[Carl Russell]

Scott G;23657 wrote:

….

Carl, your 575 still running well?

Damn good saw…. so far:D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Mark, the greater advantage would probably come from a deeper double-tree, making a larger diameter sweep, which would increase the mechanical advantage, but would not probably affect the proportionality.

I agree about the article. Someone want to take that on??:D

Carl

[Carl Russell]

near horse;23628 wrote:

“It is just another veil of denial over the ecological truth of human existence.”

IMHO – the ecological truth of human existence has been to manipulate the regulators of populations (human and otherwise) so as to allow unfettered growth in our numbers. While it may be humane (in some cases), it is undeniably challenging the limits of the resources on this planet……. Crap – now what?

“To infinity and beyond!”

This is exactly right….. The truth is we have technologically advanced ourselves into oblivion. We have created such an imbalance that there are very few options that will work. We certainly can’t seriously believe that more technology will be the answer. The truth is we are…(you choose your favorite term)ed.

My choice is to be personally optimistic. I have seen evidence on the landscape of people who knew more about what they were doing than many people today could imagine. Their knowledge has been usurped by a cultural dependence on technological ease.

I am hopeful that there will be islands of humanity that are interested in finding ways to exist more successfully. I just want to leave some scratches on the Earth that go some distance to explain my perspective, in case that will help.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

mink;23638 wrote:

can one assume that a tree would pull about the same either on a cart or single bunk with both having the front off the ground? i guess in my mind i thought the sled type rigs would pull harder on the bare ground. mink

Rarely does a cart get a log as high of the ground as one on a sled, but when it does, although the wheels roll easier over the ground, the angle of draft is higher. The higher hitch means that the horses can’t apply as much mechanical advantage against the load as they can with a lower hitch such as on the sled.

So while the wheels have less resistance than the runners, the applied energy is different. Functionally there is little difference as the physics of the cart allows for mechanical advantage that the horse loses due to the high hitch.

The difference really comes down to the application of the item to the work at hand. If you are skidding wood 200 feet to the landing, the handling of all that wood makes no sense. However, if you are skidding 1000 feet, then going with 150 BF per hitch doesn’t make sense.

Also to make hitches bigger with a cart, you often must pull tree length, which may allow the end of the log to come high off the ground, but it also allows a lot of tree to drag a long way back disrupting any draft advantage. With a sled handling log length there can be very little ground contact, which seriously reduces resistance.

If you have very large logs that drag almost entirely on the ground even with the highest cart, then putting them on the bunk makes a lot of sense.

This is obviously on frozen ground, but there was no way these two were going to skid this over the terrain even with a cart, so we rolled it on with the horses and it went out with ease.

The point is there is very little that you can’t do with cart alone….. But there are times when using a sled makes a lot of sense. Just having one, with an understanding of how to use it, gives a level of proficiency that make more work possible.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Countymouse;23639 wrote:

…..
With the horses even, each lever arm is 21 inches long. If the team is pulling 600 lbs, it’s distributed with each horse pulling 300 lbs.

If one horse moves ahead 4 inches, this causes the lever arm on the backward horse to lengthen to ….. 21.38 inches. The lever arm on the forward horse reduces to 19.81 inches …. it’s now distributed with the forward horse pulling 311 lbs, and the trailing horse pulling 289.

…. ahead 8 inches, this causes the lever arm on the backward horse to reduce….. 21 inches. The lever arm on the forward horse reduces to 17.69 inches ….. it’s now distributed with the forward horse pulling 326 lbs, and the backward horse pulling 274.
…

… 12 inches, this causes the lever arm on the backward horse to reduce even further…. 19.83 inches. The lever arm on the forward horse reduces to 14.18 inches ….forward horse pulling 350 lbs, and the backward horse pulling 250.

….

Thanks Andy…. with these numbers it can be seen that not only is the load less on the slower horse, but as that horse begins to recover it is moving into greater advantage relative to the load, although the weight is increasing, because the length of his side of the evener gets longer as he moves up on the other horse.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

near horse;23625 wrote:

…. 1) are we talking about changing the moment arm (lever arm) length by changing the point at which the singletree attaches to the evener (move it wider on the weaker horse)? OR, and this is where I’m mixed up.

This is the gross adjustment. This allows the teamster to shift the load onto the more powerful animal, or more accurately to move the horse closer to the load…. think see-saw. It really takes very little change in the length of the lever to deliver advantage.

2) are we saying something about changing the moment arm during the pull by some means that I can’t seem to understand. I’ll leave it at that I guess.

Because the evener is triangle shaped, when one horse moves forward the center of pull between the two moves toward the slower horse, this in essence shortens the lever for the faster horse, moving them closer to the load, and lengthens the lever for the slower horse, moving them away from the load.

So if I have a fast, strong, or fast and strong horse, I move them in one hole to see how much advantage that gives to the other horse. The strong horse is at a disadvantage to start, then if they surge ahead they have even more of the load. If this setting is not enough to help the slower horse I move her in another hole. And so on…. (OMG I just got a Vonnegut flash-back)

I think the long evener has been a design for a long time. Even when set even, the slower horse, or the horse that got stubbed, can recover with less exertion. In other words it is not so much to shift the load to the fast horse as it is designed to reduce the load on the horse that needs to catch up.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Shouldn’t need to drop start,or lean over and start it on the ground.

Set the brake, hold saw by the front handle in left hand, clamp trigger guard handle between thighs, pull with even upward pull with right hand.

[Carl Russell]

So all of this says to me it comes down to austerity. I get really uncomfortable thinking about how these huge global forces impact my life and choices. I know I can’t get away from them completely, but whatever I can do for myself, and whatever I can do without, will go along way toward reducing the impact.

It is very hard not to think about what “WE” should all do, especially as the choices “WE” all make do affect all of us. However, I have learned that I can rationalize for myself and family a level of austerity that I will never convince others of. I really think that success will not be dependent on how much profit we can generate based on costs relative to other methods of production or lifestyle. Rather, I believe success will come from a reduction in need for things that require financial outlay.

It has been something I have been working on in my life for nearly 30 years. I realize that as we look to the horizon it appears as though there is a huge crisis looming that seems to require rapid response. I am afraid that rapid responses will cost too much, which will reduce their applicability.

I also think that part of the solution is patience and purposeful personal response. In the early 80’s I was convinced of an environmental and economic collapse. I was so certain that I believed there was no time to waste. At times I have been exasperated by how long it has taken. It still seems imminent, but I truly believe the solutions are built slowly over a long period of time.

It is a lot like farming to me. If every year we expect our inputs to be only as much as what we can afford based on what we expect our production to be, then eventually we end up with land that has no reserve when we need it. However, if we are constantly adding nutrients, building little mounds of resources, adding efficiencies, banking for the future, not only can we build the reserve we need, we can afford to do it along the way.

It is in this light that I see the issue of fuel prices. Although I buy a lot of fuel to make my life function on a daily basis, I have been building reserves of energy, nutrients, skills and infrastructure. These add to my daily efficiencies, but it is also a lifestyle of austerity. I do without many things because I am constantly putting away value…. conserving expense.

The most glaring oversight that I hear in so many public education , policy decisions, and media presentations is conservation. Reversing the trend for more and better will probably require significant broad-based failure of political/economic systems. It is a cultural assumption that we can spend our way out of the limitations of the present. It is just another veil of denial over the ecological truth of human existence.

There is an organization called Riot for Austerity http://simplereduce.wordpress.com/riot-for-austerity90-rules/ where participants challenge each other to reduce their total consumption. Using this site we were able to calculate that we use about 1/6th the energy of the average American household….. and that actually includes our small farming and my logging enterprise. It may be pretty sobering to realize how prepared you already are….. On the other hand it is also alarming to realize how wasteful many others are.

I guess that’s what I am saying also. We may not be able to completely isolate ourselves from the impact of global fuel dependency, but there are huge numbers of people who are much more dependent, and most of them are just not going to be able to see any other way to live in the modern world.

We may get swept away with the cleansing tide of sudden desolation, but we may not as well. It may be a few generations yet, and in the interim we just keep laying the groundwork, building the foundation, adding reserve, and doing without. It certainly won’t do squat in the short term, but if there is a long term possibility, I believe it is the only answer that will work.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Thanks George for searching that out….. it was beyond my reduced intelligence last night.

There are several reasons why I think a sled is a good option regardless of season.
1. Distance of skid…. the load can be increased significantly because ground resistance is reduced significantly.
2. The increased load can be handled and maneuvered safely, and more concisely.
3. The angle of draft is much lower, allowing the bio-mechanical lifting action of the horse in motion to be used more efficiently by the animals.
4. Downhill skidding, much larger loads can be moved, reducing number of trips, and taking more advantage of gravity.

I use the cart for these reasons.
1. Short skids, light and often.
2. Maneuverability, moving logs right from the stump to the landing.
3. Teamster safety and convenience…. tools on board, secure location to drive from.
4. Less handling of logs.
5. Although the angle of draft is higher, the mechanism of the hitch creates a pendulum effect, or more accurately it adds a buffer to the draft that can over-ride the reduced efficiency of the higher draft.

I truly see neither as superior over the other….. just more appropriate for different applications..

What may escape the eye though is the fact that within the paradigm that most of us grew up in, the wheel and associated technologies occupy an assumed position of authority. This does not actually diminish the functionality of the sled, whose physical logic is rooted in ancient success as well.

It is discussions like this that allow us to learn new, and relearn old knowledge.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Don’t get me going……:eek:

Just kidding.:D

To quote an article I wrote about using sleds, ” It isn’t about skidding wood, it’s about working horses in the woods”.

I love working horse in the woods because there are so many challenges, and there are so many options to use to overcome those challenges.

I use a sled when I think it will give me the advantage I need, and I use a cart when I see that to be the best solution.

I know that doesn’t exactly answer your question, but in a way it does.

Too tired now to be specific about the pros and cons of each, but I’m sure others can pitch in.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Make sure to let the brake cleaner dry completely before starting the saw back up as I was told that when ingested by the saw it can cut the oil suspended in the fuel.

Also it should be a simple matter of hitting the trigger set once the saw has started. It can idle with the chain break on with very little problem. Since I have learned how to use a chain break ( we used to think the things were just put there for sissies) I only release the thing when I am going to cut…. no need. It isn’t good to leave it on while the saw is on high idle, but there is very little need to let a saw idle to warm up anyway. If the saw has been left out in the cold, it will warm up pretty fast even without letting it idle.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

Below is a letter from SFC and Charles Capaldi.

I think it requires a fair amount of thought. I tend to think we have a lot more wind in our sails than they do, and for us to redirect our effort may not be in our best interests. I however do think we should take advantage of their response and make a conversation out of it. It certainly would be good for us to help SFC advance their cause, but I think we already have a network that could be used to the benefit of SFC, and not necessarily duplicate efforts.

Anyway, I think it deserves more thought and discussion, Carl

Dear Carl, Brad, & Erik,

As you are all undoubtedly aware, the Board of Directors of the Small Farm Conservancy didn’t get your letter until the week following our annual board meeting and then with the ensuing holidays, it took some time to gather the wagons. So, please accept our apologies as we get our proverbial Board of Director’s act together after the fact. It was our first actual physical meeting since inception and since getting our 501(c)3 status – as you can imagine, the agenda was packed full. That being said, I spoke at great length with our president, Larry Brewer about DAPNet and your request. He asked me to get back in touch with you as soon as possible, hence the genesis of this email. While I’m actually replying to Carl’s email address, it’s my intent to be reply to all three of you as the folks representing the DAPNet Transition Team – ironically, I was tracking down some mangel beets that I could use to feed my sheep during late gestation and Erik’s email cropped up as part of that exchange (Hi Erik – just got your email too – I’m on to that next

[Carl Russell]

Wooden handles, and the older the head and hook the better. I use 3 1/2′ handles (that would make the total length about 50″). While the longer handles provide better leverage, I tend to snap them off more often, so I made a compromise. With that size handle I can put some serious torque on pretty big logs….. but no doubt hemlock logs can be nut busters.

I am sure the log rite tools are OK, but I am so used to the older style. I use a peavey as a precision tool, leading to habitual handling that is completely interrupted by the weight and design of the log rite tool. Thus I admit to never giving one much of a try…..

I will say however that Brad Johnson came to work with us this summer with one, and after several months of trying to make it work has now dug and old wooden handled one out of his neighbors wood shed to use this winter.

Carl

[Carl Russell]

OldKat;23575 wrote:

Carl,

I am logged in (obviously), but I can’t see the picture you posted in this thread. I don’t see anything other than the text of the thread. Any idea what I can do to be able to see what you guys are talking about?

Thanks …

I have heard similar remarks from folks using phones, etc.

I am at a loss really…. I don’t understand a lot of these things.

From time to time I have problems with formatting and interfacing on-line…. the only thing I have found that works is to restart the computer, and sometimes turn off the web server for a short interval….

Other than that, I’m sorry for the inconvenience, Carl

BTW… Excellent drawings Elke, thanks….

[Carl Russell]

Mike Rock;23571 wrote:

Carl,
A question on construction. In the photo in post #13, what is in the first 1/2″ of the tape? Is that a piece of 1/2″ round to the front of the rod? Also, is the round main member rod or pipe?

In photos 2 and 3 of post #12 we have a lot of parts coming together. It looks like the tab with the five holes , the end of the rod/pipe and the triangular reinforcement and the 1/2″ rod on the rear wraps around the end tab as far as the rear of the tab. How thick is the tab with the five holes? The devil is in the details. This looks great and sure balances the horses.

Thanks,
Mike Rock

That is just an optical illusion… it is just 1 1/2″ pipe.

The flat steel is probably 1/2″

Carl

[Author]

Posts