Beltzington
Platinum Member
Thanks for the measurements
the absolute best splitter for the money
- Thread starter sizzami
- Start date
- Views: 9282
LD1
Epic Contributor
So after you make that first split, and are left with the large peice on top, how do you split it again?
Meaning if it is just an inch or so above the T on your wedge. Do you split it that way anyway and deal with the little 1" slab that comes off the top again?
Or do you stand the peice up and just use 1/2 of the horizontal peice to split again?
And how would that thing handle a large ~24" dia crotch peice of elm?
Meaning if it is just an inch or so above the T on your wedge. Do you split it that way anyway and deal with the little 1" slab that comes off the top again?
Or do you stand the peice up and just use 1/2 of the horizontal peice to split again?
And how would that thing handle a large ~24" dia crotch peice of elm?
arrow
Super Member
I always thought about a more efficient method of splitting with a beam hydraulic. For me it is getting rid of the beam and using more of a table. That way one could have two wedges. One for multiple splits and one for halving.It adds to splitter cost tremendously when utilizing the moveable hydraulic wedges that move up and down.
Basically you have a 4 way minus the top except you are not experiencing any wedge ride. A welded 4 way also makes standardized splits on the bottom end. That top piece would have been split in two with the upper vertical wedge and would not have to be dragged back to re-split at all. The key to splitting wood with a splitter is the amount of work surface and as you state, the actual cycle needed to split a piece of wood. An adequate work surface allows the larger log to be slid back into the spitting area. They make work surfaces too small on any horizontal ram splitter I've seen. Wood should be positioned to be split on what is more like a table than a beam.
At least you are thinking about a differentiation. Short of a wood processor, it is yet to be established by the industry as to what a more efficient, simple and economical spitter should look like IMO.
Thanks very much for sharing your contribution and much continued success with it.
Basically you have a 4 way minus the top except you are not experiencing any wedge ride. A welded 4 way also makes standardized splits on the bottom end. That top piece would have been split in two with the upper vertical wedge and would not have to be dragged back to re-split at all. The key to splitting wood with a splitter is the amount of work surface and as you state, the actual cycle needed to split a piece of wood. An adequate work surface allows the larger log to be slid back into the spitting area. They make work surfaces too small on any horizontal ram splitter I've seen. Wood should be positioned to be split on what is more like a table than a beam.
At least you are thinking about a differentiation. Short of a wood processor, it is yet to be established by the industry as to what a more efficient, simple and economical spitter should look like IMO.
Thanks very much for sharing your contribution and much continued success with it.
you are missing the point arrow , a four way wedge is great if it splits the round into four usable chunks EVERY time which they dont, the T wedge produces two usable chunks every time and three some of the time and YOU NEVER HAVE TWO LARGE PIECES TO RESPLIT .
and if the chunk is too small to produce three chunks then you pass it through only the horizontal.
and if the chunk is too small to produce three chunks then you pass it through only the horizontal.
the splitter has split every chunk I put on it, I confess I dont run into a lot of elm. but I have split beech and yellow birch that were pretty gnarly. again to be clear I am saying this design is the best ive come up with for average speed and performance and COST .
dont say at least its rude
dont say at least its rude
LD1
Epic Contributor
I like that Tee configuration the more I look at it.:thumbsup:
And for you, it appears to be a perfect match.
IF I were to design the perfect splitter for ME, it probabally wouldnt look anything like yours though.
NOT discrediting your design, just pointing out why it would not be best for ME:
For starters, we split some really HUGE stuff. 30"+ maple and oak. That requires vertical capability, and thus the wedge would have to be on the cylinder and not the beam. But still, the TEE is doable.
And the second thing, I would require at least a 4" cylinder and preferabally a 4.5". Because a lot of times, the 4.5" strugles with just a single wedge:confused2:
We currently have a "slip" on 4-way, that was at one time a 6-way. And all too often we found it split less than desirable peices and created a lot of waste. Thus we rarely use it. But now I am thinking I may make a slip-on TEE (3-way) and give that a go just to see.
Thanks for sharing the pics and ideas:thumbsup:
And for you, it appears to be a perfect match.
IF I were to design the perfect splitter for ME, it probabally wouldnt look anything like yours though.
NOT discrediting your design, just pointing out why it would not be best for ME:
For starters, we split some really HUGE stuff. 30"+ maple and oak. That requires vertical capability, and thus the wedge would have to be on the cylinder and not the beam. But still, the TEE is doable.
And the second thing, I would require at least a 4" cylinder and preferabally a 4.5". Because a lot of times, the 4.5" strugles with just a single wedge:confused2:
We currently have a "slip" on 4-way, that was at one time a 6-way. And all too often we found it split less than desirable peices and created a lot of waste. Thus we rarely use it. But now I am thinking I may make a slip-on TEE (3-way) and give that a go just to see.
Thanks for sharing the pics and ideas:thumbsup:
I should have started by saying that my bigest peev with splitting is turning one chunk into two that I need to lift off the ground and place back on the splitter my goal was to produce burnable wood and only handle one large chunk at a time, everyone who looks at the splitter says wtf?
arrow
Super Member
Quite possibly but let's clarify to see if I am. I am going by your picture. That piece would have had 4 useable pieces on a 4 way. One pass and you're done. Let's take your point. You have a 15 inch round. You'll get 2 useable pieces at the bottom as you would a 4 way . At the top, you'll have 1 piece and with my welded 4 way, I'll have two. You run your piece two times. one of your passes gets the two uniform pieces, now you have one more to split or no? If your cross piece is 5" off the beam, you'll have a 5" high piece left. Do you need to split that again because its too wide? I run my piece then the other or two more passes. You simply have to drag your piece back which is nice. I have to pick up my piece to run it through. How many passes do you need to make on that 15" round? I am making 3. On the piece you have pictured. I run mine once on the 4 way. You run yours one more time. How much time is actually saved if you have to do that several times to my none for those size pieces? I guess I'd have to try it but right now, with the exception of only dealing with one piece to have to drag back, ( which if that is your main point then I did miss it) I'm not sure of the advantage time saver wise if I am looking at it from my point of view, I'm not so sure of the total time saved if you are having to re split that which would have been split once with a 4 way. If the convenience factor is more important to you, then I can concur. It would be interesting to see if indeed there is any time factor involved with a 3 way wedge opposed to a 4 way.
arrow
Super Member
You wouldn't need to lift anything if splitters were designed to keep the split piece right there simply to drag back.
Haywire
Veteran Member
How about this?
