f152/h...-angles-207302

Stewie

You really need to begin thinking for yourself and not repeating the words of others. None of the quotes reflect a comparative analysis. They are one dimensional comments.

If you are determined to find fault (with whatever), please come up with some original thoughts, and preferably with some evidence to back up your statements. I can just imagine your reaction when Paul (at the Ubeaut forum) posted that video link, and you go "Oh goody .. something that I can use to knock BU planes!". You are so transparent.

I've talked planes with Terry Gordon on many occasions. I've shared a bench with him at wood shows a couple of times. I have known him for many years and have much respect for his planes, which I own and use. However he remains one-eyed about high angle planes, for example does not believe that the chipbreaker has any value, and he sees BU planes as the competition. I wish that he had not made this video - it was so unnecessary to deliberately take a shot at the other side. I have always viewed him to be a gentleman - which he remains in my eyes.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Normand Leblanc]

Derek,

I do not really agree with you. I do not own any 60° bedded plane so I can not talk about them.

Firstly, I agree with the wear bevel issue on a BU, as described (although I would say that it is over-represented in his video. There are many tens of thousands of happy BU plane users around the world, and they have not complained). Importantly, I do not think that the "shape" of the bevel (in Terry's cutouts) is necessarily accurate. This is the fertile imagination of Brent Beach. I know the microscope Brent uses - I have the same one! - and the resolution is very low end. You definitely will not see a shape such as the one described. I have done many blade tests, and the microscope images were only to add information. They were never used as "proof". Example: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...g-5Steels.html

I think that the video show pretty much what is the shape of the wear bevel as shown in Kato and Kawaii study. Why do you think that the shape shown by Terry is not right?

The position of the wear bevel on the BU plane blade makes it an ideal candidate for using David Charlesworth's Ruler Trick. This 2/3 degree back bevel would remove the wear bevel and prevent it occurring. In other words, BU planes benefit from a different way of sharpening.

I agree on that.

Further to this, the tests I ran on a shooting board demonstrated conclusively that BU plane with a 12 degree bed + 25 degree bevel blade far outlasted a BD plane with a 45 degree bed. Link: http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ToolRev...tingPlane.html

I have to disagree again. You are not comparing apples with apples. Your test is valuable but it is for end grain which doesn't behave the same way as with the grain. Impact is also an important factor in your testing.

Normand

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Normand

I agree that BU planes are more vulnerable to a growing wear bevel. I also agree on the general shape of the wear that takes place at the bevel. What I wrote was that this was pure supposition by Brent at the time. He came up with this by deduction from photos. However these photos were really poor in detail. If you look at the picture you supplied from the Kato research, you will note that there is more wear on the upper side (which would be the bevel side). The images produced by Steve are similar. Those from Brent show an equal amount of wear to the face and back of the bevel. This exaggerates the amount of wear behind the bevel. And it was Brent's photos that were used by Terry.

The point of Terry's video was to "prove" that BU planes are not in the race. I find this distasteful by a manufacturer to knock the "opposition". I was saddened to see this from Terry, whom I hold in high regard.

The fact is that all the various types of planes work within a range of compromises. They all have strengths and weaknesses. I love the fact that high cutting angles tame the interlocked grains of the woods I use. I used BU and high bed planes for a number of years ( and still use them) before learning to use the chipbreaker on a common angle BD plane.

The chipbreaker enables a lower cutting angle to be used, which produces a plane with a potential to be pushed more easily and produce a clearer surface. Setting a chipbreaker is more difficult to learn, however. A common angle plane is easier to push, but one would not want to plane without the chipbreaker on interlocked Australian woods, and so the chipbreaker should be mastered if you plan to use a BD plane, such as a Bailey type.

The BU plane is the easiest of all to set up, but the most work to prepare the blade(for one who prefers to freehand sharpen, such as myself). The Ruler Trick can take care of the wear bevel. The decision to use a BU plane must factor this in. It is a no-brainer for one using a honing guide.

The high angle plane (55-60 degree bed) produces the same performance as the BU place (equally set with a high cutting angle). The HNT Gordon planes have a low centre of effort, and their feel/feedback is similar to a BU plane. Other types of high bed planes, such as a LN with a 55 degree bed, are noticeably harder to push. The high bed also increases wear on the bevel and the edge is not held as long as a common angle plane.

There has been a push to develop more abrasion-resistant steels over the past decade especially. Even HNT Gordon have done so, offering HSS blades. Some of these, such as PM-V11, can become a game-changer for those working abrasive woods. I do not see the difference in honing a BU plane dulled "prematurely", owing to the incursion of a wear bevel, from the wear on a high angle BD plane, or due to the softer steel on a common angle BD plane. I have Clifton blades to use in my LN planes, but they last a few strokes. The blades get very sharp, but still it is inconvenient. I have PM blades in the low bed BD Custom Veritas, and they hold an edge longer than all. Certainly longer than a Tool Steel blade in a HNT Gordon.

This is not a comment on plane performance. They can all function very similarly. And the blades all hold for a similar duration depending on how they are prepared and set up. 10 years ago I made comparisons in reviews that were less flexible than I make today. I hope that this reflects that I have developed a wider lense. The review by Terry does not show a wide lense.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Normand Leblanc]

Hi Derek,
I look at the video again and what I see is Terry making two points for not manufacturing bevel-up planes and I agree with him. I don't want to discuss if it was a legitimate publicity or not, I'm talking technique.

Those bevel up planes became mass produced 20 years ago or so. At the time, for tear-out control, the choice was between high angles frog or BU with high angle bevels. When it was my turn, I picked the BU just like so many woodworkers.

Just a few years back with Steve Elliot work we got a game changer. We were now able to eliminate (or close to) all tear-out with a very close set capiron. As you rightly say,

The chipbreaker enables a lower cutting angle to be used, which produces a plane with a potential to be pushed more easily and produce a clearer surface. Setting a chipbreaker is more difficult to learn, however. A common angle plane is easier to push, but one would not want to plane without the chipbreaker on interlocked Australian woods, and so the chipbreaker should be mastered if you plan to use a BD plane, such as a Bailey type

.

Now that we have:
- the chipbreaker effect.
- Kees study about the force require to push a BD vs a BU.
- my own little study on clearance angle showing that 12 or 11° clearance is not great for edge life.

Why should we keep buying those low angle planes? They are now a niche plane good with a low sharpening angle for straight grained wood or end grain. On the other hand I would not buy a 60° bedded plane anymore.

Have a good day,
Normand

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Normand

You wrote, "Why should we keep buying those low angle planes? They are now a niche plane good with a low sharpening angle for straight grained wood or end grain. On the other hand I would not buy a 60° bedded plane anymore.".

Long ago (in a galaxy far away ... I know ) BU planes - or LA planes as we referred to them then - were used with 25 degree bevels. This was a disaster on face grain as the cutting angle was too low. These planes developed a bad rep as a result, and there are some that persist in referring to this history as if it were current still. BU planes became a serious option for interlocked grain when they were used with a high bevel angle. This remains the case today - they are an option, a choice ... and isn't it nice to have choices? All good choices.

You also wrote about the issue of clearance: "my own little study on clearance angle showing that 12 or 11° clearance is not great for edge life". On technical grounds .... The other extreme is equally dismal for edge life - as the cutting angle increases (regardless of how one gets there, BU or BD), so the plane moves closer to scraping mode. Clearance angle alone does not safeguard edge retention. All high cutting angles have reduced wear compared to lower cutting angles - just look at the longevity of a scraper blade and the heat created at the edge. In the video Terry pointed this out as negative of BU planes, and neglected - or did not recognise - that a high angle bed creates the exact same circumstance.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Derek Cohen]

As mentioned before, this thread is on Ubeaut. David Weaver posts there, so I am sure that there are some interested in his view ..

Regards from Perth

Derek

It's my opinion that a lot of the analysis on Beach's site, and a lot of these cut and pasted discussions of clearance, etc, create a lot of "problems" in the minds of amateurs, problems that don't really exist in practice. The K&K wear profile is a good example. I have seen several times now where people have concluded that the cap iron should be set off far enough to prevent this wear in most planing, but from the practical standpoint, it's a lot like the scare talk about how hard it is to remove the wear bevel on a BU plane. When that first came up, I had a BU plane that I used regularly and I supposed that I might have that problem, but looking back on it, I don't think I did, and even if I did, it would be five seconds on a stone to remove the extra wear.

One of the least practical planes in terms of edge longevity is a single iron steeply bedded plane. It is substantially inferior to a common pitch plane with a cap iron, but perhaps more accessible for a beginner to use. Substantially inferior because the same plane will plane fewer feet before resharpening, will provide more resistance, less ability to take a shaving beyond a thin shaving, and the iron mated to a properly set cap iron will continue to plane further into the edge wear cycle than a single iron plane - let alone one where edge wear is accelerated because the angle of attack is increased.

Left in a vacuum reading Beach's site and some of the other discussions about wear bevels and clearance, etc, one might conclude that one of these plane types was almost completely incapable of being used.

There is one useful thing on Beach's site, and that is the wear pictures demonstrating how much some irons wear and what the edge looks like when the wear occurs (though there's probably a lack of emphasis on the importance of the edge condition vs. the wear bevel - Brent is fascinated with wear resistance more than edge quality). The other thing about the site is the horrid description of sharpening methods, and the dismissal of the cap iron. The experimenters (that's what I'll refer to when one thing is compared to another in a vacuum but without the context of actually doing anything) generally (and Brent is included in this) seem to believe they've achieved some sort of scientific proof that casts doubt on all else - including those things actually proven in work. It's very unimpressive.

It reminds me of old wives tales, which get started because some part of them either has a kernel of truth or has something that seems like it could be true, but the OWT on the whole doesn't hold water.

A good craftsman would ask if something allows him or her to do work faster, cleaner or with more ease and less effort, and allow their sense to determine whether or not something was acceptable. Little tests that don't have anything to do with actual woodworking don't amount to much when work in context suggests something different.

[Pat Barry]

Weavers post is just like all the others that offers opinion without hard data. Even when some data is offered, such as the K&K sourcework, it is poorly understood and most likely misinterpreted or carried past its original intent. Take the SEM images posted somewhere above. It would be great if someone could actually explain them, because they look interesting, but what do they mean?

[Derek Cohen]

Hi Pat

I agree, without clarification, looking at those pictures can be misleading. Those pictures are recordings of the effect of a chipbreaker in preserving the bevel edge. They reflect a number of different experimental conditions.

In my opinion, these pictures should not be used as evidence of the amount of wear in the wear bevel of a BU plane blade since they are the wear of a BD plane blade. Turn the pictures over (so that they are facing the other way up/down) and that is less confusing. Can one generalise these to a BU blade? Has anyone done a similar study with BU planes?

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

I agree that the models of worn blades as demonstrated in this video are not neccessarily very realistic. I suspect that mr. Gordon didn't do the kind of research Steve Elliot did. Steve used a rebate plane to be able to view the side of the bevel to get the pictures in this document: http://bladetest.infillplane.com/htm..._profiles.html

Steve did his tests at 47 degrees. The SEM pictures from Kato/Kawai were done at 40 degree cutting angle, with a chipbreaker, which infuences the shape of the wear bevels too, and as they show, the grain direction also has influence. Gordon shows a model that doesn't look a whole lot like these and nobody really knows how the wear bevels look like when raising the cutting angle up to 60 degrees. When I looked at those clearance wearbevels with my microscope I could see that the length of the bevels were about equal for 45 degree and 60 degree cutting angle, both with 15 degree clearance angle. But I really have no idea about how deep they are.




But I did find something curious when meassuring the horizontal (fc) and vertical (fn) planing forces over a total planing length of 100 meters.



The horizontal planing forces were not very interesting. A high cutting angle needs more force, but that's not surprising. Likewise a capiron set very close to the edge also needs more force, but that is hardly surprising either (still nowhere as much as the 60 degree cutting angle).

What is surprising is in the vertical force. While the two 45 degree planes setups and the 60 degree setup with 30 degree clearance increased at about the same rate, the 60 degree plane with only 15 degree clearance increased about twice as fast! That is a substantial difference.

The vertical force is the result of two things. The shaving pressing down on the edge from above and the wearbevel on the clearance side pushing the edge upwards. It seems that in a 60 degree plane the clearance angle is important and needs to be generous.

What is also evident is that the vertical force in a plane with a capiron is much nicer. Over the 100 meter length the vertical force was still negative, meaning the shaving pressing the edge down into the wood was still stronger then the wearbevel on the clearance side pushing the edge up.
(don't take these numbers too litterally, they also depend on wood type, grain direction and shaving thickness).

So, overall, allthough a 60 degree plane with plenty of clearance angle has a better wear characteristic then a 60 degree plane with less clearance angle, the double iron plane is still technically superior, and it is a wonder why some people are still making single iron, high angle planes.

At the other hand, when the blade is freshly sharpened, they all seem to work, and for some kinds of work it doesn't matter a whole lot if you need to push a bit harder. I am not so interested in wear studies anymore. I choose to work with high carbon steels mostly on European wood, which makes for a perfectly acceptable combination. And when the blade dulls, you sharpen it (duh...).