The Forestry Forum

Hi Foresters,

I'm a software guy, so I'm curious if any of you know where I could go about finding out how to control a sawmill through a laptop. I'm assuming there'll be a PLC involved somewhere? What does the technology stack look like? My hypothetical use case is that I'd want to control a band or carriage saw to saw flitches from a debarked log whose heights above ground on the log are defined by a list of numbers that I have on my laptop.

A secondary case would be to cut two slabs of defined lengths off opposite ends and then also saw the cant.

As a bonus I'd like to be able to rotate the log based on feedback from a webcam.

Does anyone know what the best approach to this problem is? Could an Arduino stand in for a PLC?

Thanks.

My experience is with PLCs, my gut says they are more robust than an Arduino, but that may depend on brand to a great extent.
At any rate, you should sort out the motion equipment, control sensors and safety limit devices before getting too involved with the controller.

Such programs are already in use by commercial mills. They use cameras to maximize lumber output.

This thread talks about building a basic "setworks" to control a bandsaw head.
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=69216.0

From that it's a "simple"*** matter of having your laptop send the required cut pattern to the arduino / Pi / PLC etc and having it do it's thing. The "PLC" (whatever style you use) is what takes the cut list from either the user or a computer program, and converts that to stepper motor movements, sent to a dumb motor driver board. And monitors limit switches / rotary encoders / hall effect switches etc. If something jams the mechanicals you want it to stop and turn on an error light, or something. 

I'd also suggest that a laptop isn't the ideal tech for a sawmill. No matter how clean you try and keep things, there's dust and crud in the air. The wood processing unit's I've worked with use something like a passively cooled Intel Nuc hooked to a touchscreen, and mounted in a nice sealed box. If it needs cooling, then a fan / filter can be fitted to the box, but with modern electronics you can probably get away with passive cooling. 

***" "simple", as compared to rocket surgery. 

Welcome to the Forestry Forum. 

What does your lumber software do? Input, output, take verbal commands or monitor lumber quality and characteristics to make a decision be it cutting or grading? or something else?

Interesting about your control of setworks, and assume a bandmill? 

Quote from: Ianab on June 28, 2023, 11:55:25 PM
This thread talks about building a basic "setworks" to control a bandsaw head.
https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=69216.0

From that it's a "simple"*** matter of having your laptop send the required cut pattern to the arduino / Pi / PLC etc and having it do it's thing. The "PLC" (whatever style you use) is what takes the cut list from either the user or a computer program, and converts that to stepper motor movements, sent to a dumb motor driver board. And monitors limit switches / rotary encoders / hall effect switches etc. If something jams the mechanicals you want it to stop and turn on an error light, or something.

I'd also suggest that a laptop isn't the ideal tech for a sawmill. No matter how clean you try and keep things, there's dust and crud in the air. The wood processing unit's I've worked with use something like a passively cooled Intel Nuc hooked to a touchscreen, and mounted in a nice sealed box. If it needs cooling, then a fan / filter can be fitted to the box, but with modern electronics you can probably get away with passive cooling.

***" "simple", as compared to rocket surgery.

Right, so for each type of bandsaw I'd integrate with I would need custom circuitry to operate its hydraulic controls? But I know that Wood Mizer sells setworks with their mills so surely that means that their hydraulics already have some sort of electronic interface?

Also, I agree that a sawmill would be a pretty hostile environment for a laptop. Ideally it could work with a Pi that would remotely connect to the laptop.

Quote from: beenthere on June 29, 2023, 12:16:52 AM
Welcome to the Forestry Forum.

What does your lumber software do? Input, output, take verbal commands or monitor lumber quality and characteristics to make a decision be it cutting or grading? or something else?

Interesting about your control of setworks, and assume a bandmill?

My software uses computer vision and brute force to calculate the optimal way to cut a log, given a photo of its cross-section. I'd like to eventually get it to recognize checks and optimize around that as well. It can find the solution but now I'm curious about the approach to take to automate it.

Neah it doesn't work that way you are simplifying it too much.

Every one of the basic programs that look at the end of the log and come up with a cut list is a fail. The reason why is that logs are never perfectly round or perfectly straight, and mostly have faults in them.

So for a start a commercial level optimiser begins with whole of log scanning to allow for flair, taper, bends, knots, hollows etc. The optimiser then positions the log for best theoretical recovery and away you go.

Except that no optimiser yet can out recover an experienced sawyer. That's because an experienced sawyer is also scanning the log during sawing using the Mark I eyeball system, and an experienced sawyer should have a feel for when to turn a log or throw the pattern out the window because the log is doing what it wants not what the order book would like.

That's because logs are living things subject to natural variation rather than an inert, consistently structured material 

On average - and this is based on a FWPA research project about 10 years back - smaller mills in Australia report about 8% higher recovery than big mills running scanners and optimising systems. 

So big mills with big chequebooks paying a fortune for state of the art equipment do less well than a guy plugging away by the seat of his pants. The advantage for the big mill and the upside of the optimising programs is that the big mill can get a mediocre result cheap without the need for skilled staff. It's about lowering the cost of producing a just acceptable product, not getting a better result.

Small mills can't afford to be just average or they go broke.

AE Gibson & Sons Optimising Twin Saw Log Edger Sawmilling Equipment & Machinery - YouTube (https://youtu.be/ZtYR9efQQzI)

I'll back my eyeballs to give better recovery than that any day. But no way can I get the 80% result anywhere near as cheap. And that's a long way ahead of an end of log picture with a computer drawing pretty lines on it which won't come close to the strength of either assessment system.

I've been playing with an arduino for the past week or so hoping to make a simple lcd readout from a rotary encoder for each end of the Lucas. We zero to the bunks often enough and then work from there, until someone moves a scale out of sync and we lose home. And then there are 2 of us making each set, one man cranking each end of the mill, and those miscommunications. If I can look up, see the lcd at the other end and confirm we are both reading the same rather than walking over or just missing it when in doubt it would save on miscuts as well. Just knowing reliably at all times where I am in relation to home would be a big help.

I am not an electronics person so I'm stealing code for measuring wheels and modifying it, or attempting to. Bounce has been the biggest problem, some of that code is just producing junk for output.

A agree, a Sawyer visually "scans" a log as a 3D entity and adjusts the cut pattern continuously as the visual cues are analyzed mentally as the cant changes and boards come off.

A 2D visualization camera based algorithm based on an initial analysis of only the ends of the logs will not meet the yield or quality requirements.

If you a doing this as a fun project, it's one thing.  If you are doing this as a "for profit" project, unless a 3D optimization scanning mechanism is incorporated and used continuously during sawing, the system will not meet the yield or lumber quality of any competent sawyer.

I'm curious about the end goal here?  The original post isn't specific.

Virtually any NEW small mill at a certain price point will have a computer/PLC setworks included or as an option.  It would seem that price point is in the $30,000 +/- range.  

Most larger mills have a setworks included.  

Is the goal to retrofit "A" mill that doesn't  have a setworks?  A hobby type challenge?

Is the goal to design something for the market?  Is there a market in the small sawmill market?  I'm skeptical to be honest.

There are already a number of commercial mill setworks/optimization companies who work closely with (if not owned by) headsaw and other sawmill machine manufacturers.  

The commercial mills use optimization for two reasons - speed and lack of experienced sawyers.  

The big mills using optimization can't  out recover what an experienced sawyer can on a log by log basis. But on a day to day, week to week basis what they lack in recovery of material they make up for in production.  It's a quality versus quantity compromise. 

In a single log the commercial mill might not get what the small mill might recover but the commercial mill will cut many more logs in the same amount of time.   To do that optimization is key.  

The double L conclusion; always the best. And L.L., thanks for that scrag / scanner video. Now I know what to build next. Since I built the top saw I have bent 3 saws with heavy slabs bouncing and hitting the saw. In that video I see 2 swinging cylinder rolls besides the saws, I must have one of those.

Here y'are Mister Doug, a better look at the back end of an Australian style headsaw. If you look close behind the nearest of the spiral rolls you'll get a glimpse of the air wedge underneath that kicks the flitch away from the saw as it slides down.

The Grey - 6' Breaking Down Saw with Off Bearer Roller and Air Wedge - YouTube (https://youtu.be/VdDU55aDHVo)

Eucalypts are dense and everything is geared down and rigged for a controlled slide or the weights involved break things.

Quote from: YellowHammer on June 29, 2023, 07:23:52 AM
A agree, a Sawyer visually "scans" a log as a 3D entity and adjusts the cut pattern continuously as the visual cues are analyzed mentally as the cant changes and boards come off.

A 2D visualization camera based algorithm based on an initial analysis of only the ends of the logs will not meet the yield or quality requirements.

If you a doing this as a fun project, it's one thing.  If you are doing this as a "for profit" project, unless a 3D optimization scanning mechanism is incorporated and used continuously during sawing, the system will not meet the yield or lumber quality of any competent sawyer.

Yes, after I learned about taper and sweep I've come to realize that 2D is of limited use, so I'm working on 3D. But in the meantime I want to make sure it can integrate with the head saw since otherwise it would be much less useful at scale.

Quote from: Don P on June 29, 2023, 07:20:13 AM
...I am not an electronics person so I'm stealing code for measuring wheels and modifying it, or attempting to. Bounce has been the biggest problem, some of that code is just producing junk for output.

Are you trying hardware or software debounce?

Quote from: SawyerTed on June 29, 2023, 08:16:56 AM
I'm curious about the end goal here?  The original post isn't specific.

Virtually any NEW small mill at a certain price point will have a computer/PLC setworks included or as an option.  It would seem that price point is in the $30,000 +/- range.  

Most larger mills have a setworks included.  

Is the goal to retrofit "A" mill that doesn't  have a setworks?  A hobby type challenge?

Is the goal to design something for the market?  Is there a market in the small sawmill market?  I'm skeptical to be honest.

There are already a number of commercial mill setworks/optimization companies who work closely with (if not owned by) headsaw and other sawmill machine manufacturers.  

Yes, the end goal is commercial. I assumed that price was the reason small sawmills don't use optimization, but it seems like the real answer is that sawyers are more efficient, but slower. Large mills don't want to be slow so they take the efficiency hit. I'm assuming hiring enough sawyers to keep up with the wood inflow would move the market price for sawyers enough to make it uneconomical. I'd still like to try to see if a full 3D picture could outperform - different dimensions have different values, so a computer may be able to optimize better for value.

Regardless, if I can do better than the state of the art then now large mills seem like a much better market since they'll be extremely price and quality sensitive. I know how unhumble this sounds, but I've got lots of ideas for how to optimize better and faster.

But how small is "small" and how large is "large"? Does having a rotary crane rule out being "small"? A carriage saw instead of a bandsaw? A separate debarker?

So it sounds like the first thing I should do is contact the headsaw manufacturers and see if they'd be willing to support a new setworks designer, then design my setworks to integrate with my optimizer.

If you plan to try a commercial setworks and optimization venture, I strongly recommend you study the major players in the industry before making those calls.  Most are big world-wide companies associated with the major machinery companies.  

There are trade publications, trade shows and universities where you can also begin your research.

Modern optimization and setworks are doing 3D laser scanning of the entire log, ends and sides, identifying defects and adjusting sawing accordingly.  Think 3D modeling based on the multiple laser scan of the log as the log is rotated on the deck.  It can only do what it is programmed to do, but modern optimization is very sophisticated.  It can't do what a human can do in adjusting sawing but what it does is impressive 

The other thing optimization does is inform downstream processing on what is coming.  In other words, the gang knows what kind of cant is coming from the headsaw. 

While a notebook computer has plenty of processing power depending upon the device, most commercial mills implement enterprise solutions with redundancy and environmentally controlled enclosures for the optimization and setworks. 

Another aspect is that all optimizers must be tuned by a human, for the desired output parameters given the input stock logs.  So an optimizer that is programmed to saw 16" average plantation SYP logs will have a very different set of options to choose from than one at hardwood grade mill since many of the rules for sawing pine don't apply when it comes to oak.  It's definitely not a one size fits all, or even a few, type of solution.  

This is not a headsaw, it is a gang saw that saws cants into boards by sawing  parallel to the sweep (curve sawing) It's an example of the sophistication of both the machinery being controlled and the controlling software.  

https://youtu.be/B2-BEk2t9aE (https://youtu.be/B2-BEk2t9aE)

That's almost as impressive as the edger @YellowHammer (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=11488)  has. 

I think the current vision systems are top notch. I doubt you will have any chance of getting better than those. What I feel is lacking is the software algorithm to process the images to get the yield you would get from an experienced sawyer. 

I hate to say it but I think you are looking into programming more than hardware to get the best results. Good luck.

Quote from: cxsmith on June 29, 2023, 01:34:59 AMRight, so for each type of bandsaw I'd integrate with I would need custom circuitry to operate its hydraulic controls? But I know that Wood Mizer sells setworks with their mills so surely that means that their hydraulics already have some sort of electronic interface?

The basic setworks tend to just set the "drop" of the sawhead for each board that's cut. So for example, once a "12x12 cant has been produced, the saw is programmed to slice it into 11 x 1" boards. Operator doesn't have to manually drop the saw-head 1.1" for each board. So it's faster and less error prone. 

Around a mill some functions are hydraulic, some electric, with either stepper or DC motors, or even air powered for some functions. Stepper motors have the advantage of a known movement for each "pulse" or step, So you can figure something like 100 pulses for an inch of movement. But you still need something like limit switches to zero them in. A regular motor used to control a position needs feedback as to how much it's actually moved, like a rotary encoder, and limit switches. 

On the smaller portable mills the hydraulics are generally manual, for loading / turning the log. The "heavy lifting" side of things. But if you are adding in log scanning and loading / turning functions, then you will want electric / hydraulic control, a whole other level of electro-mechanical rocket surgery. 

Quote from: SawyerTed on June 29, 2023, 02:18:48 PM
This is not a headsaw, it is a gang saw that saws cants into boards by sawing  parallel to the sweep (curve sawing) It's an example of the sophistication of both the machinery being controlled and the controlling software.  

https://youtu.be/B2-BEk2t9aE (https://youtu.be/B2-BEk2t9aE)

So is the idea there that sawing along the curve would yield more, but lower quality, boards and eating the price deduction from lower quality would be preferable to making fewer full-priced boards?

Quote from: Southside on June 29, 2023, 02:06:22 PM
Another aspect is that all optimizers must be tuned by a human, for the desired output parameters given the input stock logs.  So an optimizer that is programmed to saw 16" average plantation SYP logs will have a very different set of options to choose from than one at hardwood grade mill since many of the rules for sawing pine don't apply when it comes to oak.  It's definitely not a one size fits all, or even a few, type of solution.  

My algorithm already takes varying kerf into account (and could be trivially tweaked for different headsaw vs gangsaw kerf). If, aside from the influence of the kerf, the major differences are in sawing technique rather than geometry then that seems like a much more tractable problem. Can you elaborate?

Quote from: SawyerTed on June 29, 2023, 11:54:18 AM
If you plan to try a commercial setworks and optimization venture, I strongly recommend you study the major players in the industry before making those calls.  Most are big world-wide companies associated with the major machinery companies.  

There are trade publications, trade shows and universities where you can also begin your research.

Modern optimization and setworks are doing 3D laser scanning of the entire log, end and sides, identifying defects and adjusting sawing accordingly.  Think 3D modeling based on the multiple laser scan of the log as the log is rotated on the deck.  It can only do what it is programmed to do, but modern optimization is very sophisticated.  It can't do what a human can do in adjusting sawing but what it does is impressive

The other thing optimization does is inform downstream processing on what is coming.  In other words, the gang knows what kind of cant is coming from the headsaw.

While a notebook computer has plenty of processing power depending upon the device, most commercial mills implement enterprise solutions with redundancy and environmentally controlled enclosures for the optimization and setworks.

Thank you, that is helpful. The laptop was just an example of the flexibility I'd need. I think the final version should have a GPU.

I am not being flippant here but do you have experience as a sawyer? I ask based on your response. One treats the heart / juvenile / pith portions of pine vs oak very differently. A hardwood grade mill would get the most value by centering out the pith, then splitting the board along it's length and disposing of the actual pith, producing quarter sawn, ray fleck wood. If a pine mill did the same they would make two bananas, instead they will center the pith and juvenile wood into a post, 4x4, 6x6, etc and send it to be treated. 

This is but one tiny, miniscule, example that again won't apply to every scenario as that same hardwood mill might see a drop on quarter sawn grade and instead grab the side lumber and put the rest into ties since the price has jumped. 

To me your approach is akin to deciding to build a truck, one model, that would serve the daily grocery getter to the 18 wheeler market. It's just too many applications. 

Is there a demand for a specific subset of the industry that is underserved and wants automation? I don't know, but I think the entry price to this game is quite high. 

Good edger video. On that one the whole 'saw box' moves. Somebody made one where the saws would angle [not shift] to make straight cuts on a board not being fed straight. That one in the video is appears to be a gang sawing cants.

Kind of spooky watching this conversation and thinking about what AI will do with that in the near future. Scanners can see what we cannot and the decision making ability is about to overtake our pea.

Quote from: Southside on June 29, 2023, 07:49:50 PM
I am not being flippant here but do you have experience as a sawyer? I ask based on your response. One treats the heart / juvenile / pith portions of pine vs oak very differently. A hardwood grade mill would get the most value by centering out the pith, then splitting the board along it's length and disposing of the actual pith, producing quarter sawn, ray fleck wood. If a pine mill did the same they would make two bananas, instead they will center the pith and juvenile wood into a post, 4x4, 6x6, etc and send it to be treated.

This is but one tiny, miniscule, example that again won't apply to every scenario as that same hardwood mill might see a drop on quarter sawn grade and instead grab the side lumber and put the rest into ties since the price has jumped.

To me your approach is akin to deciding to build a truck, one model, that would serve the daily grocery getter to the 18 wheeler market. It's just too many applications.

Is there a demand for a specific subset of the industry that is underserved and wants automation? I don't know, but I think the entry price to this game is quite high.

No, I don't have sawyer experience. But if the quartersawn lumber has to be dimensional then I could imagine that choosing the exact dimensions, offset from the center, and optimal rotation given the different values of the different dimensions would be non-trivial to do in your head For example, I'm imagining the right most column of this:


(https://metroatlfloors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1432917949302-e1446930357377.jpg)

but given the shape of the log the board that's pointing due SE is a fraction of an inch longer than a standard dimensional width while the two boards to its side are slightly shorter, so moving the cut to the right would make the board pointing due SE shorter but not so short that it falls below the threshold while lengthening the one below it to surpass the threshold. Now, this is unlikely to be more valuable because shifting the center board away from the center will decrease the sum of the lengths of all boards in that quadrant, but it's possible because what matters is the dimensions that the boards can hit. Or maybe there's a way to make the cuts where each cut is perpendicular to the grain but if the axes separating the four quarters were rotated a bit it would knock a few of the boards to higher widths. Both of those optimizations I see as very unlikely for a sawyer to be able to do in his head. Now, you might respond and say, "well, what if during cutting a hidden defect is exposed?", but there's nothing stopping the algorithm from running multiple times per log - once after each cut to determine if the optimum has changed.

Does that make sense or seem like a potential usage?

Quote from: Don P on June 29, 2023, 09:25:28 PM
Kind of spooky watching this conversation and thinking about what AI will do with that in the near future. Scanners can see what we cannot and the decision making ability is about to overtake our pea.

Saw a girl in a parking lot the other day backing up fast and looking straight ahead [back up camera]. I thought to my self, this is just the beginning.

In theory what you are saying makes sense, but where is that theoretical log? We are getting way into the weeds here but chasing the QS example the angle isn't always the determining factor, ray fleck is and growing conditions of the tree will change where that optimizes. 

But then the next log is a red oak... Guess what I am saying is yes one could probably enter in enough values to somehow make a program "smart enough" to beat the sawyer in every aspect, but by the time that was done the saw technology would have morphed to where the systems weren't compatable. 

I am not worried at all about AI replacing any of what I do, and I don't think it can replace what folks like Don and many others do.  There are times I wish AI could do some of my work for me, but I don't see it happening. 

I don't think I've ever actually sawn any of those patterns.

The "Rift sawn" looks a lot like RRQS and is producing quartersawn lumber, look at the ring direction. The "Quartersawn" is mainly producing rift sawn lumber from a quartered log, again look at the ring orientation on the boards. But usually, if someone is focusing on quartersawing everything in sight, they are new, or an architect :D.

On the circle mill I'm usually grade sawing in our woods. Choosing the highest quality face and working it down while trying to keep the next turn balanced as possible while recovering from this face till it makes more sense to turn to the next best one. Chasing the grade anticipating what the log is going to look like on the backside of what I'm sawing. And in hindsight looking back when I've missed a call, looking at the previous board and seeing "the tell", the beginnings of the defect that I missed. When the scanning and interpretation of what it is seeing exceeds my experience, well, I hope Jim is right. Robots don't need houses or oak tables  :-\.

I agree, they are too simplistic, erroneous and notional.  As a matter of fact, I just did a video on why Not to saw the first one.  

I wouldn't base a damned thing on that picture up there.

What they are calling plain sawn is actually through and through sawn. Plain sawn gives all backsawn lumber not a mix of backsawn and quarter sawn.

What they're calling rift sawn is actually true quarter sawn. Rift has the grain at 45-70 degrees to the face and that pattern will give exactly zero rift sawn boards.

And their quarter sawn pattern is the least commonly used of the three main quarter sawing patterns because it needs a four man bench or the flitch has to be rotated.

The great problem with the internet is the dispersal of erroneous information. No sawyer drew that picture and it's labelled completely wrong.

Please don't use the saw patterns shown in those pictures.

Quote from: YellowHammer on June 29, 2023, 10:14:26 PM
I agree, they are too simplistic and notional.  As a matter of fact, I just did a video on why Not to saw the first one.  

We're calling it "spandex pattern" in honor :). I'm going to bust up 3 big logs in 6 turns doing that next week on the CSM and Lucas. Choosing the opening face will decide whether it was worthwhile or not. At that size without hydraulics on the mill, as long as I don't blow the setup I'll take some loss to not turn. If it is turning into a train wreck, well, back up and punt is where humans shine.

We are being hard on the op but really just bringing more variables and clarity to his thoughts I hope. Another thought in that direction is knots. If structural lumber, spike and edge knots are a problem, often my opening and then rotation can center face those. If grade sawing I'm probably going to place them near and edge to be removed. Branches grow from heart to bark as a cone, I'm visualizing them within the tree and the frustrum created in the board as I'm looking and planning my cuts. Understand how trees grow, sounds easy, it is not.

We've discussed releasing growth stress before. I can handle bow from flatsawn in structural lumber, hand me quartersawn for framing and I'm liable to send it back for excessive crook. If I want stable hard wearing flooring or fleck then quartersawn is great.

Drying stress. There is a piece of compression wood flooring on my deck that shrank in length on one face and sheared 6 screws. It passed by at least 6 human eyes and in hindsight I can only say I shoulda been paying more attention.

I think that "every log is something different" aspect is what draws many of us to working with natural material.

Quote from: customsawyer on June 30, 2023, 04:47:56 AM
Please don't use the saw patterns shown in those pictures.

They bring this to mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spherical_cow

QuoteShortly thereafter the physicist returned to the farm, saying to the farmer, "I have the solution, but it works only in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum."

Cut pattern 1 works if you have chainsaw mill and want to make river tables from the middle boards, as they will usually crack  apart. 
#2 is a "perfect" quarter sawing pattern, but note the amount of waste wood. It's difficult to do, wastes a lot of wood, and unless you are making high end musical instruments, it's not usually done.
#3 is an "approximate" quarter sawing pattern, to get the most practical recovery of nearly quarter sawed wood from a log, for stability or appearance reasons. But the middle and outside edges of the boards would generally be edged off as sapwood or low grade wood near the pith.  
How much? depends on the log. A 10" wide board with spike knots down one edge is low grade. Rip it to an 8" clear board and it's actually worth more. That's the sort of judgement call that an experienced sawyer will make as the log is being cut. 
I run a swing blade mill, so none of those pattern are really relevant. But I can adjust the cutting patterns to suit what I find inside the log. Once you see the inside of the log you have a better idea of what you can produce. But you can't X-ray the log before you start. 

I can see scanning the log for the opening face on grade sawing fast. If there are 4 jacket boards of value with a minimum width you don't want to over or under set.

This thread is what makes FF great.   The breadth of knowledge and willingness to share helps a new guy begin sorting out the prior knowledge in the industry.

We've gotten off into one of the areas that appears to be challenging to the OP - that's an understanding of the process and techniques of sawing logs into lumber.

With that said, I believe the OP has considerable homework to do for his software to be successful.   He needs to determine if the software/setworks/optimization that's out there can be improved with his innovations. Without a comparison and evaluation, the new software could be behind what's already there. On the other hand, it could be major advancement. There is room for improvement.

Another piece of the homework is learning the sawing process, the characteristics of logs and what makes optimization challenging. It's impossible to do process improvement without a strong understanding of the process.

The third piece is developing relationships in the industry.  This may be the most difficult in a highly competitive industry that is wary of newcomers of any sort.

Quote from: Don P on June 30, 2023, 05:21:08 AM

Quote from: YellowHammer on June 29, 2023, 10:14:26 PM
I agree, they are too simplistic and notional.  As a matter of fact, I just did a video on why Not to saw the first one.  

We're calling it "spandex pattern" in honor :).

THAT is hilarious.  Also, I finally found someone who doesn't fall asleep during my videos!
I think you have just coined a new term that will live forever.  I love it! 

Is the "spandex pattern" the first cuts a "skinny jeans" sawyer makes?   

This comment is about fictional people any resemblance to real people is incidental and should be taken as so.

The Spandex Pattern(s), as they are now forever immortalized, are a group of overly simplistic sawing patterns that are useless in high grade hardwood sawing strategies but are popular to watch on the YouTube and demonstrated by some "sawyers" who seem to be wearing excessively snug spandex while bending over a sawmill plying their craft, whatever that is.  

My specific reference to it can be seen at 14.52 minutes into the video.  Not to derail this topic but I believe this video directly relates to it in discussing sawing patterns and how a sawyer uses their head and cues in the log to maximize quality and lumber value.


https://youtu.be/hknsYzfNrwY (https://youtu.be/hknsYzfNrwY)

Another good video.  One of my pet peeves.  I watch one of these so called "Sawyers" doing the "The Spandex Pattern" and it grates on my nerves.  I've also noticed these guys will boast about how many board feet they saw.  Of course its faster sawing CRAP!

Most of the time it seems the Spandex board makers are custom sawing and do not process the board further than pushing it off the mill.

Most woodworkers know from experience what a good board looks like and generally are good sawyers.

I see a dictionary entry.  :D

Yellowhammer, not to get too picky, but your wording of "excessively snug spandex" is off-base. On the right Sawyer, spandex can never be too snug.
But, (working hard to get this thread back on track) here's a very random thought;
@Don P (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?action=profile;u=17) coined the term spandex pattern and also mentioned AI.
Whoooo boy, it could be that I've just had an overly spicey lunch . . . but imagine the possibilities.
.
"But Accuset, I wanna wear Daisy Dukes and a pink tank-top. Stop bossing me around and let's just cut some Canadian Cheese!"
"Sorry, lil'red, no can do. My cameras have analysed this banana log, and the Insty log-algorithm indicates a higher clic-count if you pull on the orange Lululemons."
"Oooooh, gotcha! Colour coordinated to the mill and the tractor ! ! You're so clever. ❤️"
I can hear the cash rolling in, even up here in the glaciated North.

When i started sawing The experimental hard wood forest here on the mountain gave me access to their library and archives. I should of studied that hard in high school. I sawed a lot of hardwood by the book and could not sell it.  Never the less I am glad I learned the terms and what they ment in practice. In 1999 when i went full time I had to make money. To day I will take a grade white oak log and saw it into 2" trailer planks because i don't have a kiln. In the video of me sawing I am plain sawing large grade walnut, a sin yes but the ones that don't heart split will pay well for the others.   Another money maker for me is locust posts of all things. Most logs here are rotted toward the middle.  I often take a log and saw along the bark to a 3" + opening face and then pull 4" , cut that off and send it to the edger to get a 4x4. That is just plain wrong but logs and fuel cost money. So the scanner thing means nothing to my little operation. The way trees are harvested and turned into money varies greatly and that is interesting.

Are the Spandex Sawyers the guys (that also have their counterparts in firewood, the Spandex Splitter Operator) that apparently would prefer to pimp their wives out in skimpy clothes to get views, then make an honest living?

Imagine being the inventor of the internet - not Al gore - and thinking "this will allow people to further their education, share information, and connect in ways never before possible", then he sees what it has become.

Nothing wrong with running a through and through sawing pattern: In small logs it's one of the more effective ways to achieve decent recovery and so long as you understand the limitations of it and your logs and the desired product are okay it's a useful technique to know.

Provided you use it right. Most people do not know how to use it right. Or maybe it's the only one saw only one step attitude. Sawyers with a headsaw and resaws see logs differently because the headsaw can be used to prepare material for the resaws to do the work


(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/32746/IMG_20230701_062756.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1688156829)
 

That there is also a through and through pattern and I use a modified version of it quite regularly ( modified= remove first 2" board, roll and remove second 2" board, split straight up the pith and then saw out the wings for inch to edger). I find it yields high grade, stable, quarter sawn feedstock out of little solid logs and while I'd rather not have to saw those logs they're part of what we get and being able to make money from them is important. 

EDIT: Yes every one of the 4 x 1's will turn into a banana... but thats why we overcut them as 1" x the limit of the log and then feed them through an edger. 4 x 1 is the target size post edger, not the size the mill cuts to

Can I pick up one of those hawt scantily clad assistants now???

Quote from: longtime lurker on June 30, 2023, 04:41:23 PM
Nothing wrong with running a through and through sawing pattern: In small logs it's one of the more effective ways to achieve decent recovery and so long as you understand the limitations of it and your logs and the desired product are okay it's a useful technique to know.

Provided you use it right. Most people do not know how to use it right. Or maybe it's the only one saw only one step attitude. Sawyers with a headsaw and resaws see logs differently because the headsaw can be used to prepare material for the resaws to do the work


(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/32746/IMG_20230701_062756.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1688156829)
 

That there is also a through and through pattern and I use a modified version of it quite regularly ( modified= remove first 2" board, roll and remove second 2" board, split straight up the pith and then saw out the wings for inch to edger). I find it yields high grade, stable, quarter sawn feedstock out of little solid logs and while I'd rather not have to saw those logs they're part of what we get and being able to make money from them is important.

EDIT: Yes every one of the 4 x 1's will turn into a banana... but thats why we overcut them as 1" x the limit of the log and then feed them through an edger. 4 x 1 is the target size post edger, not the size the mill cuts to

Can I pick up one of those hawt scantily clad assistants now???

No! You have not earned that yet. ;D

But but but I through and through saw it and split the pith. What else does I have to do, I really wants one??

I find it a really effective sawing pattern to use on 12" or so logs assuming the pith runs straight and its a suitable species for feedstock. I might get a sappy corner on my planks but that will come off during machining. I may also get a little bit of heartshake but it'll be on an edge and minor edge defect on feedstock mostly isn't an issue because again it either machines off or is hidden. Upside is that even the boards that are technically rift often show ribbon or fleck on one face because of the tight growth rings in those little logs.
 I'll also sometimes use the same pattern on somewhat larger logs when I want 6 x 1 for good quality feedstock if I've got the time, although sadly I mostly just backsaw those these days because of production pressure and the market reality that I can get 80% of the price of the quarter sawn board at 50% of the production cost: most people only want to pay for the average board anyway. Putting nearly every board through the edger costs $, backsawn I don't have to do that. 

The thing with the through and through pattern as I use it is to be flexible in my target size: I use it in small logs where there's not a lot of meat to play with so won't penalise a board that could be a 6" outt the edger by making it into a 4"... I just run another stack for the different width and saw a few more logs. And accept that your backsawn boards are what they are depending on the log and the depth of sapwood. Maybe its a 4 x 2, maybe its a 3 x 1½. It doesn't matter to me - I can sell all of them given enough time.


(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/32746/trp_deck.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1688171095)
 

I do like me some ribbon grain in the feedstock though, and given half a chance I'll cut for it if I can do so without too much of a recovery loss. I price ordinary as ordinary but customers come looking for me because they don't want ordinary and I know it and charge accordingly. Kind of a waste going into a deck but hey... I'm happy to take their money and run it for decking not flooring if thats what the customer wants.

And I just went and bought me some new spandex today. Loading the video now.

Ya know, admins can be banned. Just saying.  :D

You would know I'm sure.

Quote from: customsawyer on June 30, 2023, 09:08:17 PM
And I just went and bought me some new spandex today. Loading the video now.

Buying it is one thing, showing it off is another and ain't nobody ready for that.
 Thanks for putting yet another indelible picture in my head.

Jake, now you're really just tryin to break the interweb are'ntcha? 

Customsawyer...the man, the hat, the...spandex?🤔😂

Quote from: longtime lurker on June 30, 2023, 04:41:23 PM
Nothing wrong with running a through and through sawing pattern: In small logs it's one of the more effective ways to achieve decent recovery and so long as you understand the limitations of it and your logs and the desired product are okay it's a useful technique to know.

Provided you use it right. Most people do not know how to use it right. Or maybe it's the only one saw only one step attitude. Sawyers with a headsaw and resaws see logs differently because the headsaw can be used to prepare material for the resaws to do the work


(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/32746/IMG_20230701_062756.jpg?easyrotate_cache=1688156829)
 

That there is also a through and through pattern and I use a modified version of it quite regularly ( modified= remove first 2" board, roll and remove second 2" board, split straight up the pith and then saw out the wings for inch to edger). I find it yields high grade, stable, quarter sawn feedstock out of little solid logs and while I'd rather not have to saw those logs they're part of what we get and being able to make money from them is important.

EDIT: Yes every one of the 4 x 1's will turn into a banana... but thats why we overcut them as 1" x the limit of the log and then feed them through an edger. 4 x 1 is the target size post edger, not the size the mill cuts to

Can I pick up one of those hawt scantily clad assistants now???

I couldn't find "banana" in woodopedia but I'm assuming that's the end result of cupping? If so then do sawyers add extra height to compensate so they can get the right real dimensions after edging? Do the big mils do that or would they be unwilling because that would screw up their stickering so they'd rather just take the loss?

Adding a no-go region for the pith wouldn't be too hard, but too bad I probably couldn't reuse the code from check avoidance. Getting computer vision to recognize how far it extends might be the more challenging part.

Quote from: SawyerTed on June 30, 2023, 08:50:35 AM
This thread is what makes FF great.   The breadth of knowledge and willingness to share helps a new guy begin sorting out the prior knowledge in the industry.

We've gotten off into one of the areas that appears to be challenging to the OP - that's an understanding of the process and techniques of sawing logs into lumber.

With that said, I believe the OP has considerable homework to do for his software to be successful.   He needs to determine if the software/setworks/optimization that's out there can be improved with his innovations. Without a comparison and evaluation, the new software could be behind what's already there. On the other hand, it could be major advancement. There is room for improvement.

Another piece of the homework is learning the sawing process, the characteristics of logs and what makes optimization challenging. It's impossible to do process improvement without a strong understanding of the process.

The third piece is developing relationships in the industry.  This may be the most difficult in a highly competitive industry that is wary of newcomers of any sort.

Yeah, the fact that there's room for improvement is a big motivation. Ideally it would be in the softwoods since AFAIK that's the biggest market, but I bet that also has the most work already done for optimization.

Quote from: Ianab on June 30, 2023, 05:44:57 AM
...Once you see the inside of the log you have a better idea of what you can produce. But you can't X-ray the log before you start.

Actually they're working on that: https://microtec.us/products/ct-log/ (https://microtec.us/products/ct-log/)

"Banana" can be severe crook or bow and also a combination of both.  Simply think about how a banana peel looks, or even a propeller.

Because of the different stresses within a log, removing flitches and boards is very often not a simple matter.  The log is the boss, not a computer program nor setworks.

cxsmith

QuoteQuote from: Ianab on Yesterday at 04:44:57 AM (https://forestryforum.com/board/index.php?topic=122520.msg1988182#msg1988182)

Quote...Once you see the inside of the log you have a better idea of what you can produce. But you can't X-ray the log before you start.

Actually they're working on that:

"working on that" is the crux of the comment.  Some 55 years ago ('68 ) and since,  recall similar graphic images and predictions for computerized sawing of logs and also breaking down softwood and hardwood lumber into production of clear parts and cuttings. All efforts, one might say, to get support for research funding aimed at the gathering of digital information to plug into the software to make the decisions that then might control the breakdown (sawing, laser, chipping, etc.) of the wood material.

The graphics are getting better, and little by little the machines to handle logs being processed at high production rates and innovative turning of logs as a result of improved digital shape information are being justified. 

But the actual value of the product and what even 10% improvement in recovery will, at the moment, not justify the expected expense of CT. But there will always be dreams of change. 

These high production mills now process softwood at a very high throughput. Based on the shape of the log, the opening face and iterations of sawcuts made and on through the system to spit out lumber in many forms. Once through the system, just grade the output and assign the best use, be it structural dimension material such as 2X . Some of that ends up in machine-graded engineered lumber products, while some of the remaining dregs at the bottom is sold at HD-like box stores. 

But good luck to cxsmith to meet the challenge of writing software for the best information available. 
Enjoying the comments, but hope cxsmith will break out only the significant parts of the quotes rather than including the lump sum.

Quote from: beenthere on July 01, 2023, 10:47:56 AM
But the actual value of the product and what even 10% improvement in recovery will, at the moment, not justify the expected expense of CT. But there will always be dreams of change.

These high production mills now process softwood at a very high throughput. Based on the shape of the log, the opening face and iterations of sawcuts made and on through the system to spit out lumber in many forms. Once through the system, just grade the output and assign the best use, be it structural dimension material such as 2X . Some of that ends up in machine-graded engineered lumber products, while some of the remaining dregs at the bottom is sold at HD-like box stores...

A 10% increase in yield means that you buy 9% less logs. Being generous and assuming that logs cost only a quarter of your revenue that's a reduction in cost equal to almost 2.5% of revenue. If your mill produces 100 MMBf/year at $500/mbf that's $1.25MM saved per year, so tens of millions of dollars of value. I think that an x-ray machine could easily be made for less than that.

Quote from: Magicman on July 01, 2023, 07:41:51 AM
"Banana" can be severe crook or bow and also a combination of both.  Simply think about how a banana peel looks, or even a propeller.

Because of the different stresses within a log, removing flitches and boards is very often not a simple matter.  The log is the boss, not a computer program nor setworks.

Looking at the output of already existing software like this (https://forestnet.com/LSJissues/2021-january-february/gnarly-logs.php) it seems like the optimizer has a plan. So if the log is the boss then why does this software exist in the first place?

No argument from me sir, but you were the one asking questions about bananas.  ??

Here is a link to an article that discusses 7 identified lumber recovery factors.  A mill has to focus everyday on these seven, among them is sawing decision making.  

https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr39.pdf (https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr39.pdf) 

There are six other factors of which optimization is tangentially connected to only a couple for example log quality and target product.  

One big item is the recovery rate downstream which @cxdmith 's linked article  gives some time to.  

The pallet mill in the article replaced a 40 year old manual line with an USNR optimized line including an optimized end dogging overhead carriage head rig, gang and edger with optimization.  

Finding 10% more recovery in an optimized head rig will be hard to do.  Finding 25% recovery in the manual pallet mill doesn't surprise me.  To me that points to sawyer skill level and need for production speed to keep everyone downstream working. 

Quote from: SawyerTed on July 01, 2023, 05:56:24 PMHere is a link to an article that discusses 7 identified lumber recovery factors.  A mill has to focus everyday on these seven, among them is sawing decision making.

Also coming into the equation is the balance of production speed (some patterns just take longer to saw), vs Volume recovered vs Value recovered. 

Quarter sawing is a good example of that. It's slower production, and lower recovery, but it can produce more value, IF you have the market for that wood (and the log is suitable quality). 

The decisions also have to factor the mills current stock and orders into it's optimisation. It's all very well deciding that 2x12s are worth more then 3 x 2x4s, on paper. But if the current orders are for 2x4s and you have a big stack of 2x12s on hand, that changes the decision making as well. 

What a computer program is good at is very quickly running a series of simulations and working out what is probably the best solution for that log, based on a variety of factors. How you weight them will vary. But a large commercial mill might be operating on a 10% profit margin? So at that level, improving returns by even 1 or 2 % is significant. 

Quote from: Ianab on July 01, 2023, 09:43:34 PM

Quote from: SawyerTed on July 01, 2023, 05:56:24 PMHere is a link to an article that discusses 7 identified lumber recovery factors.  A mill has to focus everyday on these seven, among them is sawing decision making.

...What a computer program is good at is very quickly running a series of simulations and working out what is probably the best solution for that log, based on a variety of factors. How you weight them will vary. But a large commercial mill might be operating on a 10% profit margin? So at that level, improving returns by even 1 or 2 % is significant.

Right, like I did in my back-of-the-envelope calculations on tomography, in a decently-sized mill 1% could be worth hundreds of thousands per year under very conservative assumptions.

But a scenario I'm curious about is: suppose you've got a sawmill and you've sawed all your high quality hardwood logs for the day. You could mill some softwood logs, but it wouldn't be worth the effort. But if the primary breakdown were totally automated starting from putting the logs into a log deck, and finishing with the mill using its head to push the flitches out the back, with you only having to run them through the resaw to make them into boards, would that change the balance? Your margin would still be no greater than the big mills, but you already bought your sawmill so you'd just be getting more utilization out of it. Would the effort saved by automating that part of the process be enough to tip it into being worthwhile?

Problem is that making an uneconomic job 5 or 10% more efficient probably doesn't make it economic. You can saw low value softwood construction lumber with any sawmill, but is it worth it? Probably is if it's your logs, and you need the lumber because you have cut out multiple middlemen.  But if you are buying logs, and trying to sell the lumber wholesale? Deduct your operating costs and maybe you are making $5 an hour, or less. Better to go and flip burgers, and save the overhead expenses and wear on the equipment. 

I like food analogies, because everyone needs to eat so we can all relate to it.

So I'm running a cafe or diner with a regular clientele and a reputation for good food and I decide that after hours seeing as I already own the grill that I might try competing with McDonalds.

Look I'm a believer in automation wherever possible and not afraid to invest in technology that will make my business more profitable. But part of being profitable is knowing where not to compete with the guy down the road. If I'm going to run another shift, it won't be to compete with a mega mill I cannot compete with.

I believe there is a lot of scope for improvement in the current generation of technology. And I also believe that as the cutting edge - pun intended - of sawing technology advances that there will be a degree of trickle down with that. But if you asked me how to make the currently available equipment better my answer would be to teach an experienced sawyer to code, because it takes 10 or 15 years of full time sawmill operation to get from proficient to experienced compared with 6 months to be able to code reasonably well.

I would suggest that if you're serious about designing even the most basic of optimising software programs for sawmill applications that the best thing you could do is spend some time sawing logs to get a grasp of the how what and why. I'm a bit far away to help with that but this website has a widespread member base and I'm sure someone would be willing to give you some experience, or point you in the direction of someone who might.

Most of the big mills around me run 24 hours a day. Only a few of them are switching from hardwood to softwood. Most are either all hardwood or all softwood. The ones that are switching it isn't no big deal because it is about the same as switching from grade logs to pallet logs. They basically have multiple head saws and just switch one at a time and keep on running. Some are also running circle mills and band mills for head saws.
You may have answered this and I didn't see it. Are you trying to set this up for smaller operations or for the big mills?  

Wondering out loud sort of like an investment banker might...

Are the percentages of possible increased recovery over existing recovery rates in optimized mills worth chasing?

Is the law of diminishing returns in play here?

Will it cost more in optimization to get a few percentage points more recovery than that recovered material is worth?  

Every manufacturing step takes time, add up the time of all the steps, can new optimization systems take less time and be more efficient too?  

Are we getting more high grade material or are we just getting more material that requires more processing ($) to be usable?

Aren't optimization companies and partner mills already hyper-focused on greatest recovery already?

Is there enough meat left on the bone to support investment?  

Where's the niche for the new optimization?  The big mills which may already have optimization or manual mills seeking optimization?  Both will be hard to get established for different reasons.  

Lots to think about.  

Mechanisation is one future, exporting logs to places where labour costs are lower is another. But I don't see much long term joy for anyone dependant on hired labour at low production volumes in the developed world.
 As always when the crunch comes the big guys will get bigger, the little guys will tuck their belts in and survive, and the guys in the middle will get squeezed out.

Technology will always trickle down to the bottom. And for the big guys there will always be upgrades to come 

I'm mindful of that all the time. I'm somewhat niche, but not so niche I live in a vacuum and am not affected by market forces. And I'm big enough that I cannot run without hired help. So my mid term goals are to increase efficiency to improve output per man day while at the same time building in the financial resilience to be able to run hard regardless of short term issues. But those are contradictory requirements so it's going to take some juggling.

(An alternate future has me sitting on the beach with a long cold glass in one hand and my hot babe in the other watching a fishing line, but the sawdust affliction is still too strong for that.) 

I've been in the Automation business for 33 years. I've own my own integration business for 22 years.

1 - what 3d vision system are you looking at?
I've worked with some major brands keyence, cognex and they are not cheap 2 - 5 k or more. I always put a disclaimer in my quotes that have vision. I won't garrentee it will work. To many factor can screw them up, ambient light, environmental etc. Vision was always my last resort. 50% of our vision system end up not working.

2 - how are you going to scan a log? How long is the log? Let say you want to scan a 15' log. Do you move the camera on a 15' slide?

3 - your going to have to rotate the log for the vision system. You ll need an encode to know the 360 degrees of the log compare to what the vision system is seeing.  You ll have to send measurements from the vision system to plc memory. High spots low spots. (Unless you have a way to pass the log thru a 3d scanner and some software on the pc can do your calculations then send a motion profile to a plc or cnc controller, big bucks)

Then you have a huge problem with rotating the log. Ok we have and Encoder. But what if the log slips on the hydraulic rotating and it doesn't match the the Encoder postion to what the vision is seeing.

4 - rotating the log, the mill has hydraulics, you can do positioning with hydraulics but you ll need a specail controller. That's separate programming from the plc .

I've seen steppers motors mention, they are to small to move anything that needs alot of force. You'd have to go to servos. Servos are huge dollars and then you need axis controller cards for the plc. Those aren't cheap either.

Still have the issue of the log slipping and losing your postion. Bark breaking off, wet log, weird shape.

Just a quick mind dumb as I read this thread. I'm retired,  and own a woodmizer LT15 wide. Been milling for a year , sawing lumber for a house me and the Mrs are building.

You'd have 2 to 3 times the cost of a good hydraulic mill just for controls. I really don't think it would work.

Sorry if I'm a buzz kill.

Quote from: longtime lurker on July 05, 2023, 10:40:57 PM
Mechanisation is one future, exporting logs to places where labour costs are lower is another. But I don't see much long term joy for anyone dependant on hired labour at low production volumes in the developed world.
As always when the crunch comes the big guys will get bigger, the little guys will tuck their belts in and survive, and the guys in the middle will get squeezed out.

Technology will always trickle down to the bottom. And for the big guys there will always be upgrades to come

I'm mindful of that all the time. I'm somewhat niche, but not so niche I live in a vacuum and am not affected by market forces. And I'm big enough that I cannot run without hired help. So my mid term goals are to increase efficiency to improve output per man day while at the same time building in the financial resilience to be able to run hard regardless of short term issues. But those are contradictory requirements so it's going to take some juggling.

(An alternate future has me sitting on the beach with a long cold glass in one hand and my hot babe in the other watching a fishing line, but the sawdust affliction is still too strong for that.)

You are so confused. :)

Quote from: Kenb68 on July 07, 2023, 02:26:32 AM
I've been in the Automation business for 33 years. I've own my own integration business for 22 years.

1 - what 3d vision system are you looking at?
I've worked with some major brands keyence, cognex and they are not cheap 2 - 5 k or more. I always put a disclaimer in my quotes that have vision. I won't garrentee it will work. To many factor can screw them up, ambient light, environmental etc. Vision was always my last resort. 50% of our vision system end up not working.

2 - how are you going to scan a log? How long is the log? Let say you want to scan a 15' log. Do you move the camera on a 15' slide?

3 - your going to have to rotate the log for the vision system. You ll need an encode to know the 360 degrees of the log compare to what the vision system is seeing.  You ll have to send measurements from the vision system to plc memory. High spots low spots. (Unless you have a way to pass the log thru a 3d scanner and some software on the pc can do your calculations then send a motion profile to a plc or cnc controller, big bucks)

Then you have a huge problem with rotating the log. Ok we have and Encoder. But what if the log slips on the hydraulic rotating and it doesn't match the the Encoder postion to what the vision is seeing.

4 - rotating the log, the mill has hydraulics, you can do positioning with hydraulics but you ll need a specail controller. That's separate programming from the plc .

I've seen steppers motors mention, they are to small to move anything that needs alot of force. You'd have to go to servos. Servos are huge dollars and then you need axis controller cards for the plc. Those aren't cheap either.

Still have the issue of the log slipping and losing your postion. Bark breaking off, wet log, weird shape.

Just a quick mind dumb as I read this thread. I'm retired,  and own a woodmizer LT15 wide. Been milling for a year , sawing lumber for a house me and the Mrs are building.

You'd have 2 to 3 times the cost of a good hydraulic mill just for controls. I really don't think it would work.

Sorry if I'm a buzz kill.

Very well summarized Kenb68. Obvious that you have "been there".  ;D
Wrestled with these limitations for a good many years. 
One that I recall back in the day, was a system developed to put boat-patches in veneer sheets destined to be face veneer for plywood. Where operators would cookie-cut out defects such as knots to replace with boat-shaped wood plugs to qualify for clear face grade plywood. The system used optics to locate defects at one step on the assembly line, with the second step being the punch to stamp out the defect, and the third station to press the glued-up boat patch in the cut-out.  The system was to be a high-light of a wood manufacturers machinery show to illustrate the advance in automation in the wood industry. Worked to perfection in the building where this system was "invented" and fabricated. But move it to the show in Louisville and under different lighting conditions, defects were located, cut-out punched out, and boat patches pressed in..  however the defects were in one place, the cut-outs in another, and the boat patches pressed into the veneer in another spot. Very embarrassing for the developers and the show featuring this breakthrough. Blamed on the lighting conditions in the show pavilion. 
Just one illustration of what I think Kenb68 is suggesting.

Another might be when brake company out of Michigan years back, purchased a large sawmill complex in California with the thought that they could use their advanced automation techniques producing brake parts to automate the production of wood products. Based on the successful sensing of flaws in brake parts using optics, they launched a several million dollar plan to automate the chop saw process of removing defects from millwork (only the chop saw to begin with, but the rip saws were to be the second stage in the plan). Long story short, the system would locate most of the defects to be chopped out, but some were border-line and would be marked with a light-reflective ink pen which was detected by reflected light. Turned out the only person that could reliably decide what the optical system would miss, was the research tech who developed the "automated" system. He would mark the troublesome defects ahead of the detectors and was referred to as the uhi (upline human intervention). The brake company said they had about 6 million invested because they just knew if it worked for brake cylinders and the like, it surely would work for the easier wood cut-up manufacturing business. 

I think that the fact that someone once failed doing something doesn't make it impossible, just difficult. As technology changes and improves in other fields that technology - some of it, and with modification - will find a home in the wood processing sector. That doesn't mean it will be cheap or trouble free, or even workable. But every failure comes with a series of lessons that can be applied to the next attempt: over and over until you get it right. (and then everyone will say how easy it was and the chinese will infringe your patents but yanno - that's life)

25 years ago the concept of a three axis CNC router being able to cut out a chair complete with inlaid carvings was bound to fail.
50 years ago any band under 6" wide was a toy, and anything under 3" wide was a hobby tool and had no place in the professional wood products sector.
And I'm sure when the first guy tried to hook up an outsize handsaw to a waterwheel that that was never going to work as well. "Just use your broadaxe man and stop wasting time with that foolishness"
It just takes time and a lot of investment for technology to make it from the space shuttle to the front of your car in a workable format.
And there's also some of that story about how the space shuttle design was determined by the width of a horses rump to factor into it as well.

And my feel is that the latter - the width of the horse determining roman roads thus railroad gauges, and railroad guages affecting the size of a part that can fit through a tunnel - is where a lot of the optimisation technology is not transitioning well. Yet. Wood is dynamic and subject to piece by piece factors, and the program doesn't yet know how to register those factors on a consistent basis. But thats just a matter of pattern recognition and picking the appropriate response, absolutely no different to taking in visual information with an eyeball and having experience tell you its going to pull to the left so we need to oversaw that way to compensate.

Along those same lines imagine how different the world would be today if the first guy who looked at a cow and said "I think I am going to drink what comes out of those dangely things" had been looking at a bull.... or the sheer luck of the guy who spotted a chicken and said "the next thing that comes out of that is going to be breakfast", 50/50 odds there.... :D

Well all of those early experimenters had failures, Southside. We just hear the success story. The guy with the first dairy didn't repeat the story of when he milked the bull first, or had the chicken poop omelet. That's why everyone thinks success comes easy😂

Quote from: Southside on July 08, 2023, 12:03:21 AM
Along those same lines imagine how different the world would be today if the first guy who looked at a cow and said "I think I am going to drink what comes out of those dangely things" had been looking at a bull.... or the sheer luck of the guy who spotted a chicken and said "the next thing that comes out of that is going to be breakfast", 50/50 odds there.... :D

To be fair, early humans weren't dumb.  Lot's of critters with less smarts recognise eggs as food, not poop. And "Hey that cows calf is getting a feed there, maybe I can too" isn't a huge leap of logic. Especially when human biology works on the same principle.   :)
Thought experiment about the log scanning. I get what Ken is saying about the practicality. It's currently used in large scale mills where they are basically production lining the sawing. Logs come in a stream and got though a scanning station. Then the computer decides how to set the various saws and edgers on the chain. It takes maybe 60 seconds for multiple saw heads to break down the log, and there are several in the chain at any one time. Multi-million dollar setup. 
But from a smaller mill, what say you loaded the log, then ran a scanner(laser?) down the log, with maybe 3 scanners, on a separate carriage, that's normally parked at the far end of the mill. 3 scan heads should be able to cover 90% of the log as it sits on the bunks, Now you have a good model of the log, size, taper, sweep,and most of the serious defects etc. From there compute your best sawing pattern and carry on. 
Like a lot of things the prototype might cost $1 mil to develop and work out the bugs. But once you do, the actual hardware and computing power is off the shelf, and not out of the question as an add-on for a small sawmill. 

I think this is a great discussion. Everything is doable but is it economical to add to an very expensive control system to a simple band saw? Lip stick on a pig?

So a high end milling system is 6 - 10 mill. Maybe a new mill could be designed that has the Automation that a sawyer could afford that's In the 200- 500k range?

Yes and in time as technology gets better and cheaper this will be doable at a cost effective price.

Does anyone with a lot more sawing experience have ideas to get around the issues i have listed? Let's keep this discussion going.


This is a hydraulic servo postion controller I've used in the past.

Products (https://deltamotion.com/products/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwkqSlBhDaARIsAFJANkgdFAqsBoc81u66H1-QMtYC7YMCQ7OKjrl5BNTnsMcxSkss7d2u8b4aAkmpEALw_wcB)

Ken I think that your post is very informative. The one thing that I would say is that any scanning needs to be done before it gets to the mill. The purpose of this is to speed up the operation. Once the log lands on the mill, the mill needs to be sawing. Not turning the log so it can be scanned.

For indexing it can you just hit it with a spot of "paint" while spinning and scanning?
Are we morphing into more than the op intended?

Quote from: barbender on July 08, 2023, 12:21:49 AM
Well all of those early experimenters had failures, Southside. We just hear the success story. The guy with the first dairy didn't repeat the story of when he milked the bull first, or had the chicken poop omelet. That's why everyone thinks success comes easy😂

Very true BB: it's rare that excellence is achieved without failure along the way. The key is learning from the failure, have an open mind and not give up.

Quote from: Kenb68 on July 07, 2023, 02:26:32 AM
I've been in the Automation business for 33 years. I've own my own integration business for 22 years.

1 - what 3d vision system are you looking at?

2 - how are you going to scan a log? How long is the log? Let say you want to scan a 15' log. Do you move the camera on a 15' slide?

3 - your going to have to rotate the log for the vision system...  You ll have to send measurements... (Unless you have a way to pass the log thru a 3d scanner and some software on the pc can do your calculations then send a motion profile to a plc or cnc controller, big bucks)

Then you have a huge problem with rotating the log. Ok we have and Encoder. But what if the log slips on the hydraulic rotating and it doesn't match the the Encoder postion to what the vision is seeing.

4 - rotating the log, the mill has hydraulics, you can do positioning with hydraulics but you ll need a specail controller. That's separate programming from the plc .

I've seen steppers motors mention, they are to small to move anything that needs alot of force. You'd have to go to servos. Servos are huge dollars and then you need axis controller cards for the plc. Those aren't cheap either.

Still have the issue of the log slipping and losing your postion. Bark breaking off, wet log, weird shape.

Just a quick mind dumb as I read this thread. I'm retired,  and own a woodmizer LT15 wide. Been milling for a year , sawing lumber for a house me and the Mrs are building.

You'd have 2 to 3 times the cost of a good hydraulic mill just for controls. I really don't think it would work.

Sorry if I'm a buzz kill.

Re buzz kill: Not at all. I have considered all of these broadly already, but you mentioned some details that I had not, which is good.

1. The idea is that I'm going to use laser triangulation myself. It's just matrix algebra plus distortion correction. I hadn't considered what a problem ambient light could be, but since the laser is monochromatic it would be easy to pre-filter by hue to increase the contrast. Edge detection would then go a long way.

2. I would plan to scan as long a log that fits on the mill bed. If they've got material handling then that would make lineal scanning with a single laser simple, otherwise I can use as many lasers they want slices over the saw mill bed.

3. Yes, if I can control the hydraulics then I can rotate the log. Of course, that's problem 4. Since the PC and PLC can talk then where the computation happens isn't that big a deal, the software can handle that. Slippage can be corrected for in software. I have not tested it yet, but I have a couple ideas for how to do that.

4. Can you tell me some more details about the separate controller for hydraulics? What about the system would preclude using the same PLC? Thanks.

Quote from: Ianab on July 05, 2023, 03:37:36 AM
Problem is that making an uneconomic job 5 or 10% more efficient probably doesn't make it economic. You can saw low value softwood construction lumber with any sawmill, but is it worth it? Probably is if it's your logs, and you need the lumber because you have cut out multiple middlemen.  But if you are buying logs, and trying to sell the lumber wholesale? Deduct your operating costs and maybe you are making $5 an hour, or less. Better to go and flip burgers, and save the overhead expenses and wear on the equipment.

But there are two things that make the system's value more than $0.50/hr:
1. To convert a given % decrease in expenses to % increase in profits, you'll have to divide by the profit margin. Since margins are low in milling, that works in automation's favor. By some back of the envelope calculations this could bump $5/hr up to $9/hr. Still not economical yet, but...
2. Automation means that while the mill is cutting your logs you can be doing other stuff, so there's much less labor cost. Right now I don't think Wood-Mizer makes hardware that can align flitches with edger blades, but if so then that would cut out the majority of labor for making green lumber. I don't have experience working in a sawmill, so these labor times are estimates based off of videos I've watched and other forum threads I've read.
Before

• Purchasing (~20 min / mbf)
• Storing and loading to log deck (~10 min / mbf)
• Milling to flitches (2 hr / mbf)
• Edging (1 hr / mbf)
• Stacking and selling (1.5 hr / mbf)

After

• Purchasing
• Storing and loading to log deck
• Milling
• Edging
• Stacking and selling

Going from 5 hr to 2 hr would move $9/hr to $22.50/hr, which seems to be within the realm of profitability.

Woodmizer's  EA3000 Edger system is an optimized system.

https://youtu.be/HPDaRd7JfPg (https://youtu.be/HPDaRd7JfPg)

The Forest Service has considerable research on optimizing smaller mills.  Here's one paper from 2011

https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_lin_001.pdf (https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_lin_001.pdf)

There's room for improvement but much has already been done.  Sizing up the competition is important.

Cooper is only one company with an end dogging mill carriage.  What how the logs are skewed to dog the centers of each end.  

https://www.coopermachine.com/Our-Products/123/Skewing-Overhead (https://www.coopermachine.com/Our-Products/123/Skewing-Overhead)

McDonough, USNR, TS Manufacturing and others have systems.  

Send a cant from a twin saw like that to a curve sawing gang and all you need is an optimized edger.  

In less than a minute a log can be broken down and boards headed to the grade station, trim saw and sorter.  Each stage has to be optimized and automated. 

Then there's HewSaw

https://youtu.be/7_Qcilfc8jk (https://youtu.be/7_Qcilfc8jk)

Eh, what's $150 million amongst friends?  :D

Bring your logs we will have a sawing party!   :D

Just pointing out that there's not much meat left on the bone with modern optimization. 

As a small sawmiller...

Optimisation during log processing isn't really of interest to me personally ( although I see beyond myself to the production side of the business where it does apply). I've already got a scanning system that can not only scan the outside of a log and integrate with the log turner to present the best face but has the ability to deviate from the initial sawing pattern as sawing progresses based on progressive scanning and a quality feedback loop as the log is broken down.

I've got a processor that can assimilate all that information running on about 0.2% of it's capacity, if that. A large part of the processor capacity is either on standby, or engaged in fish/beer/boob analysis programs during sawing operations.

My eyes and my brain outrun my sawing equipment by a mile. I'm not exactly stressed thinking about what size to cut next or how to get best recovery because I am yet to see a machine that can match my ability. And I've got enough seat time that it all happens with minimal input beyond push the lever pull the lever.

And that's why I am sceptical about small mill optimisation: At the speed we process logs I got this. Now if I had something like an R250 Hewsaw that would change, and I would be the limiting factor on the machine and optimising systems would make sense. But I don't have that type of saw and if I did I wouldn't have enough log volume to keep it fed for more than a week each year.

Optimised edgers are however of interest to me.

 But the automation that will improve my business is more along the lines of replacing grunt labour behind the saws. It ain't sawing that limits production here -  it's stacking wood, sweeping floors, grease guns, sawdust bunkers, customer liaison, account management, and the admin burden eating into my week that limit sawing time. And the thing is I like sawing, I don't want to reduce my time on the saw to do more of the stuff I dislike.

I believe in the tech. I believe it's the future. But imma be a holdout when it comes to implementation until such time as it can do better quality - not just bigger volume - than me.

Quote from: SawyerTed on July 09, 2023, 03:13:57 PM
Woodmizer's  EA3000 Edger system is an optimized system.

https://youtu.be/HPDaRd7JfPg (https://youtu.be/HPDaRd7JfPg)

The Forest Service has considerable research on optimizing smaller mills.  Here's one paper from 2011

https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_lin_001.pdf (https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_lin_001.pdf)

There's room for improvement but much has already been done.  Sizing up the competition is important...

1. That's fantastic. I notice that there are only two blades on that edger. But if you're cutting something that's slightly over 10" wide and a 2x10 isn't an option, then it'd be nice to have the capabilities to cut a 2x4 and a 2x6.

2. Actually, I can see that the paper already mentioned some possible improvements:

QuoteAccuracy of the log sawing simulation is limited because a circular cross-section model is used to represent real logs.

That would definitely leave a lot of wood on the table since they aren't optimizing for the actual shape, which I already do in 2D and can extend to 3D.

QuoteAll flitches produced from logs were edged to remove wanes

That would be an easy fix to make the optimizer adaptable to wanes.

I also think that using an exhaustive search is feasible instead of dynamic programming. Computer speed has improved in the 12 years since that was published.

Quote from: cxsmith on July 10, 2023, 01:27:50 AM1. That's fantastic. I notice that there are only two blades on that edger. But if you're cutting something that's slightly over 10" wide and a 2x10 isn't an option, then it'd be nice to have the capabilities to cut a 2x4 and a 2x6.

Generally if you can saw a 2x12 vs a 3 2x4s, it's worth more. Take the 2x4s from where you can't get anything bigger. The mill can always take a wide board and rip it down to a smaller dimension with a thin kerf re-saw if they more need material to fill an order. 

The HewSaw is a good demo of how optimisation works, Logs seem to be scanned twice in that system. Once on the way in, and the log then rotated for best results. And then again once two outside slabs have been trimmed off, possibly to judge grade of the logs (how many knots?) and make another decision there. But it's a 3d scan, as can be seen on the screen shots, hence the rotation to get the best solution with sweep and butt flare accounted for. 

As others point out, with a small sawmill us meat-sack brains have the processing power to look at a log and get a decent solution, even adjusting cutting patterns on the fly as we see the exposed cuts. With a HewSaw i'd get brain fade after a couple of minutes and production would suffer. But it does show the level of optimisation that's possible with current tech. 

Adapting that to a smaller operation is the issue. How much would it cost, and how much benefit would it bring? Asking those questions isn't silly. 

I am also reminded of the tale of a highly automated factory. It could be operated by one man and a dog. The man was just there to keep an eye on things, and the dog was trained to bite him if he messed with any of the controls. :D

Quote1. That's fantastic. I notice that there are only two blades on that edger. But if you're cutting something that's slightly over 10" wide and a 2x10 isn't an option, then it'd be nice to have the capabilities to cut a 2x4 and a 2x6.

Also, in addition to Ianab post, mills have the return lines to follow up on additional recovery after the 2-saw operation. 
Breakdown of a log into cants of flitches, then further processing taking the best available and then making a new decision for the next "best available". Some refer to it as a merry-go-round. 

Quote from: cxsmith on July 10, 2023, 01:27:50 AM

Quote from: SawyerTed on July 09, 2023, 03:13:57 PM
Woodmizer's  EA3000 Edger system is an optimized system.

https://youtu.be/HPDaRd7JfPg (https://youtu.be/HPDaRd7JfPg)

The Forest Service has considerable research on optimizing smaller mills.  Here's one paper from 2011

https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_lin_001.pdf (https://www.nrs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/jrnl/2011/nrs_2011_lin_001.pdf)

There's room for improvement but much has already been done.  Sizing up the competition is important...

1. That's fantastic. I notice that there are only two blades on that edger. But if you're cutting something that's slightly over 10" wide and a 2x10 isn't an option, then it'd be nice to have the capabilities to cut a 2x4 and a 2x6.

All it takes is money...

And a bottle of antacid when one thing gets out of time with those systems......Mayhem incoming...

Case in point 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3FwsZoedI (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ3FwsZoedI)

Yep!  When big machines go bad, they go bad BIG!   :D :o :o :D

Quote from: Ianab on July 10, 2023, 05:55:21 AM...Adapting that to a smaller operation is the issue. How much would it cost, and how much benefit would it bring? Asking those questions isn't silly...

Quote from: SawyerTed on July 10, 2023, 11:28:15 AMAll it takes is money...

In response to both of you I think it could be done far more cheaply that many think. The customer supplies their own mill. In return, you need a scanner, a PLC, switching electronics (eg power transistors for PLC signal to stepper motors), a PC, and a hydraulics control card. My goal is to implement a scanner with off-the-shelf hardware. PLCs cost, what, $200 for a decent one? Switching electronics could be assembled off the shelf. The PC I'm already renting on the cloud. So that just leaves the hydraulics control. Those don't look cheap, but it definitely wouldn't be a multi-million dollar buildout. Or even more than ten thousand. I think that could put it easily within reach of a small mill.

cxsmith
Go for it. We'll cheer you on. Help along the way if we can, and I sincerely hope you succeed.  

What is your next move? Any wrinkles needing ironed out?

Quote from: beenthere on July 11, 2023, 12:32:56 AM
cxsmith
Go for it. We'll cheer you on. Help along the way if we can, and I sincerely hope you succeed.  

What is your next move? Any wrinkles needing ironed out?

Thanks! My next move is from Alabama to California. Unfortunately my car is already gone or I'd offer Yellowhammer a very nice lunch to pick his brain. I've got more confidence in my product's fit now, and when it's more developed I'd be happy to make good offers to early adopters.

QuoteMy next move is from Alabama to California.

:D :D
Not what I meant by "next move", but you did take me literally and is what I asked.  8)

Quote from: beenthere on July 12, 2023, 01:53:23 AM...Not what I meant by "next move", but you did take me literally and is what I asked.  8)

Right, sorry that was a way too oblique way for me to say I was putting it on hold while I get settled in to my new home. But now that I'm done moving I think I'll investigate which make of mills would be easiest to attach a controller to. Again, thanks everyone for the information, I think things are a lot clearer for me now.