alexp-uk... Welcome!
Splitting methodology - long billets or firewood length rings/rounds?
- Thread starter KiwiBro
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
066blaster
Addicted to ArboristSite
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
ArboristSite Operative
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).
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.
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?
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.
- 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
Addicted to ArboristSite
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
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
ArboristSite Guru
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.
I think this probably gets to the heart of the question. Regardless of the particluar advantages, processing wood is work intensive.
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.
I think this probably gets to the heart of the question. Regardless of the particluar advantages, processing wood is work intensive.
Thanks for all the welcomes on here - appreciated.
7Sleeper
For some reason (laziness?) mine never seem to end up like that
.
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 ....
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.
.
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.
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
Addicted to ArboristSite
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.
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
Addicted to ArboristSite
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.
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
Addicted to ArboristSite
@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
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
Hi NSMaple1
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
Tree Freak
that's a great thread, and nice to see the pics are intact!
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
Addicted to ArboristSite
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
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
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:
Thanks again.
- 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.
Thanks again.
KiwiBro
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
zogger
Tree Freak
Wow, that's pretty unique!
KiwiBro
Mill 'em, nails be damned.
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:
Similar threads
