Scragg mills - short stuff only? How come?

woodbowl · September 21, 2005, 12:41:57 AM

I am intrigued at how fast a scragg can put two and four sides on a log. An end dog scragg mill really bumps up the production and portable scraggs are versital enough to get it done in the woods. I've noticed that advertizers stick to pallet stock and short wood claims. I've seen 8' and 12' claims but nothing longer. When I ask about 16' and longer, the coversation just stops and the message seems to suggest that it can't be done. How come?

DanG · September 21, 2005, 12:55:38 AM

I think we started this conversation earlier today...er...yesterday, but what we were doing at the time sorta took precedence. When ya get back over here, I'll show ya what a 3 blade mill can do, then you can make up your own mind. ;D

ps: Should we tell everybody what's been going on, or just let them remain ignorant? ;D :D

woodbowl · September 21, 2005, 01:06:08 AM

Quote from: DanG on September 21, 2005, 12:55:38 AM

ps: Should we tell everybody what's been going on, or just let them remain ignorant?

Now you done it! They already know now that somethings up. Go ahead and tell it, I know yer chompin' at the bit to post them pics of a truly interesting day. ;D

DanG · September 21, 2005, 01:21:00 AM

They just gonna hafta wait. I'm just too tarred to mess with it right now. ;D :D

Part_Timer · September 21, 2005, 03:04:13 AM

I just assume that dan is ALWAYS up to sumptin ;D

customsawyer · September 21, 2005, 05:07:49 AM

DanG with you being mean like this it ain't no wonder some of us don't make it here as much as we would like.

Ron Wenrich · September 21, 2005, 05:54:54 AM

Cooper makes a scragg that handles 16' logs.

Trying to re-invent the wheel?

Furby · September 21, 2005, 01:14:44 PM

Yes, there are several scraggs that can do 12'-16', but these are high dollar machines.
Biggest thing I see is the need for straight logs that long. Probly not a big deal in pine.

doublecut · September 21, 2005, 03:46:22 PM

I'll get it out of Dang at moultrie when i hand him the check for dinner. And we aint goin to Macdonalds either Dang.
Scraggs are a short wood machine for 2 reasons. One recovery and the other for production. there have been longer scraggs built as we have done ourselves but if a person is goin that way then you will need
support equipment behind it to recover the slabs in usable lumber. Then we talkin more money. I have seen scraggs with 56" saws in them and the waste was enormous but the wood was free. To me if I'm a cuttin it the I'm gettin all i can from it. So then a auxilary recovery system is needed. To handle a longer log also take more hydraulics and a superior lining up system for the longer lengths . Some thoughts
doublecut

woodbowl · September 21, 2005, 04:08:04 PM

I can see where additional support is needed in some situations. The feeling that I got was, anything over 10' or 12' long proposed a hold down problem and being accurate became more dificult. Chipping the sides square lead to the same end results. With this in mind, what is the difference in the dementional value of the cant? What other impractical obstacals arise when cutting 16' to 20'?

woodbowl · September 23, 2005, 09:21:17 PM

Thanks Ron, Furby and doublecut. I'm seeing what is out there and what they can do, or rather what they can't do. It's just a matter of time before someone works the bugs out and it becomes a standard. In the mean time it would be nice to hear of some new ideas on the subject.

beenthere · September 23, 2005, 10:06:42 PM

What defines a machine that falls into the 'scragg saw' category?

Tom · September 23, 2005, 10:20:57 PM

In my limited knowledge, I've been led to believe that a Scrag is a two bladed saw that will make two cuts from opposite sides of the log at the same time.

beenthere · September 23, 2005, 10:44:34 PM

That's my recollection too, and wonder if woodbowl and DanG are also thinking the same.

I'm thinking longer logs (16 - 20') may beg for a different sawing pattern on the small end vs the sawing pattern on the large end, if there is much taper in the log. Maybe just considering a 4, 6, or 8" cant pith-centered, would work okay, but that might just be okay for one end and not the other. Yield might take a big hit on the longer logs.

Maybe the improvement to go to longer logs is to figure a good way to process the slabs that would be large on the butt end, and small on the other.

I could be all wet too. Just thinkin out loud.

:

Tom · September 23, 2005, 10:52:38 PM

Baker's overhead, end dogging, Scragg has moveable blades and seemed, when I saw it, to be treated more like a gang or an edger. The end-dogging allowed the log to be turned 90 degrees and cut again. The moveable blades allowed the sawing of side boards until the target width was hit.

I didn't see a productive way of handling the side lumber or the finished cant.

It seemed to me that the handling of the log, to get it dogged, was a chore too.

I didn't see the thing work in production, only as a demo.

Bro. Noble · September 23, 2005, 11:01:49 PM

Our scragg mill (Morgan) will handle 12' lengths, but we stop at 8' and cut those in two if they are very rough or crooked. The reason we don't go longer is because if the log turns just a little while it is being cut, you got a real mess :( on ours, the log rides through on a chain pushed by cleats. We have a return and run the two sided cants as well as slabs bach through. With an end-dogging scragg, you could safly run longer stuff, but I don't think you could process the slabs.

They make 'band' scraggs which would make it easier to run long stuff, but there are disadvantages to them too.

woodbowl · September 23, 2005, 11:13:31 PM

When I bought my Morgan edger from Morgan saw in Serepta La. several years ago, I went out there to get it. His brother is just down the road (Morgan machine) and they produce a different line of machinery. One of them is their portable circle scragg. It does a wonderfill job. Very fast and portable. The log is zipped through to saw two sides, placed on the return belt and fed back through to cut the remaining two sides to produce a 4x4 or 6x6. I just couldn't help but think how fast I could get rid of some pecker pole jobs and maybe even make a little money. When I do a job like that on my WM it's just a whole lot of work and a little bit of pay. When asked how long a log it could handle, I was told 8' or 10' and no reason was given...............I'm always thinking of a faster way to produce lumber on the smallest mill possible because this lends itself to portability and custom sawing. Not everyones cup of tea but I enjoy it. Maybe it's just not practical, but I was led to believe that it was a mechanical problem. I've been iching to find out why for about four years now.

woodbowl · September 23, 2005, 11:21:56 PM

Bro. Noble, holding that long log must be the delima. I've got a video from Pendu that shows the logs fed at a fast rate and moving up and down while being cut. Those short logs seem to do fine.

Bro. Noble · September 23, 2005, 11:34:43 PM

I saw both Morgan brothers at a forestry industry show a few years ago. I saw them zipping logs through the mini scrag also and as a result bought ours. Everything has to be right to do that. As the teeth get worn down you have less kerf and lots more chance of binding. If the teeth are dull, sharpened wrong, a little chunk of wood heats one of the blades, etc, etc. You are in trouble.

The log with that kind of feed has to be very strait or slightly bowed (run with the bow up) because it must ride on the chain bearing weight on the very front and back. If not, the log may turn a little in the saw and bind. If that happens, you have to shut down immediately and manually back the log out of the saws-----not always an easy task. Sometimes there is enough tension in a log to bind the saws.

Strait pine logs and big slabs are a joy to run through this machine. We also run hardwood logs that are too small to make a tie and don't have any grade lumber in them. I hate it when we have to run hickory or elm logs especially, and am always relieved when we are done.

woodbowl · September 23, 2005, 11:43:56 PM

Quote from: Bro. Noble on September 23, 2005, 11:34:43 PM
I saw both Morgan brothers at a forestry industry show a few years ago.

Now that you mentioned it, I remember the same thing. That wouldn't by chance be at the world congress center in Atlanta a few years ago would it?

Bro. Noble · September 23, 2005, 11:48:15 PM

Nope, it was at the forestry industry show that is going on at St. Charles Mo. as we speak. When I went it was in Cape Giredeau Mo. Before that they had it in Springfield Mo. and I wish they still did. I could make it there between milkings ;D

woodbowl · September 24, 2005, 12:11:52 AM

They must go to a lot of shows then.....................

Quote from: Bro. Noble on September 23, 2005, 11:34:43 PM
As the teeth get worn down you have less kerf and lots more chance of binding. If the teeth are dull, sharpened wrong, a little chunk of wood heats one of the blades, etc, etc. You are in trouble.

Knowing all that, is a band scragg more attractive?

Ron Wenrich · September 24, 2005, 06:35:28 AM

I've seen Cooper's scragg rated at 35 Mbf/day. I know one guy who thought about buying one until I pointed out that procurement would be a problem.

For a scragg that is used on long logs, they generally just take heavy slabs, and those go to a resaw. Handling isn't a real problem if you have enough mechanization on the take away end. Conveyors just spit that stuff onto green chains. Movable saws are a gppd way to go.

End dogging seems to be a better setup than the sharp chain technique. I've often wondered about how you could keep a log stable.

The biggest problem I see with long logs is log tension. How do you compensate for a log springing while in the cut? I can control spring somewhat with a big carriage.

woodbowl · September 24, 2005, 10:04:24 AM

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on September 24, 2005, 06:35:28 AM

The biggest problem I see with long logs is log tension. How do you compensate for a log springing while in the cut? I can control spring somewhat with a big carriage.

I didn't want to say it untill I heard someone else say it. Taking two sides off of a long log at the same would seem to releave some radically displaced pressures. It's bad enough sometimes taking one side at the time. I had hoped that there would be an equalization when sawing both sides.

Quote from: Ron Wenrich on September 24, 2005, 06:35:28 AM

End dogging seems to be a better setup than the sharp chain technique. I've often wondered about how you could keep a log stable.

The video that replays in my mind while trying to imagine it is, flexing in the middle, putting side pressure on the circle blades and pulling/stretching the bands out of line on the band scragg. I've never heard of a clamp in the middle of the log, top and bottem for an end dog but it seems like it would add a lot of stability. But then again, there's more stuff.

Bro. Noble · September 24, 2005, 10:17:26 AM

A band scragg would eliminate a lot of the problems that a circle scragg has, but it would also be a lot slower unless you went to large bands. That would be getting into lots of money and an end-dogging machine would be more practical if you were going to spend big bucks -----looks to me anyway.

When we decided to get a scragg, I envisioned being able to use a lot of limbs to put into pallet stock. That's where you really run into tension wood. We avoid most problems with tension wood by leaving limbs and small leaning trees in the woods.