Baronyx: optimized brush clearing from a... smatchet?

That's what it looks like - unfortunately the picture won't link, but it looks like a smatchet with a small hook/rhino horn added, about where the eyes would be if the blade as a fish.

Baronyx is known as a seller of Condor, Mora and similar "value" knives, and is known for offering regrinds and general tweaking. This design of his own has obviously been very carefully thought out:

Quote

[www.baryonyxknife.com]

Scheduled for 2013 release!

The Baryonyx, meaning "heavy claw", is a hefty machete-like tool designed with North American temperate zones especially in mind. In the rugged and variegated Maine woods you never know if you'll have to clear a path through a raspberry thicket or take down an oak tree, and this chopper was designed to handle everything in between! This prototype version features an 1/8" (3mm) thick blade, rather than the 2mm thickness intended for a final product, and so is 1.5x the heft of a production version. Features a lovely mottled natural patina.

Designer: Benjamin P. Bouchard

Steel: Admiral 1075 High Carbon

Blanks: Cut by Great Lakes Water Jet

Heat Treatment: Professionally Heat Treated by Peters' Heat Treat, Inc. to 54 RC

Scales & Edges: Ground and Fit by Darrin Sanders



Every aspect of the design has been given careful attention:

~The broad blade (4.6" at its widest point!) concentrates mass directly behind the cutting edge to generate massive, axe-like chopping power--making quick work of even the heaviest targets!

~The back hook holds light, flexible materials against the cutting edge, cutting like a scythe through grasses and brambles.

~When held with the hook forward, the weight of the blade is trailing behind the swing, helping to generate the velocity needed for effective cutting of light targets!

~The point of the hook may be used as a pick for chipping ice or loosening soil!

~The "V" between the two edges may be used as an extension of the arm to push brush out of your way!

~The un-edged spine of the point provides a striking surface for batoning the Baryonyx to split wood, and doubles as a handhold for use as a draw knife!

~All un-edged parts of the blade are rounded for comfort in a variety of grips!

~The long handle allows for a two-handed grip for when increased chopping power is needed, and is symmetrical so that either edge may be held facing forward depending on the needs of the operator!

They have quite a number of video's on the blade, chopping :

[www.youtube.com]

hits with a lot of power, but tends to bind significantly, likely due to the flat stock + edge bevel :

[www.youtube.com]

the recurve on the hook :

[www.youtube.com]

a little splitting :

[www.youtube.com]

and again :

[www.youtube.com]

this looks awkward, it really needs a differential grind :

[www.youtube.com]

everyone's favorite :

[www.youtube.com]

Unfortunately they tend to censor YT comments. I watched all these video's awhile ago and there were people noting on issues with performance and all such comments are not removed. It isn't a good sign when a maker/manufacturer takes this approach.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2013 11:13PM by CliffStamp.

Quote
CliffStamp
hits with a lot of power, but tends to bind significantly, likely due to the flat stock + edge bevel :

Is it less than 1/4" at the spine?

The one in the video is 1/8", they noted in some of the comments they may try thinner stock as there are concerns with weight.

The whole idea and design isn't really bad, but it seems to me that it's way too big and heavy. The guy's always using it with both hands, but for a two handed cleaver, the handle is too short (to really have control and get benefit from the weight, there should be room for at least 3.5 hands on the shaft, IMO). Obviously, he can't use it with just one hand, and considering the size of it, there's no surprise.

Also, there is really a serious binding issue, and that's due to the flat stock blade. Such a large blade should have tapers (both distal and widthwise, ie real grinds), and maybe even fullers (FFG on such a wide blade may result in too low grind angles for that type of tool, or too thick blade, fullers would help keep angle, thickness and weight decent).

Also, it seems the designer didn't quite understood one of the advantages of the curved tip of a billhook, which is to work near rocky soil witout damaging the point and edge. Due to the configuration of the blade, if work close to the ground has to be done, it's done with the smatchet side, and it's very likely the tip will get damaged. On the other hand, when using the billhook side to clear light vegetation, the back/spine of the smatchet side tip may get in the way and avoid deep penetration in dense and springy brambles and stems.

It's a nice try, but, IMO, it should have stayed a prototype, to fix what's wrong, and enhance what works, also make clear choices (two handed cleaver, or one handed chopper?). Having squeezed my brain out to try to think of a better kind of survival tool than traditionnal billhooks, I appreciate the ingeniosity and thoughts put in that design, but on the other hand, as it doens't seem to work well, it reinforce me in my opinion that one does not easily overcome the performances of a design proven by centuries of hard use, especially when labor cost increased hugely, practically out ruling interesting solutions such as forging.

Well, this is depressing! The guy picked a genuinely useful roll for a knife, thought about the problems carefully.... then came up with solutions that don't work very well and ignored feedback from people and his own experiments. So it goes!

Quote
Madnumforce
... in my opinion that one does not easily overcome the performances of a design proven by centuries of hard use

It is odd really that at times makers/manufacturers do not look at the designs which are used in working tools and ask a few questions :

-why are they made the way they are
-are there any parts which are not performance related (cultural, historical, visual, etc.)
-are there modern methods, materials which could improve the design
-are the roles the same now as they were then for the tool, if not how do we adapt it

These are all basic approaches to engineering prototyping and it is curious that they are ignored and often what happens is :

-this looks cool, lets make one of them
-use modern materials regardless of the property differences
-modify it to current branding (full tang, thick stock, etc.)
-the "speed hole" approach to design, (paint it black to make it tactical for example)

A lot of this comes down to the frank and brutal truth that the use of knives as tools often takes a back seat to the use of knives as collector pieces. Now there is nothing wrong with that but it clouds the issue at times because the ability often gets questioned but the ability is never really critical to the piece anyway.

My first post here, and I know this post is now months old, but I wanted to chime in and correct a few misconceptions here.

Let me start by saying that I fully welcome constructive criticism--indeed, I consider unbiased and objective critique to be the very most important thing for a designer to hear!

In terms of comments I had removed from the videos, it was because the criticism was NOT constructive or of any value. The language was crude and inappropriate and reeked of trolling. However I still took the time to reply to those comments and left my responses up even though I knew full well it would make said comment removal apparent. I have no problem with criticism, but I won't abide by people being outright rude. It's simply not necessary and gets in the way of truly meaningful discussion of design and performance.

I've taken down the original videos as well, chiefly because now that I have a pre-production sample in hand the videos of the original prototype misrepresent the concept. In fact, they misrepresented it before, but it was the best I had. People consistently failed to comprehend (despite my repeated explanation) that the thickness was too great, and the tang/handle material too heavy. This was because I was limited in my materials and construction methods when doing the prototyping. 1/8" stock was the thinnest I could find 1075 in in the width that I needed, while the concept was based around a 2- to 2.5mm-thick blade as compared to the slightly over 3mm thickness of the available stock. Not having access to the injection molding equipment intended for use with the final version I had to go with a full profile tang to simplify construction even though it bulked up weight on that end of the tool.

Meanwhile, the public at large was really liking the idea of the 1/8" thickness in spite of the fact that I really wanted it thinner. Just to make sure I was making the right decision I had Condor do up samples in both 1/8" and the 2.2mm I zeroed in on as my own desired thickness. Upon receipt of the samples I tested them against each other and it was no contest. The 2.2mm thickness actually bit deeper and shaved a TON off of the weight. Here are some stats:

Original Prototype (1/8" stock with full profile tang and micarta scales)
Weight: 2lbs, 7.4oz
Point of Balance: 4.5" forward of top of handle
Total Weight w/Sheath: 3.16lbs

1/8" Sample
Weight: 2lbs, 2.8oz (4.6oz or 0.2875lb weight reduction)
Point of Balance: 5" forward of top of handle (1/2" increase in PoB distance)
Total Weight w/Sheath: 2.875lbs

2.2mm (~3/32") Sample
Weight: 1lb, 10.2oz (13.2oz or 0.825lb weight reduction)
Point of Balance: 4" forward of top of handle (1" reduction in PoB distance)
Total Weight w/Sheath: 2.34lbs

Sheath
Weight: 11.2oz

The weight reduction improved handling, massively reduced fatigue, improved ease of carry, and increased potential target penetration during the cut, while only taking a minor performance hit in the splitting/batoning department, which is mostly a moot point since there are excellent techniques compatible with the design for very effectively fashioning wooden wedges for larger targets, and it still splits small stuff for kindling without much challenge. It was a no brainer--popular desires be damned, I was going with the 2.2mm like I had originally intended.



Regarding Madnumforce's comments:
First off, nice seeing you here, man! However, I think you've missed a few aspects of the design or were misled by the old videos.

The design was never intended to be as heavy as the original prototype was, which was why it was often being used two-handed most of the time. I can't even begin to express how irritating it was for me when looking for thinner stock--everything I could find thinner than 1/8" was too narrow! And in that wide of a profile, even a small increase in thickness makes for a big jump in weight.

As far as the binding was concerned, much of that was due to the log I was chopping being unanchored and the log itself being so wide, making for a lot of material gripping the blade and then the motion that would normally free the blade caused the log to simply roll instead. It was a poor video ultimately, which was an error on my part. Under more realistic use it doesn't bind nearly so much, and under circumstances where it would be more likely to stick the curvature of the edge is designed to facilitate a slight draw cut during the chop to drastically reduce binding. A full flat grind would be unrealistic with the design, for the reasons you mentioned as well as cost, as one of the goals with the design was to keep the end product affordable and accessible.

And I fully realize that ONE of the advantages of some (not all!) billhooks is being able to cut towards rocky ground without damaging the tip, but I would argue that it's one of the very least important advantages that billhooks possess. There are countless ways to safely tackle those sorts of targets/cuts, so simply adapting your technique is all that's necessary. The only times I've ever had to truly worry about tip damage around rocky targets was when I've been indiscriminately clearing large patches of briars growing over densely rocky ground, in which case I'd choose a better tool, like a brush axe (providing the option to choose is available.) In terms of the spine of the primary point hindering travel of the hook, I took that into account. The tip is deliberately proportioned in tandem with the amount of projection of the hook so that all it takes is a slight angulation of the tool for the edge of the hook to "eclipse" the primary point when drawn through vegetation.

Regarding thiswayup's comments:
I certainly did NOT ignore other people's comments, and in my own experiments the present version of the tool performs exactly as intended. Is it a perfect solution to all circumstances? Certainly not. But we all know that multi-functional tools are all about balancing tradeoffs. I personally think that I balanced the tradeoffs with this tool in a way to make it versatile, effective, and affordable, but I don't plan on just taking my own word for it. I'll be doing a bunch of passarounds once I get the first production run in.

Here are a couple of quick-and-dirty clips I took this morning.

[www.youtube.com]

[www.youtube.com]

Just be sure to read the descriptions on them--I have some extra info in there. Again, folks are welcome to draw their own conclusions from it and I welcome the input. I just know it does what I wanted it to, so I'm happy with the results! Lots of other tricks up its sleeves, too, but more on those later.

2.2mm? That sounds sweet! I still have some reservation, mainly about the size and shape of the hook (I'm a big fan of the roncola bergamo shape, I've found to be very efficient and versatile), but I still think it's a good idea. And with that thinner stock, which now makes it closer to a machete, it will surely gain efficiency compared to your heavier former version. But the handle seems quite simple, you could probably have it CNC machined for not much I guess.

It's injection-molded polypropylene using a pre-existing mold that they had, so no changes there. However, it's very easy to carve polypropylene if you wish to alter it within the confines of the original form. I didn't want to go with a longer handle on it anyhow, however, as I wanted to keep the size small enough that you could toss it in an average sized pack with only a little bit of handle sticking out through the zipper. It'll fit completely inside a large pack.

I've got some billhook concepts as well as long-handled concepts that I hope to pursue in future, but they'll have to wait for the moment since I have to get these to market first! :p

That is a sweet design. Can't wait to see more of your stuff. And welcome to the forum

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
zujostix (Youtube)

You better watch that first chopping demo. The UCP (unsupported chopping phenomenon) will break any knife.

It's prone towards introducing lateral strain on the edge if care isn't taken--yes. Hence I was careful to avoid the phenomenon while doing the chopping. If the ground weren't so wet and it didn't look silly on camera I would either be chopping the lower end instead or sitting with a leg wrapped around the workpiece to hold it stabile.

Sarcasm doesnt convey well through text.

Hahaha--ok. Gotcha'.

Well, it's true the video isn't the best demonstration of the tool's performances. Such a blade can bite really deep, and with a better setup (both for the chopping and for the video, which is taken from too far away), you could show it clearly. Get people excited about your Baryonyx Machete (by the way you could find it a catchy name), damnit! Make them drool in impatience of holding the knife and chopping with it! Make a better video!

Quote
FortyTwoBlades

In terms of comments I had removed from the videos, it was because the criticism was NOT constructive or of any value.

Here is the thing, once you start removing comments because you do not think the criticism is of any value you are censoring peer review to suit what you think is of value and what is not, that defeats the entire purpose as it is simply reflecting your views.

I had comments on those videos which were removed, now I can understand you don't / didn't agree with them - that is fine, but once you remove them I certainly am not going to have any further interest in the product.

Not everyone just fires off random comments, some people take the time to review, think and offer perspectives, when you remove their comments you are removing the time/effort they took and showing little appreciation for it.

There are pretty severe issues with the latest "heavy chopping" video as well, but again why would I bother to discuss that given past events.

I realize you are trying to craft a particular image/performance, but I would suggest you really take a look at the effects of inviting people to discuss a product and then removing their discussion and then asking them later to do the same thing.

My apologies, but they were outdated videos that did not accurately represent the intended final product, neither at the time of filming nor at the present date. They were more of a suggestion of the concept--at the time the design was being submitted to Condor for consideration for their own line. It would have replaced the Beaver Tail had they not scaled back releases this year.By all means please do provide whatever input you see fit. If you're disinclined to do so at this point I can understand, but while I may have removed the videos it had nothing to do with your comments. The comments I had actively removed literally had no critical value whatsoever. They were rife with inappropriate language and devoid of any actual reasoning. If memory serves correctly it was all from only one user and they were basically just calling me stupid infantile names because they could hear me breathing in one of the clips. Like I said--trolling.

At any rate, you're welcome to your opinion of both me and my design regardless of if that opinion is positive, negative, or neutral. I've just been trying to make the representation of the tool as realistic as possible, and sometimes that means replacing outdated material. If you want to read that as censorship I can't stop you, but it's not my intention.

Just uploaded this clip. Again, take what you will from it.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxaH9CT9oXM&feature=youtu.be[/video]

I agree with you about replacing outdated videos, especially considering how few control you have in Youtube (the oldest videos have much more views, so they're likely to be suggested more often and on a higher rank than up to date videos). Nevertheless I wouldn't delete them, just not list them publicly so they can't be suggested by Youtube, but still keep them available with a direct link. I believe that can be done by setting the videos private, and Youtube still gives you an URL to watch it and share it.

Same, I follow you on the realistic representation, but IMO there's nothing bad with looking after your image composition. For exemple in that last video you posted here, because of your position and the camera position, we can't get hold on the penetration in the wood. We see a guy chopping, but get no real usefull information on the tool performance. Where is the knife porn? Chips flying to the camera? Noises of the wood cracking and the blade squeeking when removed? The typical dull "thump" sound of a blade penetrating neetly in the wood? These are things that makes a video exciting, or at least entertaining. This is knife porn. It's important to play with that, especially if you're past the prototype level and reach for small serie production.

The thing seems rather large though, it wasn't obvious in the previous video.

Keep it up!

That's the thing, though--if I zoom in and get it all super close up you can't see the entire picture, and since I'm just using a DSLR to record the clips I can't use a remote to control the zoom mid-take. In my mind it's better for you to see my whole body and surroundings so you can take my specific motions and obstacles into account when viewing the chopping progress. And in terms of the chopping itself, you just have to look at the size of the tree vs. the time it takes to progress through the felling process. However, if you want chips flying and the like I do have this older clip up.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K862AoUca0c[/video]

It was taken literally the same day I received the sample in the mail, though, so there's a lot of binding due to the amount of power applied and not being accustomed to the thinner stock just yet. It's impressive in terms of the chips flying and all of that, but I'm not very pleased with my (not the tool's) performance in it. I could have done better--I was seeing how deep of raw penetration I could get out of each chop instead of focusing on overall task performance. I should have been using a little less force and using a slight draw cut and the binding would have been brought to a minimum.

FortyTwoBlades, tools like this, at least tools for the purposes the videos are showing, works with speed – not with force.

This means that the wrist is more important than the arm – and that the little finger is very important because it holds the tool, and the other fingers just steer the tool so that it hits exactly where you like it to hit - perfectly balanced so that all its speed/weight is concentrated to its edge – and it will go deep in to the wood. Just a few degrees wrong angle and the friction stop the edge to go deep in to the wood –and the edge can chip because of the unbalanced hit.

The person on this movies use force instead of speed. The complete swing he does, from the start to the hit, is in full force with a lot of muscle power – and that is not effective because he have no control of how the blade hits the wood. A perfect hit is when the edge hits perfectly balanced to the center of the complete blade.

The person like to show how good his tool works, but, he use force, not speed, and he chops on the wood in the wrong places = the blow of the edge, with all its power, makes the wood he hits go in the blows direction = the edge do not penetrate deep in to the wood. (Of the same reason a blacksmith use a big anvil to work on – it does not move when he hit with his hammer).

If you use force and try to add more muscle power, you can only add very little power – and – when you use muscle power, the speed will decrease = force will get the result that the edge do not penetrate deep. The same tool with speed and less muscle power - will penetrate much deeper.

A small axe head weights at least half a kilo, the handle is at least half a meter. Put speed behind the axe head and it will hit the wood with a lot of kilo power. I do not know how many kilo, but I guess about 75-100 kilo. If you use force and muscle power - it will hit with perhaps half that power because less speed - and uncontrolled hits in wrong angle.

A chopper, machete, and so on, works in the same way. Speed, not force –and you will get the work done faster - with less energy lost.
There is a balance point between weight and speed. If the tool is too heavy – you cannot get up the wanted speed – or, you need to have a longer handle on the tool to compensate the weight so that you can use speed.

This means that a smaller (and not so heavy) tool often is more effective because you can use it with speed.

The “swing” you do with an axe can be described in two parts. The first part of the swing is to get up wanted speed, the second part is to continue that speed and to aim so that you hit exactly where you want to hit. Choppers and machetes works in exactly the same way.

This is my experience after many decades of chopping.

Thomas

With respect, I'm quite familiar with the concepts you describe, and they're actually being applied here.

As already mentioned, the video in my last post was one where I was using more muscle than was appropriate for the thinner stock. I had only gotten my hands on it an hour or two prior and it was my first time bringing the 2.2mm version to wood. The one I posted entitled "Felling With the Baryonyx Machete" is a better example. Madnumforce just wanted some eye candy of seeing some chips fly.

If you're familiar with using a cane machete then the handling characteristics are pretty similar.

Here are some more stats for those that are interested. Measurements are approximate, but very close.

Model Name: Baryonyx Machete
⇞: 8.75"
⇟: 14.25"
L: 17.50"
▢: 5.50"
Diffusion Factor: 68.57%
Raw Score: 67.57%
Diluted Score: 46.33%
Total Weight (lbs): 1.63

Compare to the scores for a piece many are familiar with--the wood-handled 18" Tramontina machete.

Model Name: Tramontina 18" Latin--wood
⇞: 7.00"
⇟: 16.00"
L: 18.13"
▢: 4.88"
Diffusion Factor: 73.10%
Raw Score: 68.13%
Diluted Score: 49.81%
Total Weight (lbs): 1.13

Definitions
⇞: Measurement in inches from the lower sweet spot boundary to the most distal point of the tool.
⇟: Measurement in inches from the upper boundary of the sweet spot to the designated point of pivot--for the purposes of generating consistent standards of measure, this is the point under the grip of the forefinger and thumb.
L: The measurement in inches from the designated point of pivot (the point under the grip of the forefinger and thumb) to the most distal point of the tool.
▢: The linear size of the sweet spot, or "effective percussive zone" on the tool.
Diffusion Factor: How much of the L value is not comprised of the effective percussive zone (sweet spot.)
Raw Score: The SSI score taking the Diffusion Factor into account.
Diluted Score: The SSI score taking the Diffusion Factor into account.



Some notes: I'm absolutely certain that there are ways to improve on this formula, and it's been an ongoing back-burner of mine for a while now. I'm certain there's a more accurate quantitative way to measure the sweet spot boundaries, for instance. For right now it's simply a quick and dirty process of repeatedly striking the blade against a solid target and gauging through feedback where the most distal and proximal boundaries of the sweet spot is. Also other usable values can surely be generated from the data collected--those methods just haven't been developed yet. As stated, it's a work in (slow) progress.

Also bear in mind that the values are not measuring performance so much as the relationship between the size and positioning of the sweet spot vs. the total length of the tool above the standardized pivot point. A high or low score in a category does not inherently mean better or worse--it's just describing the tool. Things like your intended tasks are going to still be the chief determining factor of whether or not the tool's scores are good or bad.

If you want to see the physics of impacts of cutting tools, this has already been done extensively on swords to look at both the vibration aspects and the ability to transmit power into the cut. Ref : [www.thearma.org] .

I'm familiar with the ARMA documents, but haven't found information in them pertaining to a reliable method of determining the sweet spot dimensions and placement. The closest thing I could find in the document you linked was the "waggle test" as a method for locating pivot points in the blade, but such a point would only give you centricity rather than the size of the effective percussive zone. Maybe I'm missing something, though.

The node points can be calculated from the center of balance under the section on pivot point geometry.

The issues of "sweet spot" is not well defined because most people don't mean the node point, they mean some point which is vaguely defined in terms of "cutting power".

How blades respond to transmitting energy to targets is calculated under the section on edge impact dynamics.

The point that has to be considered is that there are two extremes :

a) cutting which needs to transfer brute stopping power (inertia based) (close to the hilt)

b) cutting which is speed based (close to the tip)

These are two different "sweet spots" and in general most cutting is found between them as normally only extreme activities require just one.

With machetes in general for wood chopping you are not looking for a sweet spot in terms of power because machetes are so thin they penetrate trivially and so you are looking mainly for the node point which is calculated from the center of mass. If the wood is very flexible then you shift forward to increase the speed because a slower blade will just push the wood out of the way/

I'm also aware of those dynamics, but calculating the sweet spot for woody/heavy targets is still beneficial, since most machete patterns are designed from an "omnivorous" perspective that balances to varying degrees between the two target classes. I find that while obviously an axe or similar is more ideal for felling purposes, it can be done adequately with a machete of appropriate pattern, and a machete is more versatile in its range of suitable targets. The concept of a sweet spot is, indeed, two different things, but I would argue that those things are not "wood sweet spot" vs. "vegetation sweet spot" but rather either the spot which delivers the most energy to the target vs. the zone where the user experiences the least hand shock/vibration. Those are not necessarily the same thing, but the zone of minimized vibration and the zone of maximum energy transfer are usually at least within the sphere of each others' influence. The user is likely to instinctually gravitate towards using the region that provides the best (subjective) balance between power delivery and shock reduction. However, when given the choice of only using one or the other most users will favor the zone of minimized shock. Technique is paramount in the location of each, however, since the manner of your swing will actually change the true point of pivot. Studies of percussive dynamics with baseball bats, for instance, ended up revealing that the true point of pivot for most batters ended up being out in the air about 3" below the butt of the handle. With the swing typically used with a machete this can be a little complicated since it's a compound action of the shoulder, elbow, wrist, and fingers, and different machetes will use each to varying degrees. Extremely light and/or short examples may take more drive from the wrist and fingers with a little from the elbow, while longer and/or heavier examples tend to be driven more significantly from the elbow and shoulder.

A good example of a machete that epically fails at placing the shock sweet spot and the energy transfer sweet spot is the Cold Steel Two-Handed Katana Machete. If held like a traditional katana the point of balance ends up in your top hand, which make it just want to get pushed around instead of rotating. This forces you to grip low on the hilt, which creates a very low placement of the shock sweet spot, but the zone of maximum energy delivery is way up near the end when held that way and that zone is located so far from the zone of minimized shock that they don't really overlap at all. You end up delivering a blow of ok power and/or speed, but your hands take a brutal pounding from the shock transfer.

Quote
FortyTwoBlades
...calculating the sweet spot for woody/heavy targets is still beneficial, since most machete patterns are designed from an "omnivorous" perspective that balances to varying degrees between the two target classes.

That is calculated as noted, you just have to say what you mean by sweet spot.

Quote

... but rather either the spot which delivers the most energy to the target vs. the zone where the user experiences the least hand shock/vibration.

These are almost the same point for machetes, but they are both only relevant when machetes are being used for traditional non-machete uses.

On light vegetation there is almost no energy transferred to the target, it is just a matter of speed. If the wood has energy transferred to it then it isn't being cut, it is resisting being cut.

For felling, or any slow/inertia cut then the point of most efficient cutting will be very close to the node point and thus users have to find the balance between increasing penetration and minimizing vibration, this is also discussed in the same link.

Quote

A good example of a machete that epically fails at placing the shock sweet spot and the energy transfer sweet spot is the Cold Steel Two-Handed Katana Machete. If held like a traditional katana the point of balance ends up in your top hand, which make it just want to get pushed around instead of rotating. This forces you to grip low on the hilt, which creates a very low placement of the shock sweet spot, but the zone of maximum energy delivery is way up near the end when held that way and that zone is located so far from the zone of minimized shock that they don't really overlap at all. You end up delivering a blow of ok power and/or speed, but your hands take a brutal pounding from the shock transfer.

I have not handled that blade, but if you ignore the weeaboo tip, it has to handle the same as any long thin blade.

Any of the really long and thin blades will be very poor in cutting thick wood for a number of reasons. In general heavy felling is a slow/inertia cut which means it will be more productive just in front of the center of mass. However this means that the blade is moving very slow compared to its tip speed thus what is the use of the longer blade. This is compounded by the fact that the blade will vibrate excessively because so much of it is in front of the impact point and it is so thin, this causes a lot of power to be lost in the cut so it is very poor from efficiency.

This is why long and thin blades get used for light vegetation (which is about speed) and short and heavy ones get used for thick cutting (with is more about inertia). If you are cutting out near the tip and getting vibration then something is wrong with the geometry or sharpness because such cuts are supposed to go through the material without stopping not bind in it. This depends on the swing of course, hence some people like the very wide cane machetes as on stiff (but thin vegetation) you can be productive with a much slower and winder swings.

Now it is possible to make a long blade which does cut well through the tip, what you end up with of course is a bank blade or similar and it follows the same physics as in the above link.

Quote
CliffStamp

That is calculated as noted, you just have to say what you mean by sweet spot.

Unless I'm mistaken, it only gives you a point rather than an effective zone. The mass of the blade soaks up vibration to a certain extent so depending on the mass distribution of the blade you can end up with either a very concentrated vibrational sweet spot (like an axe) or a fairly minimal and/or broad one like on a sable or Latin pattern machete. Again, maybe I'm missing something from the article, but I didn't see anything denoting an actual effective striking zone--just a singular point that marks the center of it. Ideally there would be a way to calculate how far you could go to either side of the given point before there was a certain percentage of loss in performance

Quote


These are almost the same point for machetes, but they are both only relevant when machetes are being used for traditional non-machete uses.

On light vegetation there is almost no energy transferred to the target, it is just a matter of speed. If the wood has energy transferred to it then it isn't being cut, it is resisting being cut.

For felling, or any slow/inertia cut then the point of most efficient cutting will be very close to the node point and thus users have to find the balance between increasing penetration and minimizing vibration, this is also discussed in the same link.

They are almost the same point for a well-designed machete. If you don't pay attention to the dynamic (what I believe you call "design by appearance" as opposed to "design by function") then you can end up with some truly atrocious performance characteristics like the CS 2HKM I mentioned. As a note, it was the original version that I had the displeasure of experiencing. They've since updated it with a longer blade but I have no idea if it makes for an improvement or not. Haven't gotten my hands on one and my experience with the first was mostly driven by curiosity rather than actual desire, so I doubt I'll go for one of the new ones. :p

Quote

I have not handled that blade, but if you ignore the weeaboo tip, it has to handle the same as any long thin blade.

Couldn't be farther from the truth there! And I say that for a number of reasons. One of them being that it attached to an absurd amount of polypropylene with poor mass distribution. Polypropylene is heavier than most wood of equal volume, and it's one of the reasons for the poor balance properties. Also, it's a reasonably thick and broad blade, so if you were to cut off a bunch of the handle (which some folks have done) it would do a lot to alter balance and improve cutting performance, though it'd still be a flawed design at its core.

Quote

Any of the really long and thin blades will be very poor in cutting thick wood for a number of reasons. In general heavy felling is a slow/inertia cut which means it will be more productive just in front of the center of mass. However this means that the blade is moving very slow compared to its tip speed thus what is the use of the longer blade. This is compounded by the fact that the blade will vibrate excessively because so much of it is in front of the impact point and it is so thin, this causes a lot of power to be lost in the cut so it is very poor from efficiency.

This is why long and thin blades get used for light vegetation (which is about speed) and short and heavy ones get used for thick cutting (with is more about inertia). If you are cutting out near the tip and getting vibration then something is wrong with the geometry or sharpness because such cuts are supposed to go through the material without stopping not bind in it. This depends on the swing of course, hence some people like the very wide cane machetes as on stiff (but thin vegetation) you can be productive with a much slower and winder swings.

Now it is possible to make a long blade which does cut well through the tip, what you end up with of course is a bank blade or similar and it follows the same physics as in the above link.

I'm going to have to disagree there, to an extent. A sufficiently long and/or flared design can do an acceptable job on thick wood targets. It'll never compete with a dedicated felling tool like an axe or crosscut saw, but it'll do in a pinch. Designs like the Imacasa "rozador" pattern pictured in the SSI diagram I posted is a good example of a longer blade with distal taper and significant flare--it's pretty thin at the tip but the flare vertically concentrates the mass directly behind the edge so the high sectional density actually gives it very good depth to the cut. You just have to deal with binding, which isn't too hard to fight with the slight drawing action mentioned earlier, at least while opening the throat of the notch. Once that's taken care of you experience a lot less of it and the length of the blade means you have good leverage for clearing the blade.

It's important to bear in mind, of course, that a machete for tackling woody targets is not intended to replace an axe. Even the heaviest patterns of purebred machetes (rather than ethnic-inspired choppers and chopping knives) are still primarily brush clearing tools for tackling targets like thick branches, saplings, brambles, etc. but most of us really have only occasional need to fell trees when they're out and about in the woods unless they've actually planned for it, in which case you're probably going to bring an axe along. However, an axe does a MUCH poorer job of tackling brush and vegetation than a machete--even a typical Latin pattern--does felling. The machete's job is not to be the best at a single task, but to strike a balance between a wide variety of tasks. Those tasks are prioritized by frequency, intensity, and time spent, and the pattern chosen accordingly to best match that work profile.

The vegetation vs. woody target aspect is something I could go on about at length, but the tip velocity vs. momentum thing is only the most fundamental principles. There are other ways to skin that cat, many of the methods being able to be used in tandem with one another. Lighter and longer is the easy way to tackle vegetation, but if you need it to handle more than that there are other tricks to employ.

Just my experience and analysis, though.