Biggest perpetuated Myths about Modded Saws.

[Mr.]

My claim was that on a 288 that there is not much difference between a squish of 15 thousandths and at 25 thousandths.

What kind of evidence do you want. Allusions to 100,000,s of Excel calculations? You guys are dazlled by BS. If I posted a link to a website and quoted a number, then I am legitimate???????

How about we just test it in the wood? Isn't that better than home-grown equations?

You tell me.

Fred

I guess no one is interested in real world testing.

Figures.

Serg, I doubt you ever get around to doing anything positive with that saw. Hope you prove me wrong though.

I have read my first statement BTW, and it is correct. Someone can argue that 3% is alot for a worksaw, but it won't change that it isn't.

Fred

 

[Mr.]

No, Fred/Doug if you said something inline with generally accepted principals there would be no arguement. But ya, go out on a limb and make claims without backing them up with even the weekest of references, calculations or any sort of scientific reasoning, and yes, you might meet a little resistance when it come to claiming stuff like you and Fred have been.

I would be the first to admit that any sort of conceptual or mathimatical model is not going to be perfect, and science is an ever changing study. Civilization, once thought the world was flat and everything revolved arround it, and humans could never take flight, then when they did, they could never pass the speed of sound... But as we gain more indepth understanding of things, we develop a more accurate preception of them, and things that we thought to be impossible become possible.

Don't take it all personal, but you have been offering nothing of substance to support your position. I have offered several tech articals, quotes from text books written by experts in the field, some mathmatical modeling right down to the whole process, even a couple videos... I guess you are still are convinced the earth is flat and everything revolves around you too.

Oh well, I have no interest in changing your mind, or teaching cats to sing, and anyone with the slightest twinkle of scientific reasoning or critical thinking would quickly see your pumping junk science at best.

If the law is on your side argue the law, if the facts are on your side argue the facts, if absolutly nothing is on your side, just argue.
I suspect you guys are working from the later.

I have said my bit, put more than enough substance on the table to back up my reasoning, and have much better things to do than continue with this recreational arguement simply to pleasure you.

Choose 1 specific thing, Not 10 or so, and I'll respond to it. It is difficult to have an adult conversation when there are three pups nipping at your heels from all directions.

Agreeable?

Fred

 

[husq2100]

Fred here is your quote from your first post:

1. You should set your squish at 20 thousandths. Really? For every saw? Regardless of combustion chamber shape or size?

now, remembering that we are under the section of MODDED WORK SAWS and modded work saws dont have 2 piece heads(99%) of the time.

so what would your advice be for a general rule to determine squish for a work saw, regardless of brand etc


serg

 

[drmiller100]

my advice would be to set the squish at .020 for any saw, unless you have a danged good reason to do something else.

.020 is "safe." little danger of hot spots, detonation, piston hitting head.

.030 is pretty high. .010 is dangerous unless you are SURE you have good squish angles.

 

[Mr.]

Fred here is your quote from your first post:

1. You should set your squish at 20 thousandths. Really? For every saw? Regardless of combustion chamber shape or size?

now, remembering that we are under the section of MODDED WORK SAWS and modded work saws dont have 2 piece heads(99%) of the time.

so what would your advice be for a general rule to determine squish for a work saw, regardless of brand etc


serg

I have tried 1,000 times to say it it doesn't matter much for a worksaw.

I'm saying there shouldn't be a rule of thumb.

Fred

 

[Stihl 041S]

Does anyone do information gathering in the cut. loads on saw handles, butterfly position, rpm and wood size. No it wouldn't be easy to do all but does anybody do any actual data collection. Besides timed cut with no real correction for responce time. Some would be good for comparision and others would take out the human element.
Sort of like saying which rifle is most accurate with different folks shooting them.
Rob

 

[husq2100]

I have tried 1,000 times to say it it doesn't matter much for a worksaw.

I'm saying there shouldn't be a rule of thumb.

Fred

well you must be basing you arguement on some facts, so why doesnt it matter and where is the cutoff? whats too big ? whats too small?

because there must be a good ideal safe point and i think 0.02 is it maybe out to 0.025.

serg

 

[Mr.]

I stated several times the range I think is acceptable. .015-.025 seems good. I base that off of imperical evidence.

What do you base your opinion off of?

Fred

 

[husq2100]

well from what i have read,and ill be the first to say that it doesnt all sink into my pea brain, that we want the squish to be tight but not so much that the piston starts to touch the cylinder top.....

i remember reading a post here, in the chainsaw fourm, and i think it was Simonizer that talked about setting squish and allowing for the changes that occur when up to full working temp and rpm.... so this is why i believe that 0.02 is about as far as a work saw would want to go...

but that is my opinion based on other opinion.......

as far as me never doing anything with my saws, there you go again making statements based on zero fact.... hey i may or may not do anything with them, but you dont know me to make that call.

just like it would be unfair of me to see one vid of you and say hey Fred do you even know how to start a saw, let alone safely....but thats just a pissing match isnt it....

serg

 

[drmiller100]

so serg, you seem to be an expert.

i threw out the number of .020.

what do you think???? Is there a better number???

I see you talking in generalities, but not providing specific advice that someone could build towards.

help us out here, or live up to your name please.

 

[Mr.]

BWAHAHAHAHA

You're a better man than you first appear, Serg. I think I like you.

That was the point of my post in the first place. One guy makes a statement, other guys repeat it, then *POOF* everyone treats it as fact.

I'll even tell you why I like Brian. Brian makes an observation, reads as much as he can find on it, then trys to quantify it with math. I have to applaud him for that. I just can't always agree with his method or his findings.

Fred

 

[weenieroaster]

TW can carry his own water, but Mr, I think you have to admit, his saws are bad mofos opcorn: Those theories seem to be finding meaningful application.

 

[Mr.]

TW can carry his own water, but Mr, I think you have to admit, his saws are bad mofos opcorn: Those theories seem to be finding meaningful application.

I really would like to unburden my mind in response to this, but I will respond like this.

I have not ran one of TWs saws, but let us assume they are really, really fast. That DOES NOT prove his calculations are correct.

AS PROOF-- some people still build faster saws and cannot even understand alot of algebraic equations.

SO-- even semi-complex equations are not necessary to build a fast engine.

This is not to knock TW, but it is the facts as I see them.

 

[timberwolf]

LOL

I have not ran one of TWs saws, but let us assume they are really, really fast. That DOES NOT prove his calculations are correct.

You may well be right, it does not prove they are correct, but I would hazard to say it's a pretty good indication they are not wrong either.

What I like about Fred on this stuff is he questions everything, makes me double check stuff and dig deeper into stuff than I might otherwise do. Funny when your looking for info on one thing and realy think it out often bits of info and ideas pop up on other related things. Got a couple new things to try one day, just to chase those little gains.

 

[weenieroaster]

I really would like to unburden my mind in response to this, but I will respond like this.

I have not ran one of TWs saws, but let us assume they are really, really fast. That DOES NOT prove his calculations are correct.

AS PROOF-- some people still build faster saws and cannot even understand alot of algebraic equations.

SO-- even semi-complex equations are not necessary to build a fast engine.

This is not to knock TW, but it is the facts as I see them.

I think that most here would want to put Occams's razor into effect wherever legitimate, but basicly, it would seem that first you were arguing for empiricism, and now you are arguing against it.

 

[Danger Dan]

How much dirt does it take to fill a three foot hole? :smoking:

 

[Jacob J.]

I still say that the difference of .010" squish in my 281 made the saw a lot harder to start, to the point where on cold days I'd have to let the flywheel turn over a couple times slowly before yanking the rope. That's proof enough for me.

 

[trimmmed]

How much dirt does it take to fill a three foot hole? :smoking:

3' deep or 3' diameter?

 

[RiverRat2]

I still say that the difference of .010" squish in my 281 made the saw a lot harder to start, to the point where on cold days I'd have to let the flywheel turn over a couple times slowly before yanking the rope. That's proof enough for me.

Jacob,,,

PM sent!!!!

 

[drmiller100]

LOL


. Funny when your looking for info on one thing and realy think it out often bits of info and ideas pop up on other related things. Got a couple new things to try one day, just to chase those little gains.

yup, i'll agree with the above.