Tutorial: make your own raker depth gauge supported by software tool

[hannes69]

I use the 3/8 Husky tool on all my pro style 3/8 chain which would obviously include Stihl, Oregon, Carlton, and now Husky, (as I understand they are manufacturing their own chain as of late). The results seem similar in practice among the different types relative to their originally designed performance.

Interesting! In my opinion there should be a problem when using the Husky 3/8 gauge 'hard' settting on Stihl 3/8 RM chain (see bottom of post #226 in this thread here https://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/tutorial-make-your-own-raker-depth-gauge-supported-by-software-tool.320388/page-12#post-6570484

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

As for the excitable Canadian, here's another very interesting (and amusing to anyone who knows what a Mac10-10 is) video of a "little engine than could" with an older chain toward the end of its life with uneven cutter lengths all over the place that was hand-filed with depth gauges maintained with a progressive style raker gauge tool. Notice how the chain performs throughout the cut with a 28" bar despite the saw only being 54cc. Also notice where the cut ends up despite the one-handed self-feeding of the saw with all the uneven cutters. THIS is what a progressive depth gauge tool does for a chain with uneven teeth when used properly. Pretty much speaks for itself.

​

 

[HarleyT]

Uneven teeth????

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Dude mang..., that's just wrong.

And you're right. LOL

 

[Westboastfaller]

Also notice where the cut ends up despite the one-handed self-feeding of the saw with all the uneven cutters.

THIS is what a progressive depth gauge tool does for a chain with uneven teeth when used properly. Pretty much speaks for itself.

​

The subtitle says its a myth that you can't have uneven cutter's or people say you have to have even cutters (same thing ) I suppose a myth may come about when there are different variables. Different activities, different experience levels, different gear.. ect
Its not so cut and dry. (no pun)

1) You need to keep your teeth close to even if you don't use a progressive raker gauge or more accurate methods. (Reference: saddle gauge)
True.
2) You can do your rakers without a gauge with the use of a consistent angle, as well a consistent file stroke and with a quality file that's not worn out) THEN rakers can also be maintained WITH close to even teeth.
True

3)You need to keep your teeth even?

^^^Thats a really poorly structured stratment I made so the answer is:
Sometimes, yes.

And the one you keep bringing back into play and we keep wrestling over is:
4) You don't need to keep even teeth
with the use of a progressive gauge?

Answer: no you don't.
However, I am 99% you need to keep an undetermined percent of cutters in an undetermined sequence within an undetermined margin of one another as the cutting angle will decrease after the first 1/8 to 1/3 of the cutter.

The example in the vidio did not show extremely uneven teeth IMO.
I don't believe it can be based on a few teeth either if many are in close range.
Looking at the data of the Stihl RM with Stihl gauge, it looks like about 3-5% difference in cutting angle (For some perspective)
I did base it off the longer ones vs the shorter ones though. Wow, If you think that is uneven teeth then you may want to loosen off on your very strong position some.

From chain throws to dusting one side, then you will see me file according to nature. Right side is always more susceptible when brushing out as its on the bottom. If I'm unlucky and bang up the same cutters with chain throws then my teeth are as out of wack as that bitch in the picture in no time.
Otherwise I will file the 38 teeth when its time.

This is up there with an oil thread.. lol
I'm content to wait for more specs.
And see what happens in the future
but find myself defending.

Its too bad because I had some of these chains not that long ago that were just professionally filed and gauged but would bind in the wood in full bar length cuts with the dogs.
I was going to send them to Philbert when I first saw his "chain challenge" thread pop up about 8 months ago.
I believe he could have fixed them easy by evening the cutters and gauging those rakers. Of course with a self feed buck on smaller wood the problem would have seemed slight. Nevertheless.

Like Buckin' was saying, problems will show up in bigger wood. The more teeth in the cut the more accurate things need to be.

Re: the first part of the post.
Yes he did do some portions of the buck without the dogs. Most of the one handed was dogged in.
It is possible the dogs can keep it straight with a very slight dusting of one side for example but with the short pivot (back handle to spikes) of a smaller saw with short dogs then you would have to apply a noticeable amount of extra pressure. On a bigger saw with supper sized dogs then it would take more experience to notice it in a bigger felling cut when its very slight.
Post is long enough but I will quote again on some more off topic comments on "buckin".
I will say he won't always agree with himself as time moves on when he looks back. I've said things on here that I no longer agree with. I've changed styles in terms of felling.
Its forever evolving, I laught at young fallers or young into the game with there sometimes strong opinions like they have it all worked out and nothing needs to change.
5 more yrs and they will have a different opinion and 5 more yrs and they will have another.
Tiger Woods took 18 months away to reconstruct his swing when he seemed to be at his height.
(Tiger woods 'swing' ..you know when I pass on a joke like that I'm serious.. lol

 

[Westboastfaller]

Was someone asking a question as to what was wrong with the saddle gauge??
I believe he got it answered on page one with a data read out but he never answered back and made posts saying that nobody here will answer his questions. I have a terrible feeling that he just must not have seen it?


.O25" new chain = .058 at the end of the chains life.
Hannes figures match that of what Carlton's figures were at the end of the chains life.

Progressive means it will take the larger ratio of raker needed as it wears vs the saddle gauge that doesn't have the progressive capabilities so it will end up with about 13-14 thou or half the cutting angle degree at the end of the chains life. If the teeth aren't kept even then this gauge will run into a second problem (problem #2) very quickly due to the ratio of cutting angle lost at a very rapid pace. Other complications group in with "problem #2 that will increase this further, as was mentioned back about 5 posts and that was that with irregular teeth with the saddle type, it will give you an extra high raker if the saddle is sitting on higher teeth or an extra low raker if the saddle is on two low rakers when you're treating a long tooth. Same applys in the same scenario but when the two points of contact ends are very unever one way or the other.
This is for anyone and especially "The little boy that cried wolf" that's been running around here. he real does get questions answered.

Problem #2 with the saddle gauge Is caused by different length teeth.
Its a mathematical impossibility that EVEN the progressive gauge will cut the raker at the same ratio to cutter wear throughout the life of the chain thus leaving different cutting angles.

 

[HarleyT]

Was someone asking a question as to what was wrong with the saddle gauge??
I believe he got it answered on page one with a data read out but he never answered back and made posts saying that nobody here will answer his questions. I have a terrible feeling that he just must not have seen it?


.O25" new chain = .058 at the end of the chains life.
Hannes figures match that of what Carlton's figures were at the end of the chains life.

Progressive means it will take the larger ratio of raker needed as it wears vs the saddle gauge that doesn't have the progressive capabilities so it will end up with about 13-14 thou or half the cutting angle degree at the end of the chains life. If the teeth aren't kept even then this gauge will run into a second problem (problem #2) very quickly due to the ratio of cutting angle lost at a very rapid pace. Other complications group in with "problem #2 that will increase this further, as was mentioned back about 5 posts and that was that with irregular teeth with the saddle type, it will give you an extra high raker if the saddle is sitting on higher teeth or an extra low raker if the saddle is on two low rakers when you're treating a long tooth. Same applys in the same scenario but when the two points of contact ends are very unever one way or the other.
This is for anyone and especially "The little boy that cried wolf" that's been running around here. he real does get questions answered.

Problem #2 with the saddle gauge Is caused by different length teeth.
Its a mathematical impossibility that EVEN the progressive gauge will cut the raker at the same ratio to cutter wear throughout the life of the chain thus leaving different cutting angles.

Have you uploaded a pic of your raker depth gauge yet?

 

[HarleyT]

Just checking............

 

[KiwiBro]

Hey horses, drink your damned, universal raker setter water:

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Digital-TL...269916&hash=item41d4e87a6d:g:YYQAAOSw59taFopE

you're all *****'n welcome. LOL

 

[hannes69]

Have you uploaded a pic of your raker depth gauge yet?

Have you taken your medicaments with the exact dose determined by your mental doctor? Yet? Today? Really?
As long as you don´t answer questions posed to you (several times the case already) you won´t get answers to yours. Concept of equilibration.

 

[hannes69]

Hey horses, drink your damned, universal raker setter water

You´re laying out some really good bait there, feeling a little bit tempted, but, hmmm, it doesn´t fit well enough into my personal preferences

 

[hannes69]

Today I tried measuring chains with photos and using an image measuring software. This approach doesn´t work as well as I expected. It´s difficult to make a setup where all distances form 90° shapes. I have no special macro lense, my normal lense makes some distortions out of center (the rivets get more and more elliptic than pefect round on the photos´edges). There are reflections and shadows.
I think for doing measurements by using such techniques you need better equipment and more knowledge how to do everything as perfect as possible.
The results were in the same ballpark like my manual caliper measurements. There were some deviations, most of them cancel out each other in such a way that the results are the same like shown in the start post, the resulting deviations for the cutting angle were in the range +/- 0.3°, so when assuming 'reality' lays in between these values from the two methods numbers probably vary within +/- 0.15° compared to the ones shown in the starting post.
-------------------------

When having some measurements for different chain pitches and when knowing (hopefully) the fact that the numbers mainly depend on pitch, and chain manufacturer and so on have a minor influence, then we can offer a simple table like the following (gauge type 2), showing now the numbers for the already given chains and assuming a 'hard' cutting angle of ~6.5° peak and a 'soft' cutting angle of ~ 8.0° peak and rivet meaning the rivet number following to the raker:

chain pitch ["] chain gauge [mil] slot length [mil] slot width [mil] rivet # gauge thickness hard / soft [mil]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3/8.........................63..........................850................175..............2....................50 / 42
3/8 LP....................50..........................500................146..............1....................47 / 40

Such a table should be more sympathetic than the starting post of this thread
You simply pick your chain, look up the slot dimensions, take your sheet of metal according to your preference (hard / soft) and do the rectangular cutting, ready.
When having a metal sheet with a certain thickness, you´ll know then where you land, within the given hard / soft range and on which side. And you know the ideal value when you can alter the thickness by what technique ever.
The table could be even more simplified when assuming that most of the people understand at least the positioning of such a depth gauge on the chain. Then you don´t need 'chain gauge', 'slot length' and 'slot width' because they are self explanatory then and you can find out these values simply by yourself.
The same could be done for type 1 gauges. I personally see only one aspect that maybe speaks for maintaining type 1 as well: the simpler method of adjusting to a hard/soft setting with a given material thickness.
If type 2 works well enough numerically for all chain pitches and when finding a good solution regarding the type 2 thickness problem, hopefully type 1 can be neglected.
The final result should lead into a new thread in this forum, some short explanations, some photos and/or drawings and of course the final table like above.
Maybe target a timeline, like 'merry x-mas 2018, here´s your new raker depth solution for 2019'

 

[Skeans]

Honestly this would be best suited to a harvester operator that does their own chains say .404 80 gauge with .050 rakers and 11H 3/4” .122 gauge with .060 rakers these are a fixed feed speed and rate.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

Much more palatable for the masses..., and saves me the looming frustration of trying to get all those measurements! I will, however, still attempt to measure some .404 so it can at least be represented to some degree.

I have been doing some research through my general stash of 'filing, grinding, chain types, angles and settings, etc.' folder looking for a Carlton document on which I largely base my general position. I'll hopefully have a little time later to provide some interesting context to at least part of the background from the File-o-Plate (or any progressive type) development theory which addresses one aspect of how saw chain works that I've yet to see considered here. I will simply say that the intent of the progressive approach is not to provide a perfectly linear cutting angle throughout the life of the chain, but rather one that does vary slightly along the way. (Wonder how long it will take West Boast to rummage through his Carlton stuff to rebut what I've yet to even post.)

One thing I know with absolute certainty: There's no way a Mac 10-10 with a 28" bar using a chain with uneven cutters can make a nearly perfect buck through a 4 foot diameter maple log. The video proves it.

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

It´s all about the pivot point, it determines the cutting angle.

There are actually two pivot points to consider here. For the type 2 tool, one is the rivet when referring for the tool. The other is the heel of the cutting tooth behind the rivet...., referred to by Carlton as the hinge point. For the type 1 tool it would be the top of the tie strap for the tool, but would still be the heel of the cutting tooth..., again, behind the rivet.

This variable and some others are neglected within the simple 'constant cutting angle' concept.

Just as an observation, and perhaps part of the subject's evolution...

The "constant cutting angle concept" term is actually a fallacy in all of this and would be more accurately described as "optimum desired cutting angle" to accommodate all of the actual variables and nuances being considered (and applied to/for) in any given cutting situation. Subjective? Yes. More appropriate? I think so, but that's just me.

I think: Yes, it rocks up and down. But this maybe can cover only a certain degree of variations in height. If a tooth is very high compared to the surrounded ones, it may lead to a 'lifting' off and make the other cutters not used. Or one tooth very low maybe doesn´t really cut anymore or at least with lower pressure and so a smaller chip.

So here's where it gets interesting considering how saw chain actually works, and where my particular position has its roots. Yes the chain rocks up and down and does actually lift off of the bar when it grabs a chip. It does so by rocking backward onto the heel of the cutter to achieve the cutting angle permitted by the depth gauge and is referred to by Carlton as the "attack position" of the cutter. It grabs its chip, settles back down onto the bar, and hauls the chip away to be ejected. For all intents and purposes it clears the way for the next cutter to do the exact same thing regardless of the cutter's size. A taller tooth preceding a shorter one is not acting like a depth gauge that's too high for the shorter tooth. It's just getting the wood out of the way for the shorter tooth to grad some too. Plain and freeking simple. If the depth gauge is set properly for not only the next shorter cutter itself, but also in conjunction with how the hinge point of the cutter is affecting the orientation of the cutting surface as it assumes its "attack position", the process will repeat itself all the way along the chain within any reasonable variations in parameters scattered among many random cutters of differing lengths. Period.

While the previous stuff has been beaten to death, (and proven to be true), the key point to the above is to illuminate the hinge point of the cutter as another very important aspect to consider when attempting to determine (or calculate) "optimum desired cutting angle". I've re-read this whole thread (yeah, I really did, folks) and found no specific mention of it anywhere. There are obviously references to how things change (or naturally want to) at a point about halfway through a cutter's life. The reason for that isn't the distance from the cutter to the raker, it's how the "attack position" of the cutter changes relative to its hinge point (heel of the cutter) which is technically controlled by the rivet being the pivot point relative to the length of the tooth. When the tooth is new, it pivots backward on its heel with the rivet as a pivot point (or axle) with its cutting face conveniently pointing upward. How high is determined by the raker. As the tooth gets shorter and shorter, the cutting face gets closer and closer to the pivot point and raises up less and less to its desired "attack position" if the raker is not adjusted accordingly for optimum position. As a matter of fact, once the cutter length passes the mid point of the rivet it actually begins to point downward in its "attack position" if the raker is not adjusted to over compensate for the difference in axis relative to cutter length. So what was appropriate at the beginning of the chain's life isn't good enough at the middle of its life, let alone the end of it. While angle differences will be slight, they are still required and maintaining a constant cutting angle across the life of a cutting tooth isn't even necessarily a good thing..., and perhaps why Carlton did go to such length with their design of the FOP..., and why it and other type 1 tools don't maintain perfect math no matter how bad some folks think they should. Easiest way to illustrate what I'm attempting to explain is to lift a couple of illustrations from one of the Carlton publications I pulled out for the purpose. I also freely admit to paraphrasing much of what's posted here from excerpts of the publication instead of just copying and pasting what was actually a bit less detailed than what I'm tossing out here.

Anyway, certainly food for additional thought, and I'm sure a few comments as well. Happy head-scratching.

​

 

[Stihl 041S]

Lots of good info.
Thanks Pogo!!

 

[Philbert]

You guys paid by the word?

Philbert

 

[PogoInTheWoods]

tl;dr

LOL

 

[Stihl 041S]

You guys paid by the word?

Philbert

Kipling did.......

 

[Stihl 041S]

You guys paid by the word?

Philbert

And Pogo is using a flip phone!!!!
Kipling wasn’t...