Metod,
Looks pretty.
I assume from the apparent bed angle, that this is a bevel up plane, yes?
As for adjustment with a hammer, will you be able to reach the blade with the hammer? It appears that the rear handle is in the way.
The rear handle is, I think, unique enough that you should be able to create your own terminology for it. It is not a tote, but handle doesnt describe it adequately either.
Maybe we should have a contest to name it. (grinnnn)
In any case, I should like to know how it works. Closest thing to it I have seen is the ancient roman plane, and the wooden version that Chris Schwarz built. Though those had what I would term “presser handles”.
The mouth is exceptionally clever and I do think you should consider a patent for it.
Good job!
Mike
Replies
You usually tap the plane body, not the iron. Inertia tries to keep the iron in its original position and when the body moves, the iron slides a bit, with the direction determined by the direction of the blow to the plane. Hit the front and the iron moves forward (down), hit it from behind and it moves back (up).
Kinda like driving the head of an axe onto the handle, hit the handle, not the head?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Kinda, and right now, I can't think of any other metaphors.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Hitting a woodie for adjustment is one thing, but hitting a metal body plane is quite another.Ron BreseIf you're too open minded your brains will fall out.
"but hitting a metal body plane is quite another"That's true and I wouldn't recommend using a metal hammer on a metal plane.
"I cut this piece four times and it's still too short."
Regarding the side screws, aren’t those the same as the Lee Valley planes?
http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.aspx?c=2&p=44751&cat=1,41182,41187&ap=1
Metod,
What about putting the blade on an axle and motorizing it!
Can you make it so that the blade is self-honing?
Since we now have CNC machines, why do we need planes any more? Isn't this sort of like making a better buggy whip?
Have fun.
No seriousness in this message. Just my way of saying "Hi".
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Metod,
Good to hear from you.
I have the game of Go.
It is a humbling game.
I think you know that I am a BIG fan of excellence in tools. I especially admire those few people who truly enjoy finding ways to make great tools even better. You and Philip and that other guy, Holtey? are my Gods.
I hope that you actually build the plane. Give it a try.
Keep up the good fight. You are a leader.
Mel
Measure your output in smiles per board foot.
Metod,
Chris's roman plane is in his blog in popularwoodworking magazine.
http://blogs.popularwoodworking.com/editorsblog/CategoryView,category,Read%20other%20entries%20by%20Christopher%20Schwarz.aspx
This should get you there, scroll down to November 2006 to see a pic, I think he covered it in that issue of the magazine as well, with more pictures. The review was actually on the Hock plane kit.
BTW, I never had much success advancing the blade by striking the body, retracting yes, but not advancing. Maybe it's my technique but...
Mike
Metod,
Wood would certainly be good for a "proof of concept" model.
It would be the best way to really get a feel for how the handles work when actually pushing a blade through wood.
Not sure why a low angle would be a greater stress on the bedding area though, my initial thought is that the total force vector would bisect the angle twixt the cutting bevel and the plane bottom, varying slightly (very slightly!) as the plane goes over the minute dips that a smoothing plane sees.
Since the presentation angle of the cutting bevel will still be in the 45 ot 60 degree zone, and since wooden planes have been the norm longer than metal, you may be over analyzing it. Still wood is easy to cut, and try, and if there is an issue, then you know how to fix it.
The handles (wing grips?) are the new interface between man and machine here, I would think that you should give that a try first. I have little fear that the mouth piece would not work as advertised, so to simplify you could leave that off at first.
Maybe you could put a metal blade in your prototype and give it a go?
Good Luck, and let us know what you find out,
Mike
Metod
How have you experimented with this tote/knob set up in your design? I ask because of my experience - and personal preference (your mileage may vary!) - with bevel up planes verses bevel down planes.
A while back I built a bevel up smoother out of a Stanley #3. It looked like this:
View Image
The rear hand hold is over the blade and close to the lever cap screw. While this sounds as if it would be uncomfortable it is not. For a while, however, I toyed with the idea of adding a cap, such as on this infill of Brian Buckner:
View Image
I actually did build this grip but, when using it, found that it the "feel" was so different - too high now, and I lost the intimacy that comes from a BU plane.
This is not something that I have seen in print anywhere, so I am not sure that it is my perception alone, but the reason that I enjoy using BU planes is for their low centre of gravity. Now I am sure that Larry Williams will argue that his BD planes, with their high centre of gravity, are the easier to orientate in the vertical axis - and I will not challenge this - nor would I argue that one mode is better than another. All I am saying is that they are different in feel and that I enjoy the low centre of gravity planes as they permit a higher degree of intimacy with the wood. Block planes are another example of this. As are the HNT Gordon range of planes. Although BD, they are very low slung:
View Image
Another illustration. I bought the bronze LN #4 1/2 Anniversary plane a while back. I have been using it alongside the iron version of a friend and my LV Bevel Up Smoother. I will write this up at a later time, but my initial experience is that I prefer the balance of the iron #4 1/2 over that of the bronze #4 1/2. I like and use heavy smoothers (such as the Marcou - that is a monster!), so weight alone is not the issue. My feeling is - and I emphasize preliminary - that the balance (not performance) of the plane has shifted in the negative direction and that this is possible because I am oversensitive in my preference for low centre of gravity planes and the extra weight of the bronze version exaccerbates this situation.
View Image
So we come back to your tote. I do not think that I would like the height of this. I wonder if it would cause the plane to lose that "feel" I prize so much? What are your thoughts/experiences in this matter?
Regards from Perth
Derek
Edited 6/2/2007 10:46 pm ET by derekcohen
Metod -
Lightbulb!
You are concerned with the bed resisting the static force of the lever cap.
I was thinking of the force generated by the act of planing.
Two very different animals. However, the force will be spread by the blade across the bed surface. The only difference will be the amount of grain area filled by the triangular cross section at the bed to wall interface, which will be lesser with the lower angle.
At this I would be curious to see if it really is a problem, or if it is just an insignificant theoretical detail. I think I would be more concerned with the pivot pin mashing up through the side walls. All that force would be contained by two quarter inch lines of pressure on the upper side, while you would have the much larger triangular area on the lower. Still, not sure that there is really all that much force involved. You only have to apply sufficient pressure to keep the blade from moving during planing. With a large bed surface to provide friction, dont think this is really an issue.
Still it is your design, and however you go about trying it, you will have learned something.
Luck,
Mike
A winner. Now thinking outside of the box. I have not seen it done but it seems logical to ever so slightly skew the fore and aft knobs to the relaxed wrist position. Say 10-15 degrees, what are your thoughts?
Work Safe, Count to 10 when your done for the day !!
Bruce S.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled