estimated cycle times (log splitter)

pat32rf · Apr 29, 2011

I've always figured that the cycle time on my splitter was a little slow, but as long as it was faster than my helpers (or my ambition) there was no problem. I've never really timed it but 12 seconds does seem a little slow however....

AKKAMAAN · Apr 29, 2011

pat32rf said:
I've always figured that the cycle time on my splitter was a little slow, but as long as it was faster than my helpers (or my ambition) there was no problem. I've never really timed it but 12 seconds does seem a little slow however....

IMO, cycle time is not a relevant number since, most cycles are interrupted somewhere half way through the log, and all suddenly cycle time is cut in half.

Extend and retract velocity, inch/sec, is a better way to compare performance on a splitter. That would also eliminate the possible "error", when comparing splitters with different length of stroke.

Why "cycle time" is so rooted in peoples mind now? Probably because it is easier to clock cycle time than measuring speed.

moose13 · Apr 29, 2011

AKKAMAAN said:
Just curious....
I do not know how you got that "13.6"-number??Do you have "some mouth to mouth" information, or some facts that can be backed up, that I have missed. Maybe a discontinued pump model?

Haldex-Barnes pump with nominal flow 13 gpm, flows 13.11 gpm at 3600 rpm.
Math:
displacement on the two pump units are 0.194+0.647=0.841 cui.
Out put flow will then be 0.841 x 3600=3,027.6 cui/min>>3,027.6/231=13.11 gpm

That is the theoretical flow, which will be reduced when internal leakage gets counted into the equation. Volumetric efficiency is not posted in the H&B pdf, can be expected to be between 85-95% with a 300SSU/57cSt viscosity oil and at operating pressure.

Since high flow is at a lower pressure, I would "guesstimate" eff to 95%, and actual high flow would then be about 13.11 x 0.95 = 12.5 gpm....

Not a big deal, but with wrong impression of real flow, it is easy to make a call for a bad pump....