This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health
In the sentence: "It is most commonly used in forestry and by tree surgeons, to fell trees and to remove branches and foliage, and to harvest firewood.", I believe it would be more appropriate to change "Forestry" to "Logging". Forestry is the study and management of forests whereas Logging is the actual process of cutting and harvesting timber. QuickDraw03:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that you encounter while editing here are differences in the English language from place to place. What seems obvious and natural in one part of the world is not elsewhere. I participated in a discussion recently about whether Orchard Grass should be given equal footing with Cocksfoot as the common name for Dactylis glomerata. One of the participants, an Englishman who is an expert on plants, was not aware that Orchard Grass is the main common name of the species in North America. Also, he thinks that common names should be capitalized because that is the convention that is familiar to him. In the United States, common names are usually not capitalized. All this is to say that I don't think things like forestry v. logging can be resolved in the context of this project. Some are going to think forestry sounds natural; others will prefer logging and will agree with the definitions you cite. I don't think it matters to the goal of the project. Most readers will understand either wording. That said, feel free to change it, but don't be surprised if someone changes it back. Most importantly, don't be upset. For me, one of the charms of Wikipedia is encountering complexity and variety in the English language. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund(talk)04:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That was one reason I didn't change the article without seeking some feedback from other users. I surmised that the term had a slightly different meaning in other locations. I have noticed this in numerous other articles on various subjects. I understand the intent of the term "Forestry" in this case and do not have a problem with its use. Having lived in an area where logging was the major industry, logging and forestry are 2 very different activities. It would be interesting to hear from other readers in various regions what their definition of Forestry and Logging are. A collaborative effort of this magnitude requires one be open to "expanding" his knowledge, open to other ways of conveying a message or idea and being able to compromise when it's in the best interest of the project. QuickDraw16:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that logging and forestry are two different things. If they are used interchangeable it must be that the companies involved are organized differently . Here a logging/forester to a landowner might be a conflict of interest. Does “forest products industry” include both or as far as this article, perhaps just avoid the whole thing and say chain saws are used to fell trees and to saw and delimb logs. How much wood harvested today even uses chain saws? —The preceding unsigned comment was added byKAM (talk • contribs) 18:51, 3 December 2005.
Perhaps the compromise is to add Logging to the list. In my opinion, the development of the chain saw to what it is today was a result of improvements made for the logging industry. I am looking at this from the perspective of also preserving the history of its use for the benefit of future readers. In the west and pacific northwest the chain saw is still the main tool used to fell (fall) trees. The size of trees as well as rugged terrain do not allow for the use of other types of mechanized equipment that can cut and delimb the tree in one operation. QuickDraw14:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the difference between logging and forestry is somewhat analogous to the difference between construction and engineering. Building a bridge, for example, to a layman could be called an engineering project or a construction project. To an engineer or a construction contractor the difference in the roles is clear. For example, it is the engineers role to design the bridge and to ensure that the building contractor builds according to the design. The building contractor wants to build the project at minimum cost. KAM16:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe your are right. I can see how the difinition of the terms used will vary, depending on an individual's background. It seems the aim of Wikipedia is to serve as an encyclopedic database of knowledge that can be used as a reference. I would hope that, to the best of each editor's knowledge and information, the information added here reflects the accepted "definition", either by the industry, or group actively involved in it. I believe a Forester would not consider the term logging, to be interchangeable with Forestry and vice versa. QuickDraw04:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm the person who, back in prehistory, added the word "forestry" to the article, and did so fully meaning "forest management" and not "logging" (although I have no objection to "...and logging" being added to the article, if others feel what's there now isn't sufficiently clear). Chainsaws are used for a variety of forestry applications beside just chopping down commercial trees - they (or tools so like them that, at least in January 2004, Wikipedia would lump them all together in one article) are used to clear overgrowth, cut off diseased branches, for coppicing, for pollarding, and for the felling (thinning) of trees of uneconomic size. Sometimes this is to support commercial logging, sometimes to support a healthy forest balance, and sometimes for the market production of trees for commercial transplantation. This, surely in anyone's english, means a good deal more than just "logging", which means the cutting down and stripping of mature trees for commercial exploitation. My original wording "It is most commonly used in forestry and by tree surgeons, both to fell trees and to remove branches and foliage" [1] seems clear (to me), but the subsequent removal of that vital "both" by the grammar midgets (turning, wrongly, the sentence into a mere list) robbed the sentence of much of its clarity. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk04:41, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
With the discussion, I see and agree that "Forestry" should not be changed or removed. Initially I was looking at Forestry from a management perspective and not the actual activities that are also a part of Forestry, such as tree thinning, etc. that you mentioned. I still feel that logging should be mentioned because the development of the chainsaw had roots connected to the need for more efficient means of harvesting timber. ~ Thanks, QuickDraw14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This article deals with a specific type of chainsaw, but there are, or have been, other types of chainsaw. It may surprise the reader to learn that an early type of chainsaw (not motorized, and not with an endless chain) was developed in Scotland in the late eighteenth century. However, it was not for use in forestry or logging, but in surgery!
M. Skippen, J. Kirkup, R. M. Maxton, S.W. McDonald: Scottish Medical Journal vol. 49, no. 2, May 2004, 57-60
As above the chainsaw was invented in Scotland in the eighteenth century by surgeons.
The cut is down into the dirt, or so it appears. Cutting into dirt is a sure way to dull a chain saw. So again this picture needs to be changed. --SafeLibraries00:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And his arms are exposed - a safety hazard. And the tree has been cut clear through - a safety hazard; cutting a tree to fell it requires special cuts, at different heights, and a "hinge" is left uncut to allow the tree to be relatively safely guided down without it jumping uncontrolled when cut through. Someone please put in a picture showing safe user protection and safe/correct usage. Thank you. --SafeLibraries00:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It may not have been cut right through, the guy looks like he is dressing the stump so he may have removed all evidence of his original felling cuts. I disagree, I think, that this picture should be removed, on the grounds that it represents the factual manner in which many people operate a chain saw. There is plenty of information in the article regarding safety.The Boy that time forgot21:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's my garden and I took the pic. The tree surgeon (that's what we call them in England) had spent a day felling an 80 foot high Eucalyptus that I had planted too near the house. (Felling the tree with a single cut was not possible, parked cars are everywhere). The job was finished, but when he came back the next day to clear up I asked him to bevel off the edge of the stump so that it looked nicer. So he got his chain saw off his lorry and spent two minutes doing it.
We are not a Safety Wiki so it should be good enough to point out the safety dangers in the caption and thus enhance the aticle. This I have done - Adrian Pingstone09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This section now contains more text than any other part of the article, which is, of course, good. All information is good. I think maybe that the 'In culture' section is so good now that it may be time for it to fly free and set itself up on a page of its own, linked of course from here or whatever. Any objections?The Boy that time forgot20:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pop Culture
I think the chainsaw article needs to have a pop culture section, with little notes on zombie killing and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.9.164.49 (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
True.
Don't forget bruce campbell
I agree... I actually came to this site just to see what the pop culture section said about the chainsaw on wikipedia. Since there was none, I put a short blurb up. I'm not that familiar with the Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies though so someone might want to add more detail, since I just put a vague statement about chainsaws featuring prominently in those movies (I assume they do anyway, given the titled and the short bits I have seen over the years). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.142.181.36 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 2007 June 10.
I agree, whilst pop culture sections do tend to grow exponentially, chainsaws are very prominent in popular culture, and Wsiegmund's complete removal of the section was uncalled for, at least without the creation of a "chainsaws in popular culture" article first.84.71.15.9022:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The pop culture section is becoming so large as to violate the undue weight section of WP:NPOV. Chainsaws are not primarily used to kill and maim people and this article should not give the impression that they are. Also, the section is not sourced. Please review WP:V and WP:RS for guidance. Walter Siegmund(talk)00:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have any accurate figure as to how many assaults take place with a chainsaw used as a primary weapon per ten years or so? I can't find any, just grisly news stories of a very few incidents which often do not result in death (surprisingly!). Therefore, because it's so rare that I can't give accurate, sourceable figures, I'm apparently not allowed to describe assault-with-a-chainsaw as "incredibly rare" or even allude to the fact that most people out to do somebody a mischief won't choose a heavy, expensive, awkward power tool over a £2.99 vegetable knife. Any ideas, mr. S? 'cos I'm stumped, so to speak ;) On a similar note, splitting "chainsaws in popular culture" into its own page may be an idea, since it would throw into sharp relief just how nonsensical the whole thing is. (Nailgunner (talk) 23:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Resident Evil 4 does not include the chainsaw as a usable weapon. This should be taken out or the statement should be revised, since only specific enemy characters can wield them.72.250.245.105 (talk) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other options in chain use carbide tips. The use of carbide tips allows the chain to last longer and requires less sharpening than conventional chains. Some manufacturers have developed full house carbide chains that have teeth on every link as well as safety carbide chains that have anti-kickback links. Carbide chains have been used in the forestry and fire industries for years and are just becoming economical for home owners.
Bars and Chains
I have very limited experience with chain saws, and even then only with very small varieties. Anyway, does anyone know why the blades are shaped the way they are - IE not like the teeth on a circular saw? I read the safety information on how the depth guide works, does anyone have additional information? Thanks,--Legomancer21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I too have many questions about the chain and so on: one sees 10SC or 25SC, and "pitch" amounts (1/4" pitch for example) when describing the chains - What is pitch? What's an SC? What are the standards? --198.103.172.9 (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working up to a full article on cutting chains. I approached Oregon for some photos but they never got back to me, so just to be a pig I'll photograph brand new stihl chains. The standards are pretty clear-cut once they're laid out in one place even though manufacturers' part numbers are often an alphabet soup... I hope to be able to unravel these too.(Nailgunner (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Chainsaw for stone, concrete and brick
I don't think my poor English will suffice, but it might be interesting to add a chapter on chainsaws for stone, like the one you can see here [3]. Anyone in for writing it?--Satrughna02 (talk) 14:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to it :) they're basically an adapted, modified common chainsaw, usually quite a big one. The cutter blocks seem to be the same material that core drills and diamond discs use, basically small industrial diamonds embedded in a softer alloy. Nice video here for you :) http://www.adpdiamex.co.uk/shop/movies.htm - shows the ICS range and a good deal on chain design. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailgunner (talk • contribs) 23:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a really cool movie. As far as I know, this ICS firm is the only one producing the chains, even though there are several other producers of the engines (see the Husqvarna K950 Chain in the picture on the article page). Perhaps it would be nice to incorporate such a movie link, but I don't know how this would fit in with Wikipedia, as this is obviously an advertisement. Found a picture of a hydraulic version as well, with the gasoline driven hydropump. Greetings, --Satrughna (talk) 14:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Recently User:pd THOR added the unreferenced tag to this section. Alas the only reference material available to me on this is commercial stuff (and my own experience of course, but that doesn't qualify either). If you know of a way of adding relevant references, please do. The website of the manufacturer of course supports the facts mentioned in the article, but I don't know of any independent source, which perhaps can be said of other parts of the article on chainsaws as well. It seems difficult therefore to provide references, but that shouldn't mean the material is biased or nonsense, I think. --Satrughna (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concision of popular culture section
Dear Mintrick, why have you changed the layout of the popcult chapter? The previous layout prevented people putting in nonsense all the time, whil referring them toe the other page --Satrughna (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the content because it was unsourced, and only served to belabor the poi nt of the other article. I'll make sure any new things are relocated to the IPC article. But, in general, people seem quite also to follow those see also links.Mintrick (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
vegetable oil
I saw today a section on vegetable chain lubrication oil was removed. As there were no references, you were right to do so, but the point is interesting. In my country (Holland) some chain saw oil is on a vegetable basis (perhaps most of it, by now, it has been some years since I used it...), for environmental reasons. (it may even be so by law, I don't know). Here it is a commercial product. Any more background on this?--Satrughna (talk) 16:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My reading of the deleted material was that it was suggesting using cooking oil as is. You can also get vegetable-based chain oil in the UK, but I don't suppose it's straight cooking oil. Cooking oil has a lot of gum in it, and I'd be worried about clogging up the pump. Might be worth putting something in about commercially available vegetable-based oils though. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have never heard of commercial cooking grade vegetable oil being used in chainsaws and in fact if it were to be done in any of my group's saws, we would be expected to chide the volunteer who did it and then we would be obliged to break down and clean the saws. Vegetable oils that can be used in saws are not cooking oils.
Also citrus-based lubricating oils are far more common in environmentally constrained areas, however they are used with crosscut saws since gasoline powered tools are banned in Designated Wildernesses (within the United States, any way.) Damotclese (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
I was looking through the history of the article, and I realized that this article is often vandalized. Does anyone else think this page needs to be semi-protected? If we get a consensus, would any admin be willing to do this for us? Jmfriesen (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of vandalisms on this page, that make up nearly all of the recents edits and reverts. A semi-protection might cure that; I sencond the motion. (Hear hear)(Sorry, forgot to log in: --Satrughna (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already contacted someone. The vandals are so bad they revert your repair of vandalism about an hour after you revert it! I have never seen vandalism like that. This page needs semi protection. But administrators are had put to get to do that. Jack Jackehammond (talk) 14:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use as a weapon
I think it would be worth adding a section about the use of chainsaws by paramilitary groups in Colombia to carry out massacres and mutilate bodies. Here are some references:
The photograph of the sawyer violates a number of Federal safety rules (at least as they relate to working in a National Forest) and violates two common safety practices. I wonder if that matters or whether it's reasonable to have photographs showing citable infractions. It probably doesn't matter it just makes me itch!
The long sleeve shirt is correct however it's folded back or rolled up. Eye protection is present however professional sawyers also use a face shield or mesh. Maybe I'm just being anal but when I see something I would be cited for being shown like this, something in me wants to change it so that the photograph shows better safety behavior. The 'pedia's focus is upon substance, obviously, and safety violations are trivial yet wouldn't a better photograph be, well, better? Damotclese (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'd suggest you photograph and upload a better image, then we can use it! We're using this one because it's all there is available. Yes, the idea that wearing or carrying PPE is all that matters, rather than sticking it down over your face where it's needed, doesn't sit too well with me either.
You bring up a good point. When I mentioned "Federal rules" I was being a typical American Yank, did not even pause to consider the fact that rules are different the world over and PPE as well as operation rules may be different around the world. Since the entry is about chainsaws and not chainsaw safety, in retrospect maybe the photograph isn't so important. Yeah, neither you nor I would operate without better PPE but the article isn't about PPE. :) But your suggestion to add safety regulations for operation within a National Forest in the United States is a good one. Damotclese (talk) 20:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not perfect, sometimes I work without the full PPE for some task or other - but if I'm already wearing the damned thing, at least I put it in the right place. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pneumatic Chainsaw
The addition and then removal of the comment about "pneumatic chainsaw" would be really nice to have someone research and add to the article with suitable references and possibly photographs. I think I may do that if I can avoid turning the coverage of the device in to an advertisment. Damotclese (talk) 22:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Top picture
The top picture is clearly an unacceptable and ridiculous product placement. Product placement should be totally banned from a serious encyclopedia unless there are interests behind it.
Heinz is certainly ketchup but not all ketchups are Heinz!
I suggest that admins change the picture and remove the stupid tag: A Shtiel saw.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.64.22.75 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
External links discussion
The Editor who is removing external links, please explain why you are removing them and if there is a good reason I won't need to restore your removal. Thanks. Damotclese (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um, is your issue that the external links are about chainsaw safety and not specifically about chainsaws themselves? That would be a legitimate reason to remove the links. If so, when you make edits you should describe why, otherwise they could look like vandalism or a mistake. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support removing them. MrOllie is a well-established editor who we can assume to understand policy and show good judgement. Neither of these links look IMHO as if they meet WP:EL. They're not bad links, they're just weak links. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sherriltree is an online store, that bugs you for your email address before it lets you read the content - clearly a promotional site. The crystallake.name link is to someone's blog-like description of taking a chainsaw safety class, but it's only a narrative - there really isn't any information about chainsaws or chainsaw safety there. Checking your user page, I see that crystallake.name is your personal web site. I suggest you read over our guidelines on external linking (especially Links normally to be avoided #11) and the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, removal makes sense since they're not relevant to the actual subject. No problem, thanks for the comments. When updates are made, some explanation is a good idea, of course. Thanks! Damotclese (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Melbourne, Australia, Treetec -- Promotion
Good catch on the promotion edit, that was advertising. The editor who added that sentence, you might want to look at providing an external link or, if you provide a list of safety certification companies and governmental agencies, add a section that covers the need for safety training and certifications. As it is, what was basically advertising had to be removed.
I mention it because finding suitable safety training and certification classes that governmental agencies will accept has been in my experience very difficult, and the compilation and maintenance of a list of certification entities would be helpful, in my opinion. Damotclese (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really bad photos, Maintenance and Safety
The photo in the Maintenance section shows someone standing on the material he is cutting which is a gross safety violation, a behavior that is trained in to professionals not to do, and a behavior which gets Federal employees working in fire and forestry reprimanded or fired. I think that photo should be replaced with something showing safe behavior.
Also the photo in Safety shows unsafe behavior with (1) footing not cleared of tripping and obstructing material and (2) de-limbing after having made a full pie cut and (3) chaps that are long enough to wrap under the heel of the foot. I think that photo should also be replaced with something showing safer behavior. Damotclese (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For cutting high branches in trees there are small chainsaws on a big pole, do they have a special name? Should they be mentioend here? Also there exists jigsaws that have a chainsaw blade. Should they be nmentioned here or in the jigsaw article?
Electric chainsaws
The article currently has almost nothing on small electric chainsaws sold for amateur use in domestic gardens. I suspect more of these are sold each year than all professional chainsaws combined. --Ef80 (talk) 23:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point which should be addresses, a summary break down of the differences between gasoline powered and electric powered saws would be welcome. Damotclese (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are much simpler machines. All the ones I've seen have the chain sprocket directly attached to a substantial electric motor which also functions as a chain brake. I don't know enough about the subject to update the article though. --Ef80 (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are also battery-powered chainsaws which I know nothing about. The AC electric saws I have experience with however for obvious reasons we do not use them n National Forests. :) <-- Joke. I will contact the trained and certified U. S. Forest Service volunteer everyone calls AllSmallEngines and see about getting proposed text from him. Damotclese (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least two common forms of electric chainsaw, at the DIY level. There are also some massive electric chainsaws for industrial use (in timberyards rather than woodlands), as their motor is lighter than an engine.
The more obvious form is a small, electric version of the IC engine version. It has similar handgrips and a chain brake, although the chain brake can be much lighter. They also have lighter, narrower chains, so that they need less power. The tooth profile is "cack-handed crosscut" as they're only used for crosscutting, not ripping. This is a depth limited chain and optimised, not for best cutting, but for lowest risk of kickback when mishandled. It's usual for them to have tip guards too, to prevent plunge cutting.
An interesting form is the Black & Decker "Alligator", the scissor action saw. This is an extra-safe chainsaw - although limited in diameter to about 4". My dad bought one of these and I saw it as a feeble joke, but it's now my main saw for bucking firewood. The saw chain is on one blade of the scissors, the spurs are on the other. All of the cutting reaction forces are between the two jaws, there's no force against the timber and there's no force into the user handgrips. So even if the timber isn't held down (or is a branch overhead!), or if the user lets go of the saw, the saw and timber doesn't kick back. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chainsaw. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.