Spent a day this week with a 90 lbs jackhammer busting up some sidewalk and a 8" thick apron around my house.Couldn't help but think how well this might work for splitting firewood...any engineers out there try this?
air splitter
- Thread starter coog
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
an air cylinder in place of a hydro cylinder? Wouldn't work very well. Air is good for fast, low pressure movement. It would hit the wood, stop, and if it has the power to split it, slam forward.
Maybe if you could store enough pressure to slam it into the wood, but I would imagine that's going to be very hard on parts.
Maybe if you could store enough pressure to slam it into the wood, but I would imagine that's going to be very hard on parts.
VAJerry
ArboristSite Member
Using it with a jackhammer may work, But in a cylinder like a log splitter it will not work because air compresses unlike liquids. It would eventually be pushed through the wood but when the wood gave the wedge would pass at uncontrollable speed the last bit.
trialanderror
ArboristSite Operative
i think a cylinder with a 48" bore and 180 PSI would split something without hammering everything apart...
but it would be so awkward and heavy thickwalled because of the pressure over so many square inches...
fluid wins because it's practical....
sorry to bum your thought.
but it would be so awkward and heavy thickwalled because of the pressure over so many square inches...
fluid wins because it's practical....
sorry to bum your thought.
I thought long and hard about this also but haven't found the right cylinder etc to make it work...I split right next to my shop with plenty of air so I'd like find one but haven't found the right components yet. Personally I think the way to go is air over oil hydraulics, we use them at work all the time..you use the air for the pressure and the oil in the actual cylinder so it doesn't compress...
No, not at all.I just bought a pto powered splitter for the back of my tractor, so the question was theoretical. I know enough engineers to know that they always like to challenge the status quo.
WidowMaker
Addicted to ArboristSite
another major issue is Volumn, it would take a bunch..
I thought of that as well, years ago.
A 18" cylinder with 175 psi would give 22 tons. Plenty to split wood with.
As already mentioned is volume. It is gonna take 22 gallons of air to move it 20 inches with a difficult split. Basically that amounts to everything that your 60 gallon monster is going to provide at any kind of reasonable pressure. Then you wait for the tank to fill up again before you go again.
Now, with ordinary sticks (I would not "hold" onto anything here) it would probably be possible to twitch the valve and the air expanding against that huge piston would be lots of force with only a little air.
The alternative is steam. A little water makes a bunch of steam. The cylinder would be about the same size as the stuff on the older locomotives, and the pressure would also be about the same (150 ish), and there would be 11.5 tons (This explains why they would rip the rails apart if not throttled gently). Likewise, I would not hold onto anything, nor would I stand next to it. There might be some.... exploding pieces of wood...
Bonus is that it would run on the splitter splatter!
A 18" cylinder with 175 psi would give 22 tons. Plenty to split wood with.
As already mentioned is volume. It is gonna take 22 gallons of air to move it 20 inches with a difficult split. Basically that amounts to everything that your 60 gallon monster is going to provide at any kind of reasonable pressure. Then you wait for the tank to fill up again before you go again.
Now, with ordinary sticks (I would not "hold" onto anything here) it would probably be possible to twitch the valve and the air expanding against that huge piston would be lots of force with only a little air.
The alternative is steam. A little water makes a bunch of steam. The cylinder would be about the same size as the stuff on the older locomotives, and the pressure would also be about the same (150 ish), and there would be 11.5 tons (This explains why they would rip the rails apart if not throttled gently). Likewise, I would not hold onto anything, nor would I stand next to it. There might be some.... exploding pieces of wood...
Bonus is that it would run on the splitter splatter!
4seasons
ArboristSite Guru
Just thinking out loud here so feel free to ignore this, but I thinking that with air you would want an impact splitter like the Super Split or the one kellog showed a couple of years ago here. Maybe replace the heavy flywheels with some kind of an impact wrench like device. It would still be a problem with air demand and you would have to come up with some way to keep it from slamming into the end of the stroke.
KsWoodsMan
Addicted to ArboristSite
I can see something like this working if there was a "ratcheting effect" in the hammer. So that any progress made into the wood wouldnt be lost as the piece bounced against the foot plate.
Whatever you used for the ratchet would have to be faiirly substantial to hold up to the beating on one side and the strored pressure from the log being split.
It would be do-able but I'm not sure that it would be as practical as using off the shelf parts to build a hydraulic splitter.
I'm not to sure I would want to stand next to the pieces when they turned loose if you were going through it very fast. I hear guys tell about about how they "caught one" and ended up with a pretty wicked mark to show for it.
There is a splitter that works on this principle but uses a mechanical flywheel with a connecting rod and about a 1/2" - 1" stroke for the hammer. Seems like it uses a 1/2 or 3/4 HP motor. The only time it actually makes much noise is when hammering through the split instead of all the time. Since most pieces barely tax a splitter, it looked like it would work well. On knotty or twisted stuff it takes a couple of attempts, as the energy from the flywheel was used up breaking the knot. On those pieces the operator let the flywheel spool back up to regain flywheel momentum and finished off the piece.
There is more than one good way to catch a mouse.
Whatever you used for the ratchet would have to be faiirly substantial to hold up to the beating on one side and the strored pressure from the log being split.
It would be do-able but I'm not sure that it would be as practical as using off the shelf parts to build a hydraulic splitter.
I'm not to sure I would want to stand next to the pieces when they turned loose if you were going through it very fast. I hear guys tell about about how they "caught one" and ended up with a pretty wicked mark to show for it.
There is a splitter that works on this principle but uses a mechanical flywheel with a connecting rod and about a 1/2" - 1" stroke for the hammer. Seems like it uses a 1/2 or 3/4 HP motor. The only time it actually makes much noise is when hammering through the split instead of all the time. Since most pieces barely tax a splitter, it looked like it would work well. On knotty or twisted stuff it takes a couple of attempts, as the energy from the flywheel was used up breaking the knot. On those pieces the operator let the flywheel spool back up to regain flywheel momentum and finished off the piece.
There is more than one good way to catch a mouse.
Similar threads
