Art Martin: Will the Real Logger Please Stand Up

[rupedoggy]

Crofter- Art isn't perfect but he ???? sure is the best filer on this or any other forum as far as my money is concerned. Having said that I want to also say he is a big boy now and can stand up for himself if he feels slighted.
I don't feel that Glens was doing anything but thinking out loud. I appreciate it. I read his dissertation and was impressed. He is showing a grasp and understanding of the subject. His thoughts just might lead to other experiments and help other to improve.
I don't know if you remember Walt Galer. People on this forum liked his writing. When he said some things that were just not so, some of us called him on it. Others backed Walt to the hilt and even when he was proven wrong he had a lot of support. Thing is he is gone now. I don't know why but suspect part of it is because he was embarrassed. (I would welcome his imput on this if he still reads this forum).
Point I am trying to make is let others have a say. This thread especially is a refreshing change from most of the questions I see:
1.Hey guys I got an xyz123 saw and want to know what you think of it? (usually posted by a guy that has a 1 after his name and then never posts again) or
2.Hey guys if I open my muffler will I have to realign my fizzwig or recalibrate my splelunkometer?
3.If Ken Dunn fixes up my Eagerbeaver will I be able to go on ESPN and beat Jim Taylor, Jason Winyard, and Rick Halvorson by two seconds or three?
Well you get the idea. Mike

 

[glens]

Art,

I was a little apprehensive about how my ramblings might be received after seeing Crofter's response.  Thank you for responding in the manner which you did.

You said you just didn't understand what I was getting at, and I would like to try to explain that, perhaps better than I had done.

In the leftmost cutter in your earlier attachment (<a href="http://www.arboristsite.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=65550" target=_blank">here</a>), the depth gauge is represented as being set to .025" <i>in the plane parallel to the two rivets</i>, and the cutter is portrayed as being rocked back about 5&deg;.&nbsp; The bottom of the piece of wood is shown as parallel to the guide bar.&nbsp; If the cutter were dragged 90&deg; to the right, the top plate would surely dig into the wood fiber and attempt to continue going ever deeper.&nbsp; This would result in the cutter pivoting clockwise on the depth gauge, thus raising the heel of the cutter until such time as the rivets were parallel to the bar once again, only then achieving the full cut-depth of .025".&nbsp; If at any time the heel were raised higher than the toe (for lack of the proper term if that's not it), the cut depth would become greater than .025".&nbsp; Recall that the entire cutter assembly is moving in a perfectly horizontal direction in this hypothetical case.&nbsp; If at any time the toe were to rise higher than the heel, the depth of cut would become less than .025".&nbsp;

If for some reason, in that leftmost cutter oriented as shown, the top plate cutting surface did not enter the wood, in it's strictly horizontal motion the cutter would not produce any chips at all.&nbsp; I know that's obvious, but that's sort of my point.&nbsp; That image, in all it's parts, is proclaiming that unless the entire cutter is tipped back by the "optimum angle" that it will not produce the best cut.&nbsp; If you followed what I said above, you would see what I'm seeing in the image.&nbsp; That is, that <i><b>as long as the motion is strictly horizontal, and the top corner of the cutter remains the same height from the bar as is the depth gauge, there will be no chip</b></i>.&nbsp; Only at such time as the rivets are fully in line with the direction of motion will the cut produce a chip of the thickness set by the depth gauge as it was set in a plane parallel to the rivet centers.

I have no doubt that in actual use, and <i>especially when the cutting corner is back in the vicinity of the heel</i>, that the toe will unavoidably rise a small amount, and that the torque/leverage will hold it there.&nbsp; If the top corner of the cutting edge is 0.5" behind the top of the depth gauge, and the cutter is rocked back 1&deg;, the top of the depth gauge will <i>rise from the bar</i> by .009" ( 9 &divide; 500 = tan 1&deg; ) in relation to the top of the cutting point.&nbsp; That jibes closely with the combination of my earlier analysis and the final figure for depth setting in your attachment.&nbsp; <b>To rehash:</b>&nbsp; since the cutter width is less at the heel, the depth needs to be increased proportionately (my part of the argument) and since the tooth rides tilted back by a minute amount as a result of the rearset cutting corner, the depth needs to be increased a smidgen more.&nbsp; Increase the depth by .006" due to width loss, and by .009" due to "rock-back", for a total result of (25+9+6) .040".&nbsp; Very close to Carlton's figure.&nbsp; Take away a mil or two for my steel rule measurements and you have .038" (on a 3/8" pitch chain).

It should be plain that while I agree with the resultant depth setting, it's for an entirely different reason than depicted in that File-O-Plate advert.&nbsp; In fact, I really don't see how that depicted line of thought is even plausible.

A cutter filed back to 1/2" behind the depth gauge, and the depth gauge set to 38 mils, will "work" at a depth of 29 mils if the cutter is rocked back by 1 degree, with the net result being the same volume of material being removed as a new cutter set to work at 25 mils and 0 degrees backtilt.&nbsp; Roughly, according to my (corrected?) calculations.

So now, for the sake of argument, the cutter is ground back to the heel and the depth gauge is set to compensate for both decreased width and for tilt.&nbsp; If one had ground their chain with a static side plate cutting angle of 90&deg; from the horizontal, in use they would be running at 91&deg;, which would mean the top corner was the rearwardmost part of that surface.&nbsp; If the original angle were 89&deg; it would actually be working at 90&deg;, etc.&nbsp; I'm pretty sure I'm right about that.

Is that bad science on my part?&nbsp; It's certainly simplistic in that not all factors have been included, but within the limits of the example, nothing more involved than simple trigonometry is needed.

I have full confidence that you produce race chains in the very top tier of the performance realm.&nbsp; I would be a complete fool for even thinking, let alone suggesting, otherwise.&nbsp; Most certainly I want you do know that I'm not even attempting to call that into question.

Thanks for your time.&nbsp; I look forward to hearing you say you understood my attempt at describing my understanding of the matter, and then what you have to say about it.

Glen

 

[Art Martin]

Glens,

I understand what you are saying, but it seems to me from all your measurements, that you think each individual tooth is dragged continuously in the cutting position through the entire diameter of the cut.

The purpose of the depth gauge is to meter the amount of wood that the tooth takes as it makes repetitious “bites” along its travel through the cut. If you were to grind off the depth gauges entirely, the tooth would remain in its “attack” mode throughout the cut. Without the controlling component, the depth gauge, the chain would be worthless. The depth gauge stops this continuous function and limits the chain to a multitude of small “bites” with the thickness being preset with the depth gauge. I don’t know of any reason the heel of the tooth would be forced to rise up higher than the front of the tooth. That seems to me would go against any law of physics.

To have a smooth running chain, all the depth gauges must be set at the same height. This is accomplished with a depth gauge. If you had a reading of .025”on some teeth, .035”or .040” on others dispersed throughout the chain, the result would be a very rough cutting chain. I have read countless posts submitted by woodcutters that state that they file their depth gauges with two or three strokes of the file without a gauge. If they do this throughout the life of the chain, they could have a .020” difference in some of the teeth.

With all respect, my opinion of the detailed measurements that you submitted is based on inconclusive conjecture and are presumptive on your part and do not reflect any realism to actuality of tests that I have performed throughout my nearly fifty years in the field of wood cutting. The purpose of the subject that I am trying relay, to those who are interested in racing chains and competition, are methods that have been tried and proven without a lot of confusion brought on by highly technical data which are not necessary to win contests.

Since you are viewing the drawing in an atypical position, print the picture and turn it upside down and maybe that will help you see it the way I do, at least it puts it in a different perspective.

Art Martin

 

[JimL]

They still sell those adjustable gauges?? I had one and i am pretty sure it got stolen...

 

[Kneejerk Bombas]

Adjustable depth guages.

My friend has one. He guards it with his life(particularly when I'm around).

Does anyone know of these for sale anywhere?

We talked about making a few of our own. Do you think the part the file rides on is hardened?

 

[Art Martin]

The gauge that I use was on Ebay and it cost me alot but I had to have it. What I did with mine was to glue a strip of .004" brass shim stock to the bottom edge where it rides on the top of the teeth to protect the cutting edge of the top plate. Of coarse you have to take into consideration the .004" thickness when adjusting the depth. The surface where the file rides is hardened. The gauges that they sell now that are not adjustable and are set at .025" or .030" to me are worthless.

Art Martin

 

[eyolf]

Art sez: <b><i>The purpose of the depth gauge is to meter the amount of wood that the tooth takes as it makes repetitious “bites” along its travel through the cut. </i></b>

Now, I guess I learned something, because I guess I believed that each cutter more or less cut all the way across the kerf. Upon further thought, I wondered "how in the world would the chain be able to clear all the chips if that were the case"?

So, thinking further, full comp chain "feels" smoother in the cut because each little "chomp" (as the cutters bounce in and out of the wood) is a lot closer to every other one...both because the cutters are closer, and because there are twice as many of them running through the kerf per unit of time.

 

[glens]

Art,

Hello, and thanks for continuing the dialog, I realize it's tangential to your topic of racing chain production, and I'm nearly ready to butt out.

You understand correctly that I think each individual tooth is dragged continuously in the cutting position throughout the cut.&nbsp; At least I consider that to be the ideal and desired condition, while realizing it doesn't always occur.

Isn't the greatest return on the horsepower and time investment made while each cutter is severing the full width and depth to which it's set?&nbsp; Wouldn't the best overall efficiency be achieved were each cutter to ride it's depth gauge and maintain full cutting orientation for it's entire pass through the diameter of cut?&nbsp; I understand that the varying cross-sectional makeup of logs (as well the presence of slices previously liberated) often prohibits such continuous cutting action, but I must say it takes me by a bit of surprise to hear that the cyclic loss and re-establishment of cut is considered to be a good thing.&nbsp; I would think such behavior is an unfortunate side-effect and not a design feature, yet I believe I'm hearing you say it's the latter.

I fully understand the function of the depth gauge insofar as it includes limiting the thickness of the slice.&nbsp I oftentimes use a wood chisel as a plane to remove small bits of material where smoothness of the bottom of the cut is not critical, and for small areas only.&nbsp; I don't hesitate to grab my hand plane whenever it's more appropriate.&nbsp; The difference in function, control, and safety the depth control of the plane affords vs. the bare chisel is very real.

I've noticed with my hand plane that while going across the side of the grain, the slice often breaks into short pieces; yet going fully with the grain the slice will typically continue to curl until interference or some other factor causes it to break.&nbsp; In both cases, the slice is the same continuous thickness.&nbsp; Maybe it's just my imagination, but it has always seemed to me that exactly the same thing occurs with my saw chain.&nbsp; I've always considered the production of chips in the cross-cut to simply be the same phenomenon - enhanced, certainly, by the lesser precision of the cutting mechanism.&nbsp; The type of effluent from the cut seems to typically be slightly longer curls near the start and finish of the diameter, with shorter chips in the middle.&nbsp; And when ripping with the chain motion fully parallel to the grain, they will typically remain intact, reaching great lengths.

Regarding the maintenance of the depth gauges, well, doing it freehand is something that scares the tar out of me.&nbsp; I have not yet held and inspected the Pferd file holder which individually maintains the depth gauges while touching up the cutters, but I plan to soon.&nbsp; Although it appears to me that they are not progressively lowered as with the File-O-Plate, for example, it really seems like a good tool to bring to the woods.

Just a couple more points and I'll likely be done.

I don't think that the rear foot of the cutter would rise above the front one in any measurable way in any typical instance.&nbsp; I guess it could happen for some reason, but winning the PowerBall lottery would likely be a much more recurring event.&nbsp; I'd only mentioned it to illustrate my point about the changing depth setting vs. link attitude relative to chain direction.

About my measurement:&nbsp; what's so inconclusive and conjectural about saying a 0.19" wide by 0.025" thick by 1" long chip is 0.0048 cubic inches and to obtain the same volume at 0.16" wide it must be 0.030" thick?&nbsp; Or that a run of 0.5" at 1&deg; rises 0.009"?&nbsp; Those are simple mathematical equations.&nbsp; If a new tooth cuts, on average, 0.060 c.i. per foot, and at the end of it's life, after the depth has been increased to compensate for the loss in width, it requires an additional 0.009" be taken off the depth gauge (which, say, leads the cutter by 1/2") to achieve 0.060 c.i. per foot, then it's obvious the tooth is riding at a 1&deg; incline compared to new.&nbsp; Remember, this is on average.&nbsp; I have in mind a possibly good way to actually measure the results.

Once again, I want to thank you for your time and consideration in the matter.&nbsp; I certainly hope that you don't feel inconvenienced or disrespected in any way.

Glen

 

[Art Martin]

glens,

It’s hard to carry on a dialog with you because of your ambiguous statements.

It seems to me that you are trying to disprove long established and proven facts. I haven’t a clue why. You made a statement that you still think that each tooth is dragged continuously through the cut in the cutting position throughout the cut. Then you go on to say you realize that it doesn’t occur. How can you think something is true even when you realize it’s not true? It’s like saying you think the earth is flat but you realize it is round. How would you design a hooded tooth to remain in a stationary position of riding flat while being mounted with rivets at both ends to enable it to go around the sprocket on one end and a roller tip on the other end of the bar. Then being subjected to a force of severing wood fiber? Of course, you would need a tractor engine to pull the chain. I’ll tell you one way, go back to the “scratcher” chain, which is the closest thing for your theory. Also don’t leave out the fact that you would need a chainsaw that would weigh close to 50 pounds with 3 to 1 ratio gears to be able to pull the chain.

What I was referring to as conjecture is that you haven’t brought into your equations the following:
1. Type of wood,
2. Second growth or virgin timber,
3. Moisture content
4. Knots
5. Ridge top timber
6. Valley timber
7. Wood texture (i.e., Alder as opposed to Eucalyptus)
8. Springy timber
9. Growth ring
10. Oak
11. Redwood
12. Douglas Fir
13. Cottonwood
14. Pine
15. Hickory

I could go on and on. You seem to be treating all wood in the same context with your volume calculations and mathematical equations. You don’t take into consideration the pressure applied by the operator that could alter any formula. This is what I was referring to as inconclusive. You have to remember when you work in the woods, it’s not in some laboratory or classroom.

Art Martin

 

[glens]

Art,

It seems as though you'd hastened to reply before scrutinizing my material.&nbsp; It makes me feel as though I've offended you.&nbsp; Please accept my sincere apology.

I hope you'll reconsider both sentences in the second paragraph of my previous post.&nbsp; Perhaps you'd read the first, which was constructed with as much of your exact wording as possible, and glossed over the second, which I'd intended to qualify it.&nbsp; Actually, as I read the subsequent paragraph, it sheds further light upon my mindset.&nbsp; I hope you'll see that the original statement concerns the ideal only, and not what is considered to be the result actually achieved in practice.

(I understand that scratcher chain operated with an uncontrolled depth of cut as opposed to the hooded tooth which is precisely limited in that respect.&nbsp; I don't understand how it is you think I'm trying to say otherwise.)

I'll try to work on my communication skills before the next time I chime in here.

Thank you for your time,
Glen

 

[stihltech]

ssshhhh

Sometime it is best just to sit back and listen. Please continue Art.

 

[Marky Mark]

What type of file

I have gone thru your posts Art and I could not find if you mentioned it or not but when you do your hand filing what type of file do you use.
In the Baileys catalog there are two types of files for the square chisel chain.

1; 3 corner chisel file part number 15015
2; double beveled chisel file part number 15020

I would like to know what you would advise a beginner to start with or are these files used for different applications?

Thanks

 

[Art Martin]

Marky Mark,

I will get to that subject soon unless I get blind-sided again. I’ve got some other steps to discuss concerning racing chains before I talk about the files and honing.

stihltech,

You’re correct about just sitting back and listening. I thought this might turn into another “great chainsaw race” which started out under similar circumstances.

Art Martin

 

[Gypo Logger]

Hi Art, I havent quite got the Silvey sur sharp mastered yet. I get a sidebeak and end up over compensating and removing to much metal. I have tried with lowering and raising the stone. Sometimes I get right in the corner. I wish this grinder would allow simple clamping of the drivers. I think a grinder could be made to be more simple and user friendly for square chain. I'm just whining I know, but I hope to master it soon. Regardless, my efforts have paid off and its real smooth compared to round chisel.
KD has been a real saint in his efforts to help me, even modifying a stone for me. I diamond dress often but gently. Getting the right forward and sideways adjustment of the cutters into the stone seems to be the hard part.
John

 

[z4lunch]

Razur sharp II

John,
Steve here...
Ken set my Silvey up too, and what I found when I get side beaks is the tooth needs to go to the stone a little more. If I get top beaks the tooth need to get backed away. I have not messed with the stone hight on the motor shaft. i guess the biggest thing I found is to start out with the shortest tooth, which I'm sure you know. As long as it's not rocked too bad. Going from a factory round ground chain, and then grinding it square does remove quite a bit of tooth, but you need to, to get across the whole top plate. I like the blue stone the best.
Steve

 

[Art Martin]

John,

On your Silvey Razur Sharp II, to get a thinner inside side plate for faster cutting, you need to reduce the 8" wheel to a 7". also, you need to drill a new hole on the groved chain holder to move it forward toward the wheel on both sides.

Art Martin

 

[Art Martin]

The picture of the filing vise that I posted recently is definitely my favorite. There is another chain holder that works good. It can be made from a discarded bar where the groove is not too sloppy. An adjustable pressure type clamp is mounted on the side of the bar with small bolts. This bar is a multi-purpose tool because it is also used for honing.

Art Martin

 

[Harley]

Hello Art:

Just for curiosity. How much do you think all of your equipment for making a racing chain is worth? Thanks.

 

[FSburt]

Boy Art if you got a Dollar for every reply in this post you would have some bank. Is this a record for most number of replys in a Posted subject.

 

[Art Martin]

Harley,

That’s a good question, but hard to answer. I use the following equipment just for making racing chains: a Silvey Razur II that is for roughing out the inside angles, but not for finishing; a dechromer (that took several weeks to complete); a the surface grinder for reducing the inside body of individual teeth on a dismantled chain; a bench grinder/sharpener for cutting back the teeth and doggy boning etc.; a drill press for grinding rivets, chain vises, rivet spinner, countless files and gauges.

I have more invested in chains, saws, and bars. There are about 40 different racing chains hanging on the wall of my workshop. Then there is a 090 Stihl, a 820 West Bend, a 655 Poulan, a 680 Solo in a box at Ken’s, three 056 Stihls and at least 10 bars.

I will probably sell the entire lot to the highest bidder soon.

Art Martin