"No unnecessary weight in the poll."

[Old Axeman]

42- I have made my thoughts clear, you just don't listen.

Hacked- all your axe observations are on the money. Too many people hang an axe with abrupt transitions from haft to head, in both planes. Yes, the haft should be slim and without any transitions where it meets the head.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

42- I have made my thoughts clear, you just don't listen.

To the contrary, I've listened quite closely. To further reinforce this, let's take a look at all of your posts so far...

The simple answer is that Australian axemen are a bit strange.

You think Australian axemen are strange.

Collective knowledge, maybe, but with a healthy dose of speculation in some cases.
For what it's worth on getting advise:
1st- make sure that the person giving you advise makes their entire livlihood from using, in this case, an axe. That means food ,shelter etc., you know, pays all their bills USING an axe (as opposed to selling axes). No weekend warriors.
2nd- make sure that they have been doing #1 for at least 10 straight years.
3rd- check their references on #1 and 2.
4th- listen to what your gut is telling you about what you found out in # 1, 2, 3
PS- this also works for advise on legal, medical, plumbing, auto repairs, etc.

You are willing to discredit information if it comes from someone who isn't paying all of their living expenses by doing the thing which they are discussing, and they must have done it for at least a decade, rather than scrutinizing the assertions themselves and seeing if that information stands on its own merits or not.

Science is speculation !

You think that science is not founded in evidence (which is demonstrably false.)

The answer to the poll vs poll less question is in the chopping, not in diagrams of CoG or weird manipulation of a sledge hammer photo. Chopping, as in all day work in the woods felling and bucking. It is odd to me that someone so young seems to think he has this all scoped out. Sorry, experience rules !

You think that because I'm young (for reference, I turn 30 this November) that I lack in experience or insight, and are willing to say that the answer is in experience without actually stating what that answer is.

Talk about attitude ! You seem to have forgotten we have had this discussion in other threads and I told you that I like poll less axes, I use poll less axes, but in my opinion, the poll axe is a superior chopper that moves more wood in a days work in the woods. You sure spend a lot of time on the computer and working on your theories. I think you need to chop more and post less, it might help you understand what I am saying. Oh, and if you do chop more, try and not fell a tree without a front notch or without a hardhat as you showed in a video a while back, it sets a bad safety example for viewers. It also might not help you sell your poll less axes.

You think that if a person spends time on the computer describing theory that this somehow indicates a lack in field experience. You are willing to use isolated lapses in judgment as a means of discrediting an entire argument despite the fact that it was with a tool other than the one being discussed, and discounting the ability for one to actually learn from mistakes. You also make the backhanded implication that my argument is financially motivated when this has been shown to not be the case.

Lets get down to it. How many of the axes that you show in this thread do you own and have extensive experience using?

Now, tell us who you actually are. Your real name is not 42 blades. We need to be able to look up on the internet what you have or have not done in your life.

As for me--I am Bernie Weisgerber and I have owned and used all (and many that have not been shown) the axes that are in the U S Forest Service "An Ax To Grind" manual and video as well as all the axes, adzes, and other wood working tools in the "These Old Cabins" video series, PBS " Frontier House" series, PBS "This Old House" series where I loaned my axes etc. to Norm Abram in two different shows, PBS "Alone In The Wilderness" fund raiser where I used my tools to narrate about what Dick Proenneke used to build his wilderness log cabin, Discovery channel " Off The Grid", And History channel "Save Our History"

You appear to think that because of your resume you have a monopoly on axe knowledge, that my name somehow impacts my own credibility, that I cannot post example images of axes that I don't personally own and use, even if they are sterling examples of the principles being discussed.

Benjamin, what you have written that is incorrect is "false precepts and myths that have been handed down as part of the lore of the American axe. the primary advantages of a poll are very basic: to simplify the form of an handle and to add pounding ability"
DEAD WRONG!
First off, you are saying that the advantages of the American poll axe are a myth. In North American our forefathers found the most formidable forest they had ever seen. The American poll axe developed because it was a more efficient chopper, no other reason. Your brash statement, besides being incorrect is insulting.The poll did not show up to simplify the form of a handle and to add pounding ability. American axe makers were the greatest the world will ever see. Are you saying that American makers and users did not know an efficient chopper? Again, DEAD WRONG and also insulting. Are you saying that my great grandfather and grandfather, who both were the "Bull Of The Woods" on some of the biggest logging shows in both Montana and northern Wisconsin did not know what the were doing when they taught me about axes more than 70 years ago? Are you discounting my years of working with a axe every day to make a living?
Upstarts like you really give this old axeman a pain in the okole!

You completely either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent my arguments and make many straw men in the process.

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.

You only have half of the equation here, which I already covered in my earlier response.

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 make underhanded ad hominem implications and commit genetic fallacies without making a single point or counterpoint regarding the matter at hand.

For me, the validity of a statement is always related to the validity of the person making the statement.

Which is a genetic fallacy, nor have you made any just or cogent argument against my validity.

42- I got this now. You don't need a poll on your axe because you show the trees your diagrams and talk them to death.
You would have been a big hit in one of my grandfathers logging camps.

You continue to make ad hominem statements without contributing materially to the conversation.

I'm still trying to find your argument and your reasoning behind it. It is very clearly not to be found in any of your posts in this thread so far.

 

[Square_peg]

Hacked- all your axe observations are on the money. Too many people hang an axe with abrupt transitions from haft to head, in both planes. Yes, the haft should be slim and without any transitions where it meets the head.

I recently saw one of the worst cases of this. This haft will quickly break.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

^Gotta' love stress risers, eh?

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Okay so I'm no expert as I'm not a lumber jack and my use of an axe is limited to firewood for my firepit and wood carving projects. I live in a typical suburb so I'm sure that means my opinions are invalid but I'll toss in my two cents since you asked.

To me logically a balanced only really comes into play when chopping on a horizontal axis such as when felling a tree. This is because it in theory would be easier to manipulate the angle at which the bit hits the target. In that situation control over the angle is key for efficiency and safey since the cows mouth and back cut need to be fairly accurate to be successful. An axe that is extremely bit heavy will require more attention and effort to keep on a horizontal plane thus being less efficient.

For bucking, limbing, and splitting a balanced axe is less important. Correct me if I'm wrong but hewing axes are extremely bit heavy but designed specifically to be used on a vertical axis and so the "balance" doesn't really matter. For finer carving I like having a balanced axe as I find it easier to again ajust the angle of the bit to my needs without having to fight the axes natural tendency to aim bit down.

The poll I also see as being designed to maintain the weight of and axe. I don't know if it's just me but I find axes with long bits have a tendency to want to deflect so that the cheek comes down onto the cutting surface. I notice this issue less with my shorter bit axes, though I only really have one axe with a longer bit. You would think that having the weight distributed behind the eye would cause the same effect even with a shorter bit but I haven't found that to be the case. Instead it seems more like the weight drives the bit into the point of contact in a very controlled manner. The point of handles barking the wood in a deeper cut has been mentioned as an advantage of longer bit axes. With my typical American axes I have found that is only an issue when I did not bother to properly slim down the handle. The shoulder should be narrower than the cheeks of the axe head. I've come to perfer taking my handles down to the point were the shoulder is basically non existent and the handle seems to melt into the eye of the axe rather than have an abrupt transition. The effort is worth the results in my experience.

You can sort of see what I mean in this picture. I should note that I tore this handle off after this trip and took the shoulder down further. Pretty happy with it say for the palm swell at this point but I still might carve a new one for the head as it's become an instant favorite of mine.

A note on handles there is a long standing argument on straight verses curved. I find the biggest difference is the slight curve at the end of the handle just before the palm swell. I think part of the purpose of this angle is to help the user control the angle of the bit. By having a curve at that point it makes it easier to tilt the axe head up or down from a horizontal axis without the need for a tight grip. It essentially the difference between using a socket on the end of a straight handled driver vs a ratchet though with a lesser angle. The ratchet is going to require less grip strength to achieve the rotational torque required to turn the bolt than a straight shank driver.

Just my thoughts, nothing scientific.

Regarding the weight being behind the eye, if the handle leads ahead of the CoG, you're actually pulling the head towards the target, and so it automatically stabilizes itself behind the swing so long as that stroke is providing enough tension to resist the tug of gravity. Pushing from behind the CoG tends to be more likely to introduce wobble. :thumbup:

 

[Lieblad]

Speaking of Stress Risers...

 

[Steve Tall]

...That being said, the axle is the central location of your manipulation of the tool, and so the modified axe will arrive at the target sooner, as its edge sits farther ahead of the axle. The angle at which the bit is presented to the target when it lands will be the same as before, but you'll have a shorter distance over which to accelerate it and a longer period of followthrough upon striking the target.

...The modified axe is manipulated by the same physical handle as the unmodified axe, and it travels the exact same path as the unmodified axe, resulting in the same distance over which to accelerate, and the same followthrough (the actual path of the physical axe is the same in both cases, from beginning of acceleration, though the impact).

And I didn't notice an answer to my question about what I see as an underlying flaw in the theory:
"Are you basing this assertion on anything more than the resting position of the bit when the axe is hung upside down by the knob?"

...All manipulation of the tool from a single grip point results in motions that originate from the axle... If the axe is held either one-handed or with both hands along the axle, and the same stroke as before is used, the bit will land sooner... It does not travel the same distance unless you are starting the axe from the same edge position in space, in which case the axle is starting more rearward, and so while it travels the same number of degrees, the whole stroke is pivoted backwards a bit. Start it with the poll against a blocking "wall"-like barrier and the edge will be sitting nearer the target. Start with the axle in the same place as before, and the edge will be sitting nearer the target.

There still seem to be some misconceptions. In the "thought experiment", the stroke of the axe is exactly the same in both cases, as stated earlier. This is easily done by having the same starting position of the handle. With the extra pound weight added to the poll, the whole stroke is not pivoted backward at all, since the axe handle is in exactly the same position as before. The weight distribution in the head is different, sure, but in real life it doesn't make the person hold the handle closer to the target before starting the downward swing of the axe.

And I still didn't notice a direct answer to my question about your assertion that "the tool would naturally want to present itself further forward in the stroke compared to what it had prior":
"Are you basing this assertion on anything more than the resting position of the bit when the axe is hung upside down by the knob?"

The resting position of the bit, when the axe is allowed to freely dangle upside down like this, will be "further forward", sure, but the force required to overcome this tendency is miniscule when compared to the forces applied when the axe is swung at the target. And unlike the sideways balance of an axe head (where the poll can balance the bit to prevent "wobbles" outside the plane of the swing), the "further forward" tendency will remain within the plane of the swing, where there are much larger forces being applied. The "further forward" tendency will be negligible (just like the force required to undo this tendency on a dangling axe is negligible when compared to the swinging forces applied in the same plane when the axe is used for chopping).

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

There still seem to be some misconceptions. In the "thought experiment", the stroke of the axe is exactly the same in both cases, as stated earlier. This is easily done by having the same starting position of the handle. With the extra pound weight added to the poll, the whole stroke is not pivoted backward at all, since the axe handle is in exactly the same position as before. The weight distribution in the head is different, sure, but in real life it doesn't make the person hold the handle closer to the target before starting the downward swing of the axe.

Right--you're using the same edge position in space which is the only way to have the same length of travel to the target. The handle may be in the same position as before, but the tool is going to desire to pivot forwards because the axle is now rear of its prior position. Thus, the actual travel of the axle has been moved back by however many degrees. In adding the weight and yet holding the handle and edge positions constant you have essentially moved the axle backward but then pushed the tool forward again in order to retain the original edge position. If the user were to hold it in the same position as before they will have the axle sitting rear of where it was prior, and when it arrives at the target it will, again, have the axle rear of where it was prior. The edge is moving the same distance through space as before, but the axle has pivoted back away from the direction of the stroke. If you were to start with the same axle position, however, the edge would land at the target sooner. If you were to start with the axle in the same starting position and give it the same ending position, the bit will be inside the target space. If the axle is rear of the handle this tends not to cause as much of a disruption in technique since the axle isn't corporeal and so cannot obstruct anything. If the handle sits rear of the axle, it's possible for it to then get in the way of keeping the starting axle position the same.

And I still didn't notice a direct answer to my question about your assertion that "the tool would naturally want to present itself further forward in the stroke compared to what it had prior":
"Are you basing this assertion on anything more than the resting position of the bit when the axe is hung upside down by the knob?"

The resting position of the bit, when the axe is allowed to freely dangle upside down like this, will be "further forward", sure, but the force required to overcome this tendency is miniscule when compared to the forces applied when the axe is swung at the target. And unlike the sideways balance of an axe head (where the poll can balance the bit to prevent "wobbles" outside the plane of the swing), the "further forward" tendency will remain within the plane of the swing, where there are much larger forces being applied. The "further forward" tendency will be negligible (just like the force required to undo this tendency on a dangling axe is negligible when compared to the swinging forces applied in the same plane when the axe is used for chopping).

I did answer that. You can observe the dynamics regardless of if you suspend it upside down. You can readily see it as the tool is manipulated in space, regardless of specific orientation. The manner in which the tool wants to move is very clearly influenced by the CoG and where manipulation forces are coming from relative to it. Perhaps envision that the tool is floating in outer space, free of the effects of gravitational pull. Now set the tool spinning in space--where is it pivoting from? The CoG. And if the tool was rotated at a grip point using some sort of swivel so it could still freely align itself, it would do so along an axle because one point of its rotation in space has become fixed, while the other is still free to pivot.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Some further info:

Click.

Click.

 

[Steve Tall]

Right--you're using the same edge position in space which is the only way to have the same length of travel to the target. The handle may be in the same position as before, but the tool is going to desire to pivot forwards because the axle is now rear of its prior position. Thus, the actual travel of the axle has been moved back by however many degrees. In adding the weight and yet holding the handle and edge positions constant you have essentially moved the axle backward but then pushed the tool forward again in order to retain the original edge position. If the user were to hold it in the same position as before they will have the axle sitting rear of where it was prior, and when it arrives at the target it will, again, have the axle rear of where it was prior. The edge is moving the same distance through space as before, but the axle has pivoted back away from the direction of the stroke. If you were to start with the same axle position, however, the edge would land at the target sooner. If you were to start with the axle in the same starting position and give it the same ending position, the bit will be inside the target space. If the axle is rear of the handle this tends not to cause as much of a disruption in technique since the axle isn't corporeal and so cannot obstruct anything. If the handle sits rear of the axle, it's possible for it to then get in the way of keeping the starting axle position the same.



I did answer that. You can observe the dynamics regardless of if you suspend it upside down. You can readily see it as the tool is manipulated in space, regardless of specific orientation. The manner in which the tool wants to move is very clearly influenced by the CoG and where manipulation forces are coming from relative to it. Perhaps envision that the tool is floating in outer space, free of the effects of gravitational pull. Now set the tool spinning in space--where is it pivoting from? The CoG. And if the tool was rotated at a grip point using some sort of swivel so it could still freely align itself, it would do so along an axle because one point of its rotation in space has become fixed, while the other is still free to pivot.

I'm trying to point out some deficiencies in your theories, which you said you welcomed, but it seems like you are just defending your theories by "explaining" around some of the points I raise.

You initially claimed, "the modified axe will arrive at the target sooner, as its edge sits farther ahead of the axle." Now you admit that I'm "right" in this case, because I essentially "moved the axle backward but then pushed the tool forward again in order to retain the original edge position" which is a really complex way to describe the simple case where the axe is swung again with the handle in the same starting position.

You then say that "the tool is going to desire to pivot forwards because the axle is now rear of its prior position" but you are missing the detail that the "desire to pivot forward" changes throughout the stroke. For example, if during the swing the handle passes through the straight up position (and the "axle" becomes vertical), the "desire to pivot forward" will become zero then. Likewise, if at the early stages of the swing, the handle is angled back (before reaching the vertical position), there will be absolutely no "desire to pivot forward", as the axe will actually have to be restrained from pivoting backward. Thus, this "desire to pivot forward" would not really exist except during the downward portion of the stroke (and it would be negligible unless if it causes a large enough force or torque to have any significant effect on the axeman's stroke).

However, any force or torque caused by the "desire to pivot forward" would be very small, compared to the forces and torques the axeman imparts during the swing. This can be seen by pushing one of the dangling axes back into a position where the handle or control axis become vertical. A pinky finger can easily overcome the "desire to pivot forward" that results from the "axis of control" being out of alignment with the "axle".

Which brings me to some important points (which weren't responded to when I brought them up earlier):
... the force required to overcome this tendency is miniscule when compared to the forces applied when the axe is swung at the target. And unlike the sideways balance of an axe head (where the poll can balance the bit to prevent "wobbles" outside the plane of the swing), the "further forward" tendency will remain within the plane of the swing, where there are much larger forces being applied. The "further forward" tendency will be negligible (just like the force required to undo this tendency on a dangling axe is negligible when compared to the swinging forces applied in the same plane when the axe is used for chopping).

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I'm trying to point out some deficiencies in your theories, which you said you welcomed, but it seems like you are just defending your theories by "explaining" around some of the points I raise.

I'm answering your questions directly, and I do welcome the challenge. I'm not "'explaining' around them" but outright explaining them.

You initially claimed, "the modified axe will arrive at the target sooner, as its edge sits farther ahead of the axle." Now you admit that I'm "right" in this case, because I essentially "moved the axle backward but then pushed the tool forward again in order to retain the original edge position" which is a really complex way to describe the simple case where the axe is swung again with the handle in the same starting position.

Your initial mode of posing the question:

It seems like you're incorrectly considering the "presentation" as simultaneously having two meanings: (1) the angle the bit makes with the "axle" (which depends on the center of gravity), and (2) the angle the bit makes with the target upon landing. Let's use my earlier example (as a "thought experiment") to show that these aren't equivalent, and that the theory is therefore incorrect.

Drill a hole through the knob of that Tasmanian axe handle and mount the 4-pound axe on a fixed shaft that passes through this hole. Arrange it so that the axe can be moved to rotate roughly 180 degrees (around the fixed shaft) before the bit hits the ground. Put a log at the point of impact with the ground. Then measure the "presentation" as the angle the bit makes with the log upon impact.

Now add the 1-pound weight to the poll of the axe. The center of gravity changes, and therefore the "axle" changes, and the angle the bit makes with the "axle" changes. The grip point remains the same (where the shaft passes through the handle), and the swing remains the same (the 180 degree arc), along the same path. Now measure the resulting "presentation" again (the angle the bit makes with the log upon impact). According to your theory, this angle would be different than the previously measured angle. But it seems clear to me that this angle would be exactly the same as the previously measured angle, effectively disproving the theory.

Presentation is, ceteris paribus, how the bit lands at the target. The orientation of the bit in space relative to the axle does play a role in the presentation to the target but may or may not be affected by alterations in the tool, depending on how they are done. Usually the presentation is changed chiefly when the handle is altered to bring the main length of the handle along a unified axis, or if it is lengthened or shortened (or the grip point, even) but again, that's just one variable that may or may not be altered by tweaking the other variables.

You then say that "the tool is going to desire to pivot forwards because the axle is now rear of its prior position" but you are missing the detail that the "desire to pivot forward" changes throughout the stroke. For example, if during the swing the handle passes through the straight up position (and the "axle" becomes vertical), the "desire to pivot forward" will become zero then. Likewise, if at the early stages of the swing, the handle is angled back (before reaching the vertical position), there will be absolutely no "desire to pivot forward", as the axe will actually have to be restrained from pivoting backward. Thus, this "desire to pivot forward" would not really exist except during the downward portion of the stroke (and it would be negligible unless if it causes a large enough force or torque to have any significant effect on the axeman's stroke).

However, any force or torque caused by the "desire to pivot forward" would be very small, compared to the forces and torques the axeman imparts during the swing. This can be seen by pushing one of the dangling axes back into a position where the handle or control axis become vertical. A pinky finger can easily overcome the "desire to pivot forward" that results from the "axis of control" being out of alignment with the "axle".

Which brings me to some important points (which weren't responded to when I brought them up earlier):
... the force required to overcome this tendency is miniscule when compared to the forces applied when the axe is swung at the target. And unlike the sideways balance of an axe head (where the poll can balance the bit to prevent "wobbles" outside the plane of the swing), the "further forward" tendency will remain within the plane of the swing, where there are much larger forces being applied. The "further forward" tendency will be negligible (just like the force required to undo this tendency on a dangling axe is negligible when compared to the swinging forces applied in the same plane when the axe is used for chopping).

By "further forward" I meant from a suspended position. It'll want to tilt rearward when upright with the bit/handle in their original position. Now, the desire to tilt forward or back is negligible. It's just there and worth mentioning as a change that results. The larger issue would be the impact on the triangulation at play in a two-point grip, but again this is pretty negligible, and if anything is a bit improved in the case of the particular axe so it's not a particularly good example for demonstrating large shifts in performance. The most significant changes in performance is that you've just added a full pound to your axe and increased the distance between the axle and bit. None of this disproves the principles at work--rather, it demonstrates them. Now if the shift caused a large change in the altitude of the triangle, then it'd be an issue because you be making a long lever that could act on the primary axle. But even then, because you're adding weight to the poll you at least end up with a weight-trailing circumstance.

Now, these are just approximations, so adding a pound to the back of the head probably would shift things back even more, but here are some mockups using a trace of the Tuatahi.

 

[Steve Tall]

I'm answering your questions directly, and I do welcome the challenge. I'm not "'explaining' around them" but outright explaining them.

Your initial mode of posing the question:

Presentation is, ceteris paribus, how the bit lands at the target. The orientation of the bit in space relative to the axle does play a role in the presentation to the target but may or may not be affected by alterations in the tool, depending on how they are done. Usually the presentation is changed chiefly when the handle is altered to bring the main length of the handle along a unified axis, or if it is lengthened or shortened (or the grip point, even) but again, that's just one variable that may or may not be altered by tweaking the other variables.

By "further forward" I meant from a suspended position. It'll want to tilt rearward when upright with the bit/handle in their original position. Now, the desire to tilt forward or back is negligible. It's just there and worth mentioning as a change that results. The larger issue would be the impact on the triangulation at play in a two-point grip, but again this is pretty negligible, and if anything is a bit improved in the case of the particular axe so it's not a particularly good example for demonstrating large shifts in performance. The most significant changes in performance is that you've just added a full pound to your axe and increased the distance between the axle and bit. None of this disproves the principles at work--rather, it demonstrates them. Now if the shift caused a large change in the altitude of the triangle, then it'd be an issue because you be making a long lever that could act on the primary axle. But even then, because you're adding weight to the poll you at least end up with a weight-trailing circumstance.

Now, these are just approximations, so adding a pound to the back of the head probably would shift things back even more, but here are some mockups using a trace of the Tuatahi...

The example I gave, with the Tasmanian axe having a one-pound weight added to the poll, is a counter-example to the following claims you made:

1. If you were to alter the axle by one mode or another and run it along the same path, it would cause the bit to land at its target differently... the hang is not the same at that point.

2. ...the modified axe will arrive at the target sooner, as its edge sits farther ahead of the axle.

3. ...you'll have a shorter distance over which to accelerate it and a longer period of followthrough upon striking the target

4. The handle may be in the same position as before, but the tool is going to desire to pivot forwards because the axle is now rear of its prior position. [Among other problems with this, how can the axe desire to pivot forward when the handle is being tilted backward?]


Now, after some discussion, you admit further that:

"... the desire to tilt forward or back is negligible"
and
"...the impact on the triangulation at play in a two-point grip...is pretty negligible."

Yay!

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

The example I gave, with the Tasmanian axe having a one-pound weight added to the poll, is a counter-example to the following claims you made:

1. If you were to alter the axle by one mode or another and run it along the same path, it would cause the bit to land at its target differently... the hang is not the same at that point.

It would have better of me to have said that the hang is very often (but not always) altered when something is changed to shift the axle. In your example the presentation relative to the handle is unchanged because it causes a rotation along the same arc as the tool overall without the edge's position or grip point changing. However, any change in the bit side of the head that doesn't run true to the established arc or a change in the grip point will change the effective presentation.

2. ...the modified axe will arrive at the target sooner, as its edge sits farther ahead of the axle.

If the stroke is considered as having the axle start in the same position in both cases, this is true. The edge sits farther out when the axle is vertical than the unaltered axe with the axle in the same orientation.

3. ...you'll have a shorter distance over which to accelerate it and a longer period of followthrough upon striking the target

See above.

4. The handle may be in the same position as before, but the tool is going to desire to pivot forwards because the axle is now rear of its prior position. [Among other problems with this, how can the axe desire to pivot forward when the handle is being tilted backward?]

I already addressed this. I was referring to when the axe is suspended upside down, and I should have been clearer about that when I made the original statement. However, this now marks the second time I've clarified that point.

Now, after some discussion, you admit further that:

"... the desire to tilt forward or back is negligible"
and
"...the impact on the triangulation at play in a two-point grip...is pretty negligible."

Yay!

For this particular example, yes. Not so in other cases.

 

[Square_peg]

To me logically a balanced only really comes into play when chopping on a horizontal axis such as when felling a tree. This is because it in theory would be easier to manipulate the angle at which the bit hits the target. In that situation control over the angle is key for efficiency and safety since the cows mouth and back cut need to be fairly accurate to be successful. An axe that is extremely bit heavy will require more attention and effort to keep on a horizontal plane thus being less efficient.

That's a good observation. Axe balance increases accuracy and efficiency always, but it's magnified when felling. The American axe (with its large balancing poll) came to be while the axe was the main tool used for felling trees. The woodsmen didn't draw any diagrams. They went with what they observed to work best. Most of these men were immigrants who brought with them the axes of their native countries from all over the world. American forests became a proving ground for axe design. Certain patterns proved more useful than others and were quickly adopted.

 

[Square_peg]

Regarding the weight being behind the eye, if the handle leads ahead of the CoG, you're actually pulling the head towards the target, and so it automatically stabilizes itself behind the swing....

Yes, but we've already established what kind of calisthenics you have to go through to produce such a haft and how it would be inherently impaired by run out.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

That's a good observation. Axe balance increases accuracy and efficiency always, but it's magnified when felling. The American axe (with its large balancing poll) came to be while the axe was the main tool used for felling trees. The woodsmen didn't draw any diagrams. They went with what they observed to work best. Most of these men were immigrants who brought with them the axes of their native countries from all over the world. American forests became a proving ground for axe design. Certain patterns proved more useful than others and were quickly adopted.

Some drew diagrams. And if you think I'm verbose you should see some period documents--check this little number out! But fortunately one really only needs to do diagram work when explaining the concepts to others who aren't able to be shown them in person.

Yes, but we've already established what kind of calisthenics you have to go through to produce such a haft and how it would be inherently impaired by run out.

Except in the case being discussed it was where the axle was moved rearward rather than moving the handle forward. Also, other tools have been made with very curved handles without issue, and many axes besides. With good grain alignment there's minimal runout of any significance.

 

[Square_peg]

Also, other tools have been made with very curved handles without issue, and many axes besides. With good grain alignment there's minimal runout of any significance.

An adze or even a broad axe never experiences the hard use that a felling, bucking or splitting axe endures. What you can get away with on a adze handle won't fly on an axe handle - not even close.

 

[Steve Tall]

It would have better of me to have said that the hang is very often (but not always) altered when something is changed to shift the axle. In your example the presentation relative to the handle is unchanged because it causes a rotation along the same arc as the tool overall without the edge's position or grip point changing. However, any change in the bit side of the head that doesn't run true to the established arc or a change in the grip point will change the effective presentation.

If the stroke is considered as having the axle start in the same position in both cases, this is true. The edge sits farther out when the axle is vertical than the unaltered axe with the axle in the same orientation.

See above.

I already addressed this. I was referring to when the axe is suspended upside down, and I should have been clearer about that when I made the original statement. However, this now marks the second time I've clarified that point.

For this particular example, yes. Not so in other cases.

I was trying to give my closing summary (biased, of course), not pestering for repeated explanations or clarifications, but the additional clarifications are interesting. To get beyond any appearance of speculation and conjecture, can you give some specific examples that demonstrate the following claim:

The desire to tilt forward or back is significant (not negligible, not insignificant).


(Which follows from these quotes: "Now, the desire to tilt forward or back is negligible. It's just there and worth mentioning as a change that results. The larger issue would be the impact on the triangulation at play in a two-point grip, but again this is pretty negligible..." and "For this particular example, yes. Not so in other cases.")

Since I previously presented my take on this, which is that it would generally be negligible (for typical axes requiring more of a swing than letting the weight drop):

...this "desire to pivot forward"... would be negligible unless if it causes a large enough force or torque to have any significant effect on the axeman's stroke. However, any force or torque caused by the "desire to pivot forward" would be very small, compared to the forces and torques the axeman imparts during the swing. This can be seen by pushing one of the dangling axes back into a position where the handle or control axis become vertical. A pinky finger can easily overcome the "desire to pivot forward" that results from the "axis of control" being out of alignment with the "axle".
Which brings me to some important points (which weren't responded to when I brought them up earlier):
... the force required to overcome this tendency is miniscule when compared to the forces applied when the axe is swung at the target. And unlike the sideways balance of an axe head (where the poll can balance the bit to prevent "wobbles" outside the plane of the swing), the "further forward" tendency will remain within the plane of the swing, where there are much larger forces being applied. The "further forward" tendency will be negligible (just like the force required to undo this tendency on a dangling axe is negligible when compared to the swinging forces applied in the same plane when the axe is used for chopping).

 

[Steve Tall]

Here's an interesting research article that was published in the professional journal Ergonomics. It mentions the potential advantages of the American axe design (with its significant poll?), "because its particular dynamic characteristics permit an individual to optimise both the translational and rotational components of the swing", but I'd like to see more details.

Dynamics of the Axe Swing
CAROL J. WIDULE , VERNARD FOLEY & GAIL DEMO
Pages 925-930 | Received 24 Aug 1977, Published online: 25 Apr 2007
Ergonomics
Volume 21, 1978 - Issue 11
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140137808931797

Only the abstract seems to be available for free (emphasis added):

Abstract

This study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that axes of varying weight would have similar velocities and that additional weight would be registered in the form of an increase in kinetic energy. The results essentially support the hypothesis. However, a decrease in the rotational kinetic energy component of the heaviest axe would tend to suggest there may be a limit to the ability of an individual to overcome the angular inertia of a heavy object and that additional kinetic energy gained as a result of increasing the axe weight may be at the physiological expense of the individual. The intuitive design of the current American axe form may have succeeded in its ability to drive rival designs from the scene because its particular dynamic characteristics permit an individual to optimise both the translational and rotational components of the swing.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

An adze or even a broad axe never experiences the hard use that a felling, bucking or splitting axe endures. What you can get away with on a adze handle won't fly on an axe handle - not even close.

I was trying to give my closing summary (biased, of course), not pestering for repeated explanations or clarifications, but the additional clarifications are interesting. To get beyond any appearance of speculation and conjecture, can you give some specific examples that demonstrate the following claim:

The desire to tilt forward or back is significant (not negligible, not insignificant).


(Which follows from these quotes: "Now, the desire to tilt forward or back is negligible. It's just there and worth mentioning as a change that results. The larger issue would be the impact on the triangulation at play in a two-point grip, but again this is pretty negligible..." and "For this particular example, yes. Not so in other cases.")

Since I previously presented my take on this, which is that it would generally be negligible (for typical axes requiring more of a swing than letting the weight drop):

...this "desire to pivot forward"... would be negligible unless if it causes a large enough force or torque to have any significant effect on the axeman's stroke. However, any force or torque caused by the "desire to pivot forward" would be very small, compared to the forces and torques the axeman imparts during the swing. This can be seen by pushing one of the dangling axes back into a position where the handle or control axis become vertical. A pinky finger can easily overcome the "desire to pivot forward" that results from the "axis of control" being out of alignment with the "axle".
Which brings me to some important points (which weren't responded to when I brought them up earlier):
... the force required to overcome this tendency is miniscule when compared to the forces applied when the axe is swung at the target. And unlike the sideways balance of an axe head (where the poll can balance the bit to prevent "wobbles" outside the plane of the swing), the "further forward" tendency will remain within the plane of the swing, where there are much larger forces being applied. The "further forward" tendency will be negligible (just like the force required to undo this tendency on a dangling axe is negligible when compared to the swinging forces applied in the same plane when the axe is used for chopping).

Like this very deep English felling axe (or so the originating website calls it) on a straight handle.

That head on that handle would be wobble city because of how long the head is and the handle being straight without any offset whatsoever. Likewise on a less extreme, but still deep-bitted, heavier axe with a very round handle. Some of the Latin American axes fall under that category, with round eyes and long bits without any poll, and in standard American-level weights. Most deep-bitted Italian axes are light for their size, and the heavier-cheeked ones like the Calabria have fairly wide handles that give plenty of counter-leverage against flop, so as a combination of a light head and wide handle it's pretty simple and instinctive to keep it on track despite the straight handle, to the point where I've had people (surprisingly, to me) tell me that they find it easier to strike accurate blows with them. Despite my fondness for them and the fact that I don't have any trouble keeping them steady in horizontal cuts, I nevertheless would have expected people to at best find the accuracy on-par with the accuracy of American axes--not for them to get the impression that they were actually better. Now I don't necessarily agree with that assessment myself, but it was interesting to hear.

The front/back thing will always be pretty insignificant except in the heaviest axes and even then you're not holding it there long. It's more of the triangulation thing that can start causing issues when you have deep bits on handles that aren't offset to at least minimize triangulation if not fully eliminate it.

This Gilpin mast axe has a very deep bit, as is conventional in the English style, so it seems, but has a good offset to it.

Despite that, because the head itself overall is so long, it will still magnify the effects of any wobble despite the handle helping to prevent that from happening in the first place.