Who else uses a scythe?

Steve Tall said:
Oh, well. I tried.

Is there a mechanical engineer in the house :D
(who could weigh in on this) ?
Click to expand...

Hahaha -- yes, if there's an engineer lurking I'd love to know for sure, as well! What I've written is as correct as I've been able to figure and aligns with my personal experiences and experimentation, but it's always good to know if one is on the mark, near it, or way out in left field. :D
 
Probably a matter of my technique, but I don't really see the lever as particularly relevant principle, at least in the sense of one hand or other being a pivot and the other applying force. For me the snath doesn't rotate around either hand, but rather somewhere around the upper chest, with the muscle of the left shoulder and back pulling along with the right chest muscles. Nor does the blade rest on the ground flat, traveling in a simple 2d arc, but starts with the tip down and ends with tip up. I've tried all different ways, and this works the best by far for me in all circumstances, as it uses large muscles that don't tire easily, and does not involve twisting the back, plus adapts most easily to uneven or unlevel terrain. Best illustration is the youtube "scythe mowing a meadow". Very different from the technique typically used on European scythes, but it will not bog down with deeper cuts or stress the back the same way.
 
BG_Farmer said:
Probably a matter of my technique, but I don't really see the lever as particularly relevant principle, at least in the sense of one hand or other being a pivot and the other applying force. For me the snath doesn't rotate around either hand, but rather somewhere around the upper chest, with the muscle of the left shoulder and back pulling along with the right chest muscles. Nor does the blade rest on the ground flat, traveling in a simple 2d arc, but starts with the tip down and ends with tip up. I've tried all different ways, and this works the best by far for me in all circumstances, as it uses large muscles that don't tire easily, and does not involve twisting the back, plus adapts most easily to uneven or unlevel terrain. Best illustration is the youtube "scythe mowing a meadow". Very different from the technique typically used on European scythes, but it will not bog down with deeper cuts or stress the back the same way.
Click to expand...

The actual arc described by the scythe is the cumulative effect of all arcs and horizontal shifts made by the body in its entirety over the course of the stroke. The component we've been debating pertains exclusively to any arc created by a pivot residing at either hand or somewhere between. The real central point of rotation will move further and further back as the total radius increases until it's actually somewhere behind you. :)
 
Steve Tall said:
When you lift the shovel (or swing a scythe), both hands need to be applying force to the handle, regardless of which (if any) hand you are pivoting around. You cannot have "only the left hand or right hand engaged in the motion", as claimed.
Click to expand...

Both hands are applying force but both hands need not be in motion at the same time. When shoveling it's often most efficient to use the tool first as a 1st-class lever. For a right-hander, the left elbow is braced on the left thigh. A downward force is applied with the right hand. The stationary left hand acts as the fulcrum. Once the load is up off the ground you use the shovel as a 3rd-class level. This motion accelerates and pitches the dirt. Both hands are in motion during this phase but the left hand now assumes the primary motion.
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
The actual arc described by the scythe is the cumulative effect of all arcs and horizontal shifts made by the body in its entirety over the course of the stroke. The component we've been debating pertains exclusively to any arc created by a pivot residing at either hand or somewhere between. The real central point of rotation will move further and further back as the total radius increases until it's actually somewhere behind you. :)
Click to expand...

It is a really complex problem. I hope my observation didn't seem strident. Mainly I have been puzzling over this a couple of days, and getting progressively less certain. Luckily I cut a couple long rows for bedding/mud control/picking entertainment on recent warm days or I would not be sure I could still now with a scythe :)!
 
BG_Farmer said:
It is a really complex problem. I hope my observation didn't seem strident. Mainly I have been puzzling over this a couple of days, and getting progressively less certain. Luckily I cut a couple long rows for bedding/mud control/picking entertainment on recent warm days or I would not be sure I could still now with a scythe :)!
Click to expand...

Hahaha--it is a rather tricky problem! I've been trying to work out a way to actually calculate the real arc with actual values without it becoming a huge pain in the butt because it would actually be a big help with evaluating how best to hang a blade for a particular mowing style, individual, etc. Something I've discovered in some primitive modeling is that it's possible for a blade to have a cutting line (the curve of the edge) that, if used with too small of a radius/closed of a hang will actually cut redundantly--that is to say that the swath will be cut only by the forward section of the blade, but then the same space passed over again with the rest of the blade. That means that you would then have to either open your hang (radius and therefore radial distance unchanged), the radius of the stroke increased, or the degree of rotation diminished. All of these would result in a minimum depth to the swath, and somewhere along the range between those adjustments there would exist the length of the swath that performs best for the given mowing conditions. The true ideal could be either above or below that optimization, but some point along that spectrum would be the best balance of adjustment attainable without increasing the depth of the swath or redundantly cutting. Increasing the depth can be accomplished either by opening the hang further or using more lateral shift for equal or lesser rotation of the scythe along the course of the stroke, but increasing the depth decreases edge engagement and so becomes more of a push-cut and less of a slice. As such, the need for an especially keen edge or higher velocity (often a bad idea) becomes necessary to effectively cut.

The principle of edge engagement is one of the reasons I love my modified cradle blades. Most folks think of a longer blade as a way to cut more grass per stroke but as we've already discussed there is a physical limit to how much grass you can actually move per stroke without putting undue strain on yourself. This can often be taken with blades of average length and indeed it's common for beginners to attempt to take too deep of a bite even with relatively short blades...as such very long blades can either be used at a "normal" hang to cover a larger swath and so cut a light crop more readily than a shorter blade that can't reach peak load without resorting to an absurdly open hang, OR you can take the same swath as you were with the shorter blade to cut a crop of average to heavy weight with more edge engagement. This will also produce the effect of requiring less frequent sharpening (barring accidental damage) because more edge is cutting the same volume of grass and so each unit of edge length receives less wear. Cut more with the same amount of edge, allowing for less blade weight for the volume cut at the expense of decreased edge engagement...or more edge for greater engagement in equal volume at the expense of weight...it's a balancing act!
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Hahaha--it is a rather tricky problem! I've been trying to work out a way to actually calculate the real arc with actual values without it becoming a huge pain in the butt because it would actually be a big help with evaluating how best to hang a blade for a particular mowing style, individual, etc. Something I've discovered in some primitive modeling is that it's possible for a blade to have a cutting line (the curve of the edge) that, if used with too small of a radius/closed of a hang will actually cut redundantly--that is to say that the swath will be cut only by the forward section of the blade, but then the same space passed over again with the rest of the blade. That means that you would then have to either open your hang (radius and therefore radial distance unchanged), the radius of the stroke increased, or the degree of rotation diminished. All of these would result in a minimum depth to the swath, and somewhere along the range between those adjustments there would exist the length of the swath that performs best for the given mowing conditions. The true ideal could be either above or below that optimization, but some point along that spectrum would be the best balance of adjustment attainable without increasing the depth of the swath or redundantly cutting. Increasing the depth can be accomplished either by opening the hang further or using more lateral shift for equal or lesser rotation of the scythe along the course of the stroke, but increasing the depth decreases edge engagement and so becomes more of a push-cut and less of a slice. As such, the need for an especially keen edge or higher velocity (often a bad idea) becomes necessary to effectively cut.

The principle of edge engagement is one of the reasons I love my modified cradle blades. Most folks think of a longer blade as a way to cut more grass per stroke but as we've already discussed there is a physical limit to how much grass you can actually move per stroke without putting undue strain on yourself. This can often be taken with blades of average length and indeed it's common for beginners to attempt to take too deep of a bite even with relatively short blades...as such very long blades can either be used at a "normal" hang to cover a larger swath and so cut a light crop more readily than a shorter blade that can't reach peak load without resorting to an absurdly open hang, OR you can take the same swath as you were with the shorter blade to cut a crop of average to heavy weight with more edge engagement. This will also produce the effect of requiring less frequent sharpening (barring accidental damage) because more edge is cutting the same volume of grass and so each unit of edge length receives less wear. Cut more with the same amount of edge, allowing for less blade weight for the volume cut at the expense of decreased edge engagement...or more edge for greater engagement in equal volume at the expense of weight...it's a balancing act!
Click to expand...

Regarding the redundant cutting, I have an inkling of an idea that it could be helped by decreasing the radius of curvature and moving the center of curvature of the cutting edge in the direction of the tip, which effectively opens the hang and results in a sharper point and/or a more pronounced beard. To take some liberty and simplify, I think it could be argued that the natural arc is defined by the outer edge/rib of the blade and it is that which determines the appropriate openness of the hang based on the snath and the mower, ie some point of the outer curve of the blade should be in contact with the ground throughout the stroke. Of course, there are complications both physical such as any crown to the blade and technical such as mower elaborations...eg lateral motion, shortening the radius of the stroke as it progresses, etc.

I don't think it is simple at all, and it would be nice to have a "biomechanic?" work on the problem!
 
BG_Farmer said:
Regarding the redundant cutting, I have an inkling of an idea that it could be helped by decreasing the radius of curvature and moving the center of curvature of the cutting edge in the direction of the tip, which effectively opens the hang and results in a sharper point and/or a more pronounced beard. To take some liberty and simplify, I think it could be argued that the natural arc is defined by the outer edge/rib of the blade and it is that which determines the appropriate openness of the hang based on the snath and the mower, ie some point of the outer curve of the blade should be in contact with the ground throughout the stroke. Of course, there are complications both physical such as any crown to the blade and technical such as mower elaborations...eg lateral motion, shortening the radius of the stroke as it progresses, etc.

I don't think it is simple at all, and it would be nice to have a "biomechanic?" work on the problem!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it doesn't happen on all blades--just certain curves at certain hangs with certain rotations. Also as you mention the spine dictates the ideal motion of the blade that will not result in deflection off of the spine in an overly closed approach. The cutting line determines your progression of edge engagement for a given approach. To avoid pushing the spine of the blade through uncut grass the radius of the stroke must be equal to or greater than the radius of the toe (not hard) but the point should be held in constant contact with the arc or else you'll either be dragging (too closed of presentation) or disengaging the heel (too open for your given depth of swath.) I suspect this is one of the reasons why a more closed hang is often recommended for beginners, because you can ride the toe along too-closed of an arc and not run into dragging issues--you'll just be cutting with the foible and grazing over previously cut ground with the heel (which, for a beginner, could often use the extra pass!)
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
Yeah, it doesn't happen on all blades--just certain curves at certain hangs with certain rotations. Also as you mention the spine dictates the ideal motion of the blade that will not result in deflection off of the spine in an overly closed approach. The cutting line determines your progression of edge engagement for a given approach. To avoid pushing the spine of the blade through uncut grass the radius of the stroke must be equal to or greater than the radius of the toe (not hard) but the point should be held in constant contact with the arc or else you'll either be dragging (too closed of presentation) or disengaging the heel (too open for your given depth of swath.) I suspect this is one of the reasons why a more closed hang is often recommended for beginners, because you can ride the toe along too-closed of an arc and not run into dragging issues--you'll just be cutting with the foible and grazing over previously cut ground with the heel (which, for a beginner, could often use the extra pass!)
Click to expand...

There is a real emphasis in some circles on widening the swath which practically limits the depth of cut, but does not affect the size of the windrow. Most of the time, I actually limit or even reduce the width of the swath somewhat, as heavy grass can be deposited into a workable windrow that under good conditions can dry without spreading. This becomes a big help with larger volumes of hay, as spreading/turning is more work than cutting as handling increases. Also, if there are good clovers such as Ladino in the mix, you have to be careful about drying too far too fast or manipulating more than necessary. Most of this is dependent on local conditions, for example I do not cut as early as some, as the dew is generally too heavy. The grass cuts well mid morning and late evening, though, but is not wet enough to need spreading, and the ground between rows needs to dry. With optimum setting, then, an equal rate of cutting with reduced width can realized by taking bigger bite

As you imply, however, limiting depth of cut and making it redundant may not be a bad idea for mowing lawns, clearing weeds, or even cutting light hay. It will allow beginning users to cut the expected swath width cleanly, but prevent them from biting off too much.
 
BG_Farmer said:
There is a real emphasis in some circles on widening the swath which practically limits the depth of cut, but does not affect the size of the windrow. Most of the time, I actually limit or even reduce the width of the swath somewhat, as heavy grass can be deposited into a workable windrow that under good conditions can dry without spreading. This becomes a big help with larger volumes of hay, as spreading/turning is more work than cutting as handling increases. Also, if there are good clovers such as Ladino in the mix, you have to be careful about drying too far too fast or manipulating more than necessary. Most of this is dependent on local conditions, for example I do not cut as early as some, as the dew is generally too heavy. The grass cuts well mid morning and late evening, though, but is not wet enough to need spreading, and the ground between rows needs to dry. With optimum setting, then, an equal rate of cutting with reduced width can realized by taking bigger bite

As you imply, however, limiting depth of cut and making it redundant may not be a bad idea for mowing lawns, clearing weeds, or even cutting light hay. It will allow beginning users to cut the expected swath width cleanly, but prevent them from biting off too much.
Click to expand...

Precisely! In light crops a greater area may be covered by the swath while a heavier crop will require less area taken per stroke. How you actually accomplish this is less important than trying to attain that ideal amount where you are taking just enough not to strain yourself and tire overly quickly, and still engaging your muscle groups as equally as possible.
 
Discussing this with some math-savvy friends of mine it looks like the dynamics of the arc are even trickier than I initially thought. Terms like "epicyclic-cycloidal arc" are getting thrown around, and it's becoming clear to all involved that directly modeling it is likely impractical. :D

Edit to add: we may be able to approximate it well enough in order to at least figure out the degree of influence of each component though. Will report back if anything comes of it.
 
Last edited:
BG_Farmer said:
I agree with 42B and ST on the blade, late 19th to mid 20th century. The nibs are later, as 42 said, and I think they would work better on the other side of that snath, as straight as it is, or maybe the blade is turned around? One reservation I have is that the snath shaft and collar are basically un date able, as the variety of homemade and/or locally produced implementations is pretty much infinite. On the shaft, the only distinctive characteristic is the round to square, which is a little on the fancy side for homemade, but I have a hard time shaking the impression that it closely resembles one handle for a post hole digger that has been repurposed. That is one of the things I like about scythes: they can be as simple or as complex as possible and made to work pretty well if the user knows what to adjust and how he wants it to work...
Click to expand...

It's Acier Fondu (Redtenbacher) with 2 Swan logo. Two cracks in it so it ain't even a user!!
 
Yup--that's a Redtenbacher blade. "Acier Fondu" essentially translates as "cast steel" for the grade of the material. The swans were their logo. It would have had a paper label when new.
 
crown & hammer said:
Picture138_zpsd2a6b913.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Picture139_zps03707bf6.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

Picture137_zps1c913a49.jpg
[/URL][/IMG]

18th C scythe. Handholds may be later. The blade has crack. I think the writing on blade indicates this was part of an early collection, a museum acquisition number possibly. I don't know much about these. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Click to expand...

The collar holding blade on --- is this a factory piece? Are these sought after by "scythers"?
 
Yes, the scythe ring is factory-made. You can see marks from where it was cast. I wouldn't necessarily say that it's highly sought after in that condition, but it is less common to see solid cast rings in the USA compared to welded ones with set screws.
 
As springtime draws near, here's some encouragement for those considering taking up the tool in the coming season--every master was at one time a beginner! From Sir Stephen Tallents' "The Art of the Scythe":

In the early days of my mowing I found the work exhausting and made every mistake that a mower should avoid. Imitating my teacher, who was bowed with arthritis, I adopted a crouching stance, which it took me some years to discard. I whetted my blade clumsily and soon lost, nor ever that summer regained, the sharpness which my old master’s stone had given it. With its ever-blunt edge I hit fiercely at the nettles and the grasses, instead of guiding my blade serenely through them. I caught my blade against stones in the grass and dented it. I embedded the point of my scythe in a tree, and extricated it violently, bent the point in so doing and before long had broken it off.
Click to expand...
 
FortyTwoBlades said:
As springtime draws near, here's some encouragement for those considering taking up the tool in the coming season--every master was at one time a beginner! From Sir Stephen Tallents' "The Art of the Scythe":
Click to expand...

Nice quote. I must be making progress, as I can check off most of that list:)!
 
  • Like
Reactions: A17
BG_Farmer said:
Nice quote. I must be making progress, as I can check off most of that list:)!
Click to expand...

I'll be transcribing the rest of the document as I find time. Sir Stephen Tallents (hey--that's almost like Steve Tall! :D ) seems to have written some abridged versions of this text for some magazines etc. but this version is about 20 pages long. Until I get 'round to all of that, here's a link to one of the abridged ones! :)

I've seen articles from 1935 and 1948 but the copy I'm working from was published in 1952, just 6 years before he passed away at the age of 74.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top