Splitting Question

[clawmute]

Has anybody ever tried this? (I'm sure that sometime some place somebody has!) Tell me why it would or wouldn't work. No way to know without making it I believe. I think that you can do this and that you can split longer wood with a shorter stroke cylinder. What do you think? I design machinery for a living and like to always try and think out of the box - though sometime I actually get boxed. I would like to try this by and by. I not only design the stuff (100% forest products industry)but am also a machinist/tool & die maker and can make anything I can draw.

The bearing on the cylinder end helps segregate cylinder from twisting forces developed by wood grain, knots etc. This bearing will not have to be an expensive off the shelf unit, but just a bushing type assembly that will allow rotation.This is a very important feature since the life of the cylinder depends on keeping the rod straight & saving the seals.I think that the bearing would actually help a conventional (blunt pusher or truck on the cylinder rod) set up, since a tough piece of wood trys to rotate the pusher even if it's guided. I made this rough sketch to illustrate the idea. If you have ever made anything approximating this I would like to hear about it, pro or con.

This will also work if you had the wedge on the rod only and were pushing the wood against a blunt deadman. No stroke would be saved but length will be saved and for vertical units the additional height for wood length would not be needed. The rod is protected against rotation in both cases.

 

[mga]

so, if i rotated the ram's wedge perpendicular to the fixed wedge, would i now get a 4 way split?

 

[fletcher0780]

would that rotary bearing survive 20+tons of force?

With respect to the wedges being 90* to each other I think unless the wood was very dry and straight so it popped once the wedges made contact you would probably end up with 1 piece of wood spit half way trough from each end 90* off from each other. It is an interesting concept and would probably work well on very nice, straight, dry firewood.

 

[mga]

would that rotary bearing survive 20+tons of force?

With respect to the wedges being 90* to each other I think unless the wood was very dry and straight so it popped once the wedges made contact you would probably end up with 1 piece of wood spit half way trough from each end 90* off from each other. It is an interesting concept and would probably work well on very nice, straight, dry firewood.

it doesn't have to be a bearing at all. even a bushing would work to allow the wedge to rotate. the end of the wedge that extends thru the bushing would just have to be pinned in place. in fact, even a simple cotter pin would work in that case since there is no pulling force.

 

[Coldfront]

I think the problem would be that you would end up with a lot of stringy grain fibers left at the end of each split that you would have to keep pulling apart, because the chance of the grain coming out exact end to end split is not good. I would hate to try it with elm or white oak, I think you would spend too much time trying to pull the pieces apart.

 

[clawmute]

so, if i rotated the ram's wedge perpendicular to the fixed wedge, would i now get a 4 way split?

You could. It will bear some experimentation. Wood species will be agreat factor as will moisture content of the wood. As we all know the green stuff tends to be very stringy, especially around knots, crotches etc.

 

[clawmute]

it doesn't have to be a bearing at all. even a bushing would work to allow the wedge to rotate. the end of the wedge that extends thru the bushing would just have to be pinned in place. in fact, even a simple cotter pin would work in that case since there is no pulling force.

Size matters. I would make this bushing arrangement of a good size to gain area since there will be a lot of surface wear on the surface area of the cylindrical parts. More area = longer life. Strength will not be a problem with the diameters involved.

 

[mga]

I think the problem would be that you would end up with a lot of stringy grain fibers left at the end of each split that you would have to keep pulling apart, because the chance of the grain coming out exact end to end split is not good. I would hate to try it with elm or white oak, I think you would spend too much time trying to pull the pieces apart.

would using extra wide wedges solve that problem?

 

[Ed*L]

Nice idea, but I doubt it will work. There is no guarantee the wood will split evenly on both wedges. I think you will have a lot of blocks hung up on one wedge (either one, block dependant) every time you stroke the splitter.
All it will take is a knot to stop the block on one of the wedges, then the ram will continue to split the easiest end.

Ed

 

[clawmute]

I will just have to make one and try it. I do not think that any splits will meet - no way, wood is too contrary to imagine that happening. I think that there may be some ways/benefits that can't be known without the experimenting part.

You can only plan so much ahead and then you have to head for the welder, saw, lathe and drill and start putting something together. I've thought about this for some time and even if it is a partial bust - not 100% successful, some other good ideas will probably spring out of the work & the experimentation. That's been my experience of the past forty years in designing & experimenting with machines, devices & stuff. If and when I work on this I will post results.

Frank

 

[Coldfront]

I like the possibility of making it a 4 way, that sounds like it has a better chance at success, and might be worth a shot. A 4 way with 2 sets of wedges might not take as much strain and pressure to split a big tough round.

 

[clawmute]

I like the possibility of making it a 4 way, that sounds like it has a better chance at success, and might be worth a shot. A 4 way with 2 sets of wedges might not take as much strain and pressure to split a big tough round.

A four way at each end would be good. Even with the toughest piece, some splits will still break loose and fall off even if the whole thing doesn't bust up. On straight grained &/or easy pieces I think you will gain a real advantage since length of stroke shortened means faster cycle times.

 

[Wet1]

Intriguing design, but my guess would be that one of the two splits will become confused frequently and lead to a lot of partial splits over time. You'd also have to somehow limit the travel so the two wedges can't collide.

Appears to be one of those designs that looks good on paper, but would make you pull your hair out in practice.

 

[leon]

dual splitter heads

Has anybody ever tried this? (I'm sure that sometime some place somebody has!) Tell me why it would or wouldn't work. No way to know without making it I believe. I think that you can do this and that you can split longer wood with a shorter stroke cylinder. What do you think? I design machinery for a living and like to always try and think out of the box - though sometime I actually get boxed. I would like to try this by and by. I not only design the stuff (100% forest products industry)but am also a machinist/tool & die maker and can make anything I can draw.

The bearing on the cylinder end helps segregate cylinder from twisting forces developed by wood grain, knots etc. This bearing will not have to be an expensive off the shelf unit, but just a bushing type assembly that will allow rotation.This is a very important feature since the life of the cylinder depends on keeping the rod straight & saving the seals.I think that the bearing would actually help a conventional (blunt pusher or truck on the cylinder rod) set up, since a tough piece of wood trys to rotate the pusher even if it's guided. I made this rough sketch to illustrate the idea. If you have ever made anything approximating this I would like to hear about it, pro or con.

This will also work if you had the wedge on the rod only and were pushing the wood against a blunt deadman. No stroke would be saved but length will be saved and for vertical units the additional height for wood length would not be needed. The rod is protected against rotation in both cases.

Your going to rub into problems from the start as the rod end wedge will want lift up over thwood to finish the stroke and choke on the railas the rail will block the path of the wood being split.

And you need gibs-bronze wear pieces for the sled too as the block will wear the rail quickly other wise. the countersunk gibs shoulds be attached with flathead tapered screws countersunk into the block rails all four sides with grade 8-8-32 screws and blue loc-tite.

If you put a cone on the rod end it would work but the other way using two diagonal wedges will have huge resistance due the wood left on the rail and the wood threy to leave the bottom of thwedge will develope a lot of pressure wanting to go someplace.

The only resistance with a cone would be the point of the cone and the resistance would be minimal due to the sliding by of the cone surface past the side wall of the piece of firewood being split.

all the stress would radiate away from the cone as well


You would have to tolerate a certain mount of oversize firewood to use a cone unless you have the ability to reposition it like an adjustable wedge on the end of the weldment.

Having a conical carbide bit(such as those used in stump grinders or continous miners) set in the center of the cone with a hole the size of the bits pin diameter to mount the bit directly in the center of the cone would be ideal as it will cut and cut an cut and tear away the wood quickly. The spring stewel used to hold the bit in place will keep it there also.



:jawdrop: opcorn:


I am happy she finds me handsome, I have lots of duck tape and red green would be proud.

 

[clawmute]

1. Your going to rub into problems from the start as the rod end wedge will want lift up over thwood to finish the stroke and choke on the railas the rail will block the path of the wood being split.

2. And you need gibs-bronze wear pieces for the sled too as the block will wear the rail quickly other wise. the countersunk gibs shoulds be attached with flathead tapered screws countersunk into the block rails all four sides with grade 8-8-32 screws and blue loc-tite.

If you put a cone on the rod end it would work but the other way using two diagonal wedges will have huge resistance due the wood left on the rail and the wood threy to leave the bottom of thwedge will develope a lot of pressure wanting to go someplace.

The only resistance with a cone would be the point of the cone and the resistance would be minimal due to the sliding by of the cone surface past the side wall of the piece of firewood being split.

all the stress would radiate away from the cone as well


You would have to tolerate a certain mount of oversize firewood to use a cone unless you have the ability to reposition it like an adjustable wedge on the end of the weldment.

Having a conical carbide bit(such as those used in stump grinders or continous miners) set in the center of the cone with a hole the size of the bits pin diameter to mount the bit directly in the center of the cone would be ideal as it will cut and cut an cut and tear away the wood quickly. The spring stewel used to hold the bit in place will keep it there also.

1. Your going to rub into problems from the start as the rod end wedge will want lift up over thwood to finish the stroke and choke on the railas the rail will block the path of the wood being split.

The rod end wedge, being attached to the guide cannot lift up. In whatever orientation it is, it's strength must overcome the strength of the wood. There is no rail obstruction. The cylinder wedge rests on the guide structure. The base (broad end) of the cylinder wedge can be wider than the guide block. This will allow the wood to continue splitting and not to hit (on the cylinder side) a square shoulder of the guide block.
2. The gibbs can be bronze/brass/UHMW plastic/ or hardened & replaceable steel inserts such as flame hardened oil quenched OHFGS. Even could be AR bar welded on

I'm going to fool around and get stirred up enough about this thing to have to make one & satisfy my curiosity. This one is a "conventional splitter" (whatever that may be) that I made on my backhoe using the bucket pivoting cylinder with an attached splitter structure.

I believe some form of the double wedge splitter will be effective. Thank all of you for your input. That's how we solve problems.

Frank

 

[Zodiac45]

Clawmute,

Have you see the Splitfire units?

These are similar too what you're talking about (split on both directions) except that they use a double sided wedge in the middle of two anvils. Check it out. http://www.split-fire.com/splitter_sc_3455.html

This is a middle range model with a 4 way. The smaller units have the twoway single wedge. The work well and are quite fast.

 

[clawmute]

Clawmute,

Have you see the Splitfire units?

These are similar too what you're talking about (split on both directions) except that they use a double sided wedge in the middle of two anvils. Check it out. http://www.split-fire.com/splitter_sc_3455.html

This is a middle range model with a 4 way. The smaller units have the twoway single wedge. The work well and are quite fast.

I haven't looked at those before, pretty interesting. Not time to shut down the patent office yet I believe. Thanks.

Frank