Novel log holder

[begreen]

This is a clever idea for holding those limb logs that need trimming to firewood size.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Watch your toes.

 

[stoveliker]

That saw sounds horrible. But the holder is nice indeed

 

[begreen]

The holder works even for 2x4s. Seems a little flimsy, but looks handy and will store collapsed.
The sound of an electric saw is different. I borrowed a Dewalt electric from our tool library a couple of months ago. It was a novel experience, but I liked the utility and instant on. It didn't sound quite as raunchy as this one which seems to have a hollow plastic case amplifying the sound.

 

[stoveliker]

I also have an electric saw myself that cuts my wood, and I like it. Less noise, instant on, no idling, lighter. (Mine is corded.)

This one rattles. Something is amiss.

I think the stand is good for branches where my log stand (so I don't hit my driveway) does not work anymore because of the smaller diameter of the wood. It's a nice piece complementary, e.g. as compared to my sawhorse where someone would have to hold the branch.

 

[Jags]

Interesting design, indeed. I do basically the same thing by pinching the log with my log splitter. Makes for a very stable platform

 

[Ashful]

I think it's a neat concept, but it appears to be only useful for a pretty narrow range of log length and weight. How many logs that require holding for bucking are you really going to want to lift into that rig?

If it could be modified to grab the log off the ground, and fitted with JDQA or SSQA hardware, then it'd be infinitely more useful. I'd think this guy could integrate the concept onto a FEL pallet forks frame, for a nice lower-cost alternative to a full grapple, and that would be something much more useful and flexible for anyone handling logs.

... or maybe I'm the oddball, thinking everyone is handling their firewood in log lengths from a tractor. But I don't think I'm alone, here.

 

[stoveliker]

I handle them without tractor, and I think the majority handles without tractor...
I have a log stand. But e.g. 4-6" branches are somewhat thin for the log stand, and this thing would work well for that.
I think it's not sturdy enough to take 20" logs anyway.

 

[Ashful]

... I think the majority handles without tractor...

I really doubt this, but I also don't think our little forum of stove nerds is a very good cross-section of woodburning America, such that it'd be impossible to answer this from any poll of our membership. Lots of rural folk with wood stoves and tractors, who wouldn't given a woodburning forum the time of day.

 

[stoveliker]

Yes, but there are far more folks living in suburban setting than folks living rurally. It's a simple numbers game.

 

[Ashful]

Yes, but there are far more folks living in suburban setting than folks living rurally. It's a simple numbers game.

yep, of course there are more suburbanites, it's in the very definition of the term. But the fraction of suburbanites truly heating a home with wood must be miniscule, compared to the fraction of rural folk doing this, somewhat offsetting those denominators. Additionally, the very definition of "rural" has to include more people than ever before, as more of our fringe areas slide from from truly sparse population density to sprawl of thousands of square miles of 3 - 20 acre lots. Just look at compact utility tractor sales, which have gone up exponentially over the last 20 years, as one of many indicators. That makes the numbers game much less simple.

In the end, you might be right, there might be more cords of wood processed every year by suburbans, than I initially assumed. But you pretending it's a simple numbers game is ignoring several factors. I wouldn't make the assumption that "more cords of wood are being processed by suburbanites without tractors", as you imply.

 

[stoveliker]

I think this is where personal experiences dictate world views of what is normal.

My street (quarter to half acre lots!) has 4 burners. 1 gets splits delivered. The rest processes them. None have tractors.

Scale that up and for your 20 acres, I have 10 burners without tractor.

 

[Ashful]

I think this is where personal experiences dictate world views of what is normal.

My street (quarter to half acre lots!) has 4 burners. 1 gets splits delivered. The rest processes them. None have tractors.

Scale that up and for your 20 acres, I have 10 burners without tractor.

That's some mighty creative math you have going there.

 

[stoveliker]

Huh?
8 lots, 6 quarter acre lots, 2 half acre lots. 2.5 acres. 4 burners if which 3 process, all without tractor.
So 3 per 2.5 acres.
That's 24 per 20 acre lot.
I halved that and rounded it down to the nearest 10 specially for you.

 

[Ashful]

Huh?
8 lots, 6 quarter acre lots, 2 half acre lots. 2.5 acres. 4 burners if which 3 process, all without tractor.
So 3 per 2.5 acres.
That's 24 per 20 acre lot.
I halved that and rounded it down to the nearest 10 specially for you.

Sure, but I'm processing 10 - 14 cords per year on 3.5 acres. But it's a stupid argument. I'm out.

 

[stoveliker]

Okay. My bad. My memory is wrong; I thought you had mentioned 20 acres.

4 per your acreage then. And many more folks living in suburban areas like this in total.

anyway, as I said, personal experience dictates worldview.