# 4.1 hours, 3.25 gallons, and 20 slabs



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

Another personal CSM record smashed today, logging 4.1 hours run time on the CSM -- though it would be more impressive if I could cut the same amount of wood in *fewer* hours. 

The CS62 felled this 23" dead standing doug fir. The tree had been killed by a slash fire.

It was 108 years old.

Rate my stump. 






Four 12' logs. 





Look, Ma, it's self feeding.  Using a fresh GB'd chain, throttle zip tied.





Another view showing the slope, so BobL can calculate the angle with photoshop. 

It didn't self feed all that fast, but it was making some serious chips, as you can see.





Last slab of the day -- no, I didn't have time to finish this log.

The Granberg mill balances better when the guide is placed on the left edge of the log, rather than the center.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

20 slabs (my personal record is 21 pieces in one day, but those 21 were not as big as these 20). The Oly earned it's keep today.

Photos rarely do justice to the steepness of the terrain, but you can get a good idea from this view. 





All of the chains that I used today performed satisfactorily when they were fresh, and all of them were useless after one hour run time. Speed test results and conclusions after I unload the truck tomorrow.


----------



## Stihlman441 (Sep 22, 2010)

Nice work,are those rails made from uni strut (dont know how to spell it) ?.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

Yep, unistrut, sometimes called superstrut.


----------



## Timberframed (Sep 22, 2010)

Mtngun, Again good work! Do you bother with the with bar oil in the saw or do you just rely on the aux oiler like I do?


----------



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

I do put oil in the saw because I worry that it might hurt the oil pump to run dry.

Plus, the flow on the Granberg aux oiler is not consistent. Sometimes the needle valve seems to get plugged up, and you have to open it all the way or even blow into the tank opening to unplug it. 

Or when you remove the aux to flip the mill over to swap or file a chain, sometimes the oil drains out of the line and then it'll take a good minute to fill the line when you resume milling. 

One of these years I'll relocate the aux needle valve to just above the drip point, so the line will always be full of oil at least to that point.


----------



## Timberframed (Sep 22, 2010)

I was just curious. On my 60"saw there is no oiling provision. I had used a Coleman camp stove fuel tank (pressure) hooked to the water intake for oil at the drive with the last 7 or 8 gallons of fuel but found it unnecessary. I'm not suggesting removing the oil pump to gain what...1/100th hp? In my case there was no choice. I did like the fact that under pressure, it delivered -not relying on gravity. Along with all the machines in the shop I have three old Harleys plus I'm a married man and so I have to make sure everything is lubricated properly. Oil and oil pressure is on my maintenance schedule daily. Food for thought.


----------



## BobL (Sep 22, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Another personal CSM record smashed today, logging 4.1 hours run time on the CSM -- though it would be more impressive if I could cut the same amount of wood in *fewer* hours.


Good work - I'm dead jealous you got that much time on a mill. 



> Rate my stump.


9/10



> Look, Ma, it's self feeding.  Using a fresh GB'd chain, throttle zip tied.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.
You need more weight - why dontcha dump a big cookie on the mill ala Will Malloff and see what it does?



> The Granberg mill balances better when the guide is placed on the left edge of the log, rather than the center.


Yep that's what I find as well, I tend to open up the rails so that the LHS rail is hard over to the left and the RHS rail is about 2/3rd of the way across.


----------



## BobL (Sep 22, 2010)

Timberframed said:


> I was just curious. On my 60"saw there is no oiling provision. I had used a Coleman camp stove fuel tank (pressure) . . . . .



Sounds like the "ducks nuts" . . . . have you got a picture. Sounds like just the thing for my next mill.


----------



## Cowboy Billy (Sep 22, 2010)

Looks great Mtngun

How do you edge/size your boards?

Billy


----------



## Timberframed (Sep 22, 2010)

Here you go BobL. You can see a fine stream of oil coming out. It can be regulated to a very slow drip. Full of oil and pumped up it can feed the bar for 3 hrs or so.



[/URL][/IMG]



[/URL][/IMG]


----------



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

Cowboy Billy said:


> How do you edge/size your boards?


Snap a chalk line and cut it freehand with a worm drive Skil saw and 18 tooth ripping blade. The cut is not perfectly straight but good enough for framing purposes. 

A aluminum straight edge to guide the Skil saw would be handy, but Santa hasn't brought one yet.

The board often bows as it is cut, anyway, due to internal stresses. I'll often edge an inch oversize, knowing that the board will immediately warp, then snap another chalk line and edge it again to final size. Twice the work, but that's what you gotta do to get straight boards. Maybe I'll post some edging pics later.

Ripping is hard on Skil saws (who would have thunk ?) so you need a good one. The worm drive saws have some gear reduction and they are generally a little heavier duty than the direct drive saws.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

*speed tests*

Four different chains were used, and this is what we'll call them.

*chain #1 *-- 33RP with 6 degree raker angle
*chain #2* -- 33RP with 7.5 degree raker angle
*GB'd* -- 33RP modified to GB style, 5 - 6 degree on regular cutters, more on scoring cutters.
*virgin 33RP* -- I will measure and post the virgin geometry later.

The hours referred to in the results is the run time on that particular chain at the time of the speed test.

chain #1, 0.7 hours, 15", *0.30 inch/sec*
chain #2, 0.1 hours, 15.5", *0.32 inch/sec*
GB'd, 0.1 hours, 16.5", *0.33 inch/sec*, 9500 rpm
GB'd, 0.5 hours, 16", *0.233 inch/sec*, getting dull after only 1/2 hour.
GB'd, filed, 17", *0.185 inch/sec*, my filing in the field sucks.
virgin 33RP, 0.1 hour, 17.5", *0.375 inch/sec*
virgin 33RP, 0.6 hour, 19.5" *0.286 inch/sec*.

I think there's one more test hiding somewhere, maybe it'll turn up when I edge the boards. 

Chains #1 and #2 liked to spin at 9000 - 9400 rpm.

GB'd liked to spin at 9500 - 10,000 rpm.

Virgin 33RP liked to spin at 8800 - 9200 rpm.

Virgin 33RP was by far the easiest chain to bog, and it spun the slowest. It was obviously taking bigger bites than the other chains. It wasn't excessively boggy, I'd say it was "just right" for this powerhead. The other chains could stand to be slightly more aggressive.

GB'd dulled the fastest. On a previous day in the woods, I noted that GB'd had dulled the slowest, so I'm not drawing any firm conclusions based on a single experience. The tree fell in some bare dirt, and some dirt got embedded in the bark -- dirty bark will dull a chain instantly.

Chain #1 was swapped after 1.4 hours.

Chain #2 was swapped after 0.8 hours

GB'd was filed after 0.7 hours, and swapped after 1 hour.

The virgin 33RP had logged 0.9 hours when I called it a day. It had perhaps one more decent pass left in it.

The winner of this shootout was clearly virgin 33RP. Even though it was not particularly sharp -- you can often see glint on the cutters of new WP chain -- it took big bites and cut fast. 

I don't understand why virgin 33RP, with its lame raker angle and glinty cutters, was actually more aggressive than my experimental chains. There must be something different about the geometry of virgin chain, something besides the raker angle. I will study the virgin chain very carefully and try to figure it out.


----------



## BobL (Sep 22, 2010)

Timberframed said:


> Here you go BobL. You can see a fine stream of oil coming out. It can be regulated to a very slow drip. Full of oil and pumped up it can feed the bar for 3 hrs or so.



Thanks TF.


----------



## gemniii (Sep 22, 2010)

OOOHHH!!

Good numbers!

/edit - so it looks like your cranking out 20 to 30 square feet a minute while your in the cut.
Oh - and any figures on total bar oil consumption?


----------



## huskyhank (Sep 22, 2010)

Good work!
Bet you were tired.
Thanks for the report.


----------



## BobL (Sep 22, 2010)

Thanks for posting such detailed data mtngun - especially the width of the logs cut.

I took the data for Chains 1 and 2, the first reported GB measurement, and the 2 new chain data and calculated the cutting speed in terms of "Area cut per unit time" (Sq"/s) and plotted these against the width of the cut and this is what I got






The 2 new chain data points have been combined into one point to get an average of both the "area cut per unit time" and "average cut width" (These can't be just simple averages but have to be time adjusted)

The way the chains 1, 2 and the GB plot on an approx line tells me the are cutting speed is simply proportional to cut width, ie wider logs are cut at a greater area/s. This means that if chains 1 and 2 and the GB were all placed in the same width log they would all cut at the same speed, ie about 0.3x "/s (divide sq"/s by cut width).

Now the new chain (and there is hint of this from the GB chain) is not cutting faster but slightly slower than the others ie <0.3 "/s (remember it's the sq"/s divided by cut width).

This could be due to a number of factors.
Less aggressive cutter, went blunter quicker etc

But the way the graph is bending over towards horizontal could also mean that at about a 17" cut width your entire setup approaches its "area cut per unit time" limit for that type of wood, ie no matter what you do, the combo of saw/chain etc simply won't cut any faster than about 6 sq"/s of wood. It would be interesting to include some lo pro in this kind of analysis.


----------



## deeker (Sep 22, 2010)

Good work guys!!!

Good reading and I am learning. 

A new package from Baileys.....a 3 footer for the 088....and only one ( for now ) ripping chain....

How many chains should I usually have?? Not counting the bandsaw....sometimes I have to slab with the CSM. Too big for the mill.

Thanks...

Kevin


----------



## mtngun (Sep 22, 2010)

deeker said:


> How many chains should I usually have??


Depends on whether you like to file the chain on the CSM, like BobL, or swap chains and sharpen them later on a grinder, like me.

I average one chain per hour of run time, and in a typical day I will use 3 chains. 99% of the time, 3 chains is enough for me. A fourth is nice in case I hit dirt or have an exceptionally productive day.

BobL, your graph does not take into account the "freshness" of the chain. 

To do an apples-to-apples, test, I would have to do all the speed tests with freshly sharpened chain. I do that on my pine cant tests at home, but it isn't feasible in the field. For example, chain #1 was used to make the initial slabbing cut on all 4 logs, so by the time I was able to do a speed test with #1, it was already half-way dull.

Whenever possible, I do a speed test right after installing a fresh chain. Those are the tests at 0 hours or at 0.1 hours. Let's compare those numbers and ignore the rest.

chain #2, 0.1 hours, 15.5",* 0.32 *inch/sec
GB'd, 0.1 hours, 16.5", *0.33* inch/sec, 9500 rpm
virgin 33RP, 0.1 hour, 17.5",* 0.375* inch/sec

Clearly, the virgin 33RP cut faster than the other two chains, *AND*_ it did it on a wider cut_. That is impressive, my friend. :rockn: 

As for speed being inversely proportional to width, I certainly agree that cutting speed decreases as width increases, but I don't have enough quality data to prove a linear relationship.

By doing speed tests on random widths and at various points in the chain's life, I only hope to illustrate typical "real world" cutting speeds. That's worth knowing. My pine cant speed tests are more scientific and repeatable, but they are not necessarily "real world." Both kinds of test are useful.

When I first started hanging out on this forum, there were guys claiming matter-of-factly their CSM cut _*about*_ 2 inch/sec  , and I would wonder why my CSM didn't cut nearly that fast.


----------



## jimdad07 (Sep 22, 2010)

Very good work, as usual. I still have not seen the photoshop from Bob of the slope incline, I am a little let down. The data you collect would make a good publication on chain saw milling. If you and Bob put your heads together, you could write one heck of a good milling guide, from the mill up.


----------



## mrbentontoyou (Sep 23, 2010)

jimdad07 said:


> Very good work, as usual. I still have not seen the photoshop from Bob of the slope incline, I am a little let down. The data you collect would make a good publication on chain saw milling. If you and Bob put your heads together, you could write one heck of a good milling guide, from the mill up.



hear hear!!!
thanks men!


----------



## mtngun (Sep 23, 2010)

jimdad07 said:


> If you and Bob put your heads together, you could write one heck of a good milling guide, from the mill up.


Maybe one of these days we will, but I feel like I've still got a lot to learn, and that's half the fun.


----------



## BobL (Sep 23, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Depends on whether you like to file the chain on the CSM, like BobL, or swap chains and sharpen them later on a grinder, like me.
> 
> I average one chain per hour of run time, and in a typical day I will use 3 chains. 99% of the time, 3 chains is enough for me. A fourth is nice in case I hit dirt or have an exceptionally productive day.
> BobL, your graph does not take into account the "freshness" of the chain. To do an apples-to-apples, test, I would have to do all the speed tests with freshly sharpened chain.
> ...



Not really - freshly sharpened chain cutting speeds are rather meaningless quantities. 

Fast cutting for 6 minutes is fun but it's average cutting speed that generates long term productivity. You can't ignore the fact that the virgin 33RP chain only managed 0.286"/s after 6 minutes of cutting. This is slower than all other cutting except for the GB chain. This suggests that the virgin 33RP chain had maybe more hook so it cut quickly for 6 minutes and then lost its edge. 

It's not too hard to set up a chain that can cut like a speed demon for a few minutes - my semi skip square ground does this as a matter of course. If I use this with a higher than usual hook in dry aussie hard wood it will cut real fast for a couple of minutes and then it slowly dies and sometimes I cannot even complete a cut without resharpening. 



> As for speed being inversely proportional to width, I certainly agree that cutting speed decreases as width increases, but I don't have enough quality data to prove a linear relationship.


I don't think it can ever be proven but increasing amounts of evidence can be stacked up.



> By doing speed tests on random widths and at various points in the chain's life, I only hope to illustrate typical "real world" cutting speeds. That's worth knowing. My pine cant speed tests are more scientific and repeatable, but they are not necessarily "real world." Both kinds of test are useful.


I don't think linear speed spot tests are worth all that much, it's area cutting per unit time over the effective cutting time a chain operates before it needs to be sharpened that counts in the end.



> When I first started hanging out on this forum, there were guys claiming matter-of-factly their CSM cut _*about*_ 2 inch/sec  , and I would wonder why my CSM didn't cut nearly that fast.


I agree, even at 12" wide at 2"/s is 24 sq"/s - that dreaming for a CS!

If I can cut a 32 sqft at 4 sq"/s in my wood I'm happy enough.

In terms of what you do, one chain for 60 minutes at about 5 sq"/s is about 125 sqft of cutting area per chain - this seems like a lot of area?
I touch up after every 32 sq ft in the hard stuff and after about 64 sqft in the softer stuff.
I guess it's always a trade off between swapping/sharpening and cutting.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 23, 2010)

BobL said:


> the virgin 33RP chain only managed 0.286"/s after 6 minutes of cutting.


virgin 33RP, 0.6 *hour*, 19.5" 0.286 inch/sec.

That's hours, not minutes. The hour meter displays hours in tenths, so that's how I record it. 0.6 hours = 36 minutes. And the 19.5" width was the widest speed test of the day.

At the end of the day, the virgin 33RP had logged 0.9 hours (54 minutes). By then it had slowed noticeably, but it was still making chips, not dust. They usually start making dust around the 1 hour mark, so I'd say its longevity was no better or worse than my other chains. 



> This suggests that the virgin 33RP chain had maybe more hook


"Hook" is a term you hear filer's say.  Grinders don't talk about "hook" because grinding machines don't have a "hook" adjustment. 

The claimed specs for 33RP are 60 degree top plate cutting angle, 10 degree top plate filing angle, 80 degree side plate angle, and 0.028" raker depth. BTW, that's their terminology, not mine. Different companies like to confuse us by using different terminology.  

Gullet width, as best I can measure with calipers, runs 0.250" - 0.260". If you believe the 0.028" raker depth spec, then the raker angle would be 6.3 degrees.

Thus far, I have been grinding to the 33RP factory specs, varying only the raker angle.

Your so-called "hook" theory is interesting, and when time allows, I'll try to take some close up pics of nearly virgin 33RP and compare it to my well worn 33RP, and try to determine what is different. With my aging eyes, I can't see much detail even with magnification, so I pretty much have to take a good photo and blow it up in order to see what is going on.


----------



## RPM (Sep 23, 2010)

mtngun said:


> rate my stump.



Looks fine .. Make sure to trim the stump pull as soon as the tree is on the ground. Leaving that is asking to trip & fall on to it ....and anyone else that ever ventures near.

Nice board count!


----------



## Cowboy Billy (Sep 23, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Snap a chalk line and cut it freehand with a worm drive Skil saw and 18 tooth ripping blade. The cut is not perfectly straight but good enough for framing purposes.
> 
> A aluminum straight edge to guide the Skil saw would be handy, but Santa hasn't brought one yet.
> 
> ...



Thanks MTNgun

Most of the wood I cut to the size I needed. But naturally I got some odd ball size stuff that needs to be edged and was thinking of cutting on a table saw so I didn't have to set the mill back up to cut a few boards. 

Billy


----------



## gemniii (Sep 23, 2010)

mtngun said:


> <snip>
> The claimed specs for 33RP are 60 degree top plate cutting angle, 10 degree top plate filing angle, 80 degree side plate angle, and 0.028" raker depth. BTW, that's their terminology, not mine. .


mtngun - 
just to be picky, and make sure I'm not reading typo's - 
First - 
Are you discussing WoodlandPRO 33RP?
The BOX of 33RP I've got has specs of:
tpca - 60°
tpfa - 10°
spa - 80°
raker depth 0.022" 

While at Bailey's


> The top plate of the semi-chisel cutter is ground at a 10 degree angle, while the side plate is ground at a 75 degree angle.


 and they say 0.025" for depth.

Main reason I'm wondering is because when I started with the 30RP I set the depth to 0.022" and it didn't cut very well, I went deeper, it cut better. 
I've [email protected] 92 link chains to grind and I ground the first one at 60°/10°/75°, based on Bailey's.
I realize the 5° spa difference may not be much, but I might as well try to get the other two correct to start.

thanks


----------



## BobL (Sep 23, 2010)

mtngun said:


> virgin 33RP, 0.6 *hour*, 19.5" 0.286 inch/sec.
> 
> That's hours, not minutes. The hour meter displays hours in tenths, so that's how I record it. 0.6 hours = 36 minutes. And the 19.5" width was the widest speed test of the day.



At the end of the day, the virgin 33RP had logged 0.9 hours (54 minutes). By then it had slowed noticeably, but it was still making chips, not dust. They usually start making dust around the 1 hour mark, so I'd say its longevity was no better or worse than my other chains. 
.[/QUOTE]

Yep I know its in tenths of hours but I'm now thinking I still maybe haven't things right.

When you state a cutting speed such as 


> chain #2, 0.1 hours, 15.5", 0.32 inch/sec


w hat it the actual length of time and distance you measure?

I have been interpreting "0.1 hours, 0.32 inch/sec" as having been calculated by measuring the distance over which it takes to cut for 0.1 hours or 6 minutes? 

But from your recent posts I'm now wondering that you might be making a spot test using another stop watch and measuring the time taken to cover a short distance? In this case "0.1 hours, 0.32 inch/sec" is the cutting speed at the 0.1 hour use time of the chain?

Likewise for


> virgin 33RP, 0.1 hour, 17.5", 0.375 inch/sec
> virgin 33RP, 0.6 hour, 19.5" 0.286 inch/sec.



I assumed it means for 6 minutes the average cutting speed is 0.375 "/s while for 36 minutes its average speed is 0.286 "/s
But now I'm thinking you are doing spot tests and it is 0.375 "/s after 6 minutes and 0.286 "/s after 36 minutes?

Depending on what you mean it makes a big difference in calculating a reasonable average cutting speed over the full 36 minutes.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 23, 2010)

BobL said:


> what it the actual length of time and distance you measure?


Here's how I do and report the tests.

I've settled on a 24" long (by however wide) speed test. It's long enough to be meaningful, but short enough to do without pausing to install wedges, reposition my body, etc..

Before starting the pass, I select the test section on the log, trying to find a section that is constant width -- easier said than done. If there is a slight taper, then I use the average width, but I prefer to find a place that has constant width.

I use a carpenter's pencil to draw a starting line and a finish line. I record -- on the log -- the chain ID, and the hours of usage on the chain at the time of the test.

So I'm CSM'ing along, and as the chain crosses the starting line, I activate the stop watch. 

When the chain crosses the finish line, I record the ET (elapsed time) -- just write it down on the slab with the carpenter's pencil. If I remember to do so, I also note the average RPM in the cut. But I've been known to forget. 

As I unload the slabs at home, I transfer the data to paper, divide 24" by the ET to get "/s, then post the data like this:

_chain ID --- hours of run time on that particular chain at time of speed test --- width of cut --- speed _



> I have been interpreting "0.1 hours, 0.32 inch/sec" as having been calculated by measuring the distance over which it takes to cut for 0.1 hours or 6 minutes?


No wonder we haven't been on the same page. 

"0.1 hours, 0.32 inch/sec" means, in my shorthand, that the chain had been run 0.1 hours since last sharpening, and the speed result was 0.32 "/s. 



> you might be making a spot test using another stop watch and measuring the time taken to cover a short distance? In this case "0.1 hours, 0.32 inch/sec" is the cutting speed at the 0.1 hour use time of the chain?


You got it, Bob. 

Sorry for the confusing shorthand, but I'm trying to cram a lot of data into a post without making it so long that people's eyes glaze over.


----------



## BIG JAKE (Sep 24, 2010)

mtngun said:


> By doing speed tests on random widths and at various points in the chain's life, I only hope to illustrate typical "real world" cutting speeds. That's worth knowing. My pine cant speed tests are more scientific and repeatable, but they are not necessarily "real world." Both kinds of test are useful.



I agree-the goal is the best setup for speed/production. Eventually you'll bottom out on what is best and stay with that. Nice work. Appreciate your time to quantify and post the data for us.


----------



## headleyj (Sep 24, 2010)

MTNGUN - got any closeup pics of your rollers on the mill?


----------



## mtngun (Sep 24, 2010)

My wheels have evolved, and will likely be replaced by a skid this winter. Wheels don't work well unless they are huge.

Since this photo was taken, the wheel on the left side of the pic was melted by the engine exhaust.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 24, 2010)

Following up on chain geometry:

I remeasured the raker angles using the DAF. This time around, I DAF'd 10 consectutive rakers, then took the average. The results are a little different than what I posted before, just in case you weren't already sufficiently confused by this thread. 

Virgin 33RP. 3.6, 3.8, 4.2, 3.9, 4.1, 3.8, 3.9, 3.8, 4.1, 3.8, *average 3.9 degrees.*

Here's a closeup of the virgin 33RP so BobL can photoshop the hook. 





Chain #2, resharpened 33RP, 6.8, 7.1, 7.0, 6.9, 7.3, 6.8, 7.2, 6.6, 7.5, 6.3, *average 7.0 degrees.*





Chain #1, resharpened 33RP, 5.3, 5.7, 4.9, 6.8, 5.7, 6.5, 5.7, 6.7, 5.2, 6.4, *average 5.3 degrees*.





I'm still puzzled, because I don't see any big difference in the geometry of these three chains, other than raker angle. 

The virgin 33RP had the lamest raker angle, yet it took bigger bites, spun the slowest, and bogged the easiest. 

Speaking of woodcutting, I had to run to town today to pick up the roofing tin for the woodshed, and as usual, passed a few logging trucks on the one lane so-called road. 

This used to give me a good scare, but now it's all in a day's work.


----------



## deeker (Sep 24, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Depends on whether you like to file the chain on the CSM, like BobL, or swap chains and sharpen them later on a grinder, like me.
> 
> I average one chain per hour of run time, and in a typical day I will use 3 chains. 99% of the time, 3 chains is enough for me. A fourth is nice in case I hit dirt or have an exceptionally productive day.
> 
> ...


----------



## jimdad07 (Sep 24, 2010)

This used to give me a good scare, but now it's all in a day's work.



[/QUOTE]
Is that why the toilet paper is in easy reach? 
BTW, some good information on the raker angles.


----------



## deeker (Sep 24, 2010)

jimdad07 said:


> This used to give me a good scare, but now it's all in a day's work.


Is that why the toilet paper is in easy reach? 
BTW, some good information on the raker angles.[/QUOTE]

I think the TP is for close encounters with logging trucks on wet and winding roads....


----------



## Winn R (Sep 24, 2010)

Thank you sir for excellent data and reporting. 

I can feel a new addiction coming on.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 24, 2010)

jimdad07 said:


> Is that why the toilet paper is in easy reach?


Well, it's a long drive with no restrooms along the way, so one has to be prepared. Never leave home without it.


----------



## Metals406 (Sep 25, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Following up on chain geometry:
> 
> I remeasured the raker angles using the DAF. This time around, I DAF'd 10 consectutive rakers, then took the average. The results are a little different than what I posted before, just in case you weren't already sufficiently confused by this thread.
> 
> ...



Put a good CB in the truck. . . You can find out if there are any trucks coming, and where they are -- usually called out by mile marker. Takes the whole butt pucker factor out'a driving on a narrow haul roads.


----------



## BobL (Sep 25, 2010)

I can see some differences in hook and front gullet profile between the virgin and the two chains but whether they are enough to make the differences you measure is another matter.

My guess is you are resizing the photos before you post them so it makes it hard to see the detail. How about taking the originals and cropping out and posting just one cutter for the three chains


----------



## mtngun (Sep 25, 2010)

Bob, my camera is an older model with modest resolution, so I don't think it's going to get much better. I don't have the latest and greatest photo equipment like you -- all my spending money has been going to chainsaws. 

I do plan to experiment with the cutting angle, perhaps trying 55 or 50 degrees rather than 60.


----------



## Timberframed (Sep 25, 2010)

Mtngun, I can see where that roll of TP could come in quite handy when rounding a tight bend in the road then faced with a log truck like that! I but puckered the Mokee Dugg Mesa cut in Northern Arizona some years ago.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 25, 2010)

gemniii said:


> Are you discussing WoodlandPRO 33RP?
> The BOX of 33RP I've got has specs of:
> tpca - 60°
> tpfa - 10°
> ...


Good catch, Gemniii. I must have been trying to read the box without my glasses on. 

I was also using the inverse sine function when I should have been using the inverse tangent, not that it makes a big difference in this instance. Arrgh, it's been 20 years since I used trig. 

I just measured a few rakers using calipers, on the virgin 33RP, and came up with 0.020" - 0.021", pretty close to their 0.022" spec. For a 0.255" gullet width, that calculates to 4.7 degrees raker angle.

The calculated angle is sometimes different than the DAF angle, but I'm going to stick with the DAF numbers from now on, just for consistency. 



> I ground the first one at 60°/10°/75°, based on Bailey's.


You are right, Bailey's does say 75 degree SPA on their website, but how do you achieve a 75 degree side plate angle? My grinder does not an option for 15 degrees vise tilt, only 10 degrees or 0 degrees ?



Metals406 said:


> Put a good CB in the truck. . . You can find out if there are any trucks coming, and where they are -- usually called out by mile marker. Takes the whole butt pucker factor out'a driving on a narrow haul roads.


They do call out the mile markers on CB (I've ridden with them a time or two when my truck broke down or slid off the road and they gave me a lift). But one of the local cowboys advised me to get into the habit of driving under the assumption that I will encounter another vehicle as I go through a blind turn, and I found that as long as I do that, things usually work out -- unless the other vehicle is on your side of the road.


----------



## BobL (Sep 25, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Bob, my camera is an older model with modest resolution, so I don't think it's going to get much better. I don't have the latest and greatest photo equipment like you -- all my spending money has been going to chainsaws.
> 
> I do plan to experiment with the cutting angle, perhaps trying 55 or 50 degrees rather than 60.



OK, I'll go with the pictures you've posted.

Firstly I assume the photo of the virgin chain has been taken after it has been used and is down to the the 0.287 "/s cuttings speed. If so the real cutting edge that enabled it to cut 0.375 "/s in the first place is gone so the real micro hook cannot be seen anyway.

In this picture I have copied the side plate profile of a cutter from the virgin chain and placed it on top of the cutter ground by you.






It's blurry but there is enough there to see the virgin chain side plate profile is circular where as your grind is more of a rounded v shape. When a circular profile is present this means the factory has used a grinder with a larger rounded ended wheel so that the cutting edge is not flat like a basic chisel or plane but one that has a hollow ground giving it a significantly shallower side plate angle than is possible with a conventional grinder.

Here's a comparison of new (ie factory ground) standard Carlton/GB A2 chain (bottom) with my hand sharpening on the same chain (top).









The other major difference between the two chains is the top plate angle is much lower on my chain because I have it set for <10º for milling.

That aside I reckon the side plate profile of your virgin A3 looks more rounded like my file sharpened A2, than either the factory A2 or your grind. The factory A2 also has more of a rounded V like your grind.

The somewhat messy looking factory grind on the A2 also highlights the variability of Carlton factory ground chain. Normally it's OK but in this case it looks to me like the grinding stone was not correctly dressed to shape and the sharpening machine took two bites with the set up was not stable so the cutter side plate has a bump in it - unfortunately it was the last lone cutter in the end of a used roll so I cannot confirm if it was a problem on the other cutters on the roll.

The following is incorrect see followup post.
I know my cutter looks like it has a whopping hook on it but it is less than the recommended for this chain. While I can hand sharpen with just a file, to minutely control hook I use the recommended 13/64" file on a 5/32" file guide which gives me slightly less hook that using it on the recommended 13/64 guide. If I use the 13/64 guide it cuts real fast but for only for the first a half of the a cut and then is starts to slow down and I have to push at the end of a big slab. If I want a really fast spot cutting speed, a 13/64 file on a 7/32 guide will do it. BTW this might work for you guys in softer wood.

Also look at how much I clean out my gullet. This improves chip flow and is really worth doing.

Whether this explains anything you are observing and measuring - I have no idea.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 25, 2010)

Thanks for the superb close ups, BobL. 

Yes, I can see that your hand-filed chain has more "hook". To my eye it is too pointy for a milling chain, and seems unlikely to maintain sharpness for long, but .... I haven't tried it. 

The only way I can achieve something similar with a standard grinder is to change the 60 degree cutter angle to something less. Which is what I did tonight. Behold .....

Still not as "hooky" as your filed chain but to my eye it is pretty close to the factory grind.





BTW, after I cropped these two cutters out of the original photo, what was left was only 513 pixels wide. Best my old camera can do indoors using flash. If I have good lighting, I can use the macro function to get a little closer, but I don't have good indoor lighting at the moment.

Regarding cleaning out the gullets, I understand that racers take that pretty seriously. However, since milling chips are so small, I'm skeptical that chip flow is a big issue. The gullet area seems to build up dirt, as if there is nothing moving there. Also, the curved edge of the cutter is still sharp (no glint) at the end of the day, again suggesting that not much is happening in that area. But, I haven't tried cleaning out the gullets, so I'll keep an open mind.


----------



## BobL (Sep 26, 2010)

mtngun said:


> Thanks for the superb close ups, BobL.
> Yes, I can see that your hand-filed chain has more "hook". To my eye it is too pointy for a milling chain, and seems unlikely to maintain sharpness for long, but .... I haven't tried it.



I agree it looks pointy but that's what I have been using for about 2 years. However, seeing it at such high magnification got me thinking, have I really got the file holder thing the right way around.

After some thinking and measuring, it turns out I was, as we put it here, completely "arse about". What I use is a 13/64" file in a 5/32" file holder and it clearly increases the hook - not decreases it - see below. This may explain why my chain cuts well when I first start a cut and then slows down part way down the slab 

Using a vernier caliper on the file guides I measure the 7/32" holder places 22% of the 13/64" file above the cutter tip. Surprisingly the 3/16" holder places 25% of the file above the cutter tip (ie more rather than less) and the 5/32" holder locates only 14% of the file above the cutter tip. The 7/32 and the 5/32 make sense but the 3/16 one does not

Here is what the side plate profiles look like - the 3/16 and 7/32" holders basically generate the same profile and both look much better than the 5/32.




It looks like I have some experimenting to do once these fingers clear up.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 26, 2010)

BobL said:


> It looks like I have some experimenting to do once these fingers clear up.


Experiments in filing? Bet that breaks your heart, eh ?

Yes, the high magnification really helps these old eyes.

I attempted to photoshop your cutter angle, but it was a continuous curve, not a straight line, making it tough to nail down. The very tip of the "claw" looks to be less than 60 degrees, in the "13/64 in 5/32" pic.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 26, 2010)

Tried out one of the 55 degree chains this morning. 

Chain #1, 55/10/10 & 5.3 deg raker, freshly sharpened, 19.5" wide cut, *0.252 inch/sec*. 

The speed was certainly nothing to brag about, not as good as virgin 33RP.

However, when you convert a chain to different angles, you have to grind quite a bit off to clean up the tooth and get it 100% converted to the new angle. I'm not positive that I ground enough to do that -- some of the teeth looked only partially sharpened -- so I'll give the 55 degree grind another resharpening before I draw any conclusions.

In other news, the Oly was idling poorly, and eventually refused to restart, so I had to call it a day. It's also lost noticeable compression due to sawdust leaking past the air filter, which has been a problem all along. I think I have enough wood to finish the woodshed roof (barely) so milling will be a low priority from now on, and I dunno when I'll get back to the woods. 

Hopefully I'll get my Stihls running this winter and then will be using lo-pro and 325 chain, but presumably the same sharpening issues will apply to those chains, too.


----------



## DaltonPaull (Sep 29, 2010)

Mtngun, thanks for continuing to provide so much good info on chains. I'm glad to hear you have enough wood cut to get your roof on before your saw conked out.

Here is what my chain looks like when sharpened on the grinder according to Maloffs book (0 deg top plate, 50 deg cutter angle. For what it's worth this chain really seams to fly at least when it's fresh.






I didn't realize the raker angle mattered so I'll have to read up on that. I'll try to find something to time the cuts with to provide more data. Tomorrow I'll be cutting green Big Leaf Maple (cuts fast) and dry'ish Oregon White Oak (dulls the chain.)


----------



## DaltonPaull (Sep 30, 2010)

I tried out the above chain today - here are the results. By the way it's 404 pitch oregon ripping chain on 075 with a 41" bar. I forgot to bring the feeder for the manual oiler today so that might have been slowing me down a little. The maple really seamed to cut fast but I guess it's on par with mtngun's speeds.

First cut - 20" maple @ .32"/sec = 6.4 sq inch/sec
Second cut - 20" maple @ .27"/sec = 5.33sq inch/sec
Fifth cut - 22" dry oak @ .13"/sec = 2.9sq inch/sec
Six cut(after file touch up) - 22" dry oak @ .15"/sec = 3.3sq inch/sec


----------



## BobL (Sep 30, 2010)

DaltonPaull said:


> I tried out the above chain today - here are the results. By the way it's 404 pitch oregon ripping chain on 075 with a 41" bar. I forgot to bring the feeder for the manual oiler today so that might have been slowing me down a little. The maple really seamed to cut fast but I guess it's on par with mtngun's speeds.
> 
> First cut - 20" maple @ .32"/sec = 6.4 sq inch/sec
> Second cut - 20" maple @ .27"/sec = 5.33sq inch/sec
> ...



How long are these cuts and how long a distance/time do you measure to get a speed?


----------



## DaltonPaull (Sep 30, 2010)

The cuts were about 6' long in the maple and 8.5' in the oak. The maple ended in a crotch that widened out to about 32" and slowed me down a little. I was trying to use the same method as mtngun so I timed the runs over a 24" span, expect for the last cut when I only did 18" by mistake.

First cut - 20" maple @ .32"/sec = 6.4 sq inch/sec (24" in 1:15)
Second cut - 20" maple @ .27"/sec = 5.33sq inch/sec (24" in 1:30)
Fifth cut - 22" dry oak @ .13"/sec = 2.9sq inch/sec (24" in 3:00)
Six cut(after file touch up) - 22" dry oak @ .15"/sec = 3.3sq inch/sec (24" in 2:00)

I rounded by a few seconds, but all the cuts came out remarkably close to even numbers.


----------



## mtngun (Sep 30, 2010)

DaltonPaull said:


> First cut - 20" maple @ .32"/sec = 6.4 sq inch/sec
> Second cut - 20" maple @ .27"/sec = 5.33sq inch/sec
> Fifth cut - 22" dry oak @ .13"/sec = 2.9sq inch/sec
> Six cut(after file touch up) - 22" dry oak @ .15"/sec = 3.3sq inch/sec


Wow, the speed difference between the two woods is dramatic.


----------



## flipance (Oct 12, 2010)

I would be interested to know why you use the guide rail after your first cut? Why not just use the Granburgh on the cut log? Thanks


----------



## BobL (Oct 12, 2010)

flipance said:


> I would be interested to know why you use the guide rail after your first cut? Why not just use the Granburgh on the cut log? Thanks



I also usually use log guide rail for every cut.

The benefits for me are:
- the log rails over hang the log at each end so starting and finishing the cut is much easier.
- I start the saw and let it cool off with the mill on the rails, this mean I do not have to carrying a running saw.
- the rails are smoother than a cut surface so there's no transfer of smaller dips and bumps into the cut below.
- the log rails can be adjusted for any twist or dip that might have been present in the previous cut.


----------



## mtngun (Oct 13, 2010)

flipance said:


> I would be interested to know why you use the guide rail after your first cut? Why not just use the Granburgh on the cut log? Thanks


What BobL said.

There is no disadvantage to using the guide rail. No set up on the subsequent cuts, just set it on the log, one screw at each end, and you're ready to go.


----------



## gemniii (Oct 13, 2010)

mtngun said:


> What BobL said.
> 
> There is no disadvantage to using the guide rail. No set up on the subsequent cuts, just set it on the log, one screw at each end, and you're ready to go.



I've just been setting my unistrut on top and being careful it doesn't slide. No screwing in.


----------



## DRB (Feb 2, 2011)

*More speed info*

Husy 365 special totally stock 65cc saw with 28" bar.
Frozen Doug fir cant

First cut - 11" doug fir @ .65"/sec = 7.15 sq inch/sec (12" in 18.5 seconds)
Second cut - 11" doug fir @ .92"/sec = 10.12 sq inch/sec (12" in 13 seconds)

I thought that these number were pretty good for a 65cc saw. I think it may have gotten a little faster as the chain became less grabby I kind of had to hold it back a little at the start. I don't think my 088 would have been much faster. The 365 is much more user friendly and better on fuel with the small stuff.

My data collection kind of when to the side as my hands got cold.

I would like to try 325 on this saw. Finding a thin kerf 24" bar and a 8 pin 325 standard mount sprocket looks to be a challenge. They have 9 pin but I don't think a 65cc saw will pull it. I would like to try Woodland Pro 20NK Chain.


----------



## mtngun (Feb 2, 2011)

DRB said:


> Husy 365 special totally stock 65cc saw with 28" bar.
> Frozen Doug fir cant
> 
> First cut - 11" doug fir @ .65"/sec = 7.15 sq inch/sec (12" in 18.5 seconds)
> Second cut - 11" doug fir @ .92"/sec = 10.12 sq inch/sec (12" in 13 seconds)


That is pretty good for a 65cc saw and 3/8 chain.


----------



## Ted J (Feb 2, 2011)

mtngun said:


> Snap a chalk line and cut it freehand with a worm drive Skil saw and 18 tooth ripping blade. The cut is not perfectly straight but good enough for framing purposes.
> 
> A aluminum straight edge to guide the Skil saw would be handy, but Santa hasn't brought one yet.
> 
> ...


 
Unless I'm missing something... 
What do you need an aluminum straight edge for to rip the edge of the slabs? Why not use the unistrut rails as your straight edge to guide the circular saw....?

Ted

By the way, Nice pile of boards for a good day of milling!!!


----------



## 820wards (Feb 2, 2011)

mtngun said:


> Another personal CSM record smashed today, logging 4.1 hours run time on the CSM -- though it would be more impressive if I could cut the same amount of wood in *fewer* hours.
> 
> The CS62 felled this 23" dead standing doug fir. The tree had been killed by a slash fire.



Mtngun,

Nice work, I bet you sawed a cord of wood that night. 

jerry-


----------



## Rusty-880 (Aug 1, 2011)

Wish I could get that kind of time out of a chain on the mill. At the moment we are getting 1 possibly two passes per chain- Ionbark and Bloodwood. On this mill at the moment is a 5m long Red Ironbark. Throw another on after lunch. Usually do about 3m logs.


----------

