# 29 pound mega monster maul



## Adirondack (Mar 12, 2015)

Just got this new 29 pound monster maul. It's very heavy but it really does the job.for comparison I added the video of the 15 pound sotz maul and the fiskars x27 super splitting axe, 36-inch


----------



## Landmark (Mar 12, 2015)

Looks like it will do the job. Thanks for vids


----------



## Raganr (Mar 12, 2015)

No thanks.


----------



## svk (Mar 13, 2015)

I clicked in here thinking that this was another BA repost of the Thor's hammer video. Is this thing actually mass produced?


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 13, 2015)

No, it was custom made.


svk said:


> I clicked in here thinking that this was another BA repost of the Thor's hammer video. Is this thing actually mass produced?


----------



## benp (Mar 13, 2015)

Dang!

Thanks for the videos!!


----------



## allstihl (Mar 13, 2015)

the heaviest tool I use is a 30pack .


----------



## trukn2004 (Mar 13, 2015)

Wow, And I thought my 12lb wedge maul was awful to swing. Judging by the video, it looks like it works but you look a little out of control with it. Does it save any time or pain Vs. the 15 lb maul?


----------



## Ronaldo (Mar 13, 2015)

Interesting, but I think I would rather hit it several more times with the Fiskars!


----------



## muddstopper (Mar 13, 2015)

Why do people want to abuse their bodies so much. It obvious that a 29lb mual is to heavy for anything more than a conversation piece. No one in their right mind would want to swing such a piece of equipment to process a bunch of firewood at one time. I use to swing a 16lb sledge for splitting locust rails and post. Now the Rheumatism in my shoulders wont let me swing a 6lb'er. Which is why I use hydraulics for processing my wood.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 13, 2015)

Yes when I finally split through the log the weight of the head pulled me forward a bit. I definitely wasn't expecting it.
It definitely has enormous amount of energy when it hits the log.usually when my 15 pound maul bounces off I use the heavy maul. 
But does it save me time or pain? I would say because I Splitwood for fun and exercise the big maul definitely contributes to A good workout. No doubt it will split logs the 15 pound maul will not. But if A log has substantial knots even the big maul bounces off. After swinging the big maul for a while it is very easy to use the Fiskars one-handed for smaller stuff.




trukn2004 said:


> Wow, And I thought my 12lb wedge maul was awful to swing. Judging by the video, it looks like it works but you look a little out of control with it. Does it save any time or pain Vs. the 15 lb maul?


----------



## zogger (Mar 13, 2015)

Which did you wind up using the most processing those large rounds?


----------



## svk (Mar 13, 2015)

Not for me, but you've got to give the guy credit for creating a tool that does give him results.


----------



## jrider (Mar 13, 2015)

Looks idiotic to me. Feet flying all over the place to maintain control but each to their own.


----------



## lone wolf (Mar 13, 2015)

Adirondack said:


> Just got this new 29 pound monster maul. It's very heavy but it really does the job.for comparison I added the video of the 15 pound sotz maul and the fiskars x27 super splitting axe, 36-inch



I just want to know how do you think your lower back will do if you keep doing that?


----------



## caw (Mar 13, 2015)

My back hurts just watching that first video. I think if I managed to pick up that monster and hit a round with it and the round didn't break apart I would probably take the rest of the day off to drink and cry. Props to you sir you are made of much sterner stuff than I am


----------



## sunfish (Mar 13, 2015)

I'd be faster and more efficient with a sharp 5 lb maul. But that's just me...


----------



## zogger (Mar 13, 2015)

Well, I would give it a try just for a hoot, but at over 25% of my body weight, don't think I could use one on a regular basis. Now..maybe with a ten foot + handle and a pivot point, you could make some sort of medieval looking deal, get the thing up in the air high, latch it, set the round (save up the insane gnarly twisty big ones for this), and then trigger it to come down WHAM! Flintstones splitter.


----------



## caw (Mar 13, 2015)

You weigh less than 116 lbs zogger? Eat a damn sandwich!


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

Usually what happens in life is brute force is used when technique is lacking. I cant think of any reason to own or swing a 29 lb maul.

What kind of wood were you splitting?


----------



## blumtn969 (Mar 13, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Usually what happens in life is brute force is used when technique is lacking. I cant think of any reason to own or swing a 29 lb maul.
> 
> What kind of wood were you splitting?


----------



## blumtn969 (Mar 13, 2015)

Kind of an entertaining video but if anyone used 29 pound maul to split say 20 to 30 cords a year they would be signing up for surgery in a big hurry. An afternoon with just an old sissy 8 pounder is enough to get my 46 year old arse to hurting. Noodling them is so much more fun.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 13, 2015)

Adirondack said:


> It definitely has enormous amount of energy when it hits the log


It has the same energy at impact as an 8lb maul swung twice as fast.


----------



## lone wolf (Mar 13, 2015)

sunfish said:


> I'd be faster and more efficient with a sharp 5 lb maul. But that's just me...


I like an 8 always have had that size tried other sizes but 8 works best in Oak.


----------



## lone wolf (Mar 13, 2015)

Chris-PA said:


> It has the same energy at impact as an 8lb maul swung twice as fast.


Not that there is anything wrong with him using the heavy one. IDK it would get you eventually.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

Chris-PA said:


> It has the same energy at impact as an 8lb maul swung twice as fast.


 Stop that, white spidey will be here any minute.


----------



## lone wolf (Mar 13, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Stop that, white spidey will be here any minute.


----------



## Red Amor (Mar 13, 2015)

Im just thinkin here , the op would do better to learn to swing an axe/ maul , its more about how you use the tool you use than it is the tool you use 
signed Spoke Shave ;O)


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

Red Amor said:


> Im just thinkin here , the op would do better to learn to swing an axe/ maul , its more about how you use the tool you use than it is the tool you use
> signed Spoke Shave ;O)


Repped!

See post 20.


----------



## zogger (Mar 13, 2015)

caw said:


> You weigh less than 116 lbs zogger? Eat a damn sandwich!



It's about what I weigh, yes. I do eat, not saying a lot compared to other guys, but substantial amount. Just gradually losing weight over the years. I guess some guys put on the lbs as they get older, I'm getting skinnier. 

Another reason why I am trying to get more years ahead, gonna be a time I can't do wood that great. Also why I am hanging on to my battery saw.

I would still *try* to swing that monster. I don't have any problem at all with my 8lb, which for most normal sized guys would be like using a 16 (something like that anyway). Always been fairly strong for my small stature. Back in school (at 126 lbs) when keeping track I leg pressed 720, squatted with 320 and dead lifted 395. I don't remember my bench, either 160 or 180.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

Better follow that loggers diet plan over in the Scrounging thread Zogger.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 13, 2015)

lone wolf said:


> I just want to know how do you think your lower back will do if you keep doing that?


Actually to tell you the truth my back is stronger than it ever has been just from splitting wood. Also I had a bad shoulder and from using my 15 pound mall most of the time I was able to rehab that shoulder and now it's stronger than ever. Notice I lift the maul with my hip movement and throw it up in the air and bend my knees pretty deep so I don't have to bend at the spinal segment level. This would open up the disc and expose it to vulnerability. Spinal disc material is actually very strong if you understand the mechanics to keep it from degenerating.


----------



## zogger (Mar 13, 2015)

@Adirondack, I think it's slick as a "workout" fun thing to do. And like you said, go grab anything else after that, seems like nuthin.

That's one reason I like having some larger saws, use them some, then can grab a 70cc on down, pfft, easy.

If you don't do stuff like this when younger, well, you'll never do it. Gonna get old and creaky anyway, might as well have some fun on the way!

I don't see swinging that thing being any worse than, say, playing football and giving and taking some righteous hits.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 13, 2015)

That thing's probably recommended and endorsed by every back surgeon and chiropractor on the planet...Lol. More power to ya.


----------



## LarryTheCableGuy (Mar 13, 2015)

Heck, if you want a workout, why don't you just throw the rounds at the maul?


----------



## remduck1 (Mar 13, 2015)

Learn to swing the axe and not try to muscle it into the round and the need for any maul will be greatly reduced as will the damage to your body.


----------



## caw (Mar 13, 2015)

zogger said:


> It's about what I weigh, yes. I do eat, not saying a lot compared to other guys, but substantial amount. Just gradually losing weight over the years. I guess some guys put on the lbs as they get older, I'm getting skinnier.


I'm not trying to make too much fun zogger, I promise. I think my sense of scale is a bit out of whack, at 6'4" 250 lbs (I'm bringing that down with jogging and wood splitting) I blew through 120 lbs when I was 8-10 years old. I don't remember exactly. I could technically handle that maul I think but I probably wouldn't be able to walk straight after an hour.


----------



## Hinerman (Mar 13, 2015)

LarryTheCableGuy said:


> Heck, if you want a workout, why don't you just throw the rounds at the maul?



Repped. 

I was laughing pretty good reading all the replies, then I got to your post and it put me over the edge....this thread has epic potential.


----------



## zogger (Mar 13, 2015)

caw said:


> I'm not trying to make too much fun zogger, I promise. I think my sense of scale is a bit out of whack, at 6'4" 250 lbs (I'm bringing that down with jogging and wood splitting) I blew through 120 lbs when I was 8-10 years old. I don't remember exactly. I could technically handle that maul I think but I probably wouldn't be able to walk straight after an hour.



I didn't hit 100 lbs until half way through tenth grade...

Got a big kid story. Way back I was friends with "big Tony" and his family. His "little" sister was 6'4". She gets married had this whopper kid, 14 lbs and change. When I finally moved away and lost track with all those folks, the little guy was just crackin 100 lbs at five years old. Docs gave them some estimate that he might reach 7 foot and 300 and change. Unfortunately, I've never been able to remember her married name, always wanted to look the guy up, see if he ever was a pro athlete or anything.


----------



## Ironworker (Mar 13, 2015)

I think the idea of that thing is to burn less wood for the simple reason being that after swinging it for a while you're gonna sleep through the night weather it's 70* or 45* in the house.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 13, 2015)

Ironworker said:


> I think the idea of that thing is to burn less wood for the simple reason being that after swinging it for a while you're gonna sleep through the night weather it's 70* or 45* in the house.



Good one, spot on!! I think I'd rather be hemmed up in a Boston Cradle or Half Nelson Chicken Wing for half a day than be on the wrong end of that 29lb thing. Lol


----------



## unclemoustache (Mar 13, 2015)

Buncha wimps and whiners around here.  Where can I get one? 

Seriously though, different people have different strength, and if someone can get used to swinging a 29-lb maul, then go for it. If you use appropriate form, I don't see how that will do any damage to the body unless you drop it on your foot. It'll certainly build muscle.

Still, I prefer my 8 pounder, but then I've never tried anything else except axes and the Fiskars. I'd like to swing around that monster for a while.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 13, 2015)

unclemoustache said:


> Buncha wimps and whiners around here.  Where can I get one?
> 
> Seriously though, different people have different strength, and if someone can get used to swinging a 29-lb maul, then go for it. If you use appropriate form, I don't see how that will do any damage to the body unless you drop it on your foot. It'll certainly build muscle.
> 
> Still, I prefer my 8 pounder, but then I've never tried anything else except axes and the Fiskars. I'd like to swing around that monster for a while.



Yeh buddy 'stache'...and in the meantime while you're waiting on this animal to arrive by 'freight truck'...strap a cinder block to the end of an unused axe handle and start swinging and a preppin. "But wait, there's more...if you order in the next 30 mins, we'll send you twice the backache, all you have to do is pay S/H for the second one." You go get'em big dog.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 13, 2015)

Finally a use for an 090 - strap a handle on it and use it as a monster maul!


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

unclemoustache said:


> ...
> 
> Seriously though, different people have different strength, and if someone can get used to swinging a 29-lb maul, then go for it. ...


Ever heard the saying "ya gotta be tuff if your gonna be stupid",,?

Must be one tough SOB.


----------



## redoakneck (Mar 13, 2015)

Man!!! I'll buy 3!!!! I'll use that bad boy all day and night , ain't afraid of a little weight on a stick.

When I go to the county fairs they kick me out after ringing the bell so hard it falls off the top of the slider!!!

Get me a couple for back up!!

How much, ???


----------



## redoakneck (Mar 13, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Ever heard the saying "ya gotta be tuff if your gonna be stupid",,?
> 
> Must be one tough SOB.




Yep I heard that somewhere, too stupid to remember though, maybe my brothers grandpa??


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 13, 2015)

redoakneck said:


> Man!!! I'll buy 3!!!! I'll use that bad boy all day and night , ain't afraid of a little weight on a stick.
> 
> When I go to the county fairs they kick me out after ringing the bell so hard it falls off the top of the slider!!!
> 
> ...


Actually I paid $115 for it. He made to one for himself and the other one he sold on eBay


----------



## redoakneck (Mar 13, 2015)

Adirondack said:


> Actually I paid $115 for it. He made to one for himself and the other one he sold on eBay




Is he planning on making more??? Me and the stachman might be in for one.

That is really cool!!!

Prolly could get a couple dudes from the gym could wing that thing around, I'm gonna name mine the "Shaq"


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 13, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Ever heard the saying "ya gotta be tuff if your gonna be stupid",,?
> 
> Must be one tough SOB.



One of my older brothers has a sayin that he still repeats to this day, the first time I heard it was as a young kid back in the 70's. Only 5 words and it goes a little something like this..."Now go get you some." Lol


----------



## pantelis (Mar 13, 2015)

lone wolf said:


> I just want to know how do you think your lower back will do if you keep doing that?


----------



## Guido Salvage (Mar 13, 2015)

Having used a Sotz Monster Maul for over 30 years there is no way I would ever consider using a 29 pound maul. It would be like me trying to hit a baseball with a 42" baseball bat that weighs 6 pounds. The art of manual splitting is about control, finesse and head speed. Using a lighter tool which strikes the wood faster will create more force and produce better results.


----------



## pantelis (Mar 13, 2015)

some spliting wedges a 4 kilos hammer and the job done.


----------



## redoakneck (Mar 13, 2015)

Guido Salvage said:


> Having used a Sotz Monster Maul for over 30 years there is no way I would ever consider using a 29 pound maul. It would be like me trying to hit a baseball with a 42" baseball bat they weighs 6 pounds. The art of manual splitting is about control, finesse and head speed. Using a lighter tool which strikes the wood faster will create more force and produce better results.


 U r correct. F=1/2mvsquared

So yes, the velocity has more effect than mass!!!


----------



## svk (Mar 13, 2015)

redoakneck said:


> So yes, the velocity has more effect than mass!!!



I think that Finnish scissor company has a tool designed to do exactly that.


----------



## Woody912 (Mar 13, 2015)

Chris-PA said:


> It has the same energy at impact as an 8lb maul swung twice as fast.



It has about nearly 2 times as much momentum as an 8# maul swung twice as fast. Momentum splits wood, not energy. I think it is an accident waiting to happen however


----------



## unclemoustache (Mar 13, 2015)




----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

Woody912 said:


> It has about nearly 2 times as much momentum as an 8# maul swung twice as fast. Momentum splits wood, not energy. I think it is an accident waiting to happen however


Here this whole time I believed it took force to rip the wood fibers apart but it doesn't, just takes momentum eh?


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

unclemoustache said:


>



Dude, I said no pictures when Im benching.


----------



## Woody912 (Mar 13, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Here this whole time I believed it took force to rip the wood fibers apart but it doesn't, just takes momentum eh?



.460 Weatherby has about 8,000 ft lbs of kinetic energy but it won't split a 12" round of ash. Momentum is mass x velocity. All of these archery manufacturers who tout KE in their advertising are putting out BS and they know it. Bowhunters shooting elephants shoot 1,000 grain arrows at 200 fps, not 400 gr at 340


----------



## Marshy (Mar 13, 2015)

Woody912 said:


> .460 Weatherby has about 8,000 ft lbs of kinetic energy but it won't split a 12" round of ash. Momentum is mass x velocity. All of these archery manufacturers who tout KE in their advertising are putting out BS and they know it. Bowhunters shooting elephants shoot 1,000 grain arrows at 200 fps, not 400 gr at 340


You and white spidey would get along.

Bullets are not a good comparison. In the end your trying to separate 1 chunk of wood into two pieces. It will require X force to split the grain. Force is what matters here.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 13, 2015)

Woody912 said:


> .460 Weatherby has about 8,000 ft lbs of kinetic energy but it won't split a 12" round of ash. Momentum is mass x velocity. All of these archery manufacturers who tout KE in their advertising are putting out BS and they know it. Bowhunters shooting elephants shoot 1,000 grain arrows at 200 fps, not 400 gr at 340



Couldn't have said the bow idea better, as it relates, when it comes to the raw equation. Absolutely spot on from a bigtime bowhunter myself.


----------



## redoakneck (Mar 14, 2015)

The physics of splitting wood is stymied by the predictability of wood fiber characteristics.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 14, 2015)

redoakneck said:


> The physics of splitting wood is stymied by the predictability of wood fiber characteristics.



Exactly...that's the 'stymie', 'Little Rascals from the old days gone', that makes different wood what different wood is. Your statement is spot on. Good post.


----------



## Fubar (Mar 14, 2015)

a well designed splitting maul is going to work better than a poor one , no matter what it weighs, there is a fine line between weight and speed for me , about 15 pounds is my puss out point , i use to have one of those heavy triangle shaped head with a steel handle go devil , till someone stole it , i used it like a big wedge with a handle , take one swing  to bury it in the log and then just beat the hell out of it with the sledge , it would split logs that could not be split with a regular maul , i found one at the hardware store the other day , i think will buy it , the heaviest maul i have right now is a 10 pounder .


----------



## AIM (Mar 14, 2015)

My maul weighs about 300 .lbs. Probably 302 full of gas.


----------



## PA. Woodsman (Mar 14, 2015)

zogger said:


> It's about what I weigh, yes. I do eat, not saying a lot compared to other guys, but substantial amount. Just gradually losing weight over the years. I guess some guys put on the lbs as they get older, I'm getting skinnier



We gotta hook you up with either o8one-fiddy or beerbelly; in two weeks with them and their snackies you'd be a whale......


----------



## trukn2004 (Mar 14, 2015)

These are the two mauls I own. The red has to be either a six or 8lber. Put a edge on it and it does well. The orange bastard is about all I want to lift. No idea how heavy it is, but using it you can definitely see my speed clock way down. I picked up a fiskars about 6 months ago and I barely even grab the red one anymore. The orange beast just spends time in the bed of my truck.


----------



## Woody912 (Mar 14, 2015)

Marshy said:


> You and white spidey would get along.
> 
> Bullets are not a good comparison. In the end your trying to separate 1 chunk of wood into two pieces. It will require X force to split the grain. Force is what matters here.



Momentum is mass x velocity. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared.. Force is expressed in pounds, a wood splitter has tons of force but zero initial velocity and therefore zero momentum. I maintain that when we manually split wood that momentum is required and that kinetic energy is irrelevant. A bullet is not the best example because it is not an inclined plane but an arrow is


----------



## Greenthorn (Mar 14, 2015)

trukn2004 said:


> These are the two mauls I own. The red has to be either a six or 8lber. Put a edge on it and it does well. The orange bastard is about all I want to lift. No idea how heavy it is, but using it you can definitely see my speed clock way down. I picked up a fiskars about 6 months ago and I barely even grab the red one anymore. The orange beast just spends time in the bed of my truck.



Yep, Isa got one of those orange ones, bought it 23 years ago, .....................
..................................it hasn't been used in 22 years and 364 days.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 14, 2015)

Woody912 said:


> Momentum is mass x velocity. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared.. Force is expressed in pounds, a wood splitter has tons of force but zero initial velocity and therefore zero momentum. I maintain that when we manually split wood that momentum is required and that kinetic energy is irrelevant. A bullet is not the best example because it is not an inclined plane but an arrow is


You just made my whole argument when you mentioned te hydraulic splitter. No momentum, all force. Regardless of momentum or KE, the thing that does the splitting is force.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 14, 2015)

Woody912 said:


> Momentum is mass x velocity. Kinetic energy is mass x velocity squared.


Energy is what drives all of it. As Marshy said force is what splits the fibers, and many things determine how effectively the energy is converted into force - face angle, etc. The inability to understand energy flows and basic physics comes up again and again.



Woody912 said:


> Force is expressed in pounds, a wood splitter has tons of force but zero initial velocity and therefore zero momentum. I maintain that when we manually split wood that momentum is required and that kinetic energy is irrelevant. A bullet is not the best example because it is not an inclined plane but an arrow is


A hydraulic wood splitter is not the same model - none of us is strong enough to push a maul through the wood by applying a continuous force. Instead we must store energy in the moving mass of the maul head and transfer it to the round where it can be converted into forces that separate the wood fibers. There are splitters that work off of impact like we swing a maul - what are those called again? Oh yeah: Kinetic Energy splitters. Splitting with an axe or maul is a discontinuous process where the energy is transferred in separate events, and at each event you only have the amount of energy you transferred to work with. 

The amount of energy you transfer to the wood is determined by KE = m x v^2, which is a magnitude, not a vector - again, it's just how much energy you have to work with. 

Force is a vector which can be calculated by F = m x a. Acceleration is the change in velocity over time, so if the maul slows down slowly then the acceleration was less, and less force was applied - but all the energy was still dissipated. Force is also Work/displacement (work is a measure of energy, and in this case is the KE you supplied). So if the splitting tool moves a long way when it hits (as a sharp axe will sometimes), then the force developed was less. Both of these are the same concept - of the tool stops fast a higher force was developed by the energy you transferred to the round. 

But force is still a vector quantity and nothing says that the force was properly directed to split the round effectively.

The momentum transferred to an object by a force equals the force times the time the force is applied (Momentum = force x distance). Force comes from energy, so that can be converted into: Momentum = Energy/distance x time. It's still limited by how much energy you transferred to the round. 

Energy is what you have to work with - it could all be turned into heat without accomplishing anything (like if you swung a sledge hammer instead of a maul), or it could be effectively converted to appropriate forces and split the round. Or maybe it's not enough energy and the round does not split. Or maybe the round is on soft ground and the force is converted into momentum and transferred into the ground. Lots of variables. 

Still, if you transfer more energy you've got a better chance of success, and that means you want to increase the velocity, because in all these equations there is only one squared term.


----------



## svk (Mar 14, 2015)

Do you guys copy and paste the same mass/velocity posts every time this topic comes up? LOL. 

All of that stuff is great in theory but actual results may vary. As we know head design has a lot of influence on actual results. Take a look at Gransfors Bruks, Fiskars, Helko Vario. I'd say they are all following a similar concept.


----------



## Raganr (Mar 14, 2015)

Like the OP, I split wood for the exercise and like having an excuse to buy more tools. I am just not nearly as tough. This is my new heavy hitter. Only 5.5 lbs


----------



## Marshy (Mar 14, 2015)

No, I'm done talking about it. Time to cut some wood. Got 2 maple waiting to be dropped with the 285 then limbing with the 2159.  

What was this thread about?


----------



## Marshy (Mar 14, 2015)

Raganr said:


> Like the OP, I split wood for the exercise and like having an excuse to buy more tools. This is my new heavy hitter. Only 5.5 lbs


How do you like it? I would love to own something just a little heavier than the Fiskars some times. What's te cost of that?


----------



## Raganr (Mar 14, 2015)

Only split a few rounds with it. but swings well and looks sexy. It doesn't feel much heavier than the X27 in the hand. All of the weight is in the head of the X27, which also has a longer handle.

The GB was $180 delivered.


----------



## muddstopper (Mar 14, 2015)

Splitting wood is easy once you know the formula, 
=


----------



## svk (Mar 14, 2015)

Raganr said:


> Like the OP, I split wood for the exercise and like having an excuse to buy more tools. I am just not nearly as tough. This is my new heavy hitter. Only 5.5 lbs


I'd say you have the perfect "two axe" plan.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 14, 2015)

svk said:


> Do you guys copy and paste the same mass/velocity posts every time this topic comes up? LOL.
> 
> All of that stuff is great in theory but actual results may vary. As we know head design has a lot of influence on actual results. Take a look at Gransfors Bruks, Fiskars, Helko Vario. I'd say they are all following a similar concept.


I didn't type that, she did:



She really knows her physics. 



Marshy said:


> No, I'm done talking about it. Time to cut some wood. Got 2 maple waiting to be dropped with the 285 then limbing with the 2159.
> 
> What was this thread about?


I wish - it's pouring on top of all the snow that's still here. The snow packed up behind the barn has blocked the drainage and the stalls are flooding, plus the snow has finally come off the roof and the big berm it made is preventing it from draining out. I gotta go out and dig some trenches through the snow. Oh, and one of the downspouts came off so I'll need to get the ladder out. And it's still pouring.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 14, 2015)

Chris-PA said:


> I didn't type that, she did:
> 
> View attachment 411762
> 
> ...


Google "sleigh shovel", and your welcome. Shoveling will never be the same.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 14, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Google "sleigh shovel", and your welcome. Shoveling will never be the same.


Looks like it would work well for actual snow, but old snow that's been melting and re-freezing for a week, and then fallen off a barn roof on top of the ice that's already there calls for something else. Like a pick mattock!


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 14, 2015)

Hey folks and mostly to the OP...I know last evening the posts got comedic to say the least, and I certainly fueled the 'Anheuser Busch train'...at least I had a first class ticket on it. In all seriousness and respect to the OP and anyone else who can swing such an implement,,, more power to ya. I know I don't want anything to do swinging anything like that. At 47, I simply don't heal nor recover like I used to at an earlier age and I'll be the first to admit it. A tool a quarter or third the weight simply fits my hands a heap better, even if a strike or two additional is necessary. Just sayin.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 14, 2015)

USMC615 said:


> Hey folks and mostly to the OP...I know last evening the posts got comedic to say the least, and I certainly fueled the 'Anheuser Busch train'...at least I had a first class ticket on it. In all seriousness and respect to the OP and anyone else who can swing such an implement,,, more power to ya. I know I don't want anything to do swinging anything like that. At 47, I simply don't heal nor recover like I used to at an earlier age and I'll be the first to admit it. A tool a quarter or third the weight simply fits my hands a heap better, even if a strike or two additional is necessary. Just sayin.


Ya, at 45 I probably won't be slinging this thing for too many more years. When I'm 60 I plan to switch to the 15 pound maul and then at 80 I think the fiskars will have to do. 
Just kidding. I agree we don't heal like we used to. I think it'll be fun for a while but I'm definitely not going to overdo it.


----------



## zogger (Mar 14, 2015)

Adirondack said:


> Ya, at 45 I probably won't be slinging this thing for too many more years. When I'm 60 I plan to switch to the 15 pound maul and then at 80 I think the fiskars will have to do.
> Just kidding. I agree we don't heal like we used to. I think it'll be fun for a while but I'm definitely not going to overdo it.



I bet you could make money with it at the local county fair, plus get your wood split! So much a swing, proly be all sorts of dudes pony up to try it.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 14, 2015)

zogger said:


> I bet you could make money with it at the local county fair, plus get your wood split! So much a swing, proly be all sorts of dudes pony up to try it.



That's funny. Truthfully I have invited many of my friends who usually go to the gym to work out to come over to my "gym". I will charge them half the price and they'll get a lot better work out. 
#1. Push a wheelbarrow full of wood up a steep hill out of the valley.
#2. Hand Load a trailer full of 75 to 150 pound logs
#3. Split 20 to 30 inch round oak logs with that 29 pound maul.
#4. Push a wheel barrel full of logs through the snow up to the house.
For some reason I haven't gotten any positive response. LOL


----------



## 1 stihl nut (Mar 15, 2015)

Ironworker said:


> I think the idea of that thing is to burn less wood for the simple reason being that after swinging it for a while you're gonna sleep through the night weather it's 70* or 45* in the house.



You should just split wood with it in the house. The body should generate enough heat to keep the house warm in itself. Won't need to actually burn any wood, so you'll have to haul the wood back out when you're done splitting it.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 17, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Usually what happens in life is brute force is used when technique is lacking. I cant think of any reason to own or swing a 29 lb maul.
> 
> What kind of wood were you splitting?


Sorry for the late response. It's a piece of very wet maple.


----------



## GrassGuerilla (Mar 17, 2015)

My Chiropractor teaches at the local Chiropractic college. I sent him a link to your vid.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 17, 2015)

Adirondack said:


> Sorry for the late response. It's a piece of very wet maple.


 I just split a whole hard maple tree with my Fiskars this past weekend. Had no problem, chunks right up to 20" diameter cut 18-20" long. My co-worker that I was cutting the tree for was shocked that I was splitting green wood, "never seen anyone split green wood like that". lol 

Happy splitting.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 17, 2015)

GrassGuerilla said:


> My Chiropractor teaches at the local Chiropractic college. I sent him a link to your vid.


That's hilarious. Let me know what he thinks. Tell him I'm also a chiropractor. He must teach at Logan which is a really good school.


----------



## Adirondack (Mar 17, 2015)

Marshy said:


> I just split a whole hard maple tree with my Fiskars this past weekend. Had no problem, chunks right up to 20" diameter cut 18-20" long. My co-worker that I was cutting the tree for was shocked that I was splitting green wood, "never seen anyone split green wood like that". lol
> 
> Happy splitting.


Yes I agree that Fiskars is a very nice and well designed splitting implement. It feels like a toy when you first pick it up but man does it do a great job.


----------



## 7sleeper (Mar 17, 2015)

I want one! It would be great for teaching children a leason. You did wrong again... time to go split some wood and think about it... you can come back in after 1/4 of a chord and hand him the monster maul ... 



7


----------



## GrassGuerilla (Mar 17, 2015)

Adirondack said:


> That's hilarious. Let me know what he thinks. Tell him I'm also a chiropractor. He must teach at Logan which is a really good school.



Doc Cranwell. Used to have a talk radio show years ago too. If I was him, I doubt I'd open an e-mail from me... Ya feel me? Lol.


----------



## c5rulz (Mar 17, 2015)

OK I was going to go the predictable argue physics, the old kinetic energy = one half mass time velocity squared but some folks don't care for that argument.

Here is mine.

Nice splitting mauls hang on the wall underneath a favorite print of the breed of dogs you hunt. A real man NEVER uses said tool so decades from now Firewood afficniados will bid the NOS to insane dollar amounts many multiples of the original price.







You can try them all, (they $suck).






Serious firewood producers just wimp out and get a splitter. FWIW, here is a chart of the energy in gasoline, pretty potent stuff for the density but near as good as uranium and thorium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density


----------



## Oldman47 (Mar 18, 2015)

c5rulz said:


> OK I was going to go the predictable argue physics, the old kinetic energy = one half mass time velocity squared but some folks don't care for that argument.
> 
> Here is mine.
> 
> ...


Let me know the next time a 20 foot diameter 12 foot tall tank of gas can produce 1000 megawatts continuously for a year and then you refill it about 1/4 full and it is ready to go another year. Gasoline can't begin to come close to nuclear in the real world. Don't even get me started on how reliable "facts" are on Wikipedia.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 18, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Let me know the next time a 20 foot diameter 12 foot tall tank of gas can produce 1000 megawatts continuously for a year and then you refill it about 1/4 full and it is ready to go another year. Gasoline can't begin to come close to nuclear in the real world. Don't even get me started on how reliable "facts" are on Wikipedia.


 Most reactors go 2 years not 1. Some are 18 month refuel cycles.


----------



## svk (Mar 18, 2015)

Marshy said:


> Most reactors go 2 years not 1. Some are 18 month refuel cycles.


Fossil fueled aircraft carriers had a range of around 12,000 miles. Nuclear carriers have unlimited range and 20-25 year refueling schedule. A slight difference.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 19, 2015)

svk said:


> Fossil fueled aircraft carriers had a range of around 12,000 miles. Nuclear carriers have unlimited range and 20-25 year refueling schedule. A slight difference.



At least you're making real sense of the discussion...I've been on a few different nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in my Marine Corps yrs and aviation adventures.


----------



## svk (Mar 19, 2015)

USMC615 said:


> At least you're making real sense of the discussion...I've been on a few different nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in my Marine Corps yrs and aviation adventures.


A close friend of mine served on the Constellation. IIRC the last non nuke carrier in active service


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 19, 2015)

svk said:


> A close friend of mine served on the Constellation. IIRC the last non nuke carrier in active service



I believe that's correct regarding the Constellation.


----------



## Marshy (Mar 19, 2015)

svk said:


> Fossil fueled aircraft carriers had a range of around 12,000 miles. Nuclear carriers have unlimited range and 20-25 year refueling schedule. A slight difference.


 Yes, I was talking specifically comercial power generation not US defense. They have highly enriched (upper 90%) fuel that lasts decades unlike comercial plants (3-5%).


----------



## c5rulz (Mar 19, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Let me know the next time a 20 foot diameter 12 foot tall tank of gas can produce 1000 megawatts continuously for a year and then you refill it about 1/4 full and it is ready to go another year. Gasoline can't begin to come close to nuclear in the real world. Don't even get me started on how reliable "facts" are on Wikipedia.





Marshy said:


> Most reactors go 2 years not 1. Some are 18 month refuel cycles.





svk said:


> Fossil fueled aircraft carriers had a range of around 12,000 miles. Nuclear carriers have unlimited range and 20-25 year refueling schedule. A slight difference.





USMC615 said:


> At least you're making real sense of the discussion...I've been on a few different nuclear-powered aircraft carriers in my Marine Corps yrs and aviation adventures.





svk said:


> A close friend of mine served on the Constellation. IIRC the last non nuke carrier in active service





USMC615 said:


> I believe that's correct regarding the Constellation.





Marshy said:


> Yes, I was talking specifically comercial power generation not US defense. They have highly enriched (upper 90%) fuel that lasts decades unlike comercial plants (3-5%).




How is this for a derail?


----------



## svk (Mar 19, 2015)

c5rulz said:


> How is this for a derail?


Don't believe we've ever covered nuclear power before in here lol


----------



## Marshy (Mar 19, 2015)

svk said:


> Don't believe we've ever covered nuclear power before in here lol


Ask away, I'm quite familiar.


----------



## c5rulz (Mar 19, 2015)




----------



## AIM (Mar 19, 2015)

This one is gonna go WAYYYY beyond my mental ability!


----------



## Marshy (Mar 19, 2015)

The birth of commercial nuclear power and Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) explained:


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 20, 2015)

AIM said:


> This one is gonna go WAYYYY beyond my mental ability!



Don't you fret AIM...it all begins with a little Anheuser Busch fusion. Lol


----------



## Oldman47 (Mar 20, 2015)

I am well aware of the limits of nuclear power. I held a senior operator license on 2 different commercial power plants during my career. The details of the fuel cycle vary a lot from plant to plant and I did operate one that normally went 2 years between refuels. Actually a one year refuel cycle is a more efficient use of the fuel but plant owners hate the down time to do the refuel that often even though it comes out cheaper in the long run. The fuel cycle used on any plant is custom designed to reflect the desired operating cycle while minimizing total costs. Some of the variables involved include initial enrichments, desired burn up at refueling, ability of the plant to easily vary power and desired power profiles. A typical BWR runs a slightly lower enrichment than a typical PWR due to the way each one controls the power levels and reactor core flux shapes.
c5rulz, you gotta love watching Slim Pickens ride the bomb.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 20, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> I am well aware of the limits of nuclear power. I held a senior operator license on 2 different commercial power plants during my career. The details of the fuel cycle vary a lot from plant to plant and I did operate one that normally went 2 years between refuels. Actually a one year refuel cycle is a more efficient use of the fuel but plant owners hate the down time to do the refuel that often even though it comes out cheaper in the long run. The fuel cycle used on any plant is custom designed to reflect the desired operating cycle while minimizing total costs. Some of the variables involved include initial enrichments, desired burn up at refueling, ability of the plant to easily vary power and desired power profiles. A typical BWR runs a slightly lower enrichment than a typical PWR due to the way each one controls the power levels and reactor core flux shapes.
> c5rulz, you gotta love watching Slim Pickens ride the bomb.



Well said and defined...good read.


----------



## Oldman47 (Mar 20, 2015)

So does anyone have anything left to say about that gigantic maul?


----------



## unclemoustache (Mar 20, 2015)

Yeah - I still say there are a bunch of wimps hanging around here.


----------



## 7sleeper (Mar 20, 2015)

I am expecting the whole time that someone is finally going to explain on how to use the monster maul to split 









the atom....



7


----------



## Marshy (Mar 20, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> I am well aware of the limits of nuclear power. I held a senior operator license on 2 different commercial power plants during my career. The details of the fuel cycle vary a lot from plant to plant and I did operate one that normally went 2 years between refuels. Actually a one year refuel cycle is a more efficient use of the fuel but plant owners hate the down time to do the refuel that often even though it comes out cheaper in the long run. The fuel cycle used on any plant is custom designed to reflect the desired operating cycle while minimizing total costs. Some of the variables involved include initial enrichments, desired burn up at refueling, ability of the plant to easily vary power and desired power profiles. A typical BWR runs a slightly lower enrichment than a typical PWR due to the way each one controls the power levels and reactor core flux shapes.
> c5rulz, you gotta love watching Slim Pickens ride the bomb.


 IL has a few plants, which did you work at?


----------



## Oldman47 (Mar 20, 2015)

Most recently Clinton. Before that San Onofre in CA.


----------



## zogger (Mar 20, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Most recently Clinton. Before that San Onofre in CA.



I was part of the cabinet shop crew that built all this stuff before it was shipped out to diablo canyon and had all the electronic do dads installed. We called it in the shop the enterprise bridge, fun project. There's a bunch on the web, just picked this one pic out.


----------



## Oldman47 (Mar 20, 2015)

Looks like a BWR 4 control panel layout. Every generation has its own look.
What does this have to do with a 29 pound maul?


----------



## zogger (Mar 20, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Looks like a BWR 4 control panel layout. Every generation has its own look.
> What does this have to do with a 29 pound maul?



nuthin..just adding to the thread nuke derail with my own story.


----------



## USMC615 (Mar 20, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Most recently Clinton. Before that San Onofre in CA.



Just cuttin up with ya...but I ain't so sure I'd type the word 'Clinton' in anything around here, dealing with this crew. Lol


----------



## Marshy (Mar 20, 2015)

Oldman47 said:


> Looks like a BWR 4 control panel layout. Every generation has its own look.
> What does this have to do with a 29 pound maul?


 Doesnt matter, whats a 29 lb maul have to do with splitting firewood? Nothing.


----------



## Chris-PA (Mar 20, 2015)

Nobody's shown a DU maul yet.


----------



## redoakneck (Mar 20, 2015)

U can use that maul to hit stuff in that reactor if it don't work right!!!!


----------



## Marshy (Mar 20, 2015)

SCRAM: Safety Cut Rope Axe Man

*Reactor veteran recalls account of the birth of a key word in the nuclear vernacular*
_Editor’s note: Edwin Blackburn, a millwright in the Research Reactor Division’s HFIR Shop, for a time worked alongside the late Wallace Koehler. Koehler, a renowned physicist who designed and built ORNL’s Small Angle Neutron Scattering Facility, was one of three technicians assigned to man one of the buckets on top of the Stagg Field pile reactor when it first went critical on Dec. 2, 1942. He worked on the Manhattan Project until September 1948 and was a researcher in ORNL’s Solid State Division from 1949 until he died in 1986. 

Edwin was working on the Small Angle Neutron Scattering Facility when he asked Koehler how he became a physicist.
“He told me he guessed it just happened due to his college days and I inquired just where he attended college. He said the University of Chicago. I said, ‘Isn’t that where they first split the atom?’ He said, ‘Yes, as a matter of fact I was there. As a matter of fact, I was standing directly on top of the pile when it first went critical.’
“I asked then, excitedly, ‘You mean you met Fermi?’ He explained that he was a technician for Fermi. He then immediately asked me, ‘Do you know what scram means?’ I said no, and I guessed two or three things. He told me this story; I’ve never forgotten it.”_
by EDWIN BLACKBURN
Webster defines Scram as “A rapid emergency shutdown of a nuclear reactor.” To most of us in the nuclear business this term means “to place the reactor in a safe condition.”



Scrams are usually activated or “tripped” by electronic means through some of the hundreds of safety sensors and systems of modern nuclear reactors, but they still have a manual scram. Once this is initiated it occurs in fractions of a second. The term can always be found on any reactor control desk, adjacent to a large red button labeled “scram”.
*After a few test runs, the logger complained to Enrico that his neck was getting stiff. Could he just holler out loudly, "Cut the rope"?*
The first sustained nuclear chain reaction was accomplished during the early days of the Manhattan Project. This event, at the University of Chicago’s squash courts under Stagg Field’s bleachers, was destined to change the world forever.
Italian physicist Enrico Fermi headed up a group of technicians, scientists and others who constructed a “pile” of his design to safely prove that splitting the atom could be accomplished and controlled by the critical spacing, configuration and shapes of the required uranium slugs, graphite blocks, cadmium sheets and cadmium rods. The cadmium rods or strips absorbed neutrons, which enabled them to raise or lower the activity of energy emitted during operation.
Fermi needed absolute certainty that this “test” would not go awry. The experiment was originally planned to be performed in the Argonne Forest, some 28 miles out of Chicago. Because of construction overruns and the all-out push from the administration, a decision was made to go ahead at Stagg Field as long it could be done safely. It was through Fermi’s confidence in his calculations with the earlier construction and testing of 30 other smaller “piles” that they did so.
Fermi added two more safety devices. The first was to place three technicians (history records them as physicists, one of which was Wally Koehler) always at the ready to pour buckets of cadmium sulfate down through the pile if Fermi gave them hand signals, which were pantomime motions of dumping a bucket. The other device was already in place but lacked the speed he knew it must possess. This was a centrally located cadmium strip vertically suspended by a cable with a lead weight on the bottom, which was raised and lowered by a hand-operated winch.
Fermi informed the Army’s top liaison officer that he needed the services of an expert axeman as soon as possible. A professional logger from the woods of Washington or Oregon was hurriedly whisked to the site.
To the amazement of this Northwest woodsman, the success of this top secret operation and the safety of all of them rested truly on his shoulder, upon which also rested an axe, a fireman’s type with one blade, a pointed end and a wooden handle, all painted red. With it the woodsman would cut a heavy rope placed between the cable to the winch and the cable to the pile. It was strung against a piece of railroad tie placed vertically—a chopping block.
This was the first line of defense for an emergency “shutdown,” followed by, if needed, the dumping of the liquid cadmium solution into the pile.
The axeman received his hand-signaled instructions from Fermi, who stressed the speed necessary by holding one hand flat and depicting a chopping motion with the other.
After a few test runs, the logger complained to Enrico that his neck was getting stiff and that he really needed to keep a keen eye on the rope to ensure that he did not miss, and could he just holler out loudly “cut the rope” for his cue, which would result in a much faster process.
The following morning Fermi gathered the group together and informed them of the following emergency shutdown plan:

*Safety was high on Enrico Fermi's (top) agenda when he oversaw the Stagg Field experiment in 1942. The late Wallace Koehler (right) was stationed above the pile with a bucket of liquid cadmium.*

“Insert the control rod into the pile, unlatch the winch lock and reinsert the vertical cadmium back into the pile as quickly as possible. If I yell the word ‘scram,’ the axeman will swiftly cut the rope and let the heavy weight rapidly pull the poison cadmium rod into the pile by gravity until it falls into position. If all this fails to shut down the reaction, I will make the dump-the-bucket-signal and all three buckets will be poured into the pile and we will all exit the facility. Are there any questions before we proceed?”
One hand at the back slowly raised from the assembled group. Enrico Fermi was asked by the burly logger, “Sir, just what does ‘scram’ mean?”
Fermi’s reply to the assembled group was, “ Safety Cut Rope Axe Man.”

http://web.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no19/scram.htm


----------



## unclemoustache (Mar 21, 2015)

USMC615 said:


> Just cuttin up with ya...but I ain't so sure I'd type the word 'Clinton' in anything around here, dealing with this crew. Lol


----------

