iDRY Vacuum Kilns

Sponsors:

Really dumb question - Wood Mizer head modification

Started by dad2nine, November 14, 2007, 01:17:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

dad2nine

Was wondering if anyone has ever split the head on a woodmizer to get more reach (wider cut). I keep looking at the tube steel on the top of the head head and think to myself - if I cut that tube steel in half and sleeved the inside, got a longer blade, I could saw bigger logs. I might could even have it adjustable with a pin for different length blades so I wouldn't have to buy a bunch of new longer blades. Then I think boy that's a real stupid idea, because if it's not lined up correctly it may never cut right again. But then I get to thinking it should be a cake walk for some machinist, he could probably make it work...

Anyways I'm not suggesting any actually do this, but I am asking if any has ever done it and what would you envision a guy would need to be on the look of for if he does decide to make the mod.

I know as far as portability you don't want the head sticking way out there going down the road, that's where the sliding idea came into play.

In reality if I was able to get 8 ~ 12 more inches of width to the saw head - how much wider of a board could I cut? Right now with the dogs fully extended, the capacity is limited to 24" and depth of cut is 14"... I can sneak through the middle of a 28" round log with logs partly down and the log rolled a few inches past the dogs onto the track. I seem to think doing this is somewhat dangerous because I'm always concerned about the log rolling off the side. Sure you can cut a 36" diameter log I've cut bigger than that, but you have to take a cut off the top turn it a little, take another cut, turn it a little, etc... till you have whittled it down to size, then you can start making lumber. I just wished I could cut through the pith on a 36" log

I realize extending the width of the head won't help with the depth of cut limitation but atleast it's a thought in the right direction.

Thanks

raycon

At least once but not by me.
An in state sawyer has done it.  It has 2 positions one the factory width  and the other is the extended.
Lot of stuff..

Tom

It could be done, though I wouldn't want to spend a lot of money on the Pin idea.  I'd want it welded solid.  I think you would have to consider clamping and loading as well.

Once a log has the blade in it, on a woodmizer, the log is pretty well contained from falling off of the back of the mill.  It would have to knock the head of the mill off of the tracks to roll off of the operator's side.  
There is a piece of steel that contacts the bottom rail if you lift up on the idle side and that piece of steel locks the head onto the mill.  Something disastrous wrong would have to happen to knock the head off of the operators side.

My personal opinion is that widening the throat of the mill would be counter-productive without enlarging the bed and general footprint as well.

The depth of the throat being 14" is sufficient for most applications.  That allows you to take a 12+ inch cant off of the top, or split a 24" x 24" square cant into 4 12x12's.  That is no feat to be minimized and your mill will do it now as designed.

A 24 inch board is a huge thing too.  While it's not quite a one piece table top, two of them would make a respectable table.  If you wanted to cut the maximum timber allowed, I would say a 14"x24" is a pretty good sized board.

Turning a split cant like that on edge lets you cut 2x12's, two at a time.  That's no small feat either, even though you probably would pick another way to maximise quality.

As far as splitting a 36" trunk to allow you to do what, quartersaw, Table Slab?  I think one would be money ahead to consider a device designed specifically for that purpose.  Even the commercial mills that split huge logs do it with chainsaws or large slabbers with chainsaw technology.

There has to be a time when we accept our tool as doing the job we require of it, even though one that would do everything we could dream would be nice.  That little mill you want to change is a "Little David" as it sits.  :)

dad2nine

Me has lots of respect for what Tom is saying - your right Tom maybe I should be thinking differently (chainsaw). BUT I can't help myself when I look at that steel tube on the mill head, it's screaming cut me make me bigger. Been cutting a lot of walnut lately perhaps I should lay off the benidril for a while and maybe I wouldn't hear that piece of tube talking to me...  :D

Thanks

Furby

One thing to remember is that as you extend the width of the head, gravity is adding more stress to the rest of the carrige.

I drew up plans for a convertable mill just as you described, several years ago.
I was aiming for a 60" throat, and a "normal" size throat.
The size of the bed became a problem with those two vast differences in size.
Not enough bed in one case and waaaay too much in the other.
I'd still do it if I had the $, just to see if I could make it work. :)

Bob_T

I was looking at an older Woodmizer awhile back and had about the same thought as you, and I don't think it's a dumb question at all.   It wouldn't take too much of an effort or expense to try it and if it doesn't work out as planned it would be easy enough to weld it back to its original condition.
1959 FWD Model 286 Dump Truck
1955 Allis Chalmers HD-6G Crawler Loader
1941 GMC CCKW 6X6
Wood-Mizer LT30 G18

Minnesota_boy

Instead of bastardizing a Woodmizer, spend the time milling with it and then buy a dedicated slabber for the really big stuff. 
I eat a high-fiber diet.  Lots of sawdust!

dad2nine

Quote from: Minnesota_boy on November 15, 2007, 07:05:39 AM
Instead of bastardizing a Woodmizer, spend the time milling with it and then buy a dedicated slabber for the really big stuff. 

I've started collecting materials to build a dedicated chain saw slabber / splitter, I would really like it to be able to cut down the center of an 8' diameter log. I've not seen one that big around here YET but 5 and 6' diameter oaks are pretty common and I refuse them on a regular basis because they are to big for the woodmizer...

Even when I build a homemade slabber / splitter - It would mainly be used to quarter. A quarter from a 6' diameter oak would still be to big for the woodmizer, since both flats would be approx 36" wide, wood mizer is limited to 24" width and depth of 14". When I do get around to building the slabber, I think it would need be able to cut chunks out of big logs so they would fit on the woodmizer (no wider than 24).

It's kinda of a bummer, right now with the woodmizer the biggest diameter I can slice through the pith is a 28" which leaves a 14" wide quarter, after sawing out the pith and sapwood it's more like 10 ~ 12" and only a few boards from each quarter at that.  I sure would like to be able to crank out some wide QS oak boards. Extending the woodmizer sawhead would allow me a wider cut.

BUT Tom is right - I need to think of something different. The Woodmizer is designed the way it is and I should probably leave it alone.

This really makes an interesting discussion - I hope woodmizer is listening and will consider something like a sliding head width modification into their future sawheads design,  It would give them one more advantage over four post mills. Considering woodmizer uses one of the smallest diameter blades out there - they could step it up a bit and still be within the standard blade sizes.

Thanks

Dan_Shade

quarter those big logs with a chainsaw, and lop off the ears so they'll fit on the bed.

in reality, we drool over wide boards, but i've done several jobs where the guy goes, "cut that down to 12" so I can fit it through my planer"

i'd saw up general sherman with a chainsaw and my woodmizer, if the park service hired me to do it.
Woodmizer LT40HDG25 / Stihl 066 alaskan
lots of dull bands and chains

There's a fine line between turning firewood into beautiful things and beautiful things into firewood.

beenthere

Quote from: dad2nine on November 15, 2007, 11:18:36 AM
............This really makes an interesting discussion - I hope woodmizer is listening and will consider something like a sliding head width modification into their future sawheads design,  It would give them one more advantage over four post mills. Considering woodmizer uses one of the smallest diameter blades out there - they could step it up a bit and still be within the standard blade sizes.

Thanks
I'd be surprised if WM wouldn't be listening, but very surprised if they thought the sawmill market was big enough to try to market a mill that would take your 8' (or even 4') diameter log.  :)
But, I've been surprised before.. :)
south central Wisconsin
It may be that my sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others

customsawyer

I have done lots of big logs. The largest being a 62" diameter red oak and I only cut them in half befor I put them on the mill. When you put the first half on the mill your first slab will be about 12" deep and you just slide it off and cut it up later. Now you will not be able to take a 60" half and stand it strait up it will have to be at a angle to where your mill will clear it then after that first few boards you will have to turn it some to get your clearance. It is a fair amount of trouble but the nice wide boards that you make are worth it.
Two LT70s, Nyle L200 kiln, 4 head Pinheiro planer, 30" double surface Cantek planer, Lucas dedicated slabber, Slabmizer, and enough rolling stock and chainsaws to keep it all running.
www.thecustomsawyer.com

metalspinner

QuoteThere has to be a time when we accept our tool as doing the job we require of it, even though one that would do everything we could dream would be nice.

That has got to be one of the smartest things I've heard in quite a while.
I do what the little voices in my wife's head tell me to do.

Thank You Sponsors!