Hand plane - can you REALLY joint a perfectly straight edge?

[Tom Watson]

BAD calls 'em "miscreants."

I wonder if he meant its anagram, "nice smart."

(o'course, to be fair, he may have meant the anagramatic version, "scat miner.")

[Wood Butcher]

I don't think so. But it was a nice try. Automobile is auto-mobile or self moving/motion. Just like autograph is your self written mark and autobiography is your self written story. Back when the term was initiated all self moving vehicles, including the electrics and steamers, were called automobiles.

Art

>

[Scott Cramer]

On 13 Nov 2003, Wood Butcher spake unto rec.woodworking:

And I suppose the bra was NOT invented by a guy named Titzling? Or the toilet by Thomas Crapper?

[Wood Butcher]

[Wood Butcher]

Are your eyes brown?

Art

[Patrick Olguin]

How nice of you to thank me, Dave! I mean, you are thanking *me* too, aren't you? Or perhaps you didn't click on that link, which was indeedy chock-full of useful on-topic information? Or did you click on it, and dismiss it because it was accompanied by some less-than-praising text? Or did you click on it and your eyes glazed over? Or in the middle of your whining pouting retort, you skipped it all together? It really was an answer to your original question. So if you're *not* thanking me, what gives? I'm just trying to help here.

QED? You mean as in the Latin: Quod erat demonstrandum? This is usually appended to the text of a mathematical proof, meaning, "what has been shown." So let me see if I follow correctly - I call you on being essentially a lazy, shiftless, helpless, hopeless can-barely-wipe-his-ass cluetoken, and provide some evidence to back it up (e.g - a simple search yields the answer), and all you're able to recognize is that some "cranky SOB," is picking on you and so you file me in your BAD man folder, compare me to Cramer and call it proof?

Sorry Dave, but that dog won't hold water.

Look, I admit it's a guilty pleasure to read Scott putting more dents in your head. I think he's damn funny, clever and all that - he even appears to enjoy woodworking (and know a bit about it as well); his participation clearly extends beyond his penchant for noticing when your pants are down in the newsgroup and splaying the spotlight onnit. Trouble is, you seem to only be able to absorb that someone's being a big meanie, and therefore you miss the message... as you apparently missed mine. Again and again and again.

Maybe I'm just using the wrong approach. What do you think, people? Could it be I'm being too harsh by slapping the back of Dave's head to get his attention and then attempting to provide some information? Could it be a kindler, gentler approach might work? Maybe I'm just jealous that he's getting all this shop-time, and so naturally he has questions. Could it be I really am just a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, egotistical, selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard?

Could I have been wrong all along?

Naaaaaah!

(apologies to Steve Martin) O'Deen

OBWW - a sharp block plane works for just about any kind of cleaning of pesky milling marks on a power-jointed edge. Use a light touch and a sharp iron. A smooth plane is preferable for use on a jointed face. To answer someone else's question on the need for such thin, fluffy shavings (like less than 0.001"), when it comes to very difficult woods to plane, like quilted maple or curly cherry and curly bubinga (my three nemises), ultra-thin shavings are a must, else you end up with very dissatisfying tear-out.

Block planes (planes with their bevels up) are also easier for the planing/sharpening newbie, as they are less sensitive to a rounded bevel - the bane of the bench plane user. A rounded bevel is a problem for bench planes that are removing very thin shavings, as it reduces the clearance angle of the blade, causing the blade to cease cutting as the clearance angle goes to zero (from repeated honings/roundings). Ideally, one shouldn't round-over those bevels, but it does happen. Simple ways to avoid it are to hollow grind the bevel (some nerds call it a bezel) and to use a hard felt wheel as opposed to a muslin wheel for honing. A leather wheel works well also.

[Jay Windley]

Nitpick: "quod erat demonstrandum" better translates as "which was to have been shown" -- a subtle difference. If you want to prove that x = y, you write a proof that starts at first principles and then somehow gets to the expression "x = y". You label that last line to signify that you have successfully arrived at the place you had previously designed to go.

[CW]

They still are.

[Bay Area Dave]

I'm sure you would be heartbroken if I gave you the snub! :)

dave

[e-mail] wrote:

[Bay Area Dave]

No; more like an anagram made from 'live'.

dave

Tom Wats> >

[Trent©]

No...he's being his usual prick of a self again.

Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

[Bay Area Dave]

is your neck red?

dave

Wood Butcher wrote:

[Bay Area Dave]

So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna be judged by the company you keep.

I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.

In the future, should you care to distance yourself from your ill-bred friends, I'm sure we can both dispense with this time-wasting discourse.

The wrong approach? You? Like a drunk driving the wrong way on I-5 at

90 mph with his lights out.

In a word...yes. But that's just one man's opinion. Don't let me ruin your day.

dave

[Trent©]

Yes...flat. Not SQUARE, mind you...but flat.

To make sure we understand the difference...envision running a piece thru the jointer with a jig that'll give you a 15° bevel. Running the piece thru...after enough passes...will give you a flat surface. Jointed...you'll get a creation that is not square, of course...but indeed flat for glueup.

What do you mean by 'straight'? Do you mean flat? Sure you can. The front and rear are on the same plane...its the cutting blade that projects below that plane...that does the cutting.

You start by running the front of the plane...the blade finally contacts the work and starts cutting...the rear of the plane follows.

When you finally get done, the surface will be flat...but NOT necessarily square.

A large one. A small plane won't give you the surface area you need in front of the cutter.

Proper plane...and technique. Don't forget...I'm not really an expert on planes! lol I wouldn't...and don't...use a plane for this kinda work. I use my router table for these kinda glue-ups. And I very seldom hafta use that even. Most of my cuts come ready to go...right from the saw.

You've got to SEE what you want to do...want to accomplish...for a starter. For instance, if you have a 1/2" crater in the edge of the piece...and you can SEE that crater...you've got to run the plane 'till its gone...and 'till yer getting a thin slice all along the piece...from beginning to end. But I think you realize that...that's all just common sense.

SURE you do. If you take that same 1/2" crater...and run a 1/16" bite thru the jointer, yer STILL gonna have that crater...and be able to see it. Using a plane isn't simply a matter of just using a plane. Its a matter of observation also...same as with the jointer.

You'll need to run enough passes to get rid of the full 1/2".

You eyeball it...in BOTH cases.

The key to getting the proper result is the WASTE...along with the eyeballing. If it looks good...and then you run it thru one more time and you get waste from the front to the back...it's flat. This is true with any tool you use.

But maybe ONLY flat. That doesn't guarantee that there isn't a bevel in it. That doesn't guarantee that it's square.

That's why I like my router table. My bit is square to the table. When I run it thru, its automatically square...and also flat when I get done. This would be extremely difficult to do with a plane on very thin stock...1/4" and less, let's say. It'd be hard to plane that...free standing... without tilting the plane to one side.

And, don't forget...a plane is but one way to get the job done. There's a lot of other tools...or combination of tools...that can do the same job as the plane.

I've said it before...got flamed...but I'll say it again...

A plane's primary job...except for specialized planes...is simply to remove huge areas of waste quickly...back when no other tools did the job as easily. Even then, there were other tools that could do the same job.

What you're attempting to do is not the job of a plane. If yer tryin' to take off thousandths, you should consider sandpaper.

One final thing, Dave...'cause this is gettin' long...

A square would NOT be the proper tool to check to see if the plane was doing the proper job...in many cases.

Consider this...

Yer trying to 'flatten out' one of the 1/2" sides on a piece of stock...with a plane. The opposite side is 20" long. One other side is 24" long...and the side opposite that one is 22" long. The side yer working on has a 30° bevel.

The side yer working on is now flat...and has the 30° bevel that you wanted.

You won't be able to check any of that side...for flatness...with the square. None of that side...in any direction...is at 90° to any of the other sides.

Sorry for the long post. Good luck.

Have a nice week...

Trent

Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity!

[Rick]

Paddy me boyo,

Me thinks that SWIATAABOC wouldn't have even said hello to you if you were, in your own words, "a cranky, impatient, arrogant, puffed-up, egotistical, selfish, pseudo-intellectual, flaming, overbearing bastard".

Besides ... your parent's marital status was out of your control. :o

Don't see the need for you to appologize ... you've given the wreck everything BUT heartburn.

I'll say it - Thank You O'Deen -

Long live the King of Bug Spit (and all that).

*****

And since we're on the subject, isn't rocket science basically fuel, oxidizer, nozzle and a match?

My WARMEST regards,

Rick

AKA The Sawdust Factory

[Doug Winterburn]

It seems a motion has been made for a vote. I second it and also vote "Naaaaaah".

-Doug

[Doug Winterburn]

Is this a slap at Charlie or a compliment to Doug?

[Bay Area Dave]

So do YOU consider yourself on a par with Cramer or not? You are gonna be judged by the company you keep.

I read your link, but since so many folks have brought their knowledge of planing to the table, I failed to learn anything new from your flowery post of yesteryear. That's NOT to be taken as a slight of your prodigious knowledge; merely an acknowledgment that the bearers of knowledge did indeed wrap their offerings more courteously, which allows me to concentrate on the message and not the writer. I don't like to slog through paragraphs of slime to reach the pearls of wisdom.

In the future, should you care to distance yourself from your ill-bred friends, I'm sure we can both dispense with this time-wasting discourse.

The wrong approach? You? Like a drunk driving the wrong way on I-5 at

90 mph with his lights out.

In a word...yes. But that's just one man's opinion. Don't let me ruin your day.

dave

[Patrick Olguin]

Hmmmmmmmmm. So tough love is not your bag. Sucks for you, because in your "failing to learn," anything new, you obviously skipped a fundamental of planing, which was mentioned in that six-year old post, and still holds true today. To wit - that one should maintain downward pressure on the knob (toe) of the plane at the beginning of the stroke, and then make sure to switch that pressure to the tote (heel) near the end. This will prevent crowning of the edge.

It's a pity the mental equivalent of walking and chewing gum prevents you from absorbing new knowledge, but I'm sure it won't ruin your day. Enjoy your new plane when it arrives. Try not to use it on melamine.

O'Deen

Flowery? *blush* You can call me a flower, if you want to. I don't mind.

[Jeff Gorman]

"Richards" wrote

: You've made a very good point. If the blade projects beneath the plane, : the piece of wood that you're working on will never be perfectly flat : because the reference surface is not the same as the cutting edge. : : To cut the wood perfectly flat, it seems that the plane should be : divided into two separate pieces. The part of the plane that is in : front of the blade could be raised to the height of the cut desired. : The part of the plane that is behind the blade should be set so that the : blade and the sole of the plane are at the same level.

On my web site is the result of an experiment that relates to this point.

Please look at 'Planing Notes' - 'Plane Body Deflection'.

Jeff G

-- Jeff Gorman, West Yorkshire, UK Email address is username@ISP username is amgron ISP is clara.co.uk Website