Official Luthiers Forum!

それが超クールでしたが、私はポーランド語に行くと私のチップブレーカを調整する必要があると考えています！私は実際に長い時間前に、これらの同じ線に沿って何かを読んでいたが、このビデオは実際にここで何が起こっているか示すの優れた仕事をしていません。

よくアンディ、ここで何が起きているのですか？

どうやらGoogle翻訳は対称的ではありません。

Can you adjust the chip breaker angle on the average hand plane?

Having used both bevel up and bevel down planes for decades, I have to go with Link on this one...sharpness, pitch angle, and plane setup (mouth geometry, coplanar toe, mouth, and heel, etc.) are what determine performance, with the chip breaker being almost irrelevant in terms of practical use.

Note...I said almost irrelevant.

As the chip gets thicker and the cube rule for beam stiffness dominates, chip breakers begin to function as claimed...for my normal .0005-.0007 shaving thickness, there is no practical difference between my LN 62 and my LN 4, assuming I have adjusted mouth opening, etc. and blades are of similar sharpness. As I get to chip thicknesses of .003-.005, I begin to see some differences in behavior WHEN I OPEN THE MOUTH to accommodate the thicker, coarser chip. Keep in mind that the .003 chip is over 200 times stiffer than the .0005 chip, so not an unexpected result that for very thick chips, a closely set CB might aid in suppressing the uncontrolled propagation of the cut ahead of the edge.

So...yup...absolutely believe that chip breakers work as advertised to 'fool the wood' into thinking the plane pitch angle is higher...but only when the chip is far thicker than the type of work intended (final smoothing/jointing, etc.) would ever warrant. Take a reasonable thickness - for me, that is always going to be less than .001 for finish work - and I doubt you'll ever see any differences between equally sharp bevel up or bevel down blades working at the same pitch angle. Performance always seems to come back to sharp edges, a light cut, and a well set-up tool.

And yes...I get the same performance in curly maple with either style of plane...

Edit: I note that 252 of you have tried to view the attached shot...and after looking for the original higher res version and not finding it handy, I'll note that the shaving is unitary and about .0005, the surface of the stock is polished and shows nothing in the way of surface texture from micro-tearout, etc., and the effect on thickness of the chip from the cambered edge is not noticeable in the shot. The plane is a 'first 100' LN 4 with retrofitted York pitch frog, A2 blade, and heavy chip breaker (the originals were common, O1, and thin steel, respectively). The curly maple was a fairly nasty piece of work that I would bring to local OldTool gatherings as a test article, along with some curly ebony, some QS sycamore, and a few other sticks of stuff that did not like to behave.

The experiment is not relevant for several reasons. One of the biggest reasons is they took the mouth out of the equation. That is like testing a cars 0 to 60 with out tires.
Another thing the chip breaker angle that they used was much steeper than anything you will see on a typical plane. By putting such a steep angle so close to the edge of the blade it was acting like a steeper angled blade. In that case why not just use a steeper angled blade.
Not include the mouth of the plane makes the whole thing a waste of time IMO. (Cool photos though) The mouth is much more important than the chip breaker. With a proper mouth opening a chip breaker is redundant. All this tells you is what happens to a naked blade, not what happens in a plane. The importance of the mouth is easily demonstrated, you don't need special equipment to do it.
I have said it before and will say it again, the chip breaker is not necessary and on plane with a thick iron. Maybe it helps on a flimsy thin iron but not to break a chip. In that case it helps to maybe stiffen and add mass to the whole assembly.
I have been making planes, using planes and teaching plane making for almost 30 years now and I don't use chip breakers anymore and have not seen one little bit of difference in performance.
L.

That's a good point, John. This video shows how a plane iron and chipbreaker work with the mouth suitably out of the design equation. That implies, of course, that the fixed mouth is designed to perform no function whatsoever on a fixed mouth plane, correct?

Filippo

I'm sure everyone realizes that not every hand plane out there has an adjustable mouth. Wooden planes in particular, which includes contemporary Japanese planes, don't have an adjustable mouth. The video is perfectly valid. It show the effect of the chip breaker when you have a wide open mouth. Simple as that.

re: regrinding the chip breaker
The conclusion was that a higher angle on the chip breaker allows you to move it further away, making it easier to setup, not that you have to regrind the chipbreaker.

re: everything else
We'll have to agree to disagree. I don't know how you're going to close down the mouth when you're trying to take larger shavings AND get no tear out, for example. I'm almost thinking that you'd decide to live with the tearout, just on principle, rather than try to mitigate it. The sharpest blade in the world won't make the wood fibers do what they don't want to do.

This is a great piece of knowledge, and great trick to have up your sleeve. You're seriously advocating permanently modifying a plane, rendering it useless for anything but smoothing tasks, when simply resetting the chipbreaker position temporarily can potentially get the job done? For the life of me I can't figure out why this is getting under your skin so much that you're throwing out all reason.