# Splitting methodology - long billets or firewood length rings/rounds?



## KiwiBro (Apr 18, 2014)

Looking at some of the European operations, they tend to split into 700mm-1m long billets and then cut those into two or three firewood lengths. Here, we cut the logs into firewood length rings/rounds and then split those. 

Is it simply the straight grained wood they have that allows them to split that long? Is it faster to split that way and then cut later? 

Has anyone had the opportunity to try the two different methods, or any others, and figure out which is best and under which conditions?

Obviously, for bigger wood or really knotty wood it might be a bit of a hassle to split long, but if the grain will allow it, is it a better way?


----------



## taskswap (Apr 18, 2014)

It depends on the wood. Depending on where in Europe you're talking about, they have a lot of straight-grained wood. I could easily split a meter-long piece of knot-free maple with my Fiskars, or my splitter if it would actually fit on it! But no way are you doing that with some of the sycamore I just got "donated" to me. This stuff doesn't seem to split so much as it fractures - in all directions. I can barely stack it neatly with all the broken cross-grain stuck out everywhere.

I can't figure out why this makes any sense, though. Cutting things with a chainsaw is touchy. Cutting thin things is just annoying. Little stuff gets "grabbed" or binds the chain. I've seen people who make "cribs" for cutting limb wood, but I have to believe that's to avoid throwing away good wood, not doing to deliberately because it's actually fun.

Besides, green wood is freaking HEAVY. Why would you want to muscle around a meter-long 20" wide log just to split it when you could cut it into thirds and deal with the smaller pieces so much more easily?


----------



## zogger (Apr 18, 2014)

what he said. No way I would try to hand split 3ft long gnarly wood.


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 18, 2014)

taskswap said:


> I can't figure out why this makes any sense, though.


 that's pretty much what I'm trying to establish. When wood is able to be split long, perhaps there's ultimately less handling involved. 0.7-1m long splits or small diameter logs can stack easy and perhaps that's the max lengths they've found that is comfortable to handle and stack well and season well? As for cutting these into firewood length:







The thing is, these are people who have generations upon generations of wood heating/harvesting experience to draw on and their techniques and machinery has evolved this way for a reason, so I'm keen to learn why. There aren't too many species of wood here that become available to me of similar sizes and that could be split long, but there are a few. Besides, I'm wondering how some of these ideas might 'scale up' for bigger wood for a kind of robo-bucking option.


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 18, 2014)

zogger said:


> what he said. No way I would try to hand split 3ft long gnarly wood.


They have some interesting long hydraulic splitters, some with three rams on a wide bed - put 1m log section in, split it into two, let each piece be split by the two outer rams on the same bed. So two stroke cycles = four x 1m long splits. Or in the case of some of the gnarly or stringy woods, one heap of splinters and shards and a tangled mess and if lucky, one length that looks like it might be acceptable.


----------



## 066blaster (Apr 18, 2014)

Seems efficient if you have nothing but small diameter logs. Still nothing compared to a good processor that does it all on big stuff, and small stuff. I mean why even split that small stuff


----------



## 066blaster (Apr 18, 2014)

And with outdoor burners around here. Basically eliminates the need for any of these machines. Just throw em in.


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 18, 2014)

In a commercial firewood context, maybe we are going about it wrong. Maybe we could recover the tops or thinings and feed a tub grinder which then feeds a briquette press and we actually end up with a wonderfully uniform, high quality firewood product that is faster/cheaper to produce. No pruning, bucking, splitting or stacking and a perfectly consistent product that can be palletised and moved to storage and customers on conventional carriers.


----------



## zogger (Apr 18, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> They have some interesting long hydraulic splitters, some with three rams on a wide bed - put 1m log section in, split it into two, let each piece be split by the two outer rams on the same bed. So two stroke cycles = four x 1m long splits. Or in the case of some of the gnarly or stringy woods, one heap of splinters and shards and a tangled mess and if lucky, one length that looks like it might be acceptable.




The home made one here my boss built will *just* fit a 36 inch long piece, he likes his fireplace wood that long, but I never cut anything for myself longer than around 16-18, that size I can handle and hand split better. That long stuff even with a log lift, uggh, way to heavy to deal with. 

In fact I am starting with sweetgum to cut only to 12 inches, just to make the splitting easier for me. A lot of people around here won't even bother with sweetgum, this is primo abundant oak and hickory land, but I have to cut it, so I like to get some use from it.

I'd like to see one of those multiple ram splitters.


----------



## 066blaster (Apr 18, 2014)

I think they do make those but they are expensive and the equipment way to pricey. Wood pellets also, alot of people burn wood, it has to be cheap to produce or you might as well burn gas. If they would make a pellet stove that works off of standard wood chips. I think the outdoor wood burners are the easiest to use. Any kind of wood, big chunks, don't have to bring wood in the house.


----------



## 066blaster (Apr 18, 2014)

When my dad was a kid they heated and cooked with corn cobbs. Only corn cobbs , got them free from a feed mill.


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 18, 2014)

zogger said:


> The home made one here my boss built will *just* fit a 36 inch long piece, he likes his fireplace wood that long, but I never cut anything for myself longer than around 16-18, that size I can handle and hand split better. That long stuff even with a log lift, uggh, way to heavy to deal with.
> 
> In fact I am starting with sweetgum to cut only to 12 inches, just to make the splitting easier for me. A lot of people around here won't even bother with sweetgum, this is primo abundant oak and hickory land, but I have to cut it, so I like to get some use from it.
> 
> I'd like to see one of those multiple ram splitters.



Sorry, can't find the two videos I was looking at yesterday, but will keep looking. Meantime, this doesn't look like too much work:


----------



## NSMaple1 (Apr 19, 2014)

Nice to make all those long splits at once - but I would think if it's not in the right length for your burner when you get to that stage & stacked, the extra work to go through the cutting step again to get it to the right length would be the point of diminshing returns.


----------



## Hddnis (Apr 19, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> In a commercial firewood context, maybe we are going about it wrong. Maybe we could recover the tops or thinings and feed a tub grinder which then feeds a briquette press and we actually end up with a wonderfully uniform, high quality firewood product that is faster/cheaper to produce. No pruning, bucking, splitting or stacking and a perfectly consistent product that can be palletised and moved to storage and customers on conventional carriers.




That is a growing market here. They make pellets, which are a nice fuel, and they also make "logs" the same way and sell them by the pallet load. All the big home improvement places around here sell several semi-truck loads of those logs each week, they are getting popular, and taking a bite out of the traditional firewood market.

This is just one company, part way down the page they have a video showing how they make them.
http://www.lignetics.com/fire-logs.html


Mr. HE


----------



## Hddnis (Apr 19, 2014)

One thing I will say about the European operations I've seen is that they are all handling intensive, and they all use down to very small branches even, nothing gets wasted. Here in the US the source is so plentiful that people get really picky about what they burn, and waste a lot because of it, but they've got handling to a minimum. Trying to use European methods here would put you out of business fast, couldn't compete with the guys that are only processing the fast and easy stuff.

With my little operation I'm working towards finding a market for everything, from lumber to bedding shavings. We often get paid to remove the trees, either in a thinning operation or yard trees. My competition dumps them, maybe making some firewood to sell out of the easy stuff, I'm slowly working towards looking at the removal as a raw material stream. Once I get that down, I'm going to start letting the other guys dump in my yard and increase my processing capacity. It just takes time and money.


Mr. HE


----------



## KiwiBro (Apr 19, 2014)

Hddnis said:


> That is a growing market here. They make pellets, which are a nice fuel, and they also make "logs" the same way and sell them by the pallet load. All the big home improvement places around here sell several semi-truck loads of those logs each week, they are getting popular, and taking a bite out of the traditional firewood market.
> 
> This is just one company, part way down the page they have a video showing how they make them.
> http://www.lignetics.com/fire-logs.html
> ...


Thanks for that. They seem to be taking sawmill waste; wood dust as opposed to wood chips and blending with other things. I wonder if there is a process out there which will take wood chips and produce pressed logs that will hold together and be reasonably consistent.
Interestingly, regarding your observation about taking a bit out of the split wood market, here's a link I found that takes that disruption to a much bigger level:

http://climate-connections.org/2014...-fort-drum-biomass-plant-for-lumber-shortage/


----------



## dave_dj1 (Apr 19, 2014)

I thought maybe a reason for the long splits is that when the time comes to cut you can cut it to different lengths depending on customers needs. I guess for that to work there would have to be a set couple of sizes. Maybe you could get 3 lengths or 4 lengths out of each piece.


----------



## zogger (Apr 19, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> Sorry, can't find the two videos I was looking at yesterday, but will keep looking. Meantime, this doesn't look like too much work:




I dunno, looks a little clunky. I guess either full log length processor, or cut to final size then split. This in between size...not sure, UNLESS those one yard/one meter long pieces *are* the final size, say for a boiler.


----------



## alexp_uk (Apr 23, 2014)

I’ve only recently come across this site and have been lurking reading the various forums with interest. I thought I could add something here since I live in Europe and process my firewood in billet lengths so can give some of the reasons why I find it useful.


Firstly some caveats.


I really don’t want to start a religious war about this. Whilst I find the method works for me and my situation the main reason I do it this way is probably because my Dad did it this way and I learnt from him – once you’ve got a system going all tools / equipment you get tend to fit into your system so changing is not too easy. So I’m not claiming that this is the best system ever or that it would work for others.


Saying that though I find it interesting seeing how other folks do basically the same job - turn some trees into heating in a reasonably efficient way (both of time and resources) so I had a think about what I find useful working with billet lengths and came up with the following.


Split billets stack well and dry quickly (or at least more quickly than un-split)– at 4’ length a 8’ high stack is quite stable especially if the stack curves a little to stop any wind gusts from blowing it over. I guess amount of drying people do varies with climate but for me I really seem to need 2 years stacked and split to season well – I’ve misjudged amounts at times and burnt after only a year but you end up burning way more wood to get the same heat so it’s much less work overall to dry it properly.


Easy to handle different size stoves. I cut firewood mainly for 2 properties with 5 wood stoves (the only heating source) and 1 large boiler (for heating greenhouses) – each stove seems to want a different length so having the wood dry in billet length then I can cut on demand using a saw bench. It’s very quick and easy to cut up a couple of month’s supply for a stove from the stack using the saw-bench – very little bending / lifting since it’s just a case of reaching from the stack and throwing the cut wood into a bucket / trailer.


Using a saw-bench works well with coppicing of small round wood. I actually try to avoid handling too much big wood for firewood – splitting is a pain – 4’ or 1’ length doesn’t seem to make much difference – if the wood splits well it’ll split in 4’ lengths if not it’s a lot of work however you do it. Though saying that I bought a (way too expensive to realistically justify) 1m hydraulic splitter + winch last year which has changed my view slightly on the ease of handling larger wood. My best firewood though is still hazel – this coppices very well here producing 20’/30’ fairly unbranched stems of about 6” diameter at the base on about a 15 year cycle. It’s actually reasonably quick and productive to cut this to lengths and chuck out of the wood to a trailer Splitting any larger wood so that it mixes in with this just makes life easier (and means the split wood dries the same time as the small round so can mix the stacks without any problem).


Probably the most important for me – billet lengths seem to be the easiest to handle in the woods without much equipment. Most of my ground is very steep (it’s why it was left as woodland – people have been farming here for millennia and if it could grow anything other than trees then it probably would) and so can’t get in close with any machine. With billet length I don’t need special forwarding trailers and grabs (though they would sure be nice to have…), the lengths stack easily on the forks of a loader or sideways in a trailer (and pass through gateways) and can be thrown out of difficult to reach areas. Winching out in larger sizes is possible but it never seems as easy in practise as it is in theory, the slope is always just wrong and you start thinking about more power, more length of cable or start dreaming about skylines (I’ve never used one but I guess there are plenty good reasons why yarders cost so much money).


Going the other way and cutting smaller length rounds in the woods (after all it’s for firewood not timber so it has to be cut up at some point anyway) has its own set of problems here. Basically billet length rounds don’t roll too far. A 4’ length round is just about handle-able by 1 person (though sometimes at the end of a day I question this) and can be rolled down a slope safely. There is normally enough length that if it starts rolling on its own one end will roll a slightly shorter length than the other and so will swing on the slope and end up coming to rest across the slope. I got fed up with handling these once on a biggish (for me) tree and cut to a small length round to save effort loading onto trailer– one just started rolling and didn’t stop at the track where the tractor and trailer was – it kept on going through 3 hedges / wire fences, across a public footpath, a vehicular access road and only stopped after about ½ a mile when it hit a neighbour’s house. The noise of it hitting was loud enough to echo round the valley. I thought that this was going to be very expensive firewood that year but fortunately it didn’t do any serious damage to their house other than knocking a picture off the wall. Having got away with it once, particularly on a steep bank, I’ve been very careful to keep some length on any rounds to avoid a repeat.


----------



## dave_dj1 (Apr 23, 2014)

Alex, welcome to the site and thank you for sharing your method of operation with us.
dave


----------



## Sandhill Crane (Apr 23, 2014)

alexp-uk... Welcome!


----------



## 066blaster (Apr 23, 2014)

alexp_uk said:


> I’ve only recently come across this site and have been lurking reading the various forums with interest. I thought I could add something here since I live in Europe and process my firewood in billet lengths so can give some of the reasons why I find it useful.
> 
> 
> Firstly some caveats.
> ...


Is there any large diameter trees by you? This technique would not work with big stuff would it? And if your dealing with 3-5 inch stuff why split it if it's for personal use.


----------



## 513yj (Apr 23, 2014)

066blaster said:


> Seems efficient if you have nothing but small diameter logs. Still nothing compared to a good processor that does it all on big stuff, and small stuff. I mean why even split that small stuff




Thats why I cut mostly tops. Minimal splitting!!


----------



## alexp_uk (Apr 24, 2014)

066blaster said:


> Is there any large diameter trees by you? This technique would not work with big stuff would it? And if your dealing with 3-5 inch stuff why split it if it's for personal use.


Sure - the small round doesn't get split - just cut into approx 4' length and stacked for seasoning - but there always seems to be bigger stuff to handle as well. 

I'm not sure what large diameter means for you (I've visited the giant redwoods - now those are large diameter!) but for example I've got to finish off processing an oak today which must be about 40" dbh, Actually haven't measured it at breast height - but it was annoyingly a few inches over twice the bar length at cut height and there is very little flare in the butt. (I know a longer bar would make life easier - but my bigger saw was ill and the tree needed to come down) 

For me this is probably as large as it gets - I had to take this out because it appeared to have some sort of disease last year and was rather too close to a house to leave. The bottom 20' or so is nice and straight and it's easily retrievable so will go for timber - but it forked at that height and that leaves a lot of gnarly twisted bits which need cutting, splitting and stacking (the splitter I mentioned makes this an easy task - before it would have been a good couple of days with maul and splitting wedges).


----------



## alexp_uk (Apr 26, 2014)

Update to previous post - "the splitter makes this an easy task" - slightly optimistic words there! This size of wood is a little too much for the splitter when its gnarly oak - and a 1m round of green oak at that diameter is **** heavy and hard to move around (even with the winch). The only large diameter stuff I'd used the splitter on before was some big fir which was easy to handle at that size.

Anyway I'm derailing the thread - apologies - I did think some more about why I like billet lengths and guess it really comes down to speed of processing and reduction in amount of handling. (Though have to admit not particularly with that big oak).

The main disadvantage I see it is that you really need to have a saw-bench to make it work- these were cheap as chips around here since every farm had one stuck in a shed somewhere but not sure that is the case any longer - think Health and Safety now frown on these (especially the relatively unguarded ones) since they don't stop spinning within 3 milliseconds or whatever.



> Still nothing compared to a good processor that does it all on big stuff


 - I never quite get the processor idea - to me the idea of trying to stack small length splits is just too much work - when I've tried they tend to fall over unless they are very small stacks. But wood takes too long to season in the round or in a heap of splits (not enough air flow I guess) - So for me I want to:- 
1]cut the tree into managable lengths in the wood (chainsaw)
2]Move the lengths to my yard
3]Stack (spilt first if big enough)
4]Season
5]cut to length and move into woodshed (sawbench)
So having a machine which splits and cuts at the same time just seems pointless. But they do seem very popular so they must work for others somehow. 

Anyone run one who could say why it works for them?


----------



## 7sleeper (Apr 26, 2014)

Since this question evolved about how people in Europe do it and I seem to be the only one around I will try to clarify a few things.

First off all our homes and properties are much smaller and much better insulated and our fireplaces are smaller so that our wood needs are usually much less. Further wood as about everything here is much more expensive although our income isn't so much higher, so yes we try to use everything of the tree. Nowaday's with more and more people looking at a CO2 neutral way of heating tree tops are more and more difficult to access, because when the tree trunks are removed the rest is chipped down and made to pellets.

Second off someone mentioned burning wood chips. There are special wood gasifiers here available for wood chips. These are mostly larger units so not for an individual home(compared to reglar gasifiers and pellet ovens) but more for like a farm or up to central heating for a small community.

Third the need of americans to aquire a wood splitter to split wood is becomming more and more popular here. On the other hand you have a lot of wood in sizes that we seldom see. Then again the main parts of the trunk is about always sold to the sawmill. If you have trees from the forest they are usually pretty straight grained and quite easy to split, if you know what you are doing. Splitting beech trees up to 20 inches is not that difficut by hand. And if you are unsure, then just ask why the fiskars line is overrunning the US! Here is a nice video of how to do it. And he is splitting beech.



And if you are having problems you can always use this technique. Splitting with a plastic wedge. I use this technique sometimes when the wood is quite knotty. I cut into and through the knots. Then it splitts easily but I leave out the wedge.



The drying is very fast with the wood stacked in long rows and the chances of falling over greatly reduced compared to smaller sizes. Stacks look like this







In rural areas we used to simply stack between trees but nowadys stealing firewood is becomming more and more a problem. When it comes to burning the traditional size that fits into the oven is 1/3 of the metre, larger gasifiers accept 1/2 a metre. Many homeowners use either traditional large electric circular saws or nowadays more and more something like this. Stack up and with two cuts with the chainsaw you get a lot of small pieces.



We have a saying here that wood makes you warm three times.

First time when you split it, second time when you stack it and third time when you burn it.

7


----------



## 1project2many (Apr 26, 2014)

These comments are only for comparison of the two methods and are not intended as criticism or defense of a particular strategy.

7Sleeper,

In every video you've posted, I see the individual bent over to work. He's bent to split, bent to cut, and bending to pickup and move wood. I cringe when I see that, knowing that my back would quickly become sore working that way. I'm not alone because I was taught to do much of my work without using my back (although obviously I didn't listen as I should have). Plenty of people I know tend to favor working upright as much as possible while working with firewood. So maybe that's a large part of the preference? And watching that Beech split made it look super easy but there are plenty of species of wood here that are not appropriate for that type of splitting. A person would have to decide ahead of time what method is appropriate which means the majority of wood might not split well in long lengths. Hmmm... I've noticed that videos showing firewood processing in Europe often show smaller pieces of wood and stories I've heard from friends who spent time in Germany tend to back that up. Most of the semi-automated firewood tools appear designed to work with smaller pieces of wood as well so I think you're onto something there.

alexp_uk, welcome. And thanks for the insights.
I usually process smaller pieces of firewood on my property because that's what I tend to get. What I cut and burn is considered too small to waste time with by many people around this area. Old, drafty homes need larger stoves and plenty of wood to make heat so the small pieces just aren't worth the time required to cut and stack. Lifting 4' long pieces of wood that are 12" diameter and green just isn't going to work, and if it's a species that won't split nicely at that length the only option is cutting it short. Interesting that there may be little difference in drying time regardless of cut wood length. I cut pieces at 14" (just over 1/3m?) and I find it takes two years before they're ready to burn. I do agree that shorter lengths, when stacked, tend to fall over more easily. There are some tricks to help prevent that but it does take some practice to learn to stack shorter lengths so they don't fall. I've tried stacking whole pieces that are longer but they seem to rot during the rainy spring. Maybe I need to try splitting them first because I'd prefer to store them outside as longer pieces then cut them right before moving them into the woodshed.

The weight of the wood being processed probably plays the biggest part in how it's handled. I believe that Germany and much of the UK have milder winters than what I'm used to. The desire we have to seek the densest, heaviest species may not be present in Europe. Then again, maybe it has nothing to do with winter temperature. I read about folks in southern states cutting Oak, Hickory, and other heavy, dense species of wood to keep the house warm and they have fairly mild winters by Yankee standards. Maybe we still cut wood as if we're all burning in open fireplaces.

If saw fuel were expensive, or a hassle to purchase, I might cut long pieces in the field then use the wood crib to cut multiple pieces at once. When I consider moving wood from the cutting site back to my house I believe stacking shorter pieces in the truck usually results in more wood per trip. Cutting the pieces longer fills up the truck faster which might explain why the last load in a day is often full of 4' long pieces.

I've switched to using an electric saw here and except for really small pieces I generally cut one at a time. I have a stop on the sawhorse set to 14" so I can slide, cut, slide, cut over and over until there's a good size pile underneath. But any effeciency found there is lost when each piece has to be carried to the splitter. And since I don't like to leave the splitter running idle, I actually take time to stack two or three rows within a short distance of the splitter. It saves my back and reduces time at the splitter but it's just one more time to handle the firewood. And as the pieces get split, because I don't like to leave the splitter running idle, I throw everything into another pile which means I have to handle them again to stack them up. I'm not sure that cutting three pieces from a long split instead of splitting two, three, or four pieces from a single cut would change anything because I don't like leaving the equipment idling.

I did like the rotating wheel / three saw cutter video. If I drag pieces home at 42" it would cut them to length quickly. Pre-splitting the easy species and throwing them into a machine like that would reduce the number of manual cuts by 2/3 and would eliminate a carry and stack operation from sawhorse to splitter, but then I'd want a table or bench so I could split without being bent over.



> We have a saying here that wood makes you warm three times.
> First time when you split it, second time when you stack it and third time when you burn it.


 
I think this probably gets to the heart of the question. Regardless of the particluar advantages, processing wood is work intensive.


----------



## alexp_uk (Apr 27, 2014)

Thanks for all the welcomes on here - appreciated.

7Sleeper



>


 now that sure is a pretty wood stack!

For some reason (laziness?) mine never seem to end up like that





>


 .Might be something similar to my lazy stacking but I find my saw bar has a very strong magnetic attraction to any metal around - so even if the metal is painted orange think this would make me nervous - a circular saw blade which needs sharpening once a season and much less bending down continually - as 1project2many commented a lot of bending over doing it that way.
.


> The weight of the wood being processed probably plays the biggest part in how it's handled


That's a good thought - here I tend to handle anything and everything - preference for small coppice since that is the most productive - but if I have to cut something for any reason then I may as well get any firewood from it - when seasoned it all seems to burn just as hot after all - just means more trips to and from the woodshed. But I guess if you are spoilt for choice then it makes sense to concentrate on the best bang for your buck.




> Regardless of the particluar advantages, processing wood is work intensive.



I hear ya' loud and strong! 

Somehow this discussion reminds me of when I asked a (now sadly gone) old timer around here for advice on an old method of running chickens which was used round here in the 1930's - I paraphrase:- 

"Any fool can keep chickens - the hard bit is getting the chickens to keep you"

Guess we're all just looking for that bit extra that makes keeping chickens / processing firewood efficient enough ....


----------



## benp (Apr 27, 2014)

Those were cool videos.

Neat seeing how things are done in other places. Those were slick little processors and seemed to work very well in their applications. 

I looked into some of the modern European wood stoves and I completely get why the final size of the wood is small. I really really like looks of the tall and narrow stoves. 

There is one common factor that translates across the lines no matter what method one uses.

We spend time out in the wood pile plugging away for the same result at the end of the day.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Apr 27, 2014)

Those a very nice looking stacks of billets, indeed.

But I think if it was my wood & me that made those piles, the thought of going through them again, cutting to length again, and re-stacking again would be kind of discouraging. I prefer to stack only once - off the splitter onto a pallet. Which then ends up beside my boiler with the help of a tractor & pallet jack. I see two moving/stacking operations yet to come in those billet stacks - once to a sawbuck, then again to a 'final' stack. With cutting in between.

What I do is, anything small enough to manouver onto a pile on my ATV trailer in 8' lengths gets put there. I then haul the full trailer to my work area beside my splitter, and cut to length right on the trailer. The trailer is a sawbuck. Then I split it, and pile right onto pallets. That's all the handling. Or, if it's too big to do that, I cut to finish length right where the tree lies, pull up with my ATV & splitter, split right there tossing splits onto trailer, then pull full trailer to working are where it gets piled right onto the pallets. End of handling in that case. One cutting operation, one splitting operation, one stacking operation.

I hate stacking, anything I can do to reduce that is a bonus for me. With the billet method, I see three stacking steps (onto billet pile, onto sawbuck, onto finished pile), and two cutting steps. Cutting to finished length at tree is one cutting step, and one stacking step. With a toss into a heap on a trailer in between.

As always though, to each their own - but that's what works for me.


----------



## 7sleeper (Apr 27, 2014)

@*1project2many*

Of course this is just a sample of the more traditional way of doing things. Many people here have hydraulic splitters but mostly the standing type. That has also to do with the lost art of using an axe. The firewood guys cut their wood over a few weekends in the year and have enough firewood for their year. So with so short of working time, to become well trained in using the axe is not easy. With an axe I do not see the bending over as a problem. The wood is split in a more or less upright position. 
Split length is either 50cm=1/2 meter or mostly 100cm= 1 meter. On the other hand I see a lot of US splitter videos of people with horizontal hydraulic splitters. How do they get their wood onto the table? By bending over and picking it up. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the people in the us prefer cutting the wood shorter. Because having to pic up a log 1 meter long of substantial weight is not a funny thing to do. 

If anyone wants to see the way it is done one step up, check out the thread by Martin/traktorist2222. It doesn't get better than that.
http://www.arboristsite.com/community/threads/logging-pictures-of-my-father-and-me.57131/

7


----------



## alexp_uk (Apr 27, 2014)

Hi NSMaple1



> I hate stacking, anything I can do to reduce that is a bonus for me.



I'm actually with you on that one - I do like the idea of only handling once and then mechanising the moving using pallets - I did try experimenting with that once but found that stacks of small stuff (at least those stacked by me) tended to topple when moved- at one point I thought I had found a source of cages like this one:

which I thought would be ideal since they had sides to hold the stack in place - but the deal fell through and making / buying from scratch was prohibitively expensive for holding the amount I need.

Hopefully without sounding too evangelistic about it (I'd rather improve my system with other peoples ideas than brag about how great it is) let me attempt to address a couple of your points.



> I see three stacking steps ...



Firstly stacking 4' lengths is easier than stacking <= 2' lengths - partly because you have fewer splits to handle (each split is 2 or 3 smaller lengths) and also you don't need to be so precise with the placement.
In fact part of the reason why my wood stack is so higgledy-piggledy is that I tend to split and place directly onto the loader forks (set at a convenient height for working) and then make the first 4' of the seasoning stack by tipping from the loader forks - unfortunately stacking higher than that doesn't work out too well with forks - it's too easy to destabilise the entire stack when dropping say 1/3 of a cord on in one go (don't ask me how I know). But at least if they are on forks I can lift them up to the appropriate height and it's just a case of grabbing turning and placing - no bending and lifting required.

Secondly - stack after cutting to length --- Noooooo never!!!!! - for me the only point of stacking is to get the wood to season faster. Once its seasoned and I cut it to length the things stay in a pile - either in a dump trailer or a bucket - tip straight into the woodshed. 

I did like the idea of moving a pallet to right next to the stove - but I get enough grief for tracking mud into the house on my boots - I've no idea what would happen if I start driving a tractor in 



> ...and two cutting steps



Have to say you've got me there - the only defence I can offer is that I absolutely hate using a chainsaw on small loose stuff - it's just dangerous - a sawbuck must help a bit (albeit with a lot of extra handling) but as I said earlier I don't like metal anywhere near my saw bar - I dislike refiling a badly blunted chain almost as much as I dislike stacking. Cutting to length using a circular saw suddenly means that small stuff is just better than large. I imagine that if I only had a chainsaw I'd tend to ignore smaller stuff as just too much hassle.




> As always though, to each their own


 Couldn't agree more - but I'm happy to try and justify my system since it makes me question why I do it that way- and that can lead to improvements / better techniques.


----------



## zogger (Apr 27, 2014)

7sleeper said:


> @*1project2many*
> 
> Of course this is just a sample of the more traditional way of doing things. Many people here have hydraulic splitters but mostly the standing type. That has also to do with the lost art of using an axe. The firewood guys cut their wood over a few weekends in the year and have enough firewood for their year. So with so short of working time, to become well trained in using the axe is not easy. With an axe I do not see the bending over as a problem. The wood is split in a more or less upright position.
> Split length is either 50cm=1/2 meter or mostly 100cm= 1 meter. On the other hand I see a lot of US splitter videos of people with horizontal hydraulic splitters. How do they get their wood onto the table? By bending over and picking it up. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the people in the us prefer cutting the wood shorter. Because having to pic up a log 1 meter long of substantial weight is not a funny thing to do.
> ...



that's a great thread, and nice to see the pics are intact!


----------



## RyKR (Apr 29, 2014)

NSMaple1 said:


> But I think if it was my wood & me that made those piles, the thought of going through them again, cutting to length again, and re-stacking again would be kind of discouraging.


 
Why restack? If you had them bucked to meter lengths and had one of those cutting bins. Take your wood to the house, load the bin, cut it in the bin and leave it. It's already stacked and in a convenient place. Once you run out of wood repeat the cycle.


----------



## NSMaple1 (Apr 29, 2014)

RyKR said:


> Why restack? If you had them bucked to meter lengths and had one of those cutting bins. Take your wood to the house, load the bin, cut it in the bin and leave it. It's already stacked and in a convenient place. Once you run out of wood repeat the cycle.


 
I was going by this from above:

*5]cut to length and move into woodshed (sawbench)*

I assumed that once you got it to the woodshed after cutting to length, you'd stack it there. You could save a bit I suppose by throwing in the woodshed in a heap rather than stacking, at the expense of losing woodshed space. Was there a pic posted of the cutting bin you refer to? Even if you left it in the bin after cutting to length - you'd still have to restack it in the bin from the billet pile before cutting though, right?


----------



## KiwiBro (May 4, 2014)

Thanks very much for all the comments. Very much appreciated. Especially the wonderful contributions from our Euro' another mother brothers. I am really interested in learning how different people create different systems and how the machines fit for those systems. For here in New Zealand, we have a particular species that is very dense and ideal firewood (probably the best we have in any quantities), but it is heavy to handle and seldom grows straight. It will not split straight but much of it is 6" or less diameter. I am thinking maybe something like what I call your bucking barrel (the turning barrel with the circular saw at the bottom and conveyor) could work very well but I have a few concerns:


The wood here is often not straight. Even if it is only 4" wood but has 6" deviation over about 3 or 4', that would still need the chambers of the bucking barrel to be quite large. What is the biggest such machine or one with the biggest chambers?
For the straighter wood, is their any such machine like these that has a longer barrel and will handle longer billets? I can see another species here that is straight softwood and it would be easy to load a machine with 8' (about 2m) stems, for example. It would save the time having to cut and handle so many smaller pieces.
Are such machines self powered rather that tractor PTO? I ask because there are times when we cannot stage the processing - do all the harvesting then do all the processing. Instead, we have to have a constant flow of green, split firewood and this means the tractor which is running the winch can't be used for running anything else at the same time.
Can the machines use conventional, stand-alone conveyors rather than the built-in one I see most of them have? I ask because if I already have a self-powered conveyor, it seems like duplicating machines a little bit, which isn't needed if we are batch processing all the logs into rounds before splitting them. 
Also, is there any clever ideas how everyone cuts logs into these billet lengths? Is it simply done with a chainsaw on the ground or are logs lifted into a rack or racks and then many are cut with a chainsaw at one time or is there something else used?

Thanks again.


----------



## KiwiBro (May 5, 2014)

zogger said:


> I'd like to see one of those multiple ram splitters.


Found it:


----------



## zogger (May 5, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> Found it:



Wow, that's pretty unique!


----------



## KiwiBro (May 5, 2014)

It seems like these barrel buckers/revolving drum saws will handle longer lengths of wood OK:


----------



## KiwiBro (May 5, 2014)

zogger said:


> Wow, that's pretty unique!


Imagine if that split on both strokes a bit like the tempest splitter. It would be a special bit of kit. Here's the tempest idea:


----------



## zogger (May 5, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> Imagine if that split on both strokes a bit like the tempest splitter. It would be a special bit of kit. Here's the tempest idea:




That is outstanding! Not quite a full fledged wood processor, but man it knocks out the splits fast and easy looking!


----------



## blacklocst (May 6, 2014)

That splitter is a beast you could make two wind rows at a time by towing the unit foward as you split.


----------



## KiwiBro (May 6, 2014)

blacklocst said:


> That splitter is a beast you could make two wind rows at a time by towing the unit foward as you split.


Yep. If the same concept was applied to the previous long billet splitter, there could be neat rows of 3 or 4' long billets that the drum/barrel splitter could be towed down a year later. And it would be a darn fast production speed. The price of the Temple is pretty steep for what is still just a splitter (albeit a very good one) though.


----------



## gdavis24 (May 7, 2014)

In New England we generally cut trees to 4' lengths with a chainsaw, then split with 6lb hammer and two steel wedges. Splits were loaded, hauled and stacked in spring to dry for the summer. in fall we used tractor PTO and belt to power a big round blade buzzsaw/bucksaw unit. Using Three men, one to load split onto bucksaw cradle, one to push cradle and cut split, one to catch cutoffs and toss into wagon, headed to woodshed. All cuts were 3x16", but suppose could have done 4x12". 
No one will say so, but my guess this tradition grew from back when trees were cut with a two man saw. The first mechanization they could expect was a bucksaw powered by steam tractor, Model T, so forth. Farm Work was slow in the winter. They had no chainsaw, no hydraulics, and lots of time to split by hand.


----------



## alexp_uk (May 8, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> ...
> 
> The wood here is often not straight. Even if it is only 4" wood but has 6" deviation over about 3 or 4', that would still need the chambers of the bucking barrel to be quite large. What is the biggest such machine or one with the biggest chambers?
> For the straighter wood, is their any such machine like these that has a longer barrel and will handle longer billets? I can see another species here that is straight softwood and it would be easy to load a machine with 8' (about 2m) stems, for example. It would save the time having to cut and handle so many smaller pieces.
> ...


Those barrel saws sure do look good.

I'd been thinking about replacing my saw bench. Mainly due to health and safety concerns - but held off because the newer small sawbenches are just less productive (and only marginally safer) than what I currently have (it is all guarded / has operator emergency power disengage etc - but the emergency braking time for the saw is longer than current guidelines for circular saws - those guidelines don't necessarily apply to mobile firewood equipment - they were designed more for table saws in woodworking shops but still - safety isn't something to play at). 

These barrel saws look both safe and very productive. The only thing I don't like (like most firewood machinery I see) is the price! I'm going to have a look at one at the end of this month though so maybe ....

I haven't found any with a larger barrel to take longer wood - most seem to suggest approx 4' max length - some designs seem to have some guarding which would stop you using anything longer - but with most I guess it's just a case of having enough length in the barrel to stop the stick falling out - but also imagine that the longer the barrel the more difficult it is to load.

re the power the one I'm looking at has options for electric or pto powered (+/- using tractor hydraulics for the conveyor) - I'm tending towards the fully pto powered - they don't require high HP and aren't particularly heavy so if necessary a 2nd hand compact tractor seems a cheaper more flexible option than a dedicated engine (plus can move it around easily that way) 

No idea on the conveyors - they seem to have them built in but might be worth finding a dealer and seeing if its an option which could bring the price down a bit.

For the cutting into billet length rounds - I've only ever seen people doing this manually with chain saws (for me I do it before transport at the tree - saves a lot of skidding / winching and large machinery which only seems worth it to me if you want longer lengths for milling into lumber)- but there are larger processors out there which can handle that size
 
That sort of machine is just way out of my league though so know nothing about them except that they exist.


----------



## KiwiBro (May 9, 2014)

Thank you Alex. Nobody here sells them but I have imported machinery before and would do so again if it is a great machine.
A stand alone elevator is still needed for splitting wood to big for the chambers in the drum. So if the machine can be sold without elevator, great.
Also needs to be PTO and gasoline engine powered so that it is not hogging the tractor when the latter is needed elsewhere at the same time. There are no power outlets in the bush or on the roadside where I usually process the wood. Could buy a generator I suppose.
It costs too much already transporting my gear from job to job so I hope I don't have to buy another tractor just to run the drum saw.
There looks to be enough room between chambers to mount telescopic supports if feeding it longer wood. Logs could be loaded straight off the trailer which is already 1m off the ground. It would be great to know how strong the drum Axel mounting and bearings are to check if it would handle the longer logs of 2.1m.
If you are able to get any photos or more info when you visit the dealer, please could you let us know?
Thanks very much.

I did email the manufacturer of these but no reply yet.


----------



## alexp_uk (May 11, 2014)

Sure - will ask about handling longer lengths when I see one - though do wonder whether its more that the saw tends to bind in the cut with too much length / leverage - it's what happens if the length is too long when cutting on a table - but that has gravity working against you all the time.

Would something like the following be easier to adapt for longer lengths - less fiddling round trying to stick a long length into a moving target (oops that wasn't meant to sound like boasting)


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 2, 2014)

Hi Alex,

Here's a couple of other options. 
Kretzer do a drum saw:
http://mk-forsttechnik.de/ 
and had a UK agent/rep:
www.cottagefirewood.co.uk/

Then there is an interesting option from a manufacturer called Growi. Their model, which I think I've seen somewhere else but can't put my mouse on it is called "hannibal":
http://www.growi-maschinenbau.de/show.php


And whilst we are dreaming, I am very much liking:
http://www.pezzolato.it/en/prodotto/redline/tb-900
here it is in action, in combination with a Growi cutter:


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 4, 2014)

alexp_uk said:


> Would something like the following be easier to adapt for longer lengths - less fiddling round trying to stick a long length into a moving target (oops that wasn't meant to sound like boasting)



That Posch smart cut 700 looks very slick. I wonder what consequences would be if it were constantly loaded with 2m long logs. Things like would the logs then be positioned incorrectly at the blade for an effective cut, or perhaps the leverage on the reciprocating chute mechanism would wear it prematurely? But that machine looks really good. And safe.

Found a price online and it was just over US$14k. Ouch!


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 7, 2014)

Here's a cheaper yet still productive option. Essentially a regular PTO buzz/cordwood saw but with two blades:

This is Posch's


And here is Scheppach's (has a tilting cradle to help eject the cut pieces):


----------



## 7sleeper (Jun 7, 2014)

You mean you would like something like this. There are quite a few who have homemade models.









7


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 7, 2014)

One nagging thought is even though these are clever bits of kit that look effective, the billets still have to be produced and unless we have a heap of 4" wood, there could be quite a few largish trunks that would need to be split into billets small enough for these machines to handle. By the time we've got a machine that would handle our bigger wood, is it still going to be worthwhile making long splits (if the wood can handle being split long)?

On that note, here's an interesting splitter. I've seen a few similar designs on youtube. The thing about videos is they can't really answer crucial questions like - "will it work on our species of trees?" and "how does it handle knots?". But I guess we could simply buck the knotty wood into firewood sized lengths and put four or so rings into the splitter at once.


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 7, 2014)

7sleeper said:


> You mean you would like something like this. There are quite a few who have homemade models.


These look like a far less "busy" way of handling the billets while still producing highly. What I don't like about them is the constrained length of billet feedstock. The duo/duel buzzsaws and some of the drumsaws allow the user, with the aid of a support but within a certain center of gravity limit, to use longer billets/logs and just keep feeding the machine with 'em.


----------



## 7sleeper (Jun 7, 2014)

Here is another one made with a band saw. 



7


----------



## 7sleeper (Jun 7, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> These look like a far less "busy" way of handling the billets while still producing highly. What I don't like about them is the constrained length of billet feedstock. The duo/duel buzzsaws and some of the drumsaws allow the user, with the aid of a support but within a certain center of gravity limit, to use longer billets/logs and just keep feeding the machine with 'em.


You will have to deside beforehand which way you want to go. Make 1 metre splits and enjoy the easiness of stacking for drying or cut everything small and splitt right away and then just dump onto a large pile to let it dry. As always the decision is up to you.

7


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 8, 2014)

7sleeper said:


> Here is another one made with a band saw.


Those guys also do one with two circular saw blades. What's interesting about their approach is it conveys the billets up to height rather than later having to convey the cut output up to height. But this may be somewhat inflexible because if greater height or reach was needed, a conveyor is still going to be needed.


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 8, 2014)

7sleeper said:


> You will have to deside beforehand which way you want to go.


 The issue is that there are no such long splitters here for me to learn if they would handle our wood OK. At least none that I'm aware of. So the risks of being what would be considered an early adopter of such an approach here are quite a deterrent. Pine, no problem. But what about twisty grained Eucs? I was splitting some 1' long rounds of gum today and the grain wants to twist on the wedge, sometimes about 45 degrees over just 1'! Imagine what it would want to do if trying to split a 3' billet.

In some of those billet splitting videos, they raise the wedge up and down as the wood passes through it, to compensate, but I don't think that would be enough for the really twisted grain woods. The resulting billets would probably not get passed 1 1/2' long, tapering to nothing, so that when the billets are then put through the final bucking operation, there might be too many little bits of kindling. 

Again, this is all speculation on my part because there isn't anything like these splitters here for me to try, at least not that I am aware of. But we have our main ag show in a few days here (biggest in Aussie and NZ) so maybe there will be something there for me to try.

I guess one thing reducing the risks might be that for the times we come across twisted grain or knotty wood, we could always just buck it into the regular 1' rounds or what have you, and load three of them into the splitter to be split the usual way rather than try to create 3' billets.


----------



## zogger (Jun 8, 2014)

KiwiBro said:


> Those guys also do one with two circular saw blades. What's interesting about their approach is it conveys the billets up to height rather than later having to convey the cut output up to height. But this may be somewhat inflexible because if greater height or reach was needed, a conveyor is still going to be needed.



In the olden daze with small square bales, they used a kicker to get them into a wagon. (this was much cooler over a hook and doing it by hand off the ground..much cooler...) Something like that would be way more fun with firewood over a common conveyor...add just the right amount of nutso fun danger......just sayin' work doesn't have to be drudgery 

added bonus, it would help to knock dirt and bark off....


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 8, 2014)

zogger said:


> In the olden daze with small square bales, they used a kicker to get them into a wagon. (this was much cooler over a hook and doing it by hand off the ground..much cooler...) Something like that would be way more fun with firewood over a common conveyor...add just the right amount of nutso fun danger......just sayin' work doesn't have to be drudgery
> 
> added bonus, it would help to knock dirt and bark off....


The first time I tried to modify an electric treadmill to become a conveyor, I could fire split wood straight over my truck. Fun for all the family.


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 13, 2014)

For those gravity fed bucking machines like the drum saws, Growi 'Hannibal' and the Posche 'SmartCut', what's stopping the feedstock binding on the blade? Or is this one of the reasons they tend to limit the size of the feedstock, because they rely on the blade momentarily handling the weight and if the wood was heavier it would ask too much of the blade or the spindle the blade is on?

Also, what's the largest saw bucking circular saw blade that's readily available for things like processors?


----------



## KiwiBro (Jun 30, 2014)




----------



## zogger (Jun 30, 2014)

That looks good *if* you had a whole heaping bunch of wood that size to process.


----------



## KiwiBro (Jul 18, 2015)

Updating this to add another type of buzzsaw that I have seen recently, the AMR Solomat model. Its claim to fame is being tilted so it is gravity fed:



I wonder how difficult it would be to:

add a telescopic extension to the chute to handle longer logs without tipping the machine or putting too much load on the pivot mechanism or log stop.
add a hydraulic or air ram to automate the rocking movement to free up the operator to be doing other tasks like reloading, preparing more logs, etc. This way, it becomes much more like the Posch SmartCut 700, but much cheaper.


----------



## 7sleeper (Jul 19, 2015)

Hey Kiwibro

Personally I would prefer much more something like this than your machine.



or homemade



There are dozens of video's on "revolversägen" / "trommelsägen" in the net. 

7


----------



## KiwiBro (Jul 19, 2015)

Thanks 7sleeper. I like the number of chambers that DIY one has. There have been a few comments elsewhere that for high volume use, there can be some wear and tear on the operator. Lifting the billets all day long and trying to fit into the moving holes, that seems to cause repetitive strain types of problems and soreness for some people.


----------



## 7sleeper (Jul 20, 2015)

Yeah that might be true, but you will probably be finished in half the time compared to the above single loader machine you mentioned. Those tractor trailers sure fill up fast in the videos. And the single feed and cut type machine you mention will probably be equal straining over a day. What is important in my eyes the possibility to adjust the "revolver" speed and you should have at least two to three wood handling guys for a fluent work efficiency. With that the workload is spread out and less straining compared to a single guy. 
Of course I don't know how much you intend to cut but that would be my choice if I was needing high volumes of cut wood. It looks like a tractor trailer could be finished in 20-30min! That sure is a lot of wood in my eyes. 

7


----------

