This pictorial article is too long for my blog on FWW, sooo …
… it is on my website:
http://www.inthewoodshop.com/ShopMadeTools/BuildingAJackPlane.html
It is long, but largely pictures covering just about all.
I hope it proves helpful in building your own.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 8/2/2009 12:58 pm ET by derekcohen
Replies
Derek, a gorgeous plane, but that link doesn't seem to work.
Norman
Thanks Norman. The link is now fixed.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Link worked for me!
Derek,
Nice job. great photo progression-hardly needs text.
especially liked the brass plate.
Boiler
Derek,
I looked up the writeup on your website. Very nice indeed, and I am sure you enjoyed making it, and solving the problems such as amount of camber.
So here is a question for you. I believe the answer will be "either way works. Do what you like best." But I'll ask you take on the question.
I have an old Stanley #4 an old Stanley #7 which I refurbished. I have been using a small camber on them. I used Charlesworth's method, and it worked fine.
Two nights ago, I got the urge to try something else. I thought I would grind a square edge, and hone straight, and just knock of the corners. Then I tried both of them out. Very nice. I don't think I was crushing any fibers at the corners, and when I overlapped strokes and went across the surface, I didn't feel any tracks. Both took a very nice full (or almost full) shaving which was quite thin.
Any thoughts on knocking off the corners rather than using camber?
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Any thoughts on knocking off the corners rather than using camber?
Hi Mel
This is a jack plane not a smoother.
The aim of adding camber on a smoother is to prevent track marks from the corners of the blade. A fine camber (equal to a shaving height at the corners) is sufficient for this purpose. This is better than just knocking off edges of the blade as the latter can still leave track marks - which is likely when a blade is canted over. A camber does not have an edge that can cause such problems.
When it comes to adding camber to a jack plane, the aim is to reduce the width of the shaving and increase the depth of the cut. This is a plane to remove waste, in the same way (but less extreme) as a scrub plane. It is a balance between depth and width, nevertheless (hence my modifiying the 8" to a 10" radius).
By way of comparison, a scrub plane uses a 3" radius on a blade width of 1 1/2". The C&W jack plane, from memory, has a blade that is 1 3/4" wide - again to focus on a deeper cut.
So, I'm afraid, this is not a case of "either way works".
Regards from Perth
Derek
Derek,
Thank you very much.
I know your plane (and it is a beauty) is a jack plane, and I know the functions of a jack. I use a wooden #6 for what you use a jack plane for (stock removal). Then I move to a #7 and finally a #4.My question must have been poorly worded. I really wasn't asking about camber on a jack. By the way, that looks like a nice thick blade on yours. My question was about a smoother. I have been using my #5 1/2 LN as more of an uber smoother than a Jack, and keep a nice slight camber on it (ala Charlesworth - pressing in all five positions). It works beautifully. But then I read Moxon's old book, and reread Planecraft, and saw a video by Lonnie Bird. Lonnie says he doesn't round a smoother, he just knocks the corners off. I saw Deneb give a demo and he said that he leaves his smoothers square - no camber, no rounded corners.I felt the board that Deneb smoothed and couldn't feel any tracks. I am coming to the conclusion that anything works. It didn't take much less time to round the corners of my smoother than it did to camber it (a few seconds).Anyway, I was wondering what your take on all of this is. I think I understand. You like a slight cambering on a smoother in case the plane is canted. I understand that and it sounds logical. So I guess the way Deneb got excellent results with a square iron was "skill".
I wasn't losing any sleep over this, just wondering.
Thanks,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
Camber is curvature in two planes - across the edge and in thickness. A cambered iron will vary in thickness across its width. Therefore, one would have to start with a blade of sufficient thickness to achieve any meaningful camber. I don't think a standard Stanley plane iron is thick enough to accept a meaningful amount of camber. The curvature in plan view (not in section which is camber) is doing almost all of the heavy lifting when a standard Stanley is pressed into service as a scrub plane.
Making a plane iron narrower by grinding off the edges to an obvious and pronounced curve will always result in an easier cut simply because less wood is being removed vs. an iron that has simply had the edges dubbed very slightly. This is a good bit of the reason why a scrub plane works so well - the iron is simply narrower to begin with, there is less metal contacting wood.
Edited 8/3/2009 6:09 am ET by CStanford
Charles,
Thanks for the info on camber. I have been just rounding the edge a bit on the 1000 and 8000 grit waterstones. Not much of a curve. You can see the center of a shaving is a bit thicker than the edges, but not much. I am positive that there was no thinning of the blade at the edges -- not with only a half dozen passes over the two stones I mentioned. It worked well for smoothing - no tracks.I suppose that when you have something working well enough, you should leave it alone, but my nature does not allow that. I have the urge to try different ways just to satisfy myself. Given that I am not trying to make money at this, it isn't really a waste of time. Also, it is taking me longer to write about it than it took to do it. No more than two minutes on the grinder and then the two stones. I don't think the blade is has significantly less length than it did before I "slightly" rounded the two corners by making a few passes over the side of the 1000 and 8000 grit stones. So I don't notice it is any easier to push. Indeed, it wasn't all that hard either way. I am probably taking off less than a thousandth.So Charles, do you leave your smoother blade flat, do you just knock off a hair on the edges, or do you do a bit of cambering? Or is this question just so trivial that it isn't worth thinking about?Please do not mince words.
Laissez les bon temps roullez.Thanks,
MelMeasure your output in smiles per board foot.
A real scrub plane, with a reasonable setting of the iron, only contacts the wood at about the middle one-third of the iron. This is the biggest reason they can go pretty deep in one pass, the other being the thickness of the iron and the pronounced camber even over the relatively small part of the iron that actually does any cutting.I use mine less and less but still value what it can do for me. It would be possible, as others have pointed out, to do without one and apparently in the English hand tool woodworking tradition there was no scrub plane as we know it - only heavily cambered jacks which perhaps at some point of cambered-ness could/would be called a scrub (?). How's that for chasin' yer' tail?My smoother, jack, and jointer are all ground to what pretty much looks like a curve to my eye. The jack a little more curved, I think. I don't get too anal about it. The corners don't dig in and produce tracks so I'm good with it.
Edited 8/3/2009 11:08 am ET by CStanford
Charles writes, "Camber is curvature in two planes - across the edge and in thickness. A cambered iron will vary in thickness across its width. ..."
That's the first time I've ever seen such a definition. Do you have a traditional source for this use?
Hell Larry, just look at a cambered blade with your own eyes. It's ground to a curve in its thickness and its edge from corner to corner. It's a compound curve.
Measure the thickness in the middle and at the edges - you'll see what I mean. Grab an L-N or an ECE cutter for their respective scrubbers and look at it head on.
Edited 8/5/2009 10:11 am ET by CStanford
Hi Charles
I don't have blade in front of me, so I am just visualising the cutting end. What you are describing suggests a thinning of the metal at the sides. That does not sound correct to me. Rather, the bevel curves - but it does so evenly.
Here is a chisel that is ground straight across. The grind is even in thickness. No compound curve ...
View Image
Now here is the jack blade (with the 8" radius). It is still even in thickness as when grinding the blade was arced on the rest. You can see the thickness follows the camber. No compund curve.
View Image
Perhaps you grind yours differently?
Regards from Perth
Derek
I do grind mine differently. You've turned yours into just another thick plane iron, but I don't doubt it'll work.I don't have nearly the camera you have and doubt that I can reproduce a photo with the kind of resolution to show what I'm talking about.
Edited 8/6/2009 10:48 am ET by CStanford
I do grind mine differently. You've turned yours into just another thick plane iron, but I don't doubt it'll work.
Now Charles, you cannot leave it at that. You infer that you have a better design for the blade grind. Well enquiring minds want to know more.
If you cannot take a photo, then what about a sketch. I know you are a dab hand with a pencil and pad.
Anyone else do this differently?
Regards from Perth
Derek
cam⋅ber /ˈkæmView Imagebər/ View Image Show Spelled Pronunciation [kam-ber] View Image Show IPA
Use camber in a Sentence
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
1.
to arch slightly; bend or curve upward in the middle.
–noun
2.
a slight arching, upward curve, or convexity, as of the deck of a ship.
3.
a slightly arching piece of timber
Have fun figgerin' it out.
Edited 8/6/2009 5:59 pm ET by CStanford
Hi Charlie
That is not helpful. Why not simply just post the information? Why the games?
We all know what "camber" means. There is no need to be condescending. Did you read my article? You would have seen these pictures ..
Image of blade with straight bevel marked out for grinding (8" radius here) ..
View Image
Image of blade being ground - note that the blade is held flat on the rest and the grinding of the camber had begun at the sides ...
View Image
Here is the cambered blade with honed microbevel. It looks very cambered to me ...
View Image
This is what a cambered blade looks like in a plane mouth ..
View Image
And just to make sure you are aware it is cambered, then here it is against a square edge ..
View Image
That's a 1/16" lowering of the bevel at each corner of the 2" wide blade. Here we have a 10" radius (modified from the 8", which was too much for a blade this width).
Now please tell us what you do that is different. Even better still, show us ... or are you going to continue your game of telling the world how they should do things, then run like mad when you are asked for a real life example?
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 8/7/2009 9:46 am ET by derekcohen
Grind and hone it kind of like an out-cannel carving gouge (that's really what it is). Don't use a wheel. Use your belt sander or a sanding disk. Hollow grind not good in this instance, IMO.
Tage Frid just rocked it across a belt sander - like a boat rocking from port to starboard and back. Like rocking a cradle. He uses the term "convex" in his book and that's what he did in practice.
Nice pics. I have Kajillion Pixel Nikon Envy.
Shape it through its thickness like the backside of a spoon, except the curve will be much gentler.
Cheers, you'll have it then - a wood scooping machine.
Have fun.
Edited 8/8/2009 10:37 am ET by CStanford
Hi Charles (and all)
I have just come across this Blog post by Christopher Schwarz on grinding a fore/jack plane blade. If his is typical (identical to mine), then you are suggesting something quite unusual.
http://blog.woodworking-magazine.com/blog/Sharpen+A+Fore+Plane.aspx
A picture is important. The quality of the camera is far less important if you steady it. I have used my telephone camera at times! I do not own a Nikon.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Yes.
I breezed through the article looking for the word "CAMBER". Unless I am mistaken it isn't there- because he isn't cambering his blade, he is merely imparting an 8 inch radius profile with bevel ground at 30° or whatever, same as you describe. Quite normal, I think.
I can't for the life of me think what has got into Dear Charles- of all people, here he is, grinding in two planes. Something quite unnecessary, I believe. Most out of character. And on a hand powered grinder too.....Mind boggling. (;)
Cameras? All the rules seem to have gone out of the window when digitals appeared. Delightful. I used to think it was mandatory to use tripods or a steady of some sort for slow speeds but see these pictures- all at 1/10 and similar and just handandbreathe held, with el cheapo digital. Philip Marcou
Again, you cannot effectively achieve a camber through the thickness by using a wheel unless it has a bloody large diameter. It's just a gentle eyebrow shape through the thickness you're going for.Just rock your scrub plane iron on a belt sander and look at it head on until you get a nice curve through the thickness. Then proceed to grind the radius. They are two completely different things. Put it this way - I can cut a radius into a scrub plane iron shaped piece of paper with a pair of scissors. However, I could never camber the paper since it effectively has no thickness in this context. See? Perhaps that's what you should do - draw the desired radius of your scrubber on a piece of paper and cut it out. Now tell me how you are going to introduce the camber part of the equation.You guys are simply putting a heavy radius on a thick iron and a radius is not camber. Will a thick iron with a pronounced radius remove material? Sure. But it isn't radiused and cambered. With due respect, this whole exercise will be somewhat difficult for you Derek because it cannot be effectively jigged (IMO) and there is a slight chance of having the cambering show the hand of the person doing the grinding, and not be "picture perfect" at all points on the cambered surface (though the iron will be perfectly effective).If Chris Schwartz doesn't do something I wouldn't necessarily call it unusual. He's not my personal 'sanity check' (Frid, et al. work for me), so I can't really engage you on what Chris does or does not do since I don't accept him as an authority, or more charitably why go to Chris when bona fide authorities have already spoken on the matter?It appears to me that the vast majority of internet sources on the matter pretty quickly confuse the terminology early in their presentation(s) - a simple radius across the edge is dubbed "camber" I assume because it sounds more mysterious and learned.I can grind radiuses (radii) into plane irons all day long and never introduce one iota of camber during the entire exercise.There's an old FW thread from the UBB days of the forum on this whole subject and, gasp, this was before Chris Schwartz became a household name.
Edited 8/10/2009 2:27 pm ET by CStanford
Charles, that's just plane wrong. Pun intended.How do you bed this curved-back iron? Bedding is pretty critical, you know. Do you also grind out a hollow in the face--make a gouge of it? That's where this would would actually have some effect but then there's no way to secure the iron in place. There's so much wrong with the whole idea, I don't know where to start. Can you cite a single old source for this?There have been a lot of things discussed around here at times but simply discussing it here doesn't have a lot to do with reality.
Nope, can't cite a source other than Frid. But that doesn't mean one doesn't exist, either.Cut a radius with a pair of scissors on one piece of paper roughly the dimensions of a scrub plane iron. Now figure out how to camber it. Then think about how you'd camber it if you cut out and stacked two hundred little sheets of paper. Cutting all the little sheets of paper to the same radius and then stacking them is not camber.You don't think it would be effective, but I seem to recall more than a few posts of yours debating scrub planes, generally, so I'm not sure why you've decided to get involved.
Edited 8/10/2009 2:45 pm ET by CStanford
I may be having trouble keeping the geometry straight in my mind, but as I understand this conversation, the difference is between a radius arc with the same bevel angle at every point versus a radius arc with a bevel angle that varies somewhat along its length given how the blade arc was produced.
Compare for example the the result of using LV's barrel rollered guide as opposed to the result produced on a wheel or belt. Wouldn't the two yield slightly different results given how blade is moved in each instance in relation to the sharpening abrasive?
I'm not sure how this affects the blade in use much, but I can imagine a perceivable difference in the bevel angles along the lengths of the blade arc?
Edited 8/10/2009 2:46 pm ET by Samson
True and what's even more mind-boggling (maybe) is that for a given radius and thickness of plane iron there are different amounts of camber that can be introduced. You'd think that a given radius would lock you in but it doesn't.
Edited 8/10/2009 2:54 pm ET by CStanford
Charles,
It would be easy to grind both radius and camber on a belt grinder, to my mind anyway.And on a wheel but it would need to be a very thick one.
But what is the point? What are the advantages over a simple radius profile? A radiused blade is already able to take very thick shavings without undue effort, so why the extra complication?
Which book of Frid's has mention of this technique, I don't see it in his books that I have.Philip Marcou
From the previous posts on the radiused vs cambered blade, I surmise that the cambered blade is a) flat on the back and b) has a variable bevel angle at different points along the edge.
So first, am I surmising correctly?
If so, what purpose would a variable angle have and what guidance would you give on how that angle should vary across the cutting edge?
Thanks,
Randy
Randy,"has a variable bevel angle at different points along the edge"
An (accurately) variable angle provides the same (effective) cutting angle along the whole cutting edge. The iron has to be ground with the bevel (dihedral) angle smallest at the center of the curved cutting edge, and increasing toward the edges of the iron. This assumes that the plane is pushed in the direction of its axis, i.e., not skewed.According to the dictionary definition of camber (this meaning: "slight convex curve of a surface, as of a road"), a straight edged iron can have camber. It can easily be produced by freehand honing, and just as easily avoided by using various honing guides.Note that the 'automotive' definition of camber means something completely different than the 'surface' definition.The term 'camber' (as does any other word for that matter) can be used as a name (definition!) for other entities as well. When a 'receiver' is unsure about the precise meaning of a particular word, s/he should check with the 'sender'. Sorry for the long (non-woodworking) post. Best wishes,
Metod
Thanks Metod. Just so I am clear, no one is suggesting that the bottom of the blade is flat while the top of the blade has an arch, right? The camber is really an effective camber, produced by artful hand grinding/honing of a radiused blade, right? And the effective angle where the blade meets the wood is somewhat confounded by the likelihood that the blade is pushed in a skewed fashion. I am sceptical that any of this can make a difference in a slightly radiused (whether cambered or not) blade for a jack (ala this thread).
Can the effect be further confounded by planing while driving in a car with cambered wheels? [One recalls (and winces at) the classic Saturday Night Live skit about performing a delicate operation in the back of a car to prove how smooth the ride is.]
Cheers,
Randy
Randy,
It looks that the term 'camber' is used for a variety of concepts. Some uses are 'standard' (found in dictionaries), other are 'local'. All that counts for me is that the sender and receiver agree to the meaning of the term. In Derek's case (the recipient of Charlie's gibberish), Derek uses the term 'locally'. He shows the picture of his 'cambered' iron. This way I know exactly what he means by 'camber', and could not care less whether that meaning is listed in dictionaries. If the iron cuts well, the better.Cambered tires...there was, some years go, a TV ad (not meant as a joke) for a car (I can't remember which), showing a smiling rabbi relieved that he did not mess up the bris performed in the moving car. The ad did not mention the size (in degrees or radians...) of the camber.According to the mentioned dictionary use: Look at the bevel surface (that, together with the iron's back, forms the cutting edge, curved or straight). Place a straight edge at various points across the bevel surface, perpendicular to the cutting edge. If it never rocks, you have no camber. Another picture: a 'cupped' board could be called a 'cambered' board - and be consistent with the dictionary use.
Note that, in this sense, camber is independent of the radius of the cutting edge (if perfectly circular) and of the bevel angle.Typically, for near straight cutting edges, one tries to minimize the amount of camber - that's why honing guides are used and popular. When you grind or hone freehand, the camber produced is not an act of 'art' but of 'not being good at freehanding' :-).Best wishes,
Metod
Ahh, clarity! thanks
Metod has explained the differences between the two profiles. Meanwhile Charles has disappeared into the sunset- so who can explain or demonstrate any practical advantages of the "complication" over the normal radiused edge?Philip Marcou
I guess the advantages, if any, would follow from the varying bevel angles. On a bevel down plane, what is the optimum angle bevel angle for shearing the wood efficiently? Assuming lower angles are to be strived for, but higher angles often necessary for strength and surability, it might be posited that a varying angle arrived at through rolling the blade to achieve the radius might keep the blade strongest where it takes the most heat and wear - in the center, but achieves the improved cutting action at the adjeacent points where their is less wear. Just a thought. I dunno if in the real world the truth is that it's 6 of one and half dozen of the other.
I guess that is correct in theory, but the focus of attention turned to blades ground for use in scrubbing work, so the advantage I would look for in order to justify the extra fuss is being able to achieve maximum cut with minimum effort- and I don't see it happening with this double grind thing at all.
So for me it is a radiused profile for scrub planing as described by Derek (except that he should omit the word "cambered")------------ and the only instance as far as I know for grinding a camber or profile shaped liked a finger tip is on bowl turning gouges .
I think Charles may have read too many woodworking comics and has got confused.(;)Philip Marcou
I don't think that what Charles is proposing is necessarily requires any "extra fuss." It all depends upon the equipment you have at hand and your experience and comfortable work methods. Indeed, it might be much harder to arrive at Derek's uniform bevel if you lacked a jig or rest and grinder. In short, there is nothing too fussy about either method as I see it. I guess the question is whether there is any advantage to the result obtained by either. Maybe Derek could test it? Or maybe Rob Lee or some other sharpening guru who understands the nuances intuitively could opine?
"I guess the question is whether there is any advantage to the result obtained by either."
There is no doubt that a radiused profile is highly advantageous-that is why it is used for when roughing out /removing material as fast as possible.
What is in (serious) doubt is whether there is anything to be gained by grinding/belt grinding a camber in addition, which does include some extra work and attention.
I don't agree that it would be harder to achieve a radiused profile (Derek's) -but one does need either a bench grinder or preferably a belt grinder: one merely scribes the arc and sets the tool rest angle-no need for a jig unless there is some screaming need for uniformity from one blade to the next. It's bevel down, so the actual angle is not critical , as long as there is sufficient clearance.Very simple....
I would test it but I (intuitively) feel it is not worth the bother.Philip Marcou
Not me.
If I could competently hand-hone a continously variable bevel angle, I'm sure my gray matter would turn to soot trying to figure out what changing skew angles were doing to effective blade angles.
I'll remain conventionally radiused, thank you.
Randy
You are welcome. Sorry for my wordiness.
Best wishes,
Metod
"A perfect cut. . . Waaaaaaa"
Charles,
apart from the semantics, are you telling the assembled legions that you grind a profile that resembles a bowl turning gouge profile, but not so accentuated? Lawd save us all.Philip Marcou
Charles,I am equally interested in what your cambered blades look like. I suspect that the bevel is wider at the edges. Here's a picture of my cambered blade (25 degree bevel) out of my LA jack. You may notice that it looks funny, with a wierd bevel at the top of the bevel (away from the edge). This is residual from the original flat grind as it has not yet been removed in my sharpenings. Or, on second thought, it may be the result of my repeated honings of the hollow-ground blade. But still, you get the idea. Hopefully.Chris @ http://www.flairwoodworks.com and http://www.flairwoodwork.spaces.live.com)
- Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success. If you love what you are doing, you will be successful. - Albert Schweitzer
Charles,
"Camber is curvature in two planes - across the edge and in thickness."Why don't you look up the conventional (dictionary) definitions of the words before you use them. Your (above) usage is a showcase of gibberish.I am sorry for not taking the time to express my thought in a more gentle way.Take care,
Metod
Edit: You can use one of your 'schizo-user names" to read this or other messages...to maintain an image that you did not get it or 'get it'.
Edited 8/12/2009 9:35 am ET by Metod
Derek,
Nicely done. I enjoyed your journey.
Cheers,
Seth
Derek,
Great stuff. Haven't started on mine yet but hope to get to it this fall. The pictures cleared up many things for me.
Any thoughts/suggestions on a low angle version?
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Derek:
You did a terrific job on the jack plane and the write up. Very nice looking plane, I can see the HNT Gordon influence. The brass wear plate was a good idea. I figured you’d find the time to construct your plane before I could finish up mine (the Ron Brese iron keeps calling to me, but my wife's voice is a little louder). I would like to hear your thoughts on the benefits (or lack thereof) of the razee shape in use.
gdblake
I would like to hear your thoughts on the benefits (or lack thereof) of the razee shape in use.
Hi Gregory
Just my thoughts ...
My preference is for planes with a low centre of effort. Bevel up planes, where the drive is from low down, epitomise this. It is also one reason, I believe, that the LV totes can be so vertical - the plane only need to be pushed forward, and less emphasis on downward pressure. This is made easier still when the plane is on the heavier side of the norm.
With bevel down planes the bed angles are much higher, and the totes are generally angled for a downward push. This creates a higher centre of effort. Some planes are designed to reduce the centre of effort by lowering the height of the body (eg. Japanese and Chinese planes). The original HNT Gordon range is essentially a Malaysian design. The newer range (with a Stanley tote) are more Western-orientated and it is interesting that they now incorporate a razee design. In my understanding, the razee serves to lower the centre of effort.
Whether the lower centre of effort is a desirable or not is another matter. I would anticipate that Larry Williams would argue for a higher centre of effort, in common with his 18C reproductions, and he does have a valid point. My view is that it is horses for courses. A high centre of effort will benefit one's ability to tune into the vertical orientation, and this is important when using a jointer on an edge. On the other hand, a low centre of effort also increases feedback, which some (myself) prefer, especially when using a smoother. On a jack, such as the one here, I saw this as a way to increase the ease of forward drive (as the plane will be used to take thick shavings in hardwood). As I pointed out in my own feedback, a characteristic of this plane is that it feels so well balanced and easy to push.
It would be good to hear the opinions and thoughts of others on this matter.
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 8/5/2009 1:20 am ET by derekcohen
Edited 8/5/2009 1:22 am ET by derekcohen
Take care.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled