Talk:Chainsaw

Under safty someone added Chainsaws kill 2000 babies every year from miscalculations. Somehow I doubt this...

Was there really a chainsaw to be found in Unreal Tournament? I don't remember ever finding one... -- Coma28 01:59, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how this is going to sound or how it could fit in the article but i think that sometimes chainsaws sound like cows mooing. - thankyou

Since their introduction, chainsaws have become a mainstay of forestry. Shouldn't this be somewhere else?

Since they are hard to conceal and noisy, real perpetrators avoid chainsaws.

Change "Forestry" to "Logging"

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. QuickDraw 03:45, 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. QuickDraw 16:32, 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 by KAM (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. QuickDraw 14:57, 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. KAM 16:04, 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. QuickDraw 04:22, 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 | Talk 04:41, 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, QuickDraw 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Logger and Snag

Logger needs to be improved and cleaned up, in case anyone here might be interested. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Snag needs attention from a North American editor. The N.A. meaning usage seems to be somewhat different than that of Austrialia. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The early chainsaw

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.

M. Skippen, J. Kirkup, R. M. Maxton, S.W. McDonald: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.86.69.53 (talk) 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture Needs to be Changed

Folks, the picture needs to be changed. Look at it. The guy is using his bare hands. He needs gloves for safety. --SafeLibraries 00:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. --SafeLibraries 00:06, 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. --SafeLibraries 00:10, 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 forgot 21:53, 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 Pingstone 09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it's a bad picture. I think most are in favor of changing it now. Malamockq 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In culture

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 forgot 20:45, 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.84.71.15.90 22:29, 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]

I've created a full separate Popular culture article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chainsaws_in_Popular_Culture) It's probably not totally complete, but it's a good start AKLR (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carbide tips

I removed the following content. In my opion, it read too much like an advertisement and violated WP:SPAM. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:37, 11 July 2007 (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,--Legomancer 21:58, 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]

After thinking, I've decided to give it a go anyway, anyone's improvements are welcome--Satrughna02 (talk) 09:44, 3 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]