Making a Lie-Nielsen Plane from Start to Finish

[MartinCH]

While I have some wax nearby and occasionally to wax the base of a plane, mostly I don't,(wax the plane base). Suspect due to not really noticing a difference a significant change. The humidity levels here are generally pretty low - reducing rust, but possibly reducing friction as well.

[IanW]

.....Well looks like your avoided been wrong, again. But not necessarily right either. Looks similar- but when the wood has 30% moisture- steel is better......

But only by a tiny amount! They haven't got error bars on most of the data points, they only have them on one point. The SD is quite small, but so are the differences between the two substrates & the overall pattern is the same. I think we can conclude that the difference between stainless & mild is negligible & probably not detectable on a smallish bench plane. So much for my impressions......

The wood you choose to test any plane sole for friction would be extremely important, and the MC is also highly important, as shown in the results for the paper you linked to. I have used very little northern hemisphere poplar & that was mostly 'yellow poplar', which is actually an unrelated genus, and a very easy wood to work with. I had a single bit of highly figured genuine poplar from a street tree in Victoria, a few (quite a few!) years ago but can't remember what it was like to plane - can't have been too bad or it would have stuck in my memory. I'm unlikely to ever use any in the future & given the warning, I'll do my best to avoid it...

There is no doubt that there is a very clear difference in friction between metal & wood-soled planes, with wood being noticeably more slippery on just about any wood, as any woody user knows. That's a given. When it comes to mild steel vs cast-iron, the situation is not so clear to me. Yes, you can easily set up a demonstration to show that there is a difference on may woods (which is not as stark as the wood vs metal difference), but there are lots of situations where any differences in the wood/metal friction are swamped by other factors.

One factor is the weight of the plane. The heavier it is, the greater the static friction, so a heavy beast like this is 'hard to start':
Brass-side PP.jpg

But once moving, you are only dealing with kinetic friction, which is much less & with the extra momentum the weight gives it, it's hard to stop! It will sail on steadily, making the same thickness shaving that would slow my 5 1/2 down so that it needs more effort towards the end of the cut. Of course, the monster has to be brought back for the next cut, and the 5 1/2 has a clear advantage there, so the panel plane requires more energy input overall, which I notice pretty quickly if planing a large panel.

I also have an "impression" that brass is noticeably more slippery than steel. I don't have any brass-soled bench planes, but I do have a very hefty shoulder plane with a hard (C385 alloy) brass sole: Lge_Gidgee infill.jpg

...which 'slides' very nicely, but it's mostly used on end grain, which is a totally different medium from side grain , so again, it's all just "impression". In days of old, cast bronze SPs were shod with steel, and it would be interesting to compare one of these of similar weight, for 'slipperiness'.

My own conclusion is that sole friction can be important under certain conditions, but it's not a major issue for me on a daily basis; it can be lessened by lubrication (waxing) to the point of insignificance in maybe 90% of woods I work with, and the majority of those situations where I do experience bother are due to the wood rather than the plane sole material. The best solution is probably to simply avoid 'nasty' woods....

Cheers,

[D.W.]

Many variable's....

Yes, and only the way it occurs in planing matters.

Interesting that stainless is less. that's promising for my AEB-L experiment. To date, I've only experienced the sliding friction of wood on an iron and then into the cap iron as it's distorted - that is for stainless.

for XHP, you can feel that it is less, though (V11) if you're cutting with the cap iron - but it's not enormously less because it's just the steel rubbing and being cut by the plane iron. It doesn't rise to even something that would factor in and I noticed it when planing about 40,000 feet of shavings and rotating irons. The resitance from CPM M4, however, was high enough even though it planed longer, to contrast starkly.

XHP vs. O1, not the same difference. It was enough of an issue with CPM M4 that I would not have it in a plane iron.

The study shows two pieces of wood as being higher friction. This would turn out differently if one piece was being planed and the other was burnished, but when you first true a sole on a newly made plane and use sandpaper, there is definitely drastically more friction than there is when the wood is burnished.

This difference could literally be tested with a simple weight on a plane and then pulling the plane with a force gauge. Cast iron and steel are both higher. Mild steel stands out, and so does brass and so does the bronze that LN uses. I did most of my iron testing with the LN plane and it got warm, despite lubricating with paraffin. it got warm enough that I could pull canning (paraffin wax) straight down the sole and it would melt onto the sole. which was handy. 20 planed strokes, one quick pull of the paraffin brick up the plane from rear to front and 20 more. No scribbling or nonsense.

If kees heiden were still around, this is something he would do for us.

Static friction is interesting to see, but not that useful here other than seeing in the japanese comparison where they are similar.

Some of the wood on wood benefit in a wooden plane may also be due to wax (I apply oil and wax in a mix when making a plane). it remains in the wood, but it's hard to do something to get it to penetrate into the sole of an iron plane.

[MartinCH]

Seems to be tendency to gravitate towards planes that easier to push. My smoother number 4 is 1.35 kg, anti as you suggest there is double advantage to light weight - less friction and less momentum. At the moment though a denser wood the modified 40 degree smoother gets a workout as well.

While I have not done an extensive paper research what I have seen does not supportive consensus that wood wood has less friction. It is possible that the users are commenting on the lighter weight. This closer to my what I experience, when I switch planes.

Note - heavy plane are useful on rough wood, adds momentum when not cutting in the valley and the plane maintain the energy to slice though deeper cuts though the ridges.

Some random links to support my "radical" assertion.

5.1 Friction – x-Douglas College Physics 1107 Fall 2019 Custom Textbook
Coefficients of Friction

And this one which has both again

Coefficients Of Friction - Roy Mech

The Japanese paper suggested a slightly coefficient for steel and wood again and less that these general values.

[auscab]

While I have some wax nearby and occasionally to wax the base of a plane, mostly I don't,(wax the plane base). Suspect due to not really noticing a difference a significant change. The humidity levels here are generally pretty low - reducing rust, but possibly reducing friction as well.

Im surprised you say that. What sort of planing do you do "to not really noticing a difference" a rub of paraffin does for pushing a plane ? Its a HUGE difference. One that has always amazed me. I reckon it doubles the usability length between sharpening at least. Its noticed in jointing and smoothing. I plane up whole tops of tables with every table build and get sick of the sharpening. If I can keep it going well for longer I do that and a wax or rub with paraffin oil with the pad keeps me happy.
.

[GraemeCook]

... (I've been known to be wrong occasionally ). ...

Like, ... when he made the above statement!

[MartinCH]

Hi Rob, I was speculating that the relatively low humidity locally was lowering friction and I use a very light number 4 plane (1.34kg) for smoothing which is an immediate help in lowering resistance.

Curious on why I was missing out on - so since more than toasty here, today, I wasted some time in the afternoon dragging my plane slowly across my bench with travel scale and recording the weight.



Notes
unwaxed
Generally 145 to160 grams but some monetary peaks at 220 grams




Waxed candle - white paraffin
180 grams peaking at 300 grams
As the value had increase tried beed wax with similar result
Tried with 3 in 1 oil
180 gram peaking at 220 grams


Cleaned the plane and tried agin
Approx 200 grams peaking at 220.


Rewaxed the plane and tried agin
Resistance 250 gram to 330 grams

Since the results reunexpected I make some comments
Was not planing at the time - wont dragging a plane across a bench
Suspect the waxed/oiled surfaces nmay be gathering dust.
The Bench was cleaned prior.
The second clean run may be effected by residue
Without the blade resitance loads the plane is very easy to pull along, waxed or not.

[MartinCH]

duplicate deleted.

[auscab]

Hi Martin.
I should have read through this whole thread more closely before commenting.
I just quickly replied with a quote from your comment.


So.
Your getting higher resistance with a waxed plane!

Maybe the amount of wax? Its supposed to be a tiny light wipe not caked on.
One thing though. Waxing and oiling done right does make planing much easier. Not harder. Same goes for waxing drawer runners. And extension table rails.

[MartinCH]

Rob

I not saying anything. Transcribing what my travel scale displays. Also not saying wax does not have merit. I have bound saws before and wax has made world of difference, much easier to cut
Try own on freshly planed surface. The resulting friction was lower overall but waxing increased stiffness considerably.

Tried with a very light smear - invisible to the eye- not a Rob Cosman zigzag. The net result look similar for waxed an unwaxed. There may have been tad advantage to the waxed but too small to call on the travel scale.

In use I don't think the extra drag would be noticeable in planing, the drag from the blade is significantly higher. I only did few rotations planing a board and then cleaning the plane and trying again. Trying to feel what others have noted about waxing, as the travel scale was not concurring. I think I felt something like this- the waxed plane felt "less" prone to stick momentarily, with net result feeling smoother.

Not sure what exactly happening then if this is the case and the scale is correct at ruling out drag reduction≥

[D.W.]

Hi Rob,
I was speculating that the relatively low humidity locally was lowing friction and using a light number 4 plane (1.34kg) for smoothing, an immediate help in lowering resistance.

Curious on why I was missing out on - so since the weather was more than toasty here, today, I wasted some time in the afternoon dragging my plane slowly across my bench with travel scale and recording the weight.



Notes
unwaxed
Generally 145 to160 grams but some monetary peaks at 220 grams




Waxed candle - white paraffin
180 grams peaking at 300 grams
As the value had increase tried beed wax with similar result
Tried with 3 in 1 oil
180 gram peaking at 220 grams


Cleaned the plane and tried agin
Approx 200 grams peaking at 220.


Rewaxed the plane and tried agin
Resistance 250 gram to 330 grams

Since the results reunexpected : comments
Was not planing at the time - dragging a plane across a bench only.
Suspect the waxed/oiled surfaces may be gathering dust - causing the higher resistance
The Bench was cleaned prior.
The loadstar light and pulling the plane is easy

You need to use the plane in this case. The wax rubbed on is very different than your arms on the plane using it in work. The differences lubricated on the previous post links are probably pretty good. It makes for a drastic reduction, maybe dut to some liquifying during the planing stroke.

[MartinCH]

Perhaps a degree pressure inducted viscosity change. I cannot detect a "drastic" improvement, unfortunately. The smoother will zip though wood easily either way. As mentionioned above the waxed plane may be less prone to "sticking". But either way the plane runs well

[raffo]

David, I've a couple of drop forged V&B smoothers and one S4 (steel-soled Stanley) if you want to try them.

[D.W.]

David, I've a couple of drop forged V&B smoothers and one S4 (steel-soled Stanley) if you want to try them.

I forgot about those!

[D.W.]

One thing is for sure - the friction list has dashed my hopes of making planes with soles of concrete or bricks.

Rob's comment about lengthening the time between sharpening is dead accurate. Very first iron test I ever did, I didn't have a routine for wax every X strokes, but I figured out real quick that any time a plane started to feel like it was getting dull, a stripe of wax down the middle and it would cut better.

We all have habits, and one of them is that when we are planing, if a plane doesn't want to enter a cut quite as well, we get into habits of leaning a little bit. I attempted to measure downforce at one point by putting a plane against a board and just pushing the handle like one would do planing. I can't remember the number now, but the "tared" scale read something like 10-15 pounds of downforce with a regular work like effort on a forward push (nature of the hand orientation on a stanley plane).

The more you lean, the worse the issue with friction gets and stopping for a second and waxing, especially on a warm sole, yields results similar to what the chart shows for lubricated cast. The amount of effort is tiny compared to unwaxed.

I found that day that without wax, I thought a plane was too dull to stay in a cut on its own about twice as often as it actually is.

This kind of stuff isn't good for a couple of stroke test or something like that, you have to do it in the middle of a session of legitimate work. Modeling outcomes provides data. Modeling outcomes and missing a variable that's not there in the test doesn't provide good data.