[Carl Russell]

Just about to move back into the red pine was in this winter. Roads are still posted here too, but the woods are drying out. Or I should say, “were”. Snow and rain for the next few days.

Little or no money in RP sawlogs either, but it’s on my land so at least I don’t have to pay stumpage.

I cut some scotts pine about 15 years ago. It was big, and squirrelly, but we actually had a market for logs back then. The prison farm used to saw guard-rail posts and treat them for all of the State highways. Then the steel market tumbled and the states all made exclusive deals to use steel guard-rails.

Anyway it was about 2/3 pulp, 1/3 logs.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

This discussion brings to mind another aspect of the comparison between animals and machinery. It is important in considering draft-animal power to think about the whole operation. The reality is that if you are going to move “large” volumes of material, or clean up winter packed bedding, then you will “have” to incorporate machinery. I am not saying that is a bad thing, the challenge is to think of animal-powered land-use systems outside the box of the current conventions that have been developed because machinery has been a cultural assumption for the last 50 years.

This has been the only reason I have never gotten equipment, because I don’t want to spend money now on something that I won’t have a use for later. What happens in the meantime is that my operation is held-back in some ways.

So, we all do what we need to do, and we all contribute to the cause by trying to find solutions that keep up doing what we want to do.

By the way, guilt is a strange and dangerous thing. I decided years ago that I would not accept any guilt for any decision that I made based on purposeful thought. I can admit when the decision was wrong, but I don’t throw away the lesson with a sense of guilt. I don’t believe that healing comes from a place of illness, and growth doesn’t come from a place of weakness. Make a purposeful choice, and work to make it be all that it can be for you.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thanks for sharing that with us. We all go through these dilemmas in one form or another. Keep up the good work.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Mine also have the size number on them. Wallingford hames were measured by the distance between buckles, instead of the collar size. Mine are 14’s and 16’s. He also made some with varying degrees of bow for different shaped necks.

I should also say that they really aren’t that light. Certainly not as light as steel tubular hames, but they are virtually indestructable. I bought mine about 20 years ago as part of a set of harnesses, so I have no idea what the prices would be like, or whether they would be worth it. They are well designed, and well built.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Countymouse;17510 wrote:

Sorry, when I wrote about the “suspended and swinging” log, I meant suspended and swinging on just one end. The other end would be dragging. I didn’t explain that very well… I agree that there would be little buffering advantage in a completely suspended log. I think a bunk cart would be a good comparison, provided the attachment point on the log was roughly the same as with a chain type logging arch. If the log was moved up onto the bunk cart much, there would be less dragging weight than with the arch and it wouldn’t be a fair comparison anymore. If the dragging weight is similar, how does the effort compare between a bunk cart and a logging arch using a chain? Is there a noticable difference in effort?

I understood what you meant, and I was making reference to the same thing you describe above. If the log is on the bunk at 18″ above the ground then the draft angle is similar for the horses, but there is virtually no friction.

When using a typical arch-cart, without a winch, the logs are usually hanging vertically below the hitch point, and often are either on the ground, or only a few inches above, when resting. It is when the cart moves forward that the upward lift occurs, and the “suspension” is a result of the difference between power and the drag on the log.

If a log is suspended 2-4″ above the ground, say on a Go-devil, then the hitch point is much lower, providing the animal with a much more suitable angle of draft. This way the animal can provide lift on the front of the log, and utilize their bio-mechanical advantage more efficiently. The load is moved more easily, and because of this the comparison would not be fair.

People who have used a cart like a pioneer cart to skid logs, where the draw-bar is only 8″ off the ground can attest to the fact that the cart gives virtually no advantage, and possibly draws harder than just ground skidding with loose rigging, precisely because the hitch point is not high enough to provide any lift.

This is why the arch-cart is so innovative. Getting the log off of the ground has been demonstrated to provide advantage, but when combined with a mechanism that can capture the spikes in draft it goes outside the box.

Carl

p.s. Oh, and I wanted to say then you add to this the maneuverability, safety, and functionality of the design, and there is a very important tool.

[Carl Russell]

Countymouse;17496 wrote:

…… Has anyone had to hitch to a log in such as way that half the log is elevated but the log was chained so as not to allow a swing??? I would guess that this would be more tiring to the horses and illustrates how effective buffers can be… I don’t have a logging arch, but someone out there might want to do a little experiment and compare the effort to pull a suspended and swinging log to the effort required to pull a suspended but not swinging log…….

I have used a bunk cart where the logs are elevated on one end and chained to a bunk. The load moves very easily.

I would say that the comparisons should be one of dragging log versus log swinging on a high hitch, as I think the buffer affect is adding advantage over the dragging log, not a suspended log.

I just think the discussion is most useful in helping to understand where energy is wasted, or where it can be captured to make a limited living power unit more efficient.

Suspending the logs completely provides significant advantage, but if the buffer theory is strong, then in any case where draft spikes do to changes in landscape etc. it could be beneficial to consider how to ad a buffering system.It may not be so beneficial as to out way the practical application, but knowing that the concept is pertinent, is a good place tp start.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

jac;17495 wrote:

Carl i noticed in some of your pictures the new style hames which i believe are cast alloy. I saw an ad in SFJ for them.. Any thoughts on advantages, disadvantages, ect
John

Not new by a long shot. Those are Wallingford Hames. Mitch knows the story better than I.

Cast aluminum. Un-breakable, lightweight. No different than any other for the purpose, but definitely built to take heavy draft for pulling, or logging.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

This is really helping me to visualize why the logging arch is such an effective tool, regardless of the high draft. Hitching the log so that the chain is tight and vertical from log to hitch point, allows the horses to advance with relatively light resistance. In fact the resistance increases as the line from hitch point to the far end of the log straightens out.

As the horses move forward, the front of the log comes off of the ground before the log even begins to move, which loads the hitch with the stored energy of the forward motion in the form of the weight of the log suspended off the ground. Now the weight of the log is positioned to fall back to the ground in a forward motion, so it is applied directly to the effort that the animals are exerting.

In this way the animals can move more weight from less effort, because the energy is captured and reused, or added back into the continued effort. Any situation in the progression of work where the log drags harder provides another opportunity to capture the extra effort, as apposed to the exhaustive effort from increased draft.

This is why although the angle of draft is not ideal for the bio-mechanics of the horse, the equipment is giving more than a direct advantage of lift. It is reducing friction, but perhaps more importantly it seems to also buffer and capture energy, that when released, compounds the constant effort already being applied.

The other point about the log and chain as buffer is that it is unlimited in its effectiveness, and it is automatically adjustable to whatever the load or draft demands, as apposed to measuring, and pre-loading a coil spring.

Hmmmmm????:rolleyes:

Carl

[Carl Russell]

I used to tie my lines to the barn door and practiced for hours holding, gathering, coiling, dropping, and regathering.

I use leather and Beta lines.

I hold my lines between my first two fingers, pointer and middle, when I am driving. This allows me to hold either the opposite line, and/or the coil of lines between my thumb and pointer. I can drive a team with one hand and know that the opposite line is always the one on top.

I will drop the lines, comb them, put the right line in my right hand, between pointer and middle fingers, then place the left hand line between thumb and pointer. Then I comb the line, reaching back with the left hand, and at a couple of feet I grab them and fold a loop into my right hand, on top of the left hand line. I twist them as I lay that loop in place so that the lines lay flat all the way around the loop, and repeat this until I have them all coiled. Then I will take the coil in between thumb and pointer of the left hand, at the same time placing the left line between pointer and middle of that hand.

If for some reason I let go of the lines, say to step back, or to allow the team to move while I stand still, I will put them both in one hand for a second, comb out the lines behind me, then take them back to the appropriate hand. If there is enough lines to drag on the ground, and I start to move, I quickly coil that up. I never walk with lines dragging, and prefer having a tight coil, as apposed to draping them over a shoulder, etc.

As far as having a loop to facilitate this, I have already written that I tend to let the lines out, and recoil them so often that the loop would be a hindrance.

However, in terms of those times when the possibility that the horses moving could cause a serious accident based on the actions of others who I can’t control, I can see the merit. I have been in a few parades etc. and found it too distressing, and having some way to keep the lines close at hand would be valuable.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Tim Harrigan;17448 wrote:

Can you elaborate on this? I am not sure exactly what you are asking.

Tim, I have been having a hard time wrapping my head around these findings, and thought that if I could see a graph that showed the changes in draft force as work progressed then I could see the peaks and valleys. I have been stuck on how the load responds to the spikes in force, ie. the slingshot effect.

But just trying to figure out how to explain that better, and with your comment about lost energy, I have come to a better understanding.

The unbuffered system creates a spikey “wave” of changing force, which have energy dumps at each peak and valley. With the buffer, as soon as the force begins to increase the energy is stored in the “spring”, and then released, beginning immediately, and not only prevents the spike, but allows the animals to “re-use” the pre-exerted energy. This creates that Sine-wave that is much more efficient.

It isn’t that the load takes less power to move it, it is just that the energy exerted from the animals is used more efficiently.

I would think that having a buffer on each trace, like in the experiment would give more range of effectiveness, as a pposed to the draw-bar spring analogy.

If we look at the logging arch again, then the ability to load the swinging chain with forward energy probably has as much effect on the efficiency as getting the log off of the ground. Of course the log must come off of the ground to load the chain that way, but the motion of the chain allows the team to store their forward energy and apply it to further advancment.

Sometimes this brain of mine….. Thanks for providing all this information, and allowing me to delve into this in my way….perhaps if my desktop wasn’t crammed full of tax forms….

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Tim Harrigan;17438 wrote:

There is energy wasted in every mechanical system as friction, heat, etc. It seems like the spiked forces that are in excess of what is needed to move the wagon is wasted energy.

What I guess I mean, is even though the buffering reduces the average draft, it can’t reduce the amount of energy that is required to do the work, with or without the buffering system.

The buffered system must recover the load over a longer distance than the un-buffered system. It would seem that even the heavy loads would have a slingshot affect, so although the unbuffered system will have spikes that measure higher, it should have dips in draft that measure lower.

If you use the stationary load as zero, then all draft measurements associated with forward movement will be cumulative, and the system with the highest highs will have the higher average. However if you took all draft measurements and graphed them around the median values then, I presume, you would see that the unbuffered system also has it’s energy advantages.

All-in-all an interesting concept. I’m glad to know how draft changes can affect the animals. I also know that I can address that in how I harness and condition my animals. For me it is like so many other things about draft animals, it is good food for thought.

Thanks, Carl

[Carl Russell]

I’m sorry Tim, I had been focusing more on the steel-wheeled wagon looking at oxen vs. horses, and saw too many variables there to just be convince that the difference was related to buffer.

Thank you for posting the comparisons within each team as well. That is interesting, but it still brings me back to where does the energy go that is required to do the work?

The unbuffered must surge forward and reduces the draft more than the buffered one. Somehow it seems there must be a balancing there somewhere.

By comparing the two hitches to the zero of the stationary load, the spikes are not off-set by the reaction forces… or are they, and I can’t see that either?

Can we see these numbers showing high and low spikes above and below the average as zero? (like the wagon on the hay ground chart). That would show me more accurately how the buffer softens the line relating to draft.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Here is how I expect me horses to work when I am in public. This was our horse-logging weekend in 2005, and there were about 60 people milling around.[ATTACH]1128.jpg” />

This is how I hold my lines. I’m standing still right now, but these coils can be held and passed from one hand to the other with ease.[ATTACH]1129.jpg” />

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Countymouse;17412 wrote:

…. If it weren’t for Tim’s carefully laid out experiment demonstrating that buffers (in the form of nylon tugs) actually do reduce the draft required for a job, …..

I appreciate all the work that Tim put into these studies, but I am trying to point out how these numbers do not support a concept that buffers reduce draft requirement.

If the animals were to stop with each step, then the spikes in draft would be higher, which would raise the average. It is like the Sine-wave analogy to movement. If each movement is softened by the spring then the spikes are lower, reducing the average. If each step is abrupt then each forward movement creates a spike. The average has to go up as the draft reduction cannot go down as there is nothing in place to reduce the resistance against the load.

My point about the differences between how horses and oxen move is that I think this has more to do with the differences in numbers than the different harnessing systems. There are still too many variables between these experiments then I can accept as definitive.

I totally get what you are saying CM, about how we need to experience new concepts before we can truly understand them, but we also need to have comparisons that are uniform in their variables so that we are comparing apples to apples. I would like to see comparisons of the same pair of horses, or oxen, with different harnesses on doing the same work.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

My experience was similar to Donn.

I was leaving my job (the only job I have ever had, 1984-86) as a log buyer for a large sawmill. I had a degree in forestry, but wanted to go into logging, as my method of practicing it. I was trying to make arrangements with New England Equipment to buy a 450D to go into the woods. I happened across the trailer of a horse-logger whom I had been buying logs from, parked beside the main road. I stopped, and as I was walking up the skid trail, I could here the jingle of trace chains, and the quiet one-word commands of this man. Walt Bryan was not a big man, and as I watched him driving his single horse, I could see the art, the dance, the power that he directed with the lightest touch.

I never gave the crawler another thought, even after 24 years I am still compelled by that image. I bought a horse from Walt, and still remember the feeling of absolute uncertainty as I walked my new horse up the hill and listened to the trailer rolling down the road. I had no idea what I had started, but it was exactly what I needed to be doing.

Carl

[Author]

Posts