Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 50

Thread: Chip breaker placement on cambered blades

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Milton, GA
    Posts
    3,213
    Blog Entries
    1

    Chip breaker placement on cambered blades

    I am interested in how other posters set chip breakers (CBs) on their more heavily cambered plane blades. I am specifically interested in where posters place the CB in relation to the camber in the blade. I tend to move the CB right up to the edge of the corners of the blade. The edge of the CB is even with or slightly behind the edge of the camber at either side/corner of the curve the camber makes in the blade. This CB placement leaves the camber protruding out past the edge of the CB every where but at the edge/corner of the blade.

    I am typically using #5 1/2 & 4 Veritas Custom planes on pieces of wood that are 30" long or less and 1-2" thick, chair legs and glued up panels for raised panels. Typical projects involve removing relatively large amounts of wood with the cambered blade on the #5 1/2 and finishing with the #4.

    This work dulls blades fast so I remove/sharpen/replace my blades, two of them, frequently. As I mentioned in a previous post I find the sliding mouth on the LV planes handy for removing and reinserting the blades. It also helps me to make sure the camber is optimally placed in the mouth, as I can match the gaps on either side of the blade when the mouth is tight to the blade. It may even help with tear out. Now I am wondering about chip clearance for the exiting wood.

    I am interested in how this CB placement might alter exiting shavings, particularly with the small slope in the LV chip breakers.

  2. #2
    I set the capiron just like you on my jack plane. This week I have been flattening some pieces of cherry. They were cupped and twisted a lot so I started with the jack plane. It left quite some tearout making it ugly but flat. Then I get the tryplane with a much straighter edge and the capiron set very close. This gets rid of most of the tearout quickly because I take a relatively thick shaving (a couple of thou thick).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    Make it one more for setting it close at the edges. Not many of my blades actually have cambers, but those that do are not for uses where one is counting on the chip breaker to be an effective force against tear out.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Milton, GA
    Posts
    3,213
    Blog Entries
    1
    So it sounds like I am being advised that I should expect to get some tear out with a cambered blade even with the chip breaker as I can't set it close enough for it to do the job with maximum efficiency. I have been thinking about setting a #5 up with a reasonable amount of camber for the heavy removal of wood and using the 5 1/2 more as a try plane like Kees mentions above. Then I could further reduce the camber in the #5 1/2 and have less tear out. The old coarse, medium and fine (jack-try-smooth) plane concept is classic for a reason. I think this is the method Derek has suggested, in another post & his site. I am not exactly surprised with this advise as I have been testing the limits of what I can do with the two Custom planes I bought in the last year.

    I have been pleasantly surprised at how well a Custom LV plane with a 40 degree frog and a chip breaker works at a wide range of planing chores, even end grain. I guess my next chore is to figure out whether to use the 5 1/2 as a jack or try plane and figure out what to use for the other job. I actually like the extra weight of the 5 1/2 when removing extra wood though. The extra blade width is capable of removing an equal amount of wood without having to go quite as deep too.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    1,550
    If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Covington View Post
    If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance
    I was thinking the same thing.
    "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

    “If you want to know what a man's like, take a good look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals.”

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    twomiles from the "peak of Ohio
    Posts
    12,120
    IMAG0002.jpgWhat I have for a cambered edge on a #5 jack plane, and
    IMAG0003.jpg
    Where I set the chipbreaker to.
    cambered Jack.jpg
    jack plane is a Stanley No.5c...think it is a early one. Maybe a 6 or a 7? It's main job here was to flatten a panel, wasn't the least worried about any tear-out, as I go across the grain. Then a #6 try plane to smooth out the valleys, and then a #4 smooth plane with the grain..
    lid.jpg
    And this is the panel I was working on.....

    Someone is trying to remove a large amount of wood, with a cambered iron......and worried about tear-out? How very strange.....

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Milton, GA
    Posts
    3,213
    Blog Entries
    1
    Stanley I actually made a post about whether or not it might make sense to camber the CB on a cambered blade. I have been trying to use the Custom 5 1/2 and Custom 4 for everything instead of the more common three plane system in an attempt to get better with all the "new" adjustments ASAP. I expect that when I expand the planes I use I will end up with a jack and try plane absolving the CB on the jack from any need to prevent tear out.

    Thanks for the photos Steven. That is a good deal more camber than the camber on my Veritas 5 1/2, more than I have on my Stanley #5, probably more than I have on my Stanley 5 1/4. Certainly when we start talking about camber there is a wide range of opinions regarding how much may or may not be useful. Now that I have a good grinding system I have been going a little wild experimenting with cambers.

    My idea with the Veritas Custom 5 1/2 was to try a wider plane blade with less camber vs a Stanley 5 1/4 with a greater camber. Deeper vs wider shavings if you will. I am admittedly "testing the limits".

    I have been concentrating my efforts on my two newer planes in an attempt to figure out the advantages and limitations vs the other planes I have. I may reduce my plane population in an effort to be more familiar with a lesser number of tools. I have the most experience with Veritas BU planes which I'm sure skews my objectivity towards the adjustment system for Veritas planes.

  9. #9
    [...
    Someone is trying to remove a large amount of wood, with a cambered iron......and worried about tear-out? How very strange.....[/QUOTE]

    I have to agree with Steven . Traditional scrub planes do not have back irons/chip breakers. BTW, a wood stock scrub is still the best tool for removing large amounts of wood. They are much better in use than a modded iron stock. My ECE scrub is over 30 years old and still in use, the sole is a little rough (0k very rough) but that makes no never mind it still does the job. Another Creeker has posted photos of his user after many years of use and the same story, rough looking but still does the job.

    Back to the original question: It also makes no never mind but it should be back far enough it doesn't jam with shavings or increase the effort to push the plane but close enough to allow the depth adjuster to work.

    ken

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Milton, GA
    Posts
    3,213
    Blog Entries
    1
    I tried to take a picture of the camber on my 5 1/2 blade. The wear marks on my CB and blade make it very difficult to see the camber on the 2 3/8" wide blade. Certainly not anything like a scrub or Steven's #5 above.
    Last edited by Mike Holbrook; 12-08-2016 at 10:59 PM.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Cedar Rapids Iowa
    Posts
    209
    I think the potential issue with shaping the chipbreaker is the curved end of the cap iron will not seat across the entire width of the blade when the chip breaker is cambered or curved to match the blade camber.

  12. #12
    I actually hadn't thought that much about it until I saw this post.

    I keep my CBs close to the corners of the camber but I use a very mild camber and almost never get tear out. Now my metal scrub plane is a different matter though I strive to keep the PM-V11 blade reasonably sharp and don't rush with stock removal.

    Like Allen mentioned, seems to me that messing around with a cambered chip breaker could really wreak havoc on the blade contact.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Longview WA
    Posts
    27,347
    Blog Entries
    1
    If one is cambering their blades it might be a good idea to consider the difference between a camber for rapid stock removal and the camber one would want on a smoother.

    Something like what Steven posted is a good camber to take out thick scallops of material.

    For smoothing one might consider a camber with a differential between the edges and center of only a few thousandths of an inch.

    This would allow for a close set chip breaker for tear out control.

    jtk
    "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty."
    - Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley Covington View Post
    If tearout prevention is your goal for the CB, best to shape CB to match cutting edge profile for better control and more predictable performance
    I would advice against shaping the capiron to conform to the camber of the iron. On a jack plane it is rather futile anyway. The camber is just way too much, the capiron would be sticking out from under the sole and the resistance increases exponentionally. Jack planing is hard enough work. It's goal is not a flawless surface, but rapid stock removal. You end up with furrows anyway, accept the tearout too.

    On a mildly cambered iron like for a try, jointer or smoothing plane it isn't neccessary either to shape the capiron. For starters it makes life unneccesarily complex to have to maintain two cambers and keeping them the same. And then it isn't neccessary because in the corners where the capiron approaches the edge, the shaving will be thinner or even non existant.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Kees Heiden View Post
    I would advice against shaping the capiron to conform to the camber of the iron. On a jack plane it is rather futile anyway. The camber is just way too much, the capiron would be sticking out from under the sole and the resistance increases exponentionally. Jack planing is hard enough work. It's goal is not a flawless surface, but rapid stock removal. You end up with furrows anyway, accept the tearout too.

    On a mildly cambered iron like for a try, jointer or smoothing plane it isn't neccessary either to shape the capiron. For starters it makes life unneccesarily complex to have to maintain two cambers and keeping them the same. And then it isn't neccessary because in the corners where the capiron approaches the edge, the shaving will be thinner or even non existant.
    The cambered cap iron is one of the great zombies of woodworking forums--no matter how many times you kill it, it comes back to life. I thought this thread did a pretty good job of taking apart the argument, though obviously not all agreed. And there have been numerous other threads over the past few years that made the same point.
    "For me, chairs and chairmaking are a means to an end. My real goal is to spend my days in a quiet, dustless shop doing hand work on an object that is beautiful, useful and fun to make." --Peter Galbert

Posting Permissions

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