How high to mount 4way horizontal?

[Big_Eddy]

My son and I are building a splitter with 4 way and we were discussing where to mount the horizontal wing. We have a 20" vertical wedge with 6" of travel. (Lowest position 14" exposed, highest 20")

The splitter is designed to be part of a future processor and is self centering with a max width of 24".

Initially we were going to mount the wing at the bottom of the lowest setting (14" exposure) so it could be lowered out of the way and be lifted up to 6" off the bottom. Wing Range 0" to 6". Now we're thinking to mount the wing 8" below the top. That would give us a range from 6" to 12" for the wing. For small logs (single split) we would lift it up and split under it as opposed to lowering and splitting over.

Pictures attached. The wing will be set back 1" from the vertical, not ahead of the vertical where I rested it for the picture.

Thoughts?

 

[Big_Eddy]

A little more info.
I did a quick survey of our log pile.

• 10% of the logs are under 10" in diameter. We would split those into 2.
• About 60% of the pile is 10"-15" in diameter. We would split into 4
• About 20 % is 15-18" in diameter and we would normally split into 6.
• 10% are >18" up to a max of 26". Those we will deal with separately.

For the 20% in the 15-18 range, I see the first split giving us 2 pieces at 1/6 log & 2 pieces at 1/3 log, then resplitting the 2 larger pieces into halves. Running the wing at 6" accomplishes that for the first split, but I haven't thought through the resplitting workflow yet.

Any suggestions or thoughts?

 

[muddstopper]

i'll give my opinion, take it for what it cost you.
I built my wedge with similar design as yours, except its 24'' tall at full extension. I mounted my 4way at the bottom with the wedge all the way down. Later, I added another set of wings to make it a 6way. If you mount the bottom wing up high, it will always be skimming bark and slivers off of any wood that wont fit under it. My extra set of 6way wings seems to do that when trying to 4way split smaller size wood. If I was doing it over, I would still mount my 4way so it sets flush with the beam and do all my small, half splits over the wings. I would still want a 6way for the big stuff, but I think I would make it a slipon so I can take it on and off.

 

[Big_Eddy]

Thanks Mudd. I expected you would chime in.

A 6 way is something we have discussed. One of the reasons we were thinking about mounting the horizontal wing "high" instead of low was so we can add a pair of upswept 6-way wings above it in the future. With 6" of travel and the horizontal wing at the bottom at the lowest setting, there's no way to have 6-way wings and get them out of the way for a halving split, (other than making a second blade.)

I'm going to split a few rounds tonight with the maul and see how the pieces come out. I'm thinking that having the lowest setting for the 4-way at 6" (highest 12") makes the most sense. It's not like we're risking much - if it doesn't work well, we can make another blade for the price of some 1" flat stock and a bunch more rods.

 

[kevin j]

can you get a different cylinder or linkage to get more than 6 inches of stroke?

 

[Big_Eddy]

My question is more about the optimum location for the horizontal wing, than the specific measurements. It's not cylinder related. In our case, we're limited to 20" dia logs by the saw we're planning which is why we sized the blade that length. I suppose we could squeak another inch or 2 out of it, but not enough the make a huge difference.

 

[dave_dj1]

I think you are going to be limited by the cradle. If you put a 8" log in vs a 20" log the 4 way will be in a different place. I would be inclined to have it at the bottom when not needed. That looks like a beefy set up, looking forward to seeing the processor build.

 

[kevin j]

Storing it at the bottom gives you an uncluttered 2 way to split any size log. If you stop somewhere abov e that, it will always be a 4 way.
Hence, my suggestion can you get more styroke out of the linkage instead of raising loweringh 6 inches, get 12 inches or so? That would take you up pretty well for any size log.

 

[lknchoppers]

I like mine at about 4".

 

[Big_Eddy]

All good inputs - My son and I keep going back and forth. He was in favour of a low mount and I was for high initially - now we've reversed positions.

Here's my logic for the blade mounted 14" below the top (hides at bottom) with max 6" lift
<10" block - lower wing out the way, split in half.
12" block - lift wing to max (6") - split in 4
14" -18" block - lift wing to 5-6" - split in 4, bring the two top pieces back to the front and resplit both together (using horizontal wing, already split vertically)

Here's my son's logic with the blade mounted 8" below the top (always exposed) with a height range of 6"-12"
<10" block - raise wing to max (12"), split in half under wing
12" block - drop wing to min (6") - split in 4
14" -18" block - lift wing to 10"-12"" - split in 4, taking the two lower pieces and sliding them back together. Lower blade to 6" and resplit horizontally
or - lower wing to the 6" level, split in 4, bring the two top pieces back to the front and resplit
or - add 2 more blades above the first wing and split 6x in the first pass.

I argue that "his way" the majority of the splitting force is now higher up (i.e. more leverage) and he can't get rid of the wing for a monster log. He argues that he has more options, including a 6 way option that I don't have - so he can avoid any rehandling of larger blocks.

I'm the "designer" so I'm going to win in the end - but I'm not convinced yet that his logic isn't better than mine (not that I'd tell him that)

As a side note - we reviewed what we've done so far and we could increase the range of travel to 8" without too much effort. So that's still an option.

 

[Yarz]

I argue that "his way" the majority of the splitting force is now higher up (i.e. more leverage)

This was my first thought when reading his way. Still can't say which is right, though. Will your wedge assembly be easily removable, so you could try both?

 

[cantoo]

Don't reinvent the wheel. Tons of other companies have spent years and dollars refining theirs. Nothing wrong with cheating and copying a proven design. I copied from a variety of other machines when I did my splitter and it worked the 1st time. Only copy didn't use was to use a stepped wedge and of course that is a big flaw with mine when splitting crotches. Fine for most rounds but the occasional one reminds that I should have followed the proven herd.

 

[Sandhill Crane]

If you are planning on re-splitting by pulling large splits forward to re-split, then consider making that four-way a shelf wedge (8" longer) to make it easier to get the splits back in front of the wedge.

Split with the wing low.
After the split you can raise the wing, untrapping the lower splits if you need to pull them back to re-split. The splits on top can sit where they are while you re-split the lower ones.
Then pull the top ones back to re-split.

 

[Big_Eddy]

Low it is. Was able to adjust things to get about 9" of travel.

 

[Sandhill Crane]

I would think 9 would be more than enough. Looks good.

 

[ChoppyChoppy]

Did you look at my thread I made for you?

 

[Big_Eddy]

If you are planning on re-splitting by pulling large splits forward to re-split, then consider making that four-way a shelf wedge (8" longer) to make it easier to get the splits back in front of the wedge.

Sandhill Crane - this is part of the plan. Very similar to your modification, now that the wings are mounted, we will be adding a triangular reinforcing "shelf" that runs from the back of each wing, behind the support upright, to meet in the middle. That shelf will serve two purposes - it will brace the one wing against the other to provide structural rigidity to the wedge, and it will provide a shelf for the upper splits to rest on.

Valley - I downloaded your picture and added it to my file of ideas. I really like that your processor "automatically" holds large logs up high for a 6- way (5-way) split, while smaller ones just drop down for a 2-way split. That's smart design.