# Kellog Impact Splitter Update



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

This is an update for some of you and for some it will be new. Attached are URLs for pictures of the Kellog Impact Splitter both with and without the protective cover. 

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1202.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1206.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1208.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1209.jpg

Improvements made since you last saw the design are:
- flywheels are now mounted symmetrically to the I-beam and the motor is mounted off center.
- forward drive belt is now using a ball bearing belt tensioner instead of being attached to the main shaft pulley (this improves the life of the belt)
- new metal cover was made improving the safety, noise level and appearance of the unit

For those new to this concept below is a description of the advantages, disadvantages, principle (how it works), and safety features. I would appreciate any comments, pro or con, to help improve this machine.

*Why an Impact Splitter?* 
If you want to break something effectively, you HIT it. You break a window with a hammer, you knock down a building with a wrecking ball, you break up concrete with a jackhammer, and so on. Splitting wood is breaking wood. Splitting by hand you would either use a maul or a sledge & wedges which both rely on impact.

Think of putting a nail into a piece of wood. You either hammer it in or you use a nail gun which uses impact. You would never even think to PUSH the nail into a piece of wood. Why push a wedge into wood to split it?

If someone were to set up the rounds, most healthy men could split a cord an hour with a maul. A man cannot develop more than half a horsepower. Why does a splitter need much more power? The answer is, it doesn’t.

*Advantages of the Impact Splitter.*
- Almost no maintenance (clean & grease and very occasional belt and chain tightening)
- No fluids of any kind needed (zero leaks, no engine oil, no hydraulic fluid)
- Starts first time, every time in any weather (must have a 110 volt 15 amp circuit)
- You don’t have to stop to gas up (saves time and $$$)
- You can split in the garage or barn (no cold wind, rain or snow in there)
- Large forces do not build up in the machine (avoids kick outs & violent breaks and the structure of the machine can be lighter)
- Very quiet except when actually splitting (a few seconds per log)
- Speed can be changed to suit the user (change one sprocket and the length of a roller chain)
- Maintenance and Repairs are very intuitive for the “backyard mechanic” (most people cannot effectively troubleshoot hydraulics)
- Safe (as safe as any splitter can be)

*Disadvantages of the Impact Splitter.*
- Splitting in the woods or away from electrical power requires a gasoline engine which negates a few of the advantages of the electric version of the splitter
- Splitting a very, very knotty piece of wood may require more energy than the flywheels and electric motor can supply at one time meaning that more than one shot at the log will be needed (a 1 to 4 second pause to bring the flywheels back up to speed is needed on a low percentage of rounds)
- When actually splitting, the noise level is relatively high. There is almost no noise when not actually splitting. The sudden change in noise level disturbs some people. (Hearing protection such as chain saw ear muffs should be used to mitigate this problem)

*How does it work?* 
The principle is very much like a jackhammer however the machine is much simpler without the need for a large energy-hogging compressor. 

A shaft supported on two bearings with a flywheel at each end is rotated by a small gasoline or electric motor at 600+ RPM. Eccentrically mounted on the shaft in the middle is a needle roller type cam follower. As the shaft rotates, the cam follower strikes the wedge giving a very powerful, short stroke, pulse to the wedge. This happens every revolution of the shaft, 600+ times a minute or 10+ times a second. The shaft and its housing along with the wedge move together down the I-beam and the wedge is pounded through the log.

The “impact” is what breaks the log. Because of the stored energy in the flywheels and the use of the very efficient impact principle, a very small motor can power this machine and get the same effectiveness as a much larger horsepower hydraulic unit. The low power requirement creates more flexibility in powering the unit. A 110 volt fractional horsepower electric motor becomes a very practical power source. The pictured splitter uses a 3/4 horsepower electric motor. Prototypes have effectively split with as little as 1/3 horsepower. A small gasoline engine could also be used.

To the operator, the impact splitter works just like a hydraulic splitter. Place the log on it, pull the handle forward, the large screw turns and moves the whole mechanism along the I-beam. The wedge gets successively hammered through the log. Let go of the handle and it stops moving. Push back on the handle and the screw turns in the other direction moving the whole mechanism back along the I-beam. The large screw needs very little torque driving it as it is only moving the mechanism which is on rollers. You can turn the screw easily by hand to split wood.

The speed of the movement can be varied by changing one sprocket and its roller chain length. Since the splitting mechanism runs at 10+ “hits” per second, the unit can run quite fast. Running any splitter very fast can, however, be dangerous as you have no room for error.

*Safety. * 
This machine has a full cover over all the rotating/moving parts except the wedge (for obvious reasons the wedge must be exposed). There is little chance of getting into the rotating parts of the equipment and being injured.

Log splitters create a large number of pinching accidents each year where a poorly placed finger or hand is pinched between the log and the wedge or the log and the pusher/stop. 

A unique safety feature is built into this machine. The wedge is spring loaded away from the main housing and the cam follower such that it has to move some distance before the cam follower contacts the wedge. If you have a poorly placed finger or hand, it will get pinched by the spring force which gives 20 to 40 lbs of force. This hurts and you pull the offending appendage out of harms way “automatically” prior to the full impact (many tons). 

A patent could have been applied for on this spring loaded wedge safety device but it was not. I believe any safety device should not be patented but rather left in the public domain for all to use. I hope log splitter manufacturers incorporate this safety device into their machinery to protect all of us.


----------



## jonseredbred (Oct 9, 2007)

I would like to see this splitter in action


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 9, 2007)

Sometimes a piece of wood will "stick" to the wedge on my splitter. Does not split all the way, is half split. I need to retract the wedge and the wood then hits guards on the ram end of the splitter which separates the wood from the wedge.

This might be with a 24" diameter (or larger) piece of wood. It will split 1/2, then I need to rotate it to get the other side.

Then I was splitting some cut many years ago very dried out maple. It would tend to crack and the pieces go flying. I learned to slowly advance the wedge so the pieces would not go flying.


----------



## RaisedByWolves (Oct 9, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Flywheels added to hydraulic splitters would also allow for greatly reduced engine sizes.






No they would not.



.


.


----------



## blis (Oct 9, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Sure they would.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and that would require a frigging huge flywheel to keep the momemtum for single split or fapping the splitter all day long... i vote for no


----------



## STLfirewood (Oct 9, 2007)

Looks like a super splitter design just more complicated. If it works as a good as a super splitter it will be a great machine.

Scott


----------



## MS-310 (Oct 9, 2007)

RaisedByWolves said:


> No they would not.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




+1


----------



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

Billy Bob,

You have some good points.

The point on the 24" and larger rounds that can stick on the wedge because they are only split half way thru is certainly a good one. On a round of that size I usually do not go right down the middle but rather take pieces off the sides until the piece is small enough to split down the middle without sticking. This avoids getting stuck on the wedge. It takes more strokes but the strokes can be faster. I may need to design something to handle this situation if people were to be unhappy with the method I use.

As far as the very dry old maple issue, a hydraulic splitter tends to let the pressure build up until the wood pops which can be at a very high pressure. This gives a violent break. 

The Impact Splitter pops it a small amount at a time (10+ hits /min) then relieves the pressure so there is less of a tendency to make a big pop. A little be safer for these kinds of rounds.


----------



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

I hear you on the video. I'll get on it.


----------



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

STLfirewood,

The super splitter is a very good design. I think the guy who designed did a very good job balancing all the competing criteria from an engineering standpoint. If I had not made the Impact Splitter I might have bought a super splitter. However it has few drawbacks. 

First it has to run fast. The pinion can only be so small and you have to have enough shaft RPM to keep the flywheels moving. The result is the rack has to move relativley fast. This may be good for productivity but not for safety. Most rental companies will not rent out a super splitter because they are too dangerous for the average person. There is no way to slow it down enough.

Secondly, I recently went to review a super splitter and found that the machine has a unusually large amount of "kick outs" from rounds that were not straight or not cut at a 90 deg angle (out of square ends). Thisis an unsafe conditon. I believe it was because the pusher is very small however I am not sure. There should be a way to design this issue out of the machine.

Thirdly the super splitter I reviewed was unsafe mechanically. It was an older machine and maybe they have updated the cover and these issues. Anyway the machine I reviewed actually had the flywheels sticking out of the cover an inch or two. There are many areas where you could get a hand or finger into the mechanism. OSHA would have had a field day with that machine. A better cover would likely fix this issue.

Finally, although the super splitter uses the momentum of the flywheels it does not use impact along with it. It is still PUSHING the wedge thru the log.

Don't get me wrong, I still think the super splitter is a good machine but it still as some areas for improvement if it is to be used by the general public.


----------



## jonseredbred (Oct 9, 2007)

Video please.


----------



## hfrench (Oct 9, 2007)

looks very interesting..... another vote for a video


----------



## STLfirewood (Oct 9, 2007)

kellog said:


> STLfirewood,
> 
> The super splitter is a very good design. I think the guy who designed did a very good job balancing all the competing criteria from an engineering standpoint. If I had not made the Impact Splitter I might have bought a super splitter. However it has few drawbacks.
> 
> ...



I don't think guys cutting 15plus cords a year are the general public. I think that is who the Super Splitter is aimed at. I do this this is hands down the best machine on the market for guys doing 15 plus cords a year. It's cheap and pretty much maintence free. Mine is 5 years old and has just had oil changes. I really hope your machine can prove to be faster and better then the super splitter. I'm always looking for something to help me. Good luck and I like everyone else want to see a video.

Scott


----------



## drmiller100 (Oct 9, 2007)

very very creative.
turn it around. i want to put logs on and throw them off the end and proceed forward.

your logic is very good. it is really interesting to figure out how often a log splitter engine runs wiht no load. storing the energy is a great idea.


----------



## NWnewguy (Oct 9, 2007)

*Probably a stupid question*

Could you expalin why it makes a lot more noise when it is actually under load. What horsepower or more importantly I guess what amperage is that motor? The thing looks very well done and like all of the others, I look forward to the video.


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Oct 10, 2007)

I hate to be the guy to bring this up, but I don't see "Arboristsite Sponsor" under your name and this appears to be a commercial post advertising your machine. Maybe I'm missing something.

Ian


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

NWnewguy,

As the cam follower strikes the wedge you hear a loud metal to metal contact. At 10 times a second it is somewhat like a jackhammer. It is not as loud as a jackhammer because the jackhammer is faster and has the addition of compressed air rushing in and out. Of course the noise only happens when actually splitting as there is no contact between he wedge and the cam follower when not splitting.

The 3/4 hp electric motor is 12.5 amps at full load. Of course it is a bit more at start up and a bit less when not splitting.


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

Haywire,

You are right the original post sounds like an advertisement. However you cannot buy one of these splitters. Do I dream of selling some someday? Sure. Is it easy for the average guy to get into the log splitter business? No Way. There are large barriers to entry; manufacturing lines, suppliers, insurance, etc., etc. 

I have made 5 machines of this design including concept prototypes mostly by hand in my garage. I still have them all. I am retired so I have the time to do this.

Why do I post about this machine on this forum? You guys are the experts on log splitting and I get really good ideas for improvement of the machine. If I were to start selling them someday, it would be good if it were designed so you guys would buy them (and I would be an Arboristsite sponsor). Secondly, I like to encourage people to think of ways to do things better and SAFER. I think you all know I am a stickler for safety.

Based on the above, if the forum leaders deem this is an inappropriate use of the forum I will stop the discussion.


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

DRmiller100,

Could turn it around: bang a pusher and have the wedge welded to the I-beam. The way it is now likely gives the most effective splitting as the wedge get hit directly. The other way the elasticity of the log absorbs some of the hit. Might work well though. I'll put that on the to-do list. Thanks for the input.


----------



## PES+ (Oct 10, 2007)

*Freedom to share Ideas*

It's what sets the internet apart from any other media form.

I am a small sponsor and pray that exchange of ideas and insights will never become stifled because of the highest paying sponsor.

A good idea is a good idea and innovation never comes from large companies any longer.

kellog just some quick questions.

Is there a reason to have the flywheels so far apart? 

IE are you using torsional effect of the shaft to accentuate hammer strike of the cam?

Also I am having a hard time visualizing how the cover works when in use.

Perhaps for now just some still shots of the unit in action?

There are a lot of advantages of your design over any of the current electric over hydraulic units available.

Also document EVERYTHING you do PRECISELY to protect your own ideas.

Patents are expensive and many times are hijacked to the originators loss.

You have something here..........please stick with it.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Oct 10, 2007)

This machine is in development. I don't see him trying to sell it here.

Big difference.

Anyway it is good to ask for feedback on a product being developed. This type of thing has a long tradition on the internet.


----------



## PES+ (Oct 10, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Carry on!



YAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!


----------



## drmiller100 (Oct 10, 2007)

on turning it around, i meant have the engine up around the tongue of the trailer.
when you get splitting a bunch of wood, it is easy to drop/toss teh wood, then pull the trailer forward as you split wood to give you room to work.


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

PES,

Thank you for the support.

No such high tech engineering as using the torsional effects of the shaft to help. The main shaft is long because the forward-neutral-reverse mechanism takes up a lot of space on one side. The version prior to this one (picture also on the forum) had a shorter shaft. The flywheels were not centered on the I-beam. This lead to some minor issues balance of the main hsg on the i-beam so I made the flywheels equidistant from the center of the I-beam on this version. That is why the shaft seems to be long on one side and seems to be longer than it needs to be. 

The cover attaches to the main housing and moves along with it down the I-beam. The long "tail cover" covers the screw and also moves with the main cover. This is different from a hydraulic splitter in which only the pusher or the wedge move.

I must say that I really do appreciate all you guys taking the time to think thru the design and bring up very,very good questions and comments. Some I can answer and some may make me go back to the drawing board (which is a good thing). *None of us is as smart as all of us.*


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

Drmiller100,

Sorry, I totally misunderstood your question. 

It could easily be turned around however when the wedge is all the way back the drive screw extends more than 2 ft behind the machine. It would likely hit your vehicle. The tongue would have to be much longer increasing the length of the machine. However this is perfectly feasible.

Thanks for the idea.


----------



## logbutcher (Oct 10, 2007)

PES+ said:


> It's what sets the internet apart from any other media form.
> 
> I am a small sponsor and pray that exchange of ideas and insights will never become stifled because of the highest paying sponsor.
> 
> ...



BIG FAT REP for both you AND Kellog ....it's why this country is really in demand .


----------



## Haywire Haywood (Oct 10, 2007)

TreeCo said:


> Carry on!



Good deal...... The first post did read like a late night infomercial tho... :hmm3grin2orange: 

BTW, I'd like to see the video too.

Ian


----------



## Ductape (Oct 10, 2007)

Kellog, your latest version certainly looks more finished..... perhaps even "production ready"? My offer still stands to try your unit out, as a wood burning home owner. I too am looking forward to seeing video. If i get down your way in the near future, i'd love to see it in person.


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

Haywire, 

You are absolutely right, the original post did sound like a commercial. I was trying to get people interested to critique the design. As expected the great folks at Arboristsite did a super job asking tough questions and making great suggestions and for that I am very greatful.

You guys are killing me with this video request. I am working on it. I have absolutely no video equipment (I am a negative videophile). However I have contacted a friend who says he can make a video. I will go to his place Sat morning to split some wood for him and he will do the video. Hopefully by Saturday night you will have it. 

I would let the Arboristsite police do their job in the future.


----------



## kellog (Oct 10, 2007)

Ductape,

As I said a few months ago I will likely take you up on your offer to test. Currently I am trying to get some professionals interested in testing for me. 

I am taking the machine shown in first post to a friend of mine next week. He is a 200 cord/yr "semi-professional" firewood guy. He will keep it for a couple of months to "beat it up". I hope to get some serious feedback from him. 

I will continue to build machinery (it takes me a couple of months to build one now) and I will want to share a few machines with professional and non-professionals alike for evaluation and feedback.

Stay tuned.


----------



## Mr. Firewood (Oct 10, 2007)

heres my impact splitter.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bVAAx3mMKY


----------



## blunt (Oct 11, 2007)

:jawdrop: 


That gives new meaning to the words 2 handed operation!!!

*+1*


----------



## kellog (Oct 11, 2007)

Mr. Firewood,

That machine is something OSHA would really love!?!?

It gives me the creeps.


----------



## kellog (Oct 13, 2007)

OK Guys. You sufficiently badgered me into making a video. This morning I went to a friends house to split wood and he made a video with his digital camera. It is a relatively low quality video but I think you can see how the machine works. He had 14"-15" diameter dry birch and 8-9" diameter green hickory. I hope this is what you were looking for. The link is

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/?action=view&current=MVI_0444.flv


----------



## STLfirewood (Oct 13, 2007)

Very nice machine. You did a great job.

Scott


----------



## cruzer (Oct 13, 2007)

Very cool! Now come to my house in Cromwell and we can try it out on some cherry, poplar, maple and oak that i have

Stew


----------



## blis (Oct 14, 2007)

looked awesome and seemed to split nicely


----------



## kellog (Oct 14, 2007)

Thanks for the kind words. 

I'll be off the forum for about a week (I'm traveling). 'til when I get back...


----------



## Industry (Dec 16, 2007)

It needs an auto return.


----------



## hornett22 (Dec 16, 2007)

*ithink i'd paint that wedge orange!*



Mr. Firewood said:


> heres my impact splitter.......
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bVAAx3mMKY



i'd sure like to know where it is at all times!


----------



## hornett22 (Dec 16, 2007)

*i like it!*

i didn't hear any noise.oh yeah,i'm deaf,never mind.just kidding.

only thing i'd prefer different is the wedge on the end.maybe a catch table too.


----------



## blackdoggy (Dec 16, 2007)

One question for you Kellogg How would that unit handle a large forked oak or a very knotty chuck of oak?


----------



## kellog (Dec 17, 2007)

Industry,

auto-return.

I agree and it is on the drawing board. Not difficult to implement on this design just takes time.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## kellog (Dec 17, 2007)

hornett,

the catch table is a definite add. I just need to get it done. I'm thinking of incorporating a log lift/table all together.

Putting the wedge on the I - beam has been discussed. It may work however I am concerned that the elasticity of the wood will take some of the value of the impact away. Will have to try it but not soon. It not high on the priority list. Also if a vertical model is to be made it will have to be as designed anyway.

As you are so close geographically, maybe you can try it out someday for even better feedback.

I appreciate you adding your comments.


----------



## kellog (Dec 17, 2007)

blackdoggy,

I explained how to handle large pieces in post #10 of this thread. 

As far as knotty pieces go it cuts thru knots similarly to a hydraulic splitter. As I said in post #1, very, very knotty pieces that require more energy than the flywheels and motor can supply at on time may need more than one shot. It generally takes between 1 and 4 seconds to get the flywheels back up to speed for the second hit. 

The last piece split in the video had a sizable knot in it. If you look closely you can see it after the round was halved. The half that was falling shows it well. Cut right thru that knot as it halved the piece.

I just finished splitting a logging truck load that was mostly oak in the 6" to 15" diameter range. I cut the rounds 21" long. I fought with a few pieces (more than one hit required) but most were no issue.

Hope I answered your question well enough. Thanks for asking.


----------



## hornett22 (Dec 18, 2007)

*anytime!*



kellog said:


> hornett,
> 
> the catch table is a definite add. I just need to get it done. I'm thinking of incorporating a log lift/table all together.
> 
> ...



i appreciate you sharing this with us.i'd be glad to try it out anytime.looks like an awesome machine!


----------



## chipshopper (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi,

Happy New year to all of You.
I'm new here and i must say that i'm stupefied about the creativity and know-how bundled and shared in this forum.

Dear Kellog,

I'm new with splitting and after searching Google for log splitters, my search stopped here.
Since i saw Your splitter i can't get it out of my mind.
However, i still have a few questions:

- Can i use the modified flyweel from a hometrainer?
The weight of such a wheel is around 25 lb.
- Or maybe a few weight-lifting discs?
- I've looked the pics again and again but cannot figure 
out how the power is distributed to move the splitter
for- and backwards and how the direction is changed.
- Can i buy a copy of Your building plan?

I"m considering building a splitter for many years but since
i'm retired i now have time enough to build one and also important is the fact that Your design is low-budget buildable and looks as maintenance free as a splitter can be.

Regards and with great respect for You and all the other guys here.

I apologize for my English.
I'm not used to speak or write it.


----------



## kellog (Jan 2, 2008)

Chipshopper,

I must say your English is excellent. You have nothing to apologize for. (It’s probably better than mine and I grew up with it). You can PM me in German if its more comfortable for you but I don’t do French or Flemish.

Thank you for the kind words relative to the splitter design.
If you want to see more detail on how the forward/backward mechanism works you need to see the following thread post #12 and onward. The design in this thread is slightly different but basically the same.

http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=44407&highlight=kellog

The flywheels are were purpose made for this unit and weigh more than 50 lbs each. However I did use old one lunger engine flywheels for one of the concept prototypes. They weighed even more.

This is a very simple, maintenance free design in principle however the devil is in the details. As I said in an earlier post I would not consider selling plans for this unit as it is not something I think the average person could build. You would have to be a tool maker type and have access to machine tools to build this from scratch.


----------



## chipshopper (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Kellog.

The thread You mentioned made me understand better how the splitter is made.
After a close look on the included pics i must grant You are right: It will not be easy but I have a few good mates who own the machinery needed for it.
Payback for all the times they left me with an empty fridge..... 
As for me: I"m a retired worn-out construction worker, welder and would-be mechanic.
And i'm also slow........
My splitter will not be as good as Yours : No doubt about that but i rather would see it as a challenge.
And i love junkyards to.
As soon as the wetter gets better You will find me there,
searching for flywheels.....

Regards,


----------



## infomet (Jan 2, 2008)

A great machine made even greater!
Keep 'em coming.


----------



## infomet (Jan 2, 2008)

Just came to me while admiring the pictures. A simple mechanism on the beam could do away with the big/expensive/drive screw.

Simplest might be a gearmotor driving a pinion (maybe one on either side) to pull the head along a rack fixed to the beam. Or driving a sprocket to pull along a roller chain stretched along the beam. I think this is what Woodmizer does.

Or small hydraulic cylinder(s) beside the beam. Tiny pump driven from mainshaft.

Even a little winch on each end to pull a cable atached to the head.
Or keeping the lead screw idea, put the screw by the beam and start/stop it for motion, like a lathe bed.

So many ideas, so little time!


----------



## kellog (Jan 3, 2008)

Infomet,

Thanks you for reviewing the design. You obviously spent a great amount of time developing you thoughts. Your ideas are all reasonable and could be incorporated. 

One thing to keep in mind is, although the drive mechanism has virtually no load on it most of the time, during a very small part of each revolution of the main shaft while splitting, there is a *very large *shock load imparted to the drive mechanism. 

Currently a 2” diameter acme screw is used. It is set up in pure compression for maximum strength. It is likely somewhat overkill and probably could be downsized. However the loads on it are substantial.

I am afraid some of your ideas would not survive this shock load or would have to be costly in order to survive. I may be very wrong. You may have answers to my concerns.

Again thanks for taking the time and effort to review the design and offer well thought out input.


----------



## infomet (Jan 3, 2008)

HO HO, lot of time, I wish! I remembered the shock load about the second after I hit send...just like sometimes when I wish I could have a delay on my mouth after saying something dumb. Yes, the screw is taking a lot of reaction, but I wonder how much would be taken by the carriage mass, were the screw not there? It would be interesting to disconnect the screw and see if you could push the head into a log by hand. One can even imagine a little pawl of some sort that slid along the top flange of the beam and provided a lock action when splitting, then was raised to retract the carriage.
The whole idea is obviously to get rid of the screw protrusion. It sure doesn't bother me, but does contribute to a longer length than "necessary".

The whole machine is so neat I feel bad even thinking of improvements!


----------



## kellog (Jan 3, 2008)

Infomet,

I really like the pawl idea. I need to think about that a lot more. It has real potential.

The main housing, shaft and flywheels are very heavy and have much inertia. I have not tried to disconnect the screw and just hand push the housing, although I understand what you are driving at relative to the inertia. I have tried hand pushing the wood into the wedge and it does not work at all but the wood has a lot less inertia. Wouldn’t be hard to try however the high today here was 8 degrees so I’m not going out to do that right now.

By the way, there is not a machine in the world that cannot be improved and usually substantially. You should not feel bad about designing improvements because I’m sure there are many, many still left to do.

Thanks again for good input.


----------



## Dennis_Peacock (Aug 12, 2008)

So.....whatever happened to this idea / splitter??? Inquiring minds wanna know.


----------



## mucat (Mar 19, 2009)

Any updates? This thread just seemed to quit.


----------



## woody49705 (Apr 28, 2009)

Bump


----------



## Crofter (Apr 28, 2009)

TreeCo said:


> I would too. It looks interesting.
> 
> Flywheels added to hydraulic splitters would also allow for greatly reduced engine sizes.



Just throwing this in here as I didnt follow the original thread at the time. Looks like it is stale anyways.

The flywheel inertia idea makes good use a smaller motor to a job that is very long on free movement in relation to peak pressure time. I wonder how sturdy or expensive the hammering mechanism was on Kellogs prototype. I know the frost breakers for backhoes are very pricey to repair.

My money is on TreeCo on this idea for a heavy flywheel on a conventional splitter, BUT, the complexity of bearings and costs of flywheel, shafting etc would likely would not offset the difference in price between a 6 horse and a 12 horse engine. It also would not be lighter overall. Just guessing 100 Lbs. or more flywheel. The old Lister 6 horsepower diesel had about 300 lb. of flywheel to carry the piston through its periods of unemployment. They do real well on a splitter but weigh 750 Lbs.


----------



## rscregger (Sep 21, 2013)

*Flywheel splitter*



kellog said:


> This is an update for some of you and for some it will be new. Attached are URLs for pictures of the Kellog Impact Splitter both with and without the protective cover.
> [/LE
> http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1202.jpg
> http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1206.jpg
> ...




I am wanting to build a flywheel woodsplitter and noticed your post. I was wondering about the flywheels, I have one off of a new holland hay bailer that is 22 inches and weights approx 177 1/2 lbs. I have another one that I'm going to get off of another hay bailer that should be about the same size. My question is would they be to big and would I need more that one rack and pinion? Also do you have the dimension's of what I would need to build? Your pictures of the one you built are great. Also what is the gear ratio I would need and is there a place on the internet that I can purchase the rack and pinion?

I would appreciate any help I can get. Thanks in advance.
Peanut​


----------

