Frog Position Question

[Stewie Simpson]

Derek; there are valid reasons why I bypassed you and posted Patrick this question.

[Nicholas Lawrence]

You may ask the same question about infill planes, such as Norris and Spiers, or woodies with tapered irons that end in a 3/16" thick bevel end. Why do you think that, Stewie? Why is Stanley the odd man out?

Regards from Perth

Derek

Serious question: Was there a purpose in the snide comment to Steve Newman? He may not think the solution to every problem lies in the LV/LN catalog, but he is consistently one of the most helpful members on this board, and as I read his answer he was trying to be helpful.

Likewise, is there a purpose in trying to pick a new fight with Stewie? Everybody knows you don't like each other and are never going to agree about anything. I do not see any constructive purpose in your comment. He is clearly trying to avoid a fight with you.

[don wilwol]

I also want to re-hone the original blade and try it with the LV cap iron just to see how it compares the LV PM-V11 blade.

Best idea yet!

[Joe A Faulkner]

Someone asked for pictures to help relate to the original question - what is the ideal frog position. In this blog post, Peter Sellers has a cross section view that illustrates my question.

https://paulsellers.com/2015/07/unde...n-your-throat/

If you set the frog back (south of the mouth) then the blade is going to rest on the back of the mouth, and the further you set the frog back will result in the blade no longer being fully seated on the bed of the frog - the front end of the blade will rest on the back of the mouth while the back end rests on the top of the frog.

I think my mistake was pulling the frog too far back. I did open the back of the mouth slightly and now have moved the frog up to where the blade is fully seated and also projects - getting good results. Thanks for the discussion and pointers on this topic.

[Pat Barry]

Someone asked for pictures to help relate to the original question - what is the ideal frog position. In this blog post, Peter Sellers has a cross section view that illustrates my question.

https://paulsellers.com/2015/07/unde...n-your-throat/

If you set the frog back (south of the mouth) then the blade is going to rest on the back of the mouth, and the further you set the frog back will result in the blade no longer being fully seated on the bed of the frog - the front end of the blade will rest on the back of the mouth while the back end rests on the top of the frog.

I think my mistake was pulling the frog too far back. I did open the back of the mouth slightly and now have moved the frog up to where the blade is fully seated and also projects - getting good results. Thanks for the discussion and pointers on this topic.

The original design idea was that the frog could be moved forward, if so desired to reduce the mouth opening, for example when dealing with tearout and wanting to take thin shavings, or to move it all the way back so that you could take very thick shavings and hog away the material. That alone shows the blade wasn't intended to ride on the mouth, although, some have taken to using the back of the mouth as additional blade support. It would take some effort to actually quantify the benefits of the additional support, although, based on the various anecdotal reports, some people believe there is a reasonable benefit and therefore take pains to ensure the blade is supported by the back of the mouth. I tend to agree, although for a thicker blade this is significantly less important.

[Derek Cohen]

Serious question: Was there a purpose in the snide comment to Steve Newman? He may not think the solution to every problem lies in the LV/LN catalog, but he is consistently one of the most helpful members on this board, and as I read his answer he was trying to be helpful.

Likewise, is there a purpose in trying to pick a new fight with Stewie? Everybody knows you don't like each other and are never going to agree about anything. I do not see any constructive purpose in your comment. He is clearly trying to avoid a fight with you.

Serious answer, Nicholas.

I am heartily sick and tired at the constant snipes of both Steven and Stewie, not just at me, but at other posters. Both have a common directive. Neither offer anything constructive, and instead just post criticism and negativity. When last did you read something from them that was not pushing a personal wheelbarrow? When I respond it is with a question or information pertinent to the topic.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[lowell holmes]

What ever happened to "adjust the frog, iron, and cap to produce translucent shavings" ?

Give me a break.

[Jim Koepke]

What ever happened to "adjust the frog, iron, and cap to produce translucent shavings" ?

Give me a break.

Some folks do not relish the idea of translucent shavings, feeling they are a useless waste of time. Actually they burn quite well and hot when used to start a fire on a cold morning.

Knowing when to set a plane for a thicker or thinner shaving is part of the knowledge of using a hand plane. A scrub plane has no need to take a translucent shaving. A plane used exclusively for final smoothing doesn't need to take 0.020" shavings, though there is no reason it shouldn't be able to be set up to do so with a few adjustments to its settings.

To me a translucent shaving is a good diagnostic tool. It can be used to diagnose blade condition and problems with other settings. They can also be used to determine if a plane's sole has problems.

Improving my planes and skill using them has greatly reduced my use of sandpaper.

To me, a translucent shaving is a thing of wonder and beauty. That others can not see this is not my loss.

jtk

[Patrick Chase]

Patrick; so why the need to match the thicker irons with a thicker 1/8" cap iron.

I've used thicker irons with Stanley-style sheet metal cap irons (and Veritas' "East German special" BD planes ship that way) with no problem, so I don't think there's a need to "match the thicker iron with a thicker... cap iron".

A more interesting question is whether you need to do the converse, i.e. match a thicker cap-iron with a thicker iron. While I haven't tried that combination I suspect that it would work. The main risk is that the iron would bend farther than intended when preloaded by the stiffer thick cap iron, but even that is far less of a real issue than many seem to assume.

[Stewie Simpson]

Thanks Patrick. Appreciate the value in your opinion.

regards Stewie;

[Derek Cohen]

There is a very simple explanation for both the thin Stanley plane blades and the thin and shaped Stanley cap iron. It is neither mysterious nor about performance. It is simply economics. Just visit the original patent ...

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.

[snip]

The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane.

[snip]
When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.

So there you have it. The magic of the shape of the Stanley cap iron was to use less steel (= economy) as an alternative to the cap irons with thin steel (= cost more). No mention of performance benefits of thin over thick.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Kees Heiden]

Economics were never far behind in the minds of the Stanley people! They had to, they were running a factory. And the Stanley planes were still at least twice as expensive as the wooden competition.

In practice another advantage is the reduced grinding time. When you have a good grinder, it doesn't matter a whole lot. But out in the field with just an India stone in your toolbox, it certainly makes a difference when repairing a nicked blade. I am not aware of any cutting performance advantages of a thin blade. It is more a case of just good enough.

[Graham Haydon]

The benefit of a thin iron in use was appreciated by many workers after the introduction thanks to economy in sharpening. Although it is not stated as a reason in the patent it does not undermine that the time save became appreciated by workers.
Thankfully designers at this point were driven by economy but not a reduction in quality of performance.

[Derek Cohen]

No argument from me, Graham. With regards sharpening, I would expect that a thin iron would have been a real boon to those in the field. Since the cap iron/chipbreaker was already an established method for controlling tearout, the Stanley/Bailey continued this method.

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Pat Barry]

There is a very simple explanation for both the thin Stanley plane blades and the thin and shaped Stanley cap iron. It is neither mysterious nor about performance. It is simply economics. Just visit the original patent ...

My object is to use Very thin steel plane-irons, and in so doing I nd that they are liable to buckle under the pressure of the cap, which causes them to chatter, and makes them otherwise imperfect; and my invention consists in the providing of an auxiliary point of contact between the cap and plane-iron, and at the point where the plane-irontends to buckle or rise from its bed or base, and thus have a pressure at that point in addition to that at the cutting-edge, which iirmly holds this thin plane-iron to its bed.

[snip]

The diiiiculty experienced from the construction of the capiro n with the single bend a, is, that it allows of vibration of the cap-iron and the plane-iron while in use, such vibration being productive of what joincrs term chattering, and consequent defective operation of the plane.

[snip]
When thick plane-irons are used,A their stiffness may resist the pressure of the cap' suiiiciently to `prevent Ebuckling or rising of the plane-iron from its bed; but in thinvsteel plane-irons which I use, the pressure of the cap upon the projecting portion of the plane-iron causes this portion to yield slightly, and of course produces buckling at some point behind, and generally close to the fulcrum. To prevent this buckling or rising, and still use the thin steel plane-irons, I put an extra bend in the cap, so that it shall have a point of impact with the thin steel at the place where it tends, from the pressure on its projecting edge, and the fulcrum behind that edge, to risefrom its bed, and thus I eifcctually prevent buckling and chatteriug, whilst I can avail myself of the economy of thin steel for the plane-irons.

So there you have it. The magic of the shape of the Stanley cap iron was to use less steel (= economy) as an alternative to the cap irons with thin steel (= cost more). No mention of performance benefits of thin over thick.

Regards from Perth

Derek

I didn't see any mention in the text of the use of the cap iron as a chip breaker! Was that actually stated somewhere in the patent or just figured out by folks later on?