"No unnecessary weight in the poll."

Steve Tall said:
No offense, but this doesn't sound right. If correct, this would mean that a one-handed carving axe, with the grip portion of a curved handle being aligned with the cutting edge, would behave the same as if the axe had a straight handle where the grip is aligned with the eye (when a substantial poll results in the center of gravity being in the eye). This is just one of the counter-examples that come to mind.
Click to expand...

That's because the balance impacts the presentation of the bit. The axe is balanced, but that does not mean that the presentation of the bit is correct for the intended purpose. Remember that if the handle is not aligned along a unified axle that a change in the grip point results in a new axle, which changes the presentation of the bit in use. However, there will be no wobble introduced by a single active grip point, which is what I meant by identical behavior.

Old Axeman said:
The adze balance demonstration is a bad example. Although balance plays a role, the most important consideration is the angle of presentation of the bit to the stick of wood. That is why the curve is in the haft, it is not curved for a balance point. Haven't you wondered why the haft shape is different for a carpenters adze and a shipwrights adze, while using the same weight and balance head? To an extent, this is also true for axes. That is why, depending on who is chopping and what the intended use is, sometimes you need a straight haft and sometimes you need a curved haft on the same head. This balance thing is not the end all to this discussion as some here would have you believe. There are a lot of variables that are being left out of the discussion.
Click to expand...

Actually, that has been discussed. It is curved both for a balance point and for an angle of presentation. If you were to keep that straight section on the handle pointed towards that stamp (where the balance of the head is) but had the neck curved in such a way that that it was doing so at a different angle, it would remain in perfect balance while changing the presentation of the bit in use. Balance is only one aspect of the total equation, and the least important of the three in the sense that one should not be concerned if a tool is balanced or not, because the tool will always attempt to balance itself (in fact, it is this attempt at self-balancing that is responsible for tool wobble with off-axis handles) but the balance of the tool affects the presentation of the bit relative to the cutting stroke. You can have the handle on a unified axis but have the bit presentation too open or closed for your given cutting task because of the orientation of the axle the handle is aligned with. This is precisely why understanding axle behavior is so important, because creating an optimized handle for a tool is so dependent on not merely creating a unified axle, but having that axle properly aligned for your intended use.
 
Since I already have the graphics file for the altered Calabria and the handle shape is so similar (practically identical) to that of the adze, here's a diagram of what I mean. On the top, the head position is held constant so you can more readily see the change in the handle alignment, but the bottom shows how the tool would present itself in suspension from the indicated grip point. You can see that they impact the presentation of the bit. However, I could just as easily sketch up a handle that was off-axis yet created the given presentation when that grip point was used. It's just that then changing your grip point would change the presentation. That's less critical in an axe because your stroke alters how the bit lands, as well, and so the body often self-corrects for minor presentation issues, but you have less ability to alter your stroke with an adze, which is why they went through the trouble of making the offset handle for a unified axle.

OffsetEffectOnHang-573x1024.jpg
 
Now, here's a morph series with the Velvicut. Starting with the original on the left, the handle is then straightened. You'll notice this increases how off-axis the handle is, so it's then brought onto a single-axle presentation. However, that then opens the presentation of the bit, so the hang is closed to restore it to the same presentation it had on the original handle at that grip point. So if you wanted a straight handle, it'd actually have to be offset or else it'd be off-axis.

VelvicutStraightHandleMorphs.jpg
 
All of this being discussed is part of why I admire user G-pig's axe handle work so much. While he understands these dynamics by intuition rather from the technical perspective I use, his handle work is the epitome of good axle management.

11149548_1601262950142990_6281425733154632016_n.jpg
 
So my take on all this, from my admittedly very newb point of view, is that if nothing else the 'American' pattern axe greatly simplifies getting a good hang. It is the most efficient way to do it from a manufacturing standpoint, which given the industrial nature of logging on this continent made it the best design choice for the circumstances. An unbalanced head can be an as efficient cutter but pretty much needs a handle individually tailored to the user to get to that level.
 
Canadian Mojo said:
So my take on all this, from my admittedly very newb point of view, is that if nothing else the 'American' pattern axe greatly simplifies getting a good hang. It is the most efficient way to do it from a manufacturing standpoint, which given the industrial nature of logging on this continent made it the best design choice for the circumstances. An unbalanced head can be an as efficient cutter but pretty much needs a handle individually tailored to the user to get to that level.
Click to expand...

Precisely. The poll makes it simpler and more economical to properly hang the axe, which is decidedly of advantage. However, increased bit depth or specific geometry for a given head weight may outweigh that advantage for some users in some functional contexts. :thumbup:
 
Full text of original "obtuse" post:
Park Swan said:
Tone unnecessary :thumbup:. I don't know if you ever surfed this forum before your join date, but there have been many threads that go much deeper into discussions than is necessary.
The balance of the axe head is a function of two main factors: the shape of the axe head itself, and the orientation of the axis of balance. Adjusting either will affect the balance.
Click to expand...
Park Swan said:
. . .
Yeah, it seems intentionally obtuse to split a sentence in half, and ask "why?" regarding the first half of the sentence... I'm not trying to be insulting, but what's the point of picking apart the posts?. . .
Click to expand...
Since multiple points are often given in a single post, I would rather parse out each point and respond one at a time. I try my best to consider context. YMMV


As to my reaction to your use of "obtuse", I think it is self explanatory.

ob·tuse

adjective

  • 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
    "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
    synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; insensitive, imperceptive, uncomprehending; informal dim, dimwitted, dense, dumb, slow on the uptake, halfwitted, brain-dead, moronic, cretinous, thick, dopey, lamebrained, dumb-ass, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, chowderheaded "he frustrated his teachers by pretending to be obtuse"
  • 2. (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.

Bob
 
rjdankert said:
As to my reaction to your use of "obtuse", I think it is self explanatory.

ob·tuse

adjective

  • 1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
    "he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
    synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless; insensitive, imperceptive, uncomprehending; informal dim, dimwitted, dense, dumb, slow on the uptake, halfwitted, brain-dead, moronic, cretinous, thick, dopey, lamebrained, dumb-ass, dead from the neck up, boneheaded, chowderheaded "he frustrated his teachers by pretending to be obtuse"
  • 2. (of an angle) more than 90° and less than 180°.

Bob
Click to expand...

I know what the word means, my intention was not to offend. I think the context is clear.
Thread sufficiently derailed, I'm done with the semantics so I must "cop out" for now.
 
I
FortyTwoBlades said:
All of this being discussed is part of why I admire user G-pig's axe handle work so much. While he understands these dynamics by intuition rather from the technical perspective I use, his handle work is the epitome of good axle management.

11149548_1601262950142990_6281425733154632016_n.jpg
Click to expand...

I was just thinking the same thing, that the straight handled examples in your diagram of the Velvicut looked a lot like G-pig handles.
 
That's 'cause G-pig is a frickin' wizard when it comes to handle making. :) :thumbup:

Steve Lehmann in Australia is the only other guy I know of who routinely makes handles that take all of these factors into account.
 
Way back on pg1 42 linked a news article, the article mentioned that Chinese hold their axes differently - up near the head and use a shorter chopping motion. Due the nature of the internet trying to find what a Chinese axe looked like is not easy. I've seen the ones where the blade is very narrow and the profile is rectangular, sorry I don't know enough about axes to describe it better. Why did they use axes this way? I am guessing it has to do with what they were cutting (bamboo??) and possibly the smaller stature on average?

rjandkery - he apologized like a page ago, why are you still blasting at him? It was clearly a tone miscommunication in the first couple of posts as happens in written communication. Let's just talk about axes :)
 
Square_peg said:
Unless it had a substantial poll to balance it.
Click to expand...

Except then you'd be dealing with a different axe and to have the same bit geometry it would be an overall heavier head. I'm talking specifically about the one shown. You're removing the context of the statement.
 
My point is that axes have the heavy poll for a reason. It's not 'unnecessary' as the title of this thread suggests. To do away with it causes one to create a haft that is awkward, time consuming and expensive to make and prone to run out. All those problems are solved with the 'unnecessary' weight in the poll. Plus it makes a great tool for driving wedges when felling. It's about as 'unnecessary' as the opposable thumb.
 
Square_peg said:
My point is that axes have the heavy poll for a reason. It's not 'unnecessary' as the title of this thread suggests. To do away with it causes one to create a haft that is awkward, time consuming and expensive to make and prone to run out. All those problems are solved with the 'unnecessary' weight in the poll. Plus it makes a great tool for driving wedges when felling. It's about as 'unnecessary' as the opposable thumb.
Click to expand...

Ah, but that was a quote from the ad I linked in the OP--not an assertion of mine. Now, poll-less axes outfitted with unified-axis handles are not in any way awkward; it's just a look you're not used to seeing. It's true that it introduces an increased chance of runout in factory-manufactured handles, but the same is true of conventional curved handles. It isn't strictly a required feature to have a first-rate axe--it merely simplifies the process by which one may be attained, which I pointed out on page one of the thread (and in only the third post, no less.) But an axe lacking a large poll is not inherently a bad axe--it simply prioritizes different design aspects and features, and can be outfitted with a handle that provides a unified axis. In fact (again, as I've mentioned prior) most American axes still would benefit from a greater amount of offset in the neck of the handles to bring them along a unified axis.
 
Center of gravity has been used in this thread and others as being relevant to the use of an axe (and other striking tools). It has never been clear to me how this effects the use of these tools. Quite frankly, the explanations I've seen use terms that I cannot find with a google search or if I do they are not relevant to what is being described. Without at least a common understanding of the meaning of a term, I don't see how communication is possible. For example if I describe the color of something as "sky blue", ten people will have ten ideas of what that color is. Continuing with center of gravity:

I've posted this before:

22593448450_bca112dc60_b.jpg

22765370462_0d0b2c980e.jpg


Here is a crude image I made up following the above but using an axe as the subject:

30314227226_d3bdd108bf_c.jpg


Note that the above are simplified and in two dimensions. An axe is obviously a three dimensional object. Also the center of gravity is a single point that is the intersection of two or more lines.

The center of gravity does not always exist inside the object:

shoex.JPG


Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the tools I have. Two axes with polls, a fire axe, three hatchets with polls, two straight handled claw hammers (one straight adze and one curved), a full size double bit, and this carpenter adze:

24468393045_b8950882df_c.jpg


Now, I didn't use a plumb line. I went strictly by eye, picking a suspension point on the end of the handles and one or two on the heads. All appeared to have a center of gravity at a similar point to my axe diagram above, a little below the center of the eye.

I did not have an axe without a poll to check.

Overlay1-e1426025486729.jpg



Bob
 
Do me a favor and try it again with a plumb line. Can be any piece of string with some kind of weight tied on the end--it could even be a piece of dental floss with your toothbrush on the end of it. :D It helps a lot with clearly establishing where it's at. :thumbup: The center of gravity on most American pattern tools is very close to the center of the eye, but it's rarely right in the middle unless it's a symmetrical tool. Just checking a little Adler Yankee pattern hatchet I had near by, for instance, the CoG is a little under 3/16" inside the front of the eye, and about 1/4" below the head, and I find that fairly typical for American axes.
 
Oh you don't need to do the whole image overlay thingy--that's just an aid for showing the concept to others. I meant just confirming where your actual line drops. It's more precise than eye-balling it and you can then still just approximate the intersection. It just gets you that much closer. And I meant more for your own purposes. :)
 
So, I did an internet search on Benjamin Bouchard. Granted, I am not very good at this, but here is what I found: a Benjamin Bouchard who was arrested in Port Hope, Northumberland, Canada in a drug bust; and a Benjamin Bouchard who is an insurance agent in Nashua, N.H. I was expecting to find a degree from M.I.T., or a connection to a machine shop or a blacksmith shop, maybe a work history using an axe as a competitive chopper, or on a trail crew, a tree surgen, a logger. Hell, I could not even find a connection to wranglestar. In my search the only thing I found was a guy who sells poll-less axes. Go figure!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top