Let us know what they perform compared to the Fiskars. I cant believe a Husqvarna splitting axe with a 27" handle is going to be able to out perform a Fiskars 36" handle. Their head is relatively the same shape so I would venture a guess that they are going to be closely similar if they had the same handle length.
Tell me about Axes....
- Thread starter PLMCRZY
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Let us know what they perform compared to the Fiskars. I cant believe a Husqvarna splitting axe with a 27" handle is going to be able to out perform a Fiskars 36" handle. Their head is relatively the same shape so I would venture a guess that they are going to be closely similar if they had the same handle length.
Well... I know if a 6 0unce billiard ball moving at 20 FPS squarely strikes another stationary 6 0unce billiard ball... the ball that was moving becomes stationary, and the ball that was stationary moves at at roughly 20 FPS away from it.
But if a 3 0unce billiard ball moving at 40 FPS (twice the kinetic energy, but identical momentum) squarely strikes a stationary 6 0unce billiard ball... the ball that was moving becomes stationary, and the ball that was stationary moves at at roughly the same 20 FPS away from it.
So... if the 3 ounce billiard ball had twice the kinetic energy... why does the struck ball move away at the same speed?? Where did the other half of that kinetic energy go??
*
Trx250r180
Saw polisher
I like the longer 36 inch handle also ,i have not researched the higher end ones all that much yet to see how long they are ,i do like wood handles though so i think i will look into them some see if one is out there ,till then my x-27 is doing it's job just fine ,i looked at a stihl mall at the saw shop ,did not like the handle on the one that was on display ,did not have the hooked end at bottom ,was more like a sledge hammer handle ,not sure if they have reg axe handled ones or not ,may look into those also
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
The inertia of crap is not something I'm qualified to discuss - there are too many variables.
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
Honestly, I have never tried to split wood with a tennis ball, but hey, I am open minded . . . .
Philbert
Philbert
Fiskars warranties their synthetic handled tools to inspire confidence in them - a lot of people would not have tried them without this. Some do break, but that is factored into their costs. At the same time, if I am spending that much money on an axe, I want to be sure that it is not disposable. I want the option of replacing/repairing it, even if it is my fault. Wood handles and guaranteed 'plastic' handles meet that requirement for me.
Philbert
Sagetown
Farmer and a STIHL
Really Folks: I've got all the axes I'll ever need, but I may be coming down with AAD, cause I sure like those Council Tool Axes y'all are talking about.
The steel balls in Newton's Cradle are all of identical mass @Chris-PA , my billiard ball example uses balls of different mass and velocity.
If the lighter, faster billiard ball has twice the kinetic energy of the heavier, slower ball (yet, identical momentum)... why does the struck ball move at the same speed?? Why doesn't the struck ball move faster from the higher kinetic energy impact?? Where did all that extra "energy" go??
The truth is... it didn't go anywhere, it never really existed. Kinetic energy is a "potential", or "reference" value... energy and power are two separate things.
*
If the lighter, faster billiard ball has twice the kinetic energy of the heavier, slower ball (yet, identical momentum)... why does the struck ball move at the same speed?? Why doesn't the struck ball move faster from the higher kinetic energy impact?? Where did all that extra "energy" go??
The truth is... it didn't go anywhere, it never really existed. Kinetic energy is a "potential", or "reference" value... energy and power are two separate things.
*
Chris-PA
Where the Wild Things Are
I put that there as a joke. Inelastic collisions are not the correct model for what is happening when we split wood.
I can't really get into it now as I need to focus on work, and I believe we're boring people to death anyway. You have not indicated where you believe the energy to split the wood comes from.
It's very simple, it takes energy to accelerate a mass. Specifically, velocity is the square root of 1/2mass x energy. Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
In your example, the 3oz ball carries twice as much energy as the 6oz ball moving at twice the speed. When the 6oz ball contacts the resting 6oz ball it will travel away at 20FPS. The 40 FPS 3oz ball will strike the 6oz ball and make it travel away at 28FPS. Basically it takes more work to accelerate an object faster.
It does move faster! The two struck balls dont move at the same speed. The one struck with the lighter faster 3oz ball moves 8fps faster than the one struck with the 6oz ball. Laws of physics says energy is neither created nor destroyed. Are you trying to create your own laws? lol
The truth is it had more energy the whole time and it transfered it into the ball and results in 8FPS more velocity. Just because it wasnt a 1 for 1 transfer doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
You might want to refresh yourself with Mr. Newtons laws and the definition of kinetic and potential energy.
No... you should refresh yourself with Mr. Newton's laws... specifically the Law of Conservation of Momentum (derived from Newton's Third Law of Motion).
It states the total momentum of a closed system does not change. This means that when two objects collide the total momentum of the objects before the collision is the same as the total momentum of the objects after the collision (a stationary object has zero momentum). Now, billiard balls are not an absolute "closed" system, there is a very tiny amount of momentum lost to friction and whatnot... that's why I said "roughly" 20 FPS (because the struck ball would be moving slightly less than 20 FPS... certainly not more). If that 6 ounce ball was traveling at 28 FPS after the collision by the 3 ounce ball... well... that would break Mr. Newton's laws and most of them would need to be rewritten. You are correct that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, but "kinetic" energy is not energy (in the sense you speak, in the physics sense), nor is it potential energy... it is a potential value, or reference value, depending on the calculation.
Go back and read my post again... I used the word value, not energy.
Oh... by-the-way... "Energy" equals mass times the speed of light squared (E=mc²).
Notice the velocity of mass itself is not part of the equation.
*
You need to keep reading further into your Wikipedia text about elastic collission and how kinetic energy factors into the equation.
By itself, the law of conservation of momentum is not enough to determine the motion of particles after a collision. Another property of the motion, kinetic energy, must be known.
Experience and crap, I been splitting 40 years the heavier head will split better if you have enough power to swing it! 
Did I not just say that the kinetic energy value was used for calculation??
In the case of two objects, both in motion, at different velocities and/or mass, the kinetic energy value (one of several values) is used to calculate what the resulting velocity of each object will be after a collision... but the total momentum remains unchanged unless an outside force affects one, or the other, or both.
And, I don't read Wikipedia.
And, we weren't talkin' about particles... it was billiard balls (one of which was stationary).
*
Raining hard here today no climbing.
Similar threads
