Simplified log cabin build idea

Going back to the original concept, what would be the easiest way to get longer logs with two flats? Mike mentions the limit of the length with a portable mill. I thought an Alaskan style mill might be workable for this, but shopping around they seem to max out about the same as portable bandsaw mills, well under 20'. Can they be hacked to work longer logs, or would this be a matter of hand hewing or 'freehand' chainsawing? I'm not sure if the 'spacer' method from the ProjectHighlander videos works on long logs, I'm only through the first video there...

FWIW - the early 60's cabin on our 'compound' is stacked from logs slabbed on two sides with a sawmill, as is my junky little icehouse. Was somewhat common around here.
Logs can of course be hewn, long ones harder to hew straight of course.

The prefab rail setup for the first cut is the limiting length for a Granberg type mill. I avoided this type of equipment for the cost and length limitation. I use a setup of string, nails, level and sliding board. I have milled well over 20ft lengths with my chainsaw.
If it interests anyone, I can create a drawing of how this works.

Sound like this would be of interest:

https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/title/short-log-timber-building/author/mitchell-james/
Post and beam style building in which two side milled short logs are stacked as infill  between 'pilasters'/posts kind of like a cinder block fence.

I have an old copy, belonged to my father, very nice.

Tommy Bolin wrote:The prefab rail setup for the first cut is the limiting length for a Granberg type mill. I avoided this type of equipment for the cost and length limitation. I use a setup of string, nails, level and sliding board. I have milled well over 20ft lengths with my chainsaw.
If it interests anyone, I can create a drawing of how this works.

It would be interesting to see how you do it, to compare with the Will Malloff method (which I posted in 3 chunks), upthread.

FWIW, Malloff has instructions for scratch building a DIY Granberg style mill from short lengths of 2X lumber, threaded rod and whatnot.  He also offers suggestions for modifying and improvicating a bought chainsaw mill.

I reiterate that this book is worth tracking down.

And I agree, Mitchell's book is worth a perusal, too.  I have the same edition as you, though a more recent printing under a slightly different title exists.

Steve Zoma wrote:
I know it would seem a sawmill make a flat cut, but that is not the case. A lot of forces are at play, and a lot of different densities play into the cut. Cut a log with some knots and the sawblade deflects rising and falling. Or the weight of the log compresses the frame of the sawmill so that as a cut is made, you end up with a deeper cut in the middle of the log than the ends. It is just impossible to make a flat cut with a sawmill, that is why all commercial wood is put through a planer, at least on one side.

May be true of a bandsaw mill, with a new operator, not true of a circular mill or chainsaw.
Both produce, with some skill, perfectly flat lumber. Commercial lumber is cut oversized to allow for shrinkage, dried, then planed to consistent thickness, all sides, slightly rounded edges.

As for the rest, matter of taste and skill, access to materials, cost, and time.

Coydon Wallham wrote:Going back to the original concept, what would be the easiest way to get longer logs with two flats?.

Here's a Swedish language text I found which shows a splice in logs, with a simple bevel on the adjoining ends, and a peg or dowel to secure each to the log below (which is part of the method, anyway).  Page 3 of the PDF (numbered page 24 of the original document) shows the splice, and the relevant paragraph says this (with free help from an online OCR of the screen grab, and Google Translate):

"Log splicing

Log splicing was practiced when it was desired to make walls longer than the logs available. For example, the logs were spliced ​​alternately on one or the other side of a partition wall joint or in some other way that did not weaken the wall as a whole. Joints of several logs in line above each other do not occur. When such are found, they result from a reconstruction or extension."

The caption under the left hand photo says that the logs are cut at an angle to the wood fiber, or some such.  I did not do a the screen grab/OCR/translate routine on that, but that seems to be the sense of it.

I've included the entire file, as I encountered it.  The file name indicates that it is something along the lines of a "compendium" of "building maintenance" (maybe more like conservation - as I've alluded to previously, I don't "do" Swedish, even if I end up looking at lots of resources in languages I don't quite understand, if at all).  I found this when was looking for details on the use of the old fashioned blacksmiths log scribe (timmerdrag or dragjarn), but it also has this discussion of a method of splicing.  I don't know what is the original provenance of this material.

On edit: I was searching for the log scribing info because I just bought a used log scribe of this type off eBay very cheaply from a seller in Wisconsin.  We'll see what I receive, but it looks functional in the photos. I already have a Veritas transfer scribe (also acquired used from eBay), but the traditional style is very robust, though more limited in its uses and dimensional range.  I need to better understand the methods necessary and appropriate to each.  I intend to do some timber framing this summer, and am anticipating some log construction within the next year or two, if all goes according to Hoyle.

Kevin Olson wrote:Enduring Scandinavian structures were also commonly built with Scotch pine logs which had dried down on the stump.  Ring bark the tree, either just below the crown (seems to have been preferred, even if more difficult - shinnying up 30 meters or so without the benefit of modern safety gear would be a bit perilous) or girdle at the base of the tree, and let it die on the stump, or skin off bark with a long-handled spud blade, either in strips or patches up the length of the stem.  The intent of both approaches is to turn the entire stem into resinous "fat wood", so that it is completely saturated with hardened pine pitch.  It could require up to 3 years to do the process properly so that the log was ready to harvest.

Following up on a different vein, do any of your sources expand on this process?

Coydon Wallham wrote:Following up on a different vein, do any of your sources expand on this process?

Herman Phleps discusses it briefly, and a couple of other authors mention it in passing.

The most comprehensive discussion of the techniques I've found yet is on this forum:
https://permies.com/t/153721/Ringbarking-Bl-king

You might also try searching for "ore-pine", which is the dried-on-the-stump product of such a process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ore-pine

There are other techniques which were used historically when harvesting deciduous trees.  Most of those seemed to focus on when the trees were harvested (typically both by solar and lunar "signs" - winter and some particular lunar phase), and due care in seasoning the harvested logs.  Some, like oak, may need to be worked green in the interest of practicality - well cured oak is hard and tough, and may have been stretching the capabilities of man and tool to be worked at scale - but others such as poplar or lime (basswood, here in the Old Northwest colloquial nomenclature) are fairly workable, even when well dried.  Until fairly recently, the US Navy still had oak submerged in water as "naval stores".

I am not really "up" on all of this.  I am still learning, even though my grandfather probably could have told me quite a bit about how things were done "in the Old Country" - in this case, Sweden - had I cared to ask when he was still alive.

The methods for harvesting coniferous trees require the woodlot owner to be on-board.  This process requires more pre-planning and patience than most people can muster, these days (we have instant everything - I am as guilty of this as anyone).  It looks like the harvester is just "killing trees", and the process will require several years before the tree can be harvested, during which time the dying tree will be unsightly and sickly looking, reflecting poorly on the woodlot owner to the uninformed and casual passerby.  If it's your woodlot, and you don't give two figs what anyone thinks, then that may be a moot point.

Tommy Bolin wrote:Going back to the original concept, what would be the easiest way to get longer logs with two flats?

I spotted this a few weeks ago at the reconstructed/reimagined Fort Clatsop in Oregon, where the Lewis and Clark Voyage of Discovery wintered over on the West Coast.

I asked the docent (pictured here astride the shave horse) if this was an authentic method of construction, and he allowed that they don't have explicit and detailed notes on the method of construction employed in the original, but this iteration (following one which had burned down a few years ago) is more plausible, given that these are shorter logs, and therefore more manageable, given the resources and manpower available, whereas the incinerated version had used full length logs down the sides, which was rather unlikely.  The several log pens are similarly offset, such that all of the pens down the length of each side of the Fort are about the same width, though they vary in length.  The cross walls were full width (with doorways between some pens), but short stub walls - perhaps with ends shaped/contoured to some eye-pleasing profile or curve to give the sense of an arch - with or without a header log would seem to be structurally possible and would permit varied floor plans and alternative uses of the space.

Though worked out in round logs, here, I can't see why this wouldn't also work for logs with 2 flatted sides.

I also snapped a few photos of joinery details at the Japanese Garden in Portland, but those don't belong in this thread, though I'll try to find a suitable place to share them.  I would have shared these sooner, but my phone has been on the fritz.