# Dealing with logs that are too big.



## Rhossydd (26 Jan 2014)

I'm sure a few of us have had this dilemma;
You get offered some decent looking fallen wood that you think should be great for turning. The tree surgeon has already done his best to chop it down to sizes for burning or chopping into smaller lumps. You pick out some of the nicer bits that look like you can cut to something manageable back in the workshop, only to find that the tree surgeon's idea of the best thickness is half an inch thicker than your band saw can handle <d'oh>.

What's your strategy ?
Try to hand plane or carve off enough to get it under the guides ?
Anyone tried using an Arbortech to cut enough away to make the cut ?

Buying a bigger band saw or chain sawing further aren't options.


----------



## MMUK (26 Jan 2014)

Not having a bandsaw I would have to section with my Bahco 244+ Barracuda


----------



## jurriaan (26 Jan 2014)

I like turning big blocks of wood. I use a chainsaw and often a reciprocating saw with a 12" blade. The reciprocating saw is often quite easy to use, you don't have to don special protective clothing, you can hit the floor without problems and chips don't fly all over.

Preparing blocks doesn't require a bandsaw - you can't lift really big blanks up to the bandsaw easily anyway (for example a 22" blank), and bandsaws that can't handle that height often have tables that can't handle the weight anyway.

I wonder why the bandsaw is so necessary?


----------



## paulking (26 Jan 2014)

Using wedges and a lump hammer split of the excess


----------



## Grahamshed (26 Jan 2014)

I think I would have to resort ( begrudgingly ) to some sort of handsaw and just sweat it out.


----------



## Brianp (26 Jan 2014)

I was going to suggest something similar but thought there must be another answer! 

I use a bow saw and a 7 or 8 tpi stanley saw for most of my hand sawing (cos I have neither a band or chain saw). The stanley is much better, if a little slower, but you can keep to your line much easier.


----------



## paulm (26 Jan 2014)

Splitting off a strip with a froe or axe is sometimes an option, or a hand held electric planer is also sometimes very helpful, or of course good old handsaw.

Depends on the shape of the piece of timber of course, if the issue is across the grain it might be possible to cut through on the bandsaw as far as possible, switch off, turn the timber round and cut from the other side, switch off and then take it off to finish by hand, depending on which dimension and aspect of the log is the problem, or take a strip off the length along the grain on the bandsaw and then use that cut surface to run on the table at a reduced height.

Difficult to say without seeing the timber in question.

A cheap electric chainsaw can also do a surprising amount of work and is okay to use inside the workshop as no fumes as for a petrol one.

Cheers, Paul


----------



## bellringer (26 Jan 2014)

Chain saw is the way to do it


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Jan 2014)

jurriaan":14yaat34 said:


> Preparing blocks doesn't require a bandsaw - you can't lift really big blanks up to the bandsaw easily anyway (for example a 22" blank), and bandsaws that can't handle that height often have tables that can't handle the weight anyway.


My question was about blocks that _almost_ fit under the guides, but just need a little trimming off.

My lathe isn't big enough for 22" blocks or lumps so heavy they won't fit on the saw.



> I wonder why the bandsaw is so necessary?


Hand sawing through 7" of Walnut isn't my idea of recreation.


----------



## Vic Perrin (26 Jan 2014)

If you have a good supply of timber coming in it might pay you to invest in a chainsaw. I brought a couple of electric ones last year on the boot market for a tenner each. A new blade required for one of them and the other just a quick sharpen. I have petrol saws but find the electric ones so handy for occasionally preparing big lumps for mounting on the lathe

Vic


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2014)

What's wrong with just sawing or chopping bits off until it fits? I don't think there's another way.


----------



## Vic Perrin (26 Jan 2014)

Jacob":1rgn0qrz said:


> What's wrong with just sawing or chopping bits off until it fits? I don't think there's another way.




Sound a bit too much like hard work for an old man like me !!!


----------



## nev (26 Jan 2014)

https://www.google.co.uk/shopping/produ ... CHAQ2SswAA
or
https://www.google.co.uk/shopping/produ ... JsBEPMCMAM


----------



## finneyb (26 Jan 2014)

Even if the wood just fits the bandsaw I have my doubts if it would cut it - its right on the limit of the machine if not past it, esp if its wet wood which tends to clog the blade.

I'd cut the corners off some way - maybe bandsaw and get a octagon shaped piece and take it from there on the lathe - at slow speed until its rounded.

HTH

Brian


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Jan 2014)

finneyb":13p9uml1 said:


> Even if the wood just fits the bandsaw I have my doubts if it would cut it - its right on the limit of the machine if not past it, esp if its wet wood which tends to clog the blade.


Not a problem. I've resawn lots of 6" stock in the past without any serious problems and that's without the 3tpi sabrecut blade due to arrive from Tuff Saws next week.

It's just the annoyance of trimming half an inch or so off the, end grain, of the walnut logs I've just got.
Cutting some slots with an Arbortech seems a relatively easy way to do it, anyone tried it ?


----------



## finneyb (26 Jan 2014)

The mists are clearing - you are splitting the log. I thought you had it split.
Big problem I see is the log rolling as you cut it on the bandsaw and twisting the blade - it will be a new blade I've done it!
If you cut a flat with the arbortech to get under the guides set that flat on the bandsaw table so that the log is stable.

Alternatively, make a sled to stop it rolling while you cut the flat - it would be smoother than the arbortech http://lumberjocks.com/stefang/blog/22967

Brian


----------



## Rhossydd (26 Jan 2014)

finneyb":2i9vbp23 said:


> The mists are clearing - you are splitting the log.


No.
The first slab I've had is effectively a 6½" section of the tree cut across the grain. When on the saw table the grain runs vertically.
IOW I need to reduce the thickness of the cross section of the slab by a small amount across the end grain.


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2014)

Saw.


----------



## bellringer (26 Jan 2014)

Jacob":3dsedtnm said:


> Saw.



why use a bow saw what wrong with a chainsaw


----------



## Jacob (26 Jan 2014)

bellringer":3my97dqw said:


> Jacob":3my97dqw said:
> 
> 
> > Saw.
> ...


Use a bow saw if you haven't got a chainsaw?
It's a bit of a puzzler this. Nobody has ever sawn a piece of wood before. :roll:
Can we have WIP snaps? This could be useful.


----------



## KimG (26 Jan 2014)

Yeah a Bow saw is the best answer if you don't have a chainsaw, and to cut a straight line with a bow saw requires a couple of skill points.

1. Don't press down, let the weight of the saw alone be the down force.

2. Cut on the pull stroke as well as the push, this stops it going off course.

3. Always have a sharp blade, a new one is not much (£8.00 or so) it is much easier.

Cutting through a 7 inch log would take less that 2 minutes, it's hardly going to cause a coronary!


----------



## woodfarmer (26 Jan 2014)

Electric Chainsaw.

















Easy peasy


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2014)

KimG":x0ir3q4v said:


> ....
> Cutting through a 7 inch log would take less that 2 minutes, it's hardly going to cause a coronary!


And obviously you need the practice! You will still be able to do it even if you don't read KimG's notes. Just do it fer gawds sake!
"Dealing with logs that are too big" ? Saw a bit off! Would a diagram help?
You could say that *all* woodwork comes down to "dealing with logs that are too big".


----------



## Vic Perrin (27 Jan 2014)

woodfarmer":2pzfpuvx said:


> Electric Chainsaw.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




+1 from me

Vic


----------



## Rhossydd (27 Jan 2014)

Jacob":1c8t51ss said:


> Just do it fer gawds sake!
> "Dealing with logs that are too big" ? Saw a bit off! Would a diagram help?
> You could say that *all* woodwork comes down to "dealing with logs that are too big".



Just another patronising, unconstructive comment that fails to understand the original post from you jacob.
With an average of being thanked less than once in every hundred posts I know that'll all we should expect from you.
Please don't bother commenting to my threads again.


----------



## Jacob (27 Jan 2014)

Rhossydd":2qrafoj7 said:


> Jacob":2qrafoj7 said:
> 
> 
> > Just do it fer gawds sake!
> ...


Sorry Rhosssyd but there isn't really an alternative to sawing a bit off. Nibbling perhaps? How are your teeth? :lol:

PS and if you hope to do any woodturning you will find a saw very useful (essential) unless you only ever intend to turn stuff prepared by somebody else. MMUK's Bahco suggestion was good too. Slightly more skill required than for a bow saw, but more precision.


----------



## Rhossydd (27 Jan 2014)

Jacob":3oe54vmq said:


> Nibbling perhaps? How are your teeth?


Sharper than your attempts at sarcasm.


----------



## Vic Perrin (27 Jan 2014)

Hi Rossyd,
I went through the same issue as you wondering what was the best way to nibble, hack, butcher some timber off lumps of timber to get the on the lathe and not be extremely out of balance so as to scare you to death when you started to true it up.

Honestly my £10 investments for the electric chainsaws from the Boot Market, have been a godsend. I even use them for planking timber logs.

It has also proved invaluable in the garden for heavy pruning of trees and big shrubs.

Vic


----------



## Rhossydd (27 Jan 2014)

I have a chain saw.
Ever tried to chain saw off half an inch from an irregular surface ? I know some people can, but I haven't that level of skill with it and haven't the time practice.
Hence why my original post said "...and chain sawing further aren't options."


----------



## CHJ (27 Jan 2014)

Rhossydd":3eohykeh said:


> .......What's your strategy ?
> Try to hand plane or carve off enough to get it under the guides ?
> Anyone tried using an Arbortech to cut enough away to make the cut ?
> .



As already mentioned by other members, just about any of the mentioned options dependant on the shape and character of the particular piece.
1. sledge and slice on bandsaw if it's shaped such to allow poking someway under arm.
2. Chainsaw
3. reciprocating saw (more recent) very handy.
4. axe (think this is safer and less stressful than wielding an Arbortech)
5. old powered planer, more prone to clogging than your Arbortech idea but a little more sophisticated.



Rhossydd":3eohykeh said:


> .......
> Buying a bigger band saw or chain sawing further aren't options.


Agreed not an option worth pursuing, within a couple of wood acquisitions the logs will grow that extra 10mm to foul the machine again. And they will not fit on the lathe anyway. :twisted:


----------



## bellringer (27 Jan 2014)

If you are trying to cut a log in half then just use the chainsaw


----------



## Grahamshed (27 Jan 2014)

Rhossydd":1chz67ll said:


> With an average of being thanked less than once in every hundred posts I know that'll all we should expect from you.


Not wanting to take sides here but I will point out that most of Jacobs posts were made before the 'thanks' system came along.


----------



## duncanh (27 Jan 2014)

Not sure what happened to the reply which I posted earlier...

I have arbortech and lancelot cutters for my small angle grinder and I tend to use them sometimes for trimming the odd bit of wood here and there when a rough blank doesn't quite clear the bed in a couple of places or when something is wildly out of balance.
I've also used an electric planer in the past for doing the same thing. Both work and you could use these for removing wood as you intend, although the planer would probably judder quite a bit cutting through the end grain.

I also have a couple of chainsaws, the first of which I bought when I couldn't be bothered tackling logs any longer with the bow saw.

You could use either of any for what you require but I would generally choose the chainsaw as it's easier to get a straight cut than with any of the others.

The advantage of the arbortech/lancelot is that they are lighter so easier to handle. You don't need to don chainsaw safety trousers so it might be a little faster (I'd still recommend visor/glasses for the plentiful chips though and ear defenders).

However, arbortechs have safety issues of their own and I've seen some photos of nasty injuries caused by them so use them with care. You could argue that the chainsaw is actually safer as it has a chain brake and there is only one area of kick back rather than the whole of the arbortech.


----------



## JustBen (27 Jan 2014)

I think the best solution for walnut logs that are too big for you is to give them to me....

Only kidding, I don't want to get between a man and his wood.

I've seen a few videos on the cheap electric chainsaws and they seem pretty good for the money.

I use an axe or old electric planer to trim to fit bandsaw.


----------



## Vic Perrin (27 Jan 2014)

3 pages on how to cut the end off a log ?


----------



## Grahamshed (27 Jan 2014)

Vic Perrin":1seymwgv said:


> 3 pages on how to cut the end off a log ?


And nobody has mentioned using a jig or doing it freehand.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (27 Jan 2014)

Am I reading this wrong or are you trying to cross cut about a half inch off the end of a log (that is at 90 degrees to the grain direction). Or are you trying to rip a half inch down its length ie with the grain?


----------



## Grahamshed (27 Jan 2014)

Across the grain we ( I ) think.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (27 Jan 2014)

that's what I thought (Thanks Graham). So Ross I'm puzzled, why have you given up on the chainsaw? If you have a really sharp blade its no biggy to just nibble off a half inch and keep the cut reasonably true. Does need to be sharp though.


----------



## Inspector (27 Jan 2014)

Mount it between centres on the lathe and turn the excess length off. The little spigot left can be cut off with any tool you have and like.  

Pete


----------



## Helvetica (29 Jan 2014)

Cross cutting a half inch off a log is a job for a crosscut saw, no? I don't see why Jacob gets the vitriol when he's just stating that the answer is extremely simple and being over thought.


----------



## Jacob (29 Jan 2014)

> Mod edit: - Jacob please take you trolling and sarcastic efforts elsewhere.
> 
> You appear to have no concept of the annoying little problems encountered by the OP or any practical advice that would help with the majority of instances that occur when handling large logs for turning. CHJ


I'm not trolling I'm pointing out that the easiest way to shorten a log is to saw a bit off, as other posters have also pointed out. 
He has a chain saw. The only problem is to hold or support the log, which may require a bit of thought, depending on what kit he has.


----------



## CHJ (29 Jan 2014)

When a long Log is bigger diameter than this:-



Or longer if stood on end.

It is not an easy task to achieve this down a one or two metre length by hand:-




So that you can then pass it under the upper arm with enough clearance to split, cut to lengths and cut circular Blanks:-





If at all possible I do as above, using a sledge if necessary or get help handling it, rarely is the first 10-15 mm of a log diameter of any use so it's of no loss doing the above even if you want to take a few mm off the length.

Edit:- which is invariably the case with any I cut up as I usually leave a minimum of about 1/3 over length for storage to reduce the end split risk.

If I get a Slice, the usual way that a _helpful_ tree surgeon cuts them that won't be recoverable as above:-



I cut through with chainsaw, split with wedges or a combination of both.
(couldn't find a sample to 'photo)


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (29 Jan 2014)

Today I took a trip back to the site where I got the Laburnum yesterday as the tree surgeon had left a nice mid section of oak butt for me. I ripped it in two on site to make it capable of handling into the car boot and came home. The reason I'm putting this in here is that I now do all my heavy processing with the chainsaw before I get anywhere near the bandsaw. I've experimented with different ways to cut up large logs and I always come back to the safety of doing it outside with a chainsaw being the best...for support...for managing the mess etc. I use a straight edge to mark rip lines along the trunk and both cross grain exposed ends. I use a forestry blue crayon to mark the wood and then rip to those lines in whatever thickness I need. That way you process the hard cuts before it ever gets to the bandsaw. As long as the log is on its side ie axis running with the chainsaw ripping is straight forward. Caveat is you must have a sharp blade but then you always should and I'm meticulous about mine. A common error is to be tempted to have the log standing on end (because its easy) and then cut down into the end grain to produce slabs. This is nigh on impossible in tough hardwoods like oak because of the nature of end grain. The on its side method works really well. To stop the log rolling I just wedge it with offcuts I make on site.

Here's a couple pics to show the resultant slabs of circa 2.5 - 3" thick oak. You can easily see how its now a doddle to cut either bowl blanks using a circle scribed on the timber or further rip into long spindle blanks. The timber is totally safe to even freehand on the bandsaw as it has no curvy edges to slip about. These slabs are about 2 foot long by 15" wide so pretty chunky. I leave the bark on and end seal then straight away. If I were going as far as the bandsaw I would cut using a Tuffsaw 3/8" sabre blade (fabulous by the way) and then end seal the blank. At this stage you have what is ostensibly as good as a commercially available blank except the drying of course and they are a little rougher. But I don't mind about the roughness because once its mounted on the lathe its two passes with a skew or a bowl gouge to turn it true.

I suspect a lot of people shy away from rip cuts with a chainsaw but really it's not difficult or time consuming as long as its done right.


----------



## woodfarmer (31 Jan 2014)

Random Orbital Bob":29s0zf0x said:


> Today I took a trip back to the site where I got the Laburnum yesterday as the tree surgeon had left a nice mid section of oak butt for me. I ripped it in two on site to make it capable of handling into the car boot and came home. The reason I'm putting this in here is that I now do all my heavy processing with the chainsaw before I get anywhere near the bandsaw. I've experimented with different ways to cut up large logs and I always come back to the safety of doing it outside with a chainsaw being the best...for support...for managing the mess etc. I use a straight edge to mark rip lines along the trunk and both cross grain exposed ends. I use a forestry blue crayon to mark the wood and then rip to those lines in whatever thickness I need. That way you process the hard cuts before it ever gets to the bandsaw. As long as the log is on its side ie axis running with the chainsaw ripping is straight forward. Caveat is you must have a sharp blade but then you always should and I'm meticulous about mine. A common error is to be tempted to have the log standing on end (because its easy) and then cut down into the end grain to produce slabs. This is nigh on impossible in tough hardwoods like oak because of the nature of end grain. The on its side method works really well. To stop the log rolling I just wedge it with offcuts I make on site.
> 
> Here's a couple pics to show the resultant slabs of circa 2.5 - 3" thick oak. You can easily see how its now a doddle to cut either bowl blanks using a circle scribed on the timber or further rip into long spindle blanks. The timber is totally safe to even freehand on the bandsaw as it has no curvy edges to slip about. These slabs are about 2 foot long by 15" wide so pretty chunky. I leave the bark on and end seal then straight away. If I were going as far as the bandsaw I would cut using a Tuffsaw 3/8" sabre blade (fabulous by the way) and then end seal the blank. At this stage you have what is ostensibly as good as a commercially available blank except the drying of course and they are a little rougher. But I don't mind about the roughness because once its mounted on the lathe its two passes with a skew or a bowl gouge to turn it true.
> 
> I suspect a lot of people shy away from rip cuts with a chainsaw but really it's not difficult or time consuming as long as its done right.




Not having a bandsaw it is pretty much what I do, usually on a saw horse if possible. rip cutting does tend to clog the saw though.






I like to have "interesting bits with knots etc, those can be more "entertaining" to cut


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (31 Jan 2014)

haha...yeah I'm the same Woody. The more crotch or knot or root the more I like it. Can play havoc with the saw 

I always used to sharpen my chainsaw with a hand file and I still do when out in the field. But about a year ago I bought a cheap chainsaw grinder and it has revolutionised both the speed and quality of my saw sharpening. It also saves a packet on any sharpening service you may have foolishly once used (not me....a friend of course)


----------



## Rhossydd (2 Feb 2014)

Vic Perrin":icp8lc8q said:


> 3 pages on how to cut the end off a log ?


That happens when people fail to read the information in the OP and subsequent posts, then post irrelevant information or just troll.

I said:
_"The tree surgeon has already done his best to chop it down to sizes for burning or chopping into smaller lumps."

"Buying a bigger band saw or chain sawing further aren't options"

"It's just the annoyance of trimming half an inch or so off the, end grain"

"Ever tried to chain saw off half an inch from an irregular surface ?"_

Anyone reading this ought to have realised that I'm discussing the sort of lump of firewood timber that's big and irregular enough to be difficult to hold easily, but also too small to fit into the sort of saw benches that are used for cutting firewood in the first place. Basically a really awkward size and shape that doesn't make conversion into a workable shape and size in any way easy.

Thanks to Duncanh for his insight on using the Arbortech. I didn't think I'd be alone in having thought of this as a potential solution for my problem. I'll keep an eye open for any special deals on these as I think one might be a useful tool to have to hand for really awkward jobs like this, but the safety issues of using one on, less than ideally secured, timber do concern me.

CHJ's illustrations of dealing with small diameter logs on the bandsaw are interesting and a strategy I've used myself before, but not really that relevant in my particular case as the sections of timber come from a 4-5ft diameter trunk. With that sort of radius curve there's not enough clearance to get the edge near the blade.

Now I've got back from a short holiday I've had time to consider some further options;
For the first troublesome lump I've liberated an extra half an inch of capacity in the bandsaw, by rotating the blade guide blocks by 90 degrees and removing the top blade guard. That's allowed me to get some edges squared up and see what quality of wood is hiding under the muck. It seems highly variable, soft, wet and with some rot (spalting) at one end, but solid, dry and nice at the other.
When I go back to get some more lumps, I'll be very considered with what I choose.


----------



## Jacob (2 Feb 2014)

It's all very well accusing people of trolling but you still haven't explained why you can't just saw or hack off the half inch too much: _"the best thickness is half an inch thicker than your band saw can handle"_. You mutter on about 4 to 5 ft diameter but without being clear about what exactly is the problem.
It sounds like it's down to holding the pieces while you saw or hack off the excess. It shouldn't be difficult to improvise a holding system, whatever the shape of your blanks. 
You just have to think a bit for yourself instead of making vague requests for help with an unspecified problem, and being rude about the replies.


----------



## Paul.J (2 Feb 2014)

Rhoss are you saying you have 4-5 foot dia logs that are cut by the tree surgeon 6-1/2" thick,and you want to take these logs down to 6" thick so you can cut the rest of the log up on your bandsaw,which only has a cutting depth of 6" or 6-1/2" now you have moved the guides :?: :?: 
Any chance of some piccys so we can see what you have :?: 
If the slabs are that size you really are better off using the chainsaw on them and cutting them into smaller more manageable sizes to round off on the BS.
I can't see why you are trying to keep the logs full size as your lathe doesn't take that size,or have i got it all wrong :? 
Any idea what the wood is,might not not be worth the trouble :?: :?:


----------



## Rhossydd (2 Feb 2014)

Paul.J":17kv18q4 said:


> .. are you saying you have 4-5 foot dia logs that are cut by the tree surgeon 6-1/2" thick,and you want to take these logs down to 6" thick so you can cut the rest of the log up on your bandsaw,which only has a cutting depth of 6" or 6-1/2" now you have moved the guides


That's pretty much what I've said;
_"The tree surgeon has already done his best to chop it down to sizes for burning or chopping into smaller lumps."_
From that you should realise that I'm not talking about 5ft diameter bits, but basically firewood sized bits.


> Any chance of some piccys so we can see what you have :?:


No, the first lump I was given has been taken down to size now. I've been promised anything I like from a big pile and now I've a much better idea of how to choose the next bits.


> I can't see why you are trying to keep the logs full size as your lathe doesn't take that size,or have i got it all wrong :?


My lathe can handle pretty large diameter blanks that are _reasonably in balance_, but not the sort of huge out of balance bits that are shown by woodfarmer earlier in the thread. I just want to keep as much wood as possible to work with, so it needs to arrive at the lathe with some chance of being workable.


> Any idea what the wood is,might not not be worth the trouble :?: :?:


As I said previously it's Walnut.
If you've brought any lately from a merchant you'd know why I'm keen to use as much of the free supply as I possibly can, with as little waste as possible.


I'd assumed that most amateur turners would have had a go at using timber from this sort of source and have strategies to work with it.
If you read my OP I was just canvassing other people's approach to this to see if there's some clever ways of dealing with this problem I hadn't heard of before, eg the Arbortech. The end result seems to be that people just hack away with axes, bow saws and chain saws.


----------



## Jacob (2 Feb 2014)

Rhossydd":3c6rptfj said:


> ...... The end result seems to be that people just hack away with axes, bow saws and chain saws.


That's it!!
But there might have been another way - no harm in asking the question. :roll:

PS not so much "just hack away" though - more "just carefully cut to the required size".


----------



## dickm (2 Feb 2014)

4 to 5 FEET diameter???? That's one h*** of a log. What size chainsaw was used originally to fell it? Even with a monster Stihl pulling a 30" bar, it would only just be feasible.


----------



## Rhossydd (2 Feb 2014)

dickm":108e5rmi said:


> What size chainsaw was used originally to fell it?


It just fell over one afternoon, no chainsaw needed.
Our neighbours were sitting down to Sunday lunch, went out to the kitchen to get something and it fallen over. They didn't even hear it come down.

A fair bit of rot in the centre of the base, hence the odd shapes to deal with. The tree surgeon told them it was impossible to get the trunk parts out of their garden to mill for timber, so cut it up in the garden for firewood. A crying shame as there's some lovely looking wood in rather too small to use bits


----------



## CHJ (2 Feb 2014)

Rhossydd":1xgaxql4 said:


> ....... A crying shame as there's some lovely looking wood in *rather too small to use bits *



That's not scenario a I subscribe to.


----------



## procell (2 Feb 2014)

Chas you have just given me something to work towards. If I can get only half way to being that good I will be very proud.


----------



## Grahamshed (2 Feb 2014)

Me to. Do you do craft fairs or similar with these Chas ?


----------



## Rhossydd (2 Feb 2014)

CHJ":2gym6utj said:


> Rhossydd":2gym6utj said:
> 
> 
> > ....... A crying shame as there's some lovely looking wood in *rather too small to use bits *
> ...


Me neither, hence trying everything possible to maximise what I can get hold of.

But how wonderful it would have been to have been involved early enough to prevent the wholesale wrecking of what could have been some quality timber of a good size to make something substantial. Instead it looks like the biggest bits I can get out of the pile will have a maximum dimension of 6inches instead of maybe 6 feet or more.


----------



## CHJ (2 Feb 2014)

Grahamshed":2dvwcx1m said:


> .... Do you do craft fairs or similar with these Chas ?


Not as such, a Local Christmas charity event the last couple of years that's all.


----------



## bellringer (2 Feb 2014)

dickm":1oncsttj said:


> 4 to 5 FEET diameter???? That's one h*** of a log. What size chainsaw was used originally to fell it? Even with a monster Stihl pulling a 30" bar, it would only just be feasible.



it would be fine with a stihl pulling a 72" bar


----------



## bellringer (2 Feb 2014)

Rhossydd":uvj2njag said:


> dickm":uvj2njag said:
> 
> 
> > What size chainsaw was used originally to fell it?
> ...



well the tree surgeon should have thought of a chain sawmill


----------



## Rhossydd (2 Feb 2014)

bellringer":2qyam8vi said:


> well the tree surgeon should have thought of a chain sawmill


Exactly what I said too.

Without having seen the tree when it was on the ground and knowing what issues they had with it, it might be wrong to be overly critical.
If there was a lot of rot that might have made it uneconomic to work on. I've heard many of these smaller on-site milling operations are very reluctant to work on garden trees because of the risk of hidden debris damaging the chain.


----------



## bellringer (2 Feb 2014)

Rhossydd":3otbcohs said:


> bellringer":3otbcohs said:
> 
> 
> > well the tree surgeon should have thought of a chain sawmill
> ...




the one i use in the contract is if he hit metal i pay for the new chain


----------



## dickm (3 Feb 2014)

bellringer":19tjaf5t said:


> it would be fine with a stihl pulling a 72" bar



True! But don't think *I'*d be fine with such a beast - my 048 is heavy enough


----------



## woodturnerEric (6 Feb 2014)

I`m lucky,I have a jet 3520B,so I don`t get bits of wood that are to big,so far any way,with my freestanding toolrest I can turn up to about 6` width,I plan on turning a board like a fellow club member(Nowich Woodturners) did to see if i can,its just affording the board haha,cheers,

Eric.


----------



## woodfarmer (6 Feb 2014)

woodturnerEric":320xq1c4 said:


> I`m lucky,I have a jet 3520B,so I don`t get bits of wood that are to big,so far any way,with my freestanding toolrest I can turn up to about 6` width,I plan on turning a board like a fellow club member(Nowich Woodturners) did to see if i can,its just affording the board haha,cheers,
> 
> Eric.



That lathe the 3520 was one of the three on my list. But there was no way for me to get it into my car and bring it back to France and I did not want to wait and fetch it with my trailer. Even it would be too small to deal with spindle turning the main trunk of the yew tree I found virtually up for grabs.


----------

