Hybridized Timber Harvest – Horses and Fowarder

[Andy Carson]

Wow, you weren’t kidding about the slopes. I had originally been thinking about some sort of regenerative brakes system, but the amount of energy lost in that amount of weight falling 350 feet is beyond massive. Storing it would take expensive, complex, and/or heavy technology. A smaller amount of energy could be stored in batteries from a generator that might also run a wire winch. If properly geared through a differential, this could provide a super low (and very slow) granny gear for steep and short hills. The math supports a strategy like this, when some extra powered is stored for assist on very steep hills. Implementing the concept might take alot of futzing around though, and really would still probably be inferior to a tractor in the end (except in terms of gas consumption). Another approach might be to use a four up team. Having four might let you use smaller horse that have better power to weight ratios and better surface area to weight ratios allowing them to climb better and cool faster. I think this is my favorite idea.

Maybe not really that creative in end… I was pretty suprized at how challanging those kinds of hills make this. I had somehow been expecting 10% grades, with a few short 25% slopes here and there. That’s an easier problem…i

[mitchmaine]

Sometimes I hear us trying to create the one method of horse logging that fits all, and of course none does, and it is our diversity that gives us the greatest strength as a community. We know that adapting to ones environment is what makes any species successful. And all of our logging conditions, from Oregon to Colorado to Vermont to Ireland and Scotland, along with local markets, are so diverse, that certainly no model would fit all. I’ve been using the same tools here for almost forty years, and even though they work well on the terrain, they haven’t kept up with markets or technology and would fail if I tried to go back into the business of chopping wood for a living. And I’ve seen lots of forwarders before, including simons, but I saw them differently as I followed this thread along, and yesterday, I had an “aha” moment. I was cutting up the bed on our rotten haycart, using the forks on the tractor to haul off the stringers and planks, and “eureka”, the stripped down running gear became a forwarded. I could see that in 45 minutes, I could weld up two sets of bunks and stake pockets, and have a wood cart to haul long wood. On the way to the burn pile, the idea kept forming, so on the way back I pulled in under the wagon and picked it up on the forks like a tinkertoy. I could run into the woodyard, unhitch, pick up the cart, turn it around or place it wherever I wished, and with five and a half foot bunks and three foot stakes, pile on two to two and a half cord and go. It might not work, but I bet it would, and I probably won’t do it but I know I could. And it all started by listening to this thread and seeing simons forecarts, planting a seed and going with it. Great fun inventing sometimes. But the point I make is all our ideas pool up in this great collective whatever and thoughts and plans form and tools come and go and in the end some things work and some don’t, but it’s the process that counts, and if we keep our minds open and are ready to adapt, it might work.

mitch

[Baystatetom]

So as a forester who puts to bid a decent amount of timber and who is eagerly looking forward to doing more draft animal type work; what do you all consider a reasonable skidding distance?, I know the topography and timber size play a huge role but whats an average skid distance? I know the average skid with machines but what do animals do.
~Tom
P.S.
So far I am suppressing the erg to start a new thread about government involvement in silviculture. But when I have my thoughts in order….

[Scott G]

Tom,
Many optimal skid distances are thrown around. The only bulletproof answer is “it depends”. As a forester, I’m sure you can think of all the site variables that would go into that. Horses excel at individual tree selection prescriptions where you have a short skid to either the landing or a roadside/trailside area where a self-loader or forwarder can easily access the logs. Downhill skid=best, level=good, uphill=sucks. If you are looking for a maximum efficient number before production really falls off; 300′ is probably the most universally thrown around number, but again, it depends… That is why some sort of forwarding capability to increase payload can be such a boom to the operation. Anytime you can increase the payload for the energy expended you have a more optimal situation. Attached is a link on some work that Grindstone Engineering put out about 13 years ago that demonstrates well the relationship between distance/topograpy and productivity.

http://www.g-eng.biz/le/logsys/horse/horse2.htm

Mitch,
That is awesome! I love ‘ah ha’ moments. Did you follow the thread of Ronnie Tucker’s running gear he used for his mule operation down south? Any kind of forwarder operation can be nothing but a good thing towards the end of productivity and making life easier on our animals by keeping them doing what they do best. Here’s the link to the thread:

http://www.draftanimalpower.com/showthread.php?3949-Ronnie-Tucker-s-operation-(Pics-Disc.-Mules-Jerk-line-loading-logs-w-parbuckle)

Tim,
You probably already have this, or I already may have sent it out (as years go by my memory tends to fail me more often). Anyway, as an Oxman I thought you might enjoy this paper.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B2DO8YkfkhPLMjI1ZTVmMDUtNzA5ZC00OWE2LTk3NzUtMmY2NzE3NWFjYTc4&hl=en_US

As far as the discussion re: government assistance to enhance forestry efforts on the ground; I don’t want to hijack this thread. If Carl or Geoff want to move it to another thread that would work for me. I’ll just end with the fact that my dream is for the marginal product generated from TSI and improvement cuts to actually fund superior forestry without supplementation from stewardship grants. Out west, however, the current reality is we are not there yet.

[near horse]

No worries Scott! I’ll look through here again and see if parsing out some posts into another thread would be possible and still maintain the continuity of thought. If not, I can just add to the thread title to reflect the diversity within.

IMO – sometimes we get off in different directions within a thread and, while that can be frustrating to relocate sometimes – we are way better off as a group to have the comments or discussion presented, wherever! Isn’t that what we’re all about? So again – no problem Scott or anyone else. The forum IS about presenting ideas, thoughts, opinions and providing support and assistance to those who might need it.

[Carl Russell]

I agree that this discussion has brought a bunch of different aspects together, but it’s the reality of this work. I started this thread to cover some of the components of the operation we are working out. No doubt productivity plays into it so the discussions about payload and skid distance are as appropriate as the discussion about using grant funds to augment the forestry.

I personally don’t have any problem sorting through it all…… I actually enjoy it, because it shows that this is a multidimensional enterprise, and there is no one answer, but many heads, questions, and suggestions make it all better.

Tim thank you for putting your comments into that form. I don’t think we actually think of the “loss”, and I know you don’t either, because we are committed to paying it forward, but there is a cost to the education and convention-breaking, and sometimes the effectiveness is directly related to how well we can afford our particular personal participation in the effort. In that regard, I have taken your previous suggestion about exploring a SARE grant to develop a delivery system through woodlot tours, funded internships, and other forms of increased outreach (which kind of speaks to what you were asking about Geoff). When I get a chance I am going to rough out some proposals and run them past this group.

As far as optimal skid distances, I agree with Scott…… non-committal as he was..:) Obviously there are many ways to work out the details. Generally I don’t like to ground-skid much more than 300′, team or single. With a cart, I will skid 1000-1500′, and sometimes up hill. On snow, I have yarded to a scoot, then pulled the scoot loaded uphill 1500′. If we were to work the current job in the winter I would have no problem doing the whole thing with horses and a bobsled. Twitching short wood into small yards from up to 300′, loading the bob with 800-1000 bf, and going downhill using bridle chains to hold back. In winter the walk back up the 3/4 x 350′ elev. would be much easier to manage.

As Scott said…. it depends.

Andy I really like the idea of the gear reduction for holding back….. I wonder if there are any examples of that on the market….. It makes me think about the truck rear-end that I have sitting here. I wonder about the idea of making electricity with that to run a winch off of a battery bank…….

Carl

[Scott G]

I posted this on different site a few months back. For those of you that didn’t see it, here you go. I believe it is an SJM (Swedish).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhMlreqW3Cg

[Scott G]

A couple more. These are of Jim Brown’s operation in NY. Nice volume of nice logs on the landing, BTW 🙂

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NR_6_z3zQc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BezwsMSpS9I

[Baystatetom]

I would have to think a hybrid type operation would be necessary rather then strictly animal power, at least on most of the lots I mark just because of the skid distance. But like Carl said we have to stop thinking about competing with machines on their terms and rather figure out how to do the jobs on the horses terms. A investment in road building would defiantly be required as well.

[Robert MoonShadow]

Touching on what Carl was saying; I, too, like the thread(s) being like this – it makes sense, to me, and is easier to follow along and pull it all together in my head. If parts are moved into separate threads, I lose track, bouncing back and forth…or if I miss that there’s a divergent thread, I miss a lot of the complete picture. *Just my view.*
On the main subject: while I was in prison, I was able to buy a single copy of RH. I still remember the cover photo: It was a guy coming down a steep road, with a 4-up of black Percheron mules, pulling 2 wagon loads of Canadian poplar firewood logs in a string behind his camp/covered wagon. It mentioned that the back wheels were chained to keep from turning, providing a brake, of sorts. I don’t know if that really fits what you all are doing, but this reminded me of that photo, and I thought it might be of interest.

[Andy Carson]

I am curious about the possiblity of an electrical power assist for hill climbing. The power is there to do this work on paper. 4 deep cycle batteries fully charged will give you the power to climb about 100 verticle feet (50% discharge and 50% efficiency) with a 3 tons load (wagon and logs). Of course, more woud be possible with some power from the horses. I think this could be useful as a “hill assist” for the horses, providing maybe 75% of the power needed to climb the hill. The challenge is more about getting the power out of the batteries fast enough to keep up with a horses minimum walking pace. A V8 starter motor is close to the range one would need to use the power in the proper amount of time (with existing/recycled technology). As a rough estimate, one starter could provide 75% of the power to climb an 18% hill with a 3 ton load, two starters would give you 75% of the power to climb a 36% hill, 3 starters to give you 75% of the power to climb a 55% hill, and four starters would be needed to climb a 73% hill. They would only run for about a minute a pop (or so). They could, of course, run longer with more batteries, but I thought 100 feet of climb was a good target. This system would require some sort of “slushy” linkage between the drive motor(s) and the driven axles so as to still allow the horses to pull some of teh weight and direct the load. Also, there would need to be a charger, but this could run for a long time to recharge the batteries and need not be a big expensive unit. You would probably want one if you were going to use an electric winch anyway… Maybe this gas-electric-animal super hybrid sounds crazy (maybe it is), but electrical assist for hill climbing is established technology for bike riding. Maybe it can find a home here as well? Good brakes would be crucial as well. I would hate to run out of “juice” half way up a 70% grade with a 3 ton load…

PS. This amount of power works in reverse too… In other words, the load coming down 300 feet would be enough to charge about a dozen deep cycle batteries (even taking into account the inefficiency of power generation). If you add the weight of the horses, it might be closer to 20 batteries. Considering the weight of the batteries, it’s really too much power to store unless you get into some advanced technology. This is truly an immense amount of power (esp from animals) and considering that it’s all lost and wasted is a shame… You could generate power from this for sure.

PSS. After a little more thought, it might be a better plan to have jsut one starter and link it to the differentiation thought a long winding torsion spring (like a clock spring). With the horse assist, this will probably provide enough power for hills up to maybe 25%. Beyond that, one would have to let the motor “wind up” the spring, go forward at horse speed, stop (with brakes), let the spring wind again, then proceed over and over again. The spring not only lets the horses take as much of the load as they can, but also distributes the time that the power is appllied over (but providing intervals). This lets things proceed at “horse speed” without having to have a ridiculous number of motors or batteries. You might be able to cut the batteries down to two with this if you keep the generator running. The downside is I haven’t seen a spring like this large enough for what I’m talking about.

[Anonymous]

Wow Andy the starter moters are neat idea. Would they be ok in wet conditions.Would it be possible to build a winch that was remote controll from a starter?

Tristan

[Ronnie Tucker]

you all are way out in left field.keep it as simple as possible.the more high teck the more expense you have to start with and will have all along.if power is the problem use two teams.i have worked with a man who had a majaco loader wagon it worked pretty good.but it was a while getting it payed for.my notion is the outfit that payuer in canada sells appears to be mighty handy.if i was going to buy one that would be my pick.but i want only true horsepower.well i mean mule power.everyone to their on notion ronnie tucker

[Anonymous]

The idea of a hybridized system has a lot of merit. As we age at least I find I work twice as hard as I did when I was twenty but only accomplish half as much. It may take longer to pay for this technoligy but if it keeps you doing what you like to do isnt it worth it. The truckers here are getting harder to get and the trucks bigger, if you can get your logs to the road instead of just out of the woodlot ,no field damage (tile beds) Around this area mostly agriculture with small woodlots the last thing you want to do is PO the farmer/land owner you won`t be working long. Snow plowing, road building none of that is nessessary
I usually work alone good,bad or whatever I can`t find anybody to work at the wages I get and be damed if I`ll pay somebody more than me. Coming home at night crippled up and bent over form rolling logs isn`t an option if a forwarder can load and unload and all you have to do is a few nights welding or other repairs once in a while I`ll take it. For those reasons I see it as a win win situation
The situation may be different on each job and if it could be a shared forwarder or a contractor there are so many possibilitys

[Andy Carson]

Tristan, I am not sure about the moisture aspect, but I would probably want to provide some protection for it. That said, there’s plenty of engines on tractots ans such that have minimal protection from the elements and the starter is right there… as far as it being a winch, I bet it would be great with proper gearing.

You might right Ronnie, about the simplicity of having a big team. It’s not a “slam dunk” for the types of slopes Carl is talking about. Let’s say you have a 20% slope, that would be a draft of 450 lbs for just the wagon (assuming a 1500 lb wagon, 20% slope, 10% rolling resistance) or a draft of 1800 lb loaded to 3 tons total (6000lb, 20% slope, 10% rolling resistance). The horses have to pull themselves up the hill too, adding 600 lb of work for a team (1500 lbs 8 2 horses, 20% slope, no “rolling resistance”) and 1200 lbs to four up. That’s a total of 1050 lbs of load for a team, or 35% of thier weight (1050/3000) for the empty wagon. With 4 horses, that’s 1650 lbs or 27% of their weight (1650/6000) for an empty wagon. Not a big difference here, because the work is predominantly the horses lifting thier own body weight. If the wagon is loaded, that’s 2400 lbs for a team (1800 for wagon + 600 for horses), or 80% (2400/3000) of their weight. For a group of four, that’s 3000 lbs (1800 + 1200), or 50% (3000/6000) of thier weight. So it almost doubled the power on a 20% slope with a heavy load.

At a 70% slope the picture is different. The wagon draft would be 1200 lbs empty and 4800 lbs loaded. A team adds another 2100 lbs of load (3000*70%) for a total of 3300 lbs (1200+2100) unloaded (this is 110% of the horses weight) and 6900 lbs of load (4800+2100) if the wagon is loaded (this is 230% of the horses weight). Four up adds 4200 lbs of workload (6000*70%) for a total of 5400 lbs (4200+1200) (90% of the horses weight) with the sled unloaded or 9000 lbs (4800+4200) (150% of thier body weight) with the wagon loaded. I am sure the horses would appreciate a reduction of 110% to 90% or their body weight in load (as well as a reduction from 230% to 150%) but the additive effect is not as dramatic with these really steep slopes because most of the horses energy is spent lifting themselves. In the end, it looks like adding more horses is most effective when you have mild to medium slopes and a heavy load. A power assist might solve this problem, but implementation might be hard and possibly have little advantage over a tractor. I am kinda brainstorming and seeing what makes sense with the math. 4 up seems to work with the math as long as you don’t have to deal with very steep slopes in the range of 70%, where the power erquirements are so high and the horses spend so much energy lifting themselves.

[Author]

Posts