RE-done splitter ready

[turnkey4099]

The original

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a292/turnkey4099/001-2.jpg[/IMG

Another shot of the original

][IMG]http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a292/turnkey4099/MVC-607F.jpg


The redo after adding 9", puts beam just at hand height (I don't like to lift wood any higher than needed.

Got the motor back from the fix-it shop a week ago, tried it out on a couple chunks locust today - walked right through it although the fix-it guy has some strange idea about operating speed. He had it set to such low rpm it would barely start. I adjusted that and it sounds good.

Harry K

 

[mga]

nice machine!!

i like that box beam...gives it a clean look.

 

[toqua]

good looking splitter, that should do you a good job.
did you get the wood that they cut at the fair grounds in colfax?

tom

 

[turnkey4099]

good looking splitter, that should do you a good job.
did you get the wood that they cut at the fair grounds in colfax?

tom

Nope. They did that last weekend. Discussed it at breakfast. The 3 guys working at it took the wood, what little there was. All those trees had been topped and retopped for the passt 30 years, wasn't much of a log there and not much of a size.

Harry K

 

[turnkey4099]

nice machine!!

i like that box beam...gives it a clean look.

I had my doubts about that sq tubing for the armature back when I designed it in the McGregor shop (Colfax, wa) in the late 70s or early 80s. We turned out 7 pretty much identical, mine is #7. It is a 3 1/2" heavy wall sq tube with a piece of lightwall 4" slip tube for the slide. Been using it since 86. Tore up the pusher plate that had to be beefed up some but so far that is the ony problem. Haven't heard of any problems with the other 6. Hasn't eaten that much wood except for 6 cord of locust 10 years ago. I do most of my splitting by hand for the excersie, only feed it crotches and knots (and locust when I get some).

Were I to build another one, I would not use the sq tube design.

Harry K

 

[Zodiac45]

Were I to build another one, I would not use the sq tube design.

Harry K

Why is that Harry? I had my doubts looking at it too but you've been using it for quite some time with no problems? What would be the biggest worry, flexing? Seems that it would be considerably lighter than a comperably sized beam model?

 

[turnkey4099]

Why is that Harry? I had my doubts looking at it too but you've been using it for quite some time with no problems? What would be the biggest worry, flexing? Seems that it would be considerably lighter than a comperably sized beam model?

Not flex. See that tube welded under the armature? That had to be added on version one and all subsequent - no flex now but it was very apparent until the stiffener was added.

Why not:

1. the slide cannot be removed

2. Basically the armature is non repairable if anything happens, would require cutting it free from the stiffener and removing at least one of the ends to get the slide off.

3. Wear. Not a problem with mine as I haven't used it heavily. I haven't gotten a look at the others since they when out the of the shop. I usually have to give a shot of grease to the slide each spring as the operation (unloaded) is jerky and moves with loud "snaps" until it is greased.

We went with that design as that was what we had to work with. Too cheap to buy H beams

Harry K