Wedge design

[SAWFISH]

Has anyone ever tried altering or making there own wedge that is more aggressive than what came on the splitter? The reason that I ask is I am going to have a new wedge made for my 35 ton that is going to be a simple "V" shape, but it is going to "V" out in a shorter distance. The stock one has a small "v" at the beginning and then goes straight and then "v"s out again at the very back. It seems that if it was a constant "V" it would continue to get wider sooner so it would split sooner. If any one has tried different design's and know's which one work's the best please let me know before I waste a lot of time on this. Pictures would be great also.

Thanks...

 

[Butch(OH)]

I think that the best changes with what you are running at the time. I cut and burn a lot of fence row Elm that is tougher than I dont know what. You can't just pop it you have to split it all the way from one end to the other and from top to bottom. Tired of having to roll pieces over to split (tear in half would be better way to put it) I built a tall and wide wedge that works very well for Elm but is drastic over kill for most other work.

My wedge works well for me
<IMG SRC=http://i29.tinypic.com/29d7nyx.jpg>

 

[husky455rancher]

you can mosify your existing wedge. i dont have any pictures of it but hreres what i did. i simply took some .190 steel a maybe 2 1/2"X 6 if i had to guess. i put a 30* bend or so in them then welded them to the back of the wedge. so it makes the wood ramp up the steel and it splits it open more.

it definatly helped but if i had to do it again i would have made them a bit larger and use a more agressive bend. that way it would really spread the wood apart.

 

[kevin j]

I'd stay with the 2 stage wedge design.

With easy to pop wood, about anything works. A steeper wedge pops the wood sooner, thus shorter stroke, faster cycle, and more production.
With tough stringy wood, (which is most of what we have here), the steep single angle wedge takes more force to operate and stalls easier. The splitter unloads to slow speed high pressure more often to finish the stroke. That means slower cycle and less production.

The theory of the two angle wedge is that the leading sharp angle cuts and separates the fibers like a knife. Then the wider second angle tries to pry the two wood halves apart, much like you pull apart two halves not quite separated at the far end, by grabbing the near ends with each hand and pulling sideways. The prying action of the second angle either causes the fibers to separate and the split to run ahead and ‘pop’, or at least puts the wood in separation and easier for the first sharp leading edge to cut. It would be similar to cutting rope or rubber or cardboard: pulling the two halves apart with tension makes it easier to cut.

A finer angle on the first wedge is easier to push in, like a sharp knife. The longer the distance back to the second steep angles, the longer the 'leverage' of the steep angles to pry the wood apart. So finer angles and longer wedge (to the second stage) is more efficient, but takes longer stroke to accomplish the split.

There is probably a different most efficient combination of angles and distances for every type of wood and grain and moisture. In real world, every day is different conditions and wood.

If you have mostly straight grained easy to split wood in your area, go wider on the angles faster. Single wedge might work just fine.
For tough nasty fibrous wood like elm, I would stay with the two stage wedge: shallower front angles and a second steep angled stage later.

Butch apparently knows that elm well. Pieces end up looking less like stove fuel and more like fur balls......

It would be interesting to build several types and try them on your local wood.

And not to be losing sleep about the ultimate, perfect, most efficient package, as ANY combination will be better and faster than a maul.

kcj

 

[371groundie]

admittedly i split most wood by hand. but that means i save the tough stuff for the splitter. a long narrow wedge does better in the hard to split wood. think of it as slicing rather than splitting. i realize that it seems slower, but i think it results in a better split.

 

[eric_271]

This works better than several other types I have used.

 

[Gordon101]

This works well with low pressure. With my relief valve set at 2250 and a 4" cylinder the Surplus Center chart says I'm only developing 14 tons.

This 18"Red Oak round went through without slowing down.

 

[SAWFISH]

Here is the new wedge that I just had made. So far the little bit that I have used it it seems to work good.

 

[mickeyd]

This works well with low pressure. With my relief valve set at 2250 and a 4" cylinder the Surplus Center chart says I'm only developing 14 tons.

This 18"Red Oak round went through without slowing down.

Man that is an awesome looking splitter
MD

 

[turnkey4099]

I'd stay with the 2 stage wedge design.

With easy to pop wood, about anything works. A steeper wedge pops the wood sooner, thus shorter stroke, faster cycle, and more production.
With tough stringy wood, (which is most of what we have here), the steep single angle wedge takes more force to operate and stalls easier. The splitter unloads to slow speed high pressure more often to finish the stroke. That means slower cycle and less production.

The theory of the two angle wedge is that the leading sharp angle cuts and separates the fibers like a knife. Then the wider second angle tries to pry the two wood halves apart, much like you pull apart two halves not quite separated at the far end, by grabbing the near ends with each hand and pulling sideways. The prying action of the second angle either causes the fibers to separate and the split to run ahead and ‘pop’, or at least puts the wood in separation and easier for the first sharp leading edge to cut. It would be similar to cutting rope or rubber or cardboard: pulling the two halves apart with tension makes it easier to cut.

A finer angle on the first wedge is easier to push in, like a sharp knife. The longer the distance back to the second steep angles, the longer the 'leverage' of the steep angles to pry the wood apart. So finer angles and longer wedge (to the second stage) is more efficient, but takes longer stroke to accomplish the split.

There is probably a different most efficient combination of angles and distances for every type of wood and grain and moisture. In real world, every day is different conditions and wood.

If you have mostly straight grained easy to split wood in your area, go wider on the angles faster. Single wedge might work just fine.
For tough nasty fibrous wood like elm, I would stay with the two stage wedge: shallower front angles and a second steep angled stage later.

Butch apparently knows that elm well. Pieces end up looking less like stove fuel and more like fur balls......

It would be interesting to build several types and try them on your local wood.

And not to be losing sleep about the ultimate, perfect, most efficient package, as ANY combination will be better and faster than a maul.

kcj

Agree. Two-stage for me. My homebuilt had it, my new Troybilt has single stage. It definitly takes more force to start the split with the Troybilt.

If you watch, except for at the immediate start of a split or while shearing through a knot/crotch, the 'knife' portion never touches the wood, the split, even in stringy stuff runs ahead of it.

Were I to buld another one, it would be a two stage about 9-10" tall but with a tall knife at the beginning of the second stage to separate 'strings'.

Harry K

 

[kevin j]

another one, it would be a two stage about 9-10" tall but with a tall knife at the beginning of the second stage



You must do elm also. It would be nice to have something to slice the fibers when the round is split, but is taller than the wedge so all the stringy fibers are not separated.
A taller wedge is of course better, but that puts more bending stress on the beam, as the forces can be higher, at the very top of a tall wedge, especially if the top of the wedge is an inch into the wood first.
I want to try just what you said: adding about 3 inches tall, 1/2 inch thick, extension on top of the wedge, but far enough back in between the wide second stage. The idea is that it would never see splitting force, only slicing in between the V shaped opening of the wood.
You could add something on top without making a whole new wedge. Weld something on up there and see if it works. Then I can copy your prototype : )


k

 

[turnkey4099]

another one, it would be a two stage about 9-10" tall but with a tall knife at the beginning of the second stage



You must do elm also. It would be nice to have something to slice the fibers when the round is split, but is taller than the wedge so all the stringy fibers are not separated.
A taller wedge is of course better, but that puts more bending stress on the beam, as the forces can be higher, at the very top of a tall wedge, especially if the top of the wedge is an inch into the wood first.
I want to try just what you said: adding about 3 inches tall, 1/2 inch thick, extension on top of the wedge, but far enough back in between the wide second stage. The idea is that it would never see splitting force, only slicing in between the V shaped opening of the wood.
You could add something on top without making a whole new wedge. Weld something on up there and see if it works. Then I can copy your prototype : )


k

Splitting Black Locust now. Some splits great, others strings. I am using a hatchet to cut the strings as needed vice turning the blocks over and running them through again. The TroyBilt has a single stage wedge and will almost always kick down to the high pressure to begin the split.

Harry K

 

[SAWFISH]

I went with the single stage wedge because I split very little elm, most of what I split is oak, cherry, and hickory. I made the wedge longer than the original so that it goes all the way to the foot plate and I am not having to pull the pieces apart by hand. I also made it about 2" taller than the Huskee original and made the heal of it longer to help compensate for the extra forces that will be trying to "tip" the wedge over. So far it has split everything without any issues. I am thinking of making a adapter that would fit over the front of the wedge that would be long and skinny just in case I do get into alot of elm that gives me trouble.

 

[Slick]

How about wedge height? I'm planning a two stage, sharpened point then a wide wedge but what's the thought on height....does it need to be as tall as the round your splitting or is it just as effective if an 8" tall wedge is buried in 18" round? I'm working with a 6" i-beam so I'm a bit worried about welding a 12" wedge ontop....

 

[kevin j]

height? I'm planning a two stage, sharpened point then a wide wedge but what's the thought on height....does it need to be as tall as the round your splitting or is it just as effective if an 8" tall wedge is buried in 18" round? I'm working with a 6" i-beam so I'm a bit worried about welding a 12" wedge ontop....



That's exactly the situation I am describing. Easy to split wood, no problems, the 18 inch round cracks with a 6 inch high wedge. Stringy stuff, you have a wedge buried into a log, hinged outward at the full lingth along the top, like a big clamshell. Then fight and maul, or throw a round behind it and retract the wedge out of the wood. That's the scenario for the full height wedge, and thus the added bending on the beam.
If it came stock, I'd not add any to the actual wedge height because of beam bending. That is where I'd like to try the 'finger' added on top of wedge but narrower and furether back so it doesn't get much load.

k

 

[turnkey4099]

How about wedge height? I'm planning a two stage, sharpened point then a wide wedge but what's the thought on height....does it need to be as tall as the round your splitting or is it just as effective if an 8" tall wedge is buried in 18" round? I'm working with a 6" i-beam so I'm a bit worried about welding a 12" wedge ontop....

My homebuilt had a 9" wedge and had no problem splitting big rounds. Of course stringy stuff was problem.

I would not go much over 9-10" as the bending moment on the beam can get out of hand. Picture a 20 or more ton starting a split on a piece where the wedge's first contact is at the top of the wedge.

Harry K

 

[Straightgrain]

I wish I had a 2 stage wedge on my splitter.

I bought a 27 ton troy built (I know, I know!) and it struggles with oak.

My neighbor's 12 ton has a 2 stage and it performs better.

I am looking into welding on a steel extension.

 

[turnkey4099]

I wish I had a 2 stage wedge on my splitter.

I bought a 27 ton troy built (I know, I know!) and it struggles with oak.

My neighbor's 12 ton has a 2 stage and it performs better.

I am looking into welding on a steel extension.

"struggles with oak?" My Troybilt shears through locust crotches and knots. Slowly, yes, but does it. It is not "stuggling" it is due to the high pressure side operating.

Harry K

 

[Alan Smith]

Troybilt

My Troybilt has 2 speed and it dont struggle with oak or locust

 

[treeguyinoh]

Gordon, does that 4-way hold up pretty good? Is that 1" hot roll you used for the center section that the wedge assembaly slides on? Any issuses with binding? Looks great, by the way.