Question About Bevel Up Planes and Chipbreakers

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

There was a nice video from David Weaver where he is planing with chipbreaker set too far, then too close and then at optimum distance to plane without tearout. That worth more than any words or books. Unfortunately, I cannot find it anymore (David removed it?). I also saw Kees Heiden video but David's video was more verbose

Without buzz on the forums, Veritas Custom planes would not be made the same way as they exist now... and I enjoy them very much. And the knowledge is just invaluable. Grateful, not sick, thanks to you guys.

There was also discussion on some Russian forum that I participated. I was pointed to a Russian book 100 years old that does describe double iron in all details, including this rule for optimum distance. Though, nobody actually tried that or was familiar with.

[Chris Parks]

There was a nice video from David Weaver where he is planing with chipbreaker set too far, then too close and then at optimum distance to plane without tearout. That worth more than any words or books. Unfortunately, I cannot find it anymore (David removed it?). I also saw Kees Heiden video but David's video was more verbose

Without buzz on the forums, Veritas Custom planes would not be made the same way as they exist now... and I enjoy them very much. And the knowledge is just invaluable. Grateful, not sick, thanks to you guys.

There was also discussion on some Russian forum that I participated. I was pointed to a Russian book 100 years old that does describe double iron in all details, including this rule for optimum distance. Though, nobody actually tried that or was familiar with.

As great as the internet is there are a lot of internets out there divided into language entities so we can't explore and learn if we don't speak the language.

[Warren Mickley]

As great as the internet is there are a lot of internets out there divided into language entities so we can't explore and learn if we don't speak the language.

We can learn from others even if we don't speak the language. It is nice to have people like Andrey Kharitonkin among us.

When Kees appeared and started participating on a forum that I followed, I asked him about strijk blok, because of my suspicion that the Dutch term is the origin of our strike block plane. Around December 2011 I asked him about the Dutch term for double iron, but he could not get interested. When I asked again six months later, after he had learned to use the double iron, he came up with a term, but said there were no references to the double iron in historic literature. When I came up with an old reference, he got interested and found more himself.

I think a serious researcher of historic woodworking would have to know French because of the wealth of important literature in that language. And at one time when I was researching oil stones I found pre 1700 references to oil stones in seven languages (not that I knew those languages).

By the way Andrey, how do you write double iron and oil stone in Russian? What are the earliest Russian references to these terms that you know?

[Chris Parks]

Warren, as much as you might want to deeply investigate in another language the lack of fluency will stop you. I watch a lot of foreign video but text is beyond me due to no language skills.

[glenn bradley]

And that is the bit I don't understand. All the planes I watched my Grandfather and Father use had chipbreakers they being the generic Stanley design. Is it better to say that it was not understood enough to be fully utilised or am I totally off the track.

I believe Derek is referring to the use of the chip breaker as a result-enhancing part of the tool and not just something to hold the iron down. The chip breakers weren't absent, just not very well used by many folks who used (or tried to use) hand planes. At some point, folks on the forums I visit started to focus on the chip breaker; position, grind, quality, position, position, position . . . . People got pretty focused on it.

[Todd Stock]

This baffles me. Common knowledge in a couple of WW communities, including my grandpa's shop and his neighbors ("Set it close for fine work, boy...close yer mouth."), every boatbuilder and interior joiner that I met in Eastport's yards (all ex Trumphy guys), and the folks that were part of the first wave of modern hobbyist hand tool woodworkers that constituted the charter subscribers for and fueled by FWW and Woodenboat. I never jumped on the BU bandwagon, nor did most of the folks I've kept in touch with over the years, so no loss of what a CB is for and use, but I can see the case for lots of folks entered the hobby during the period where some parties were touting the BU plane as a panacea for all ills and a boon for the frugal. Without the need to make old Stanleys or new Records work well, there is certainly a case to be made that the knowledge was never gained and thus not available within that ecosystem. Not suggesting that there are not thought leaders on various fora that educate the membership, but I try not to confuse forums as being representative of the broader community of craftsman...there are many in both woodworking in general and luthier that have opted out of an electronic second life for more time in the shop.

[Chris Parks]

You are saying that no one understood chip breakers before wood working forums happened? What actually happened was people who had no background or formal training in wood working began to realise that chip breakers had a purpose and had not had any experience in fine tuning double iron planes. in that context they assumed they had made a momentous discovery.

[Todd Stock]

I have to wonder who all those improved aftermarket chip breakers which appeared in the late 1980's and later were sold to and why.

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

As great as the internet is there are a lot of internets out there divided into language entities so we can't explore and learn if we don't speak the language.

Not so easy, yes. Impossible - no. Some people post in English on foreign forums and get reasonable answers in bad English. Searching for some term is difficult indeed as it might be not in dictionary. But, as Warren said, making international friends helps greatly. Making friends speaking different languages and working in different professions is yet more helpful. Not to forget that living in different countries they can help with buying something that is not available in your country. Possibilities are endless... if only I could have more free time for my curiosity...

Google translator is easy to master. I use it a lot for German. Sometimes I shout swear words while searching in German but eventually I get it.

I mentioned sources in other language because it might be interesting for someone for cross referencing. In that Russian book that was published in 1901 I found many other interesting things. For example:

• a picture of kerfing plane
• a picture of Veritas Mk1 Honing Guide
• American hand tools - Stanley planes, Starrett combination square, Stanley odd jobs
• German and English wooden hand planes
• sharpening on sanding blocks (known nowadays as "scary sharpening")

• reference to sharpening stones - Washita, "Turkish" stones, "Arkansas" and "Mississipy"

After reading it I had impression that nothing is new today.

By the way Andrey, how do you write double iron and oil stone in Russian? What are the earliest Russian references to these terms that you know?

Hey Warren. In that book sharpening chapter is rather small. But it only describes grinder stones and oil stones that I mentioned above (and nothing about water stones). So far, that is the oldest source that I have read. But I can post such question on some forums. My grandparents in country side did very coarse sharpening with grinder stones.

Some translations to Russian:

iron (in cutting tool) = железко
double iron = двойное железко
cap iron = горбатик
chipbreaker = стружколом
blade = лезвие
grinder = точило
sharpening stone = заточной камень
oil sharpening stone = масленный заточной камень

[David farmer]

The first photo is my old Powermatic 180 planer. The second and third are an unusual 2 sided jointer,(Shimohira) I bought after it was left for dead at an industrial trade show in 1992.
I would install two freshly sharpened sets of knives in both machines and face joint a difficult grained board glass smooth only to have the planer produce tear-out on the opposite side of the same board. When the high angle hand plane craze hit, I was sure cutting angle was the explanation for the huge difference in performance. I was confused to find it was identical on both machines.
Two decades later, (chip breaker returns plane craze?) I realized, 1. The japanese machine manufacturers never forgot it's effectiveness and 2. it is just as effective on a machine cutterhead as a hand plane. The chip breaker on the Shimohira is extremely close and is designed so it can only be set up that way. It simply will not produce tear out on anything I've run over it.
I hope the difference is visible in the photographs.
WIN_20170604_12_48_54_Pro.jpg
WIN_20170604_12_49_53_Pro.jpg
WIN_20170604_12_50_40_Pro.jpg

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

I have to wonder who all those improved aftermarket chip breakers which appeared in the late 1980's and later were sold to and why.

Todd, there were longest threads on this subject a few years ago. Aftermarket chip breakers have bevel at 30 degree (Stanley chip breaker shape comes about 45 degree). And some had notch for depth adjuster that would not allow to set it close to cutting edge. That is what I've read on forums...

I have complementary thing to wonder about as to how it could happen that in recent years some books and articles in WW magazines were written saying that cap iron is just to "stiffen the iron" and such and nobody dared to correct that. Nobody told Christopher Schwarz, for example, when he wrote in his blog that chipbreaker is just trouble that jams plane's mouth. If knowledgeable people didn't say anything that is the same as they didn't exist at that time and the knowledge was lost to followers... temporary. Double wonder

Maybe nobody told to Veritas or Lee-Nielsen plane makers either, I might be wrong but I have impression they also discovered or rediscovered that on the forums Some infill plane makers also... Ignorance has to be actively fought.

[Jim Koepke]

Ignorance has to be actively fought.

Some in the grasp of ignorance wish to remain in the zone of comfort ignorance provides.

Others will seek ways out of the zone with a desire to improve their efforts.

jtk

[Andrey Kharitonkin]

Some in the grasp of ignorance wish to remain in the zone of comfort ignorance provides.

Others will seek ways out of the zone with a desire to improve their efforts.

jtk

I think in case of chipbreaker quest most of us did alright, just needed the right teacher

[Jim Koepke]

I think in case of chipbreaker quest most of us did alright, just needed the right teacher

Most did alright. There are still a few holdouts insisting that setting the chip breaker to control tear out is a bunch of hooey. (Sorry for the international readers hooey is a pile of $#!+)

jtk

[Brian Holcombe]

David, that has to be unnerving to operate a machine with two cutter heads. That is a good illustration, in fact the video commonly referred to when this topic comes up is actually geared toward super surfacers, slightly different but helps to make the case that the Japanese manufacturers were well aware of the effect of tight set chip breakers. I've seen machinery from Japan that produces an enviable finish and not just in the way of super surfacers.