Splitter: Push the wood, or the knife?

[jklingel]

I am going to build a splitter for my loader. I see some makes that push the wood, and others that push the "knife" into the wood. Is there a "best" way, or is it 6/6, half-dozen? Thanks. j

 

[kenora]

I've got a 5 ton electric and sometimes when I can't push through a piece of wood it'll get stuck on the knife. In my case the hydraulic arm is pushed and the knife is fixed; I think thats best since if you need to "beat on the piece of wood" to get it off the knife I would rather it NOT BE ON THE HYDRAULIC SHAFT, that would likely damage it. fwiw.

 

[Corey]

Well - if you are pushing the wood, that almost always means a horizontal splitter. So that is one strike in my opinion. On a vertical splitter, anything 'past the knife' is into the ground unless you are lifting the log 2ft in the air to start with.

The second strike is that when you do push the wood pas the knife, the wood usually falls on the ground - unless you have some type of big bulky catching arrangement - another strike to me. Not only did you have to lift the wood up to begin with, now both of you splits are on the ground and you need to lift them back up for more splitting. May sound like splitting hairs, but figure a cord of wood is 4,000 pounds - do you really want to lift that three times over just to get it split?

Best design for me is a vertical splitter moving the wedge. You only have to lift the wood a few inches off the ground and then it stays pretty much where you put it. If you have a well designed splitter and wedge, getting it stuck shouldn't be a problem - just power the wedge out in reverse and it should come right out of the log.

 

['bert]

I've got a 5 ton electric and sometimes when I can't push through a piece of wood it'll get stuck on the knife. In my case the hydraulic arm is pushed and the knife is fixed; I think thats best since if you need to "beat on the piece of wood" to get it off the knife I would rather it NOT BE ON THE HYDRAULIC SHAFT, that would likely damage it. fwiw.

When a piece of wood gets stuck on a moving knife type splitter (as mine is), I just put a chain around the log so that it will stay at the end of the splitter and retract the knife. Turn the log a bit and try it again. Always splits the second time. Another good reason to put the knife on the ram IMO.

 

[jklingel]

Thanks. All good points so far. Appreciated. No, I am not interested in more lifting than necessary; this will be enough work already. However, I will most probably dump the wood onto a trailer w/ my loader, lift it once, split it, and let it stay put till it goes into the death box. However, a vert splitter would still eliminate one lift. Too, I can easily attach the splitter w/ a Reese-type receiver, using a pipe-in-a-pipe, and rotate the whole machine from vert to horiz. The loader will be cheating in the extreme, yes, but cheating is good; just ask most any professional cyclist. (Cheap shot, I know. Forgive.)

 

[bjorn773]

My splitter has a couple of stops welded about the same height as the retracted wedge. When the wedge/ram is down and gets lodged into the wood, you simply reverse it. The wedge/ram will lift the wood into these welded stops and pull the wedge out. I highly recommend this design. The only drawback was the original pieces were not stout enough. I took care of that with some scrap steel and the welder.

 

[jklingel]

Sounds like a good idea. Any pics? Brand? (to check their web site.) I am all for stealing designs; used to work for the CIA. j

 

[Rick Stanley]

jklingel,

Since you have a loader for lifting and pto power, wouldn't it make sense to build a horizontal splitter of good height to save your back and powerful enough so it won't get stuck in the wood? I think with a vertical, the wood is at ground level, which doesn't require lifting, but you'd be bent over all of the time.

To respond to your original question about pushing wood or knife: I've never built a splitter, but I have one that does four foot wood, that I have modified. It pushes the wood to the knife. I built steel carriages or shelves on each side to catch the splits so they won't drop to the ground and to provide a work surface to lay halves aside while re-splitting the other half. It works super. Never bend over and never lift. BUT, because it is a "push the wood" design, the shelves are carriages because they carry the unfinished pieces back and forth as the cylinder cycles and it took some head scratchin' (for me anyway) to build the shelves so they could ride back and forth, not bind or get in the way and hold the weight of green four foot oak. If you build your splitter with a "push the knife" design, since the wood doesn't move anywhere, all you'd have to do is weld a couple of stationary solid shelves of the right size and strength directly off of the I-beam. Just a thought.

Rick

 

[jklingel]

jklingel,

Since you have a loader for lifting and pto power, wouldn't it make sense to build a horizontal splitter of good height to save your back and powerful enough so it won't get stuck in the wood? I think with a vertical, the wood is at ground level, which doesn't require lifting, but you'd be bent over all of the time.

To respond to your original question about pushing wood or knife: I've never built a splitter, but I have one that does four foot wood, that I have modified. It pushes the wood to the knife. I built steel carriages or shelves on each side to catch the splits so they won't drop to the ground and to provide a work surface to lay halves aside while re-splitting the other half. It works super. Never bend over and never lift. BUT, because it is a "push the wood" design, the shelves are carriages because they carry the unfinished pieces back and forth as the cylinder cycles and it took some head scratchin' (for me anyway) to build the shelves so they could ride back and forth, not bind or get in the way and hold the weight of green four foot oak. If you build your splitter with a "push the knife" design, since the wood doesn't move anywhere, all you'd have to do is weld a couple of stationary solid shelves of the right size and strength directly off of the I-beam. Just a thought.

Rick

••RICKS. Horizontal makes sense to me, as I can lift it from ground ht to 9'. I plan on sticking it over a trailer and letting the splits drop; that shelf would be a good idea, though, if I want to get organized and stack stuff. I am going to have some kind of low log cradle, too, so I don't have to have my hand on the wood to steady it as it splits. I went brain dead once and lowered an outboard onto my thumb (neoprene glove, cold water; thumb could not tell where it was), splitting the nail and underlying bone. Sort of hurt. I'd hate to have a wayward finger between a log and a knife w/ 17 tons behind it. Your splitter must have some serious force to split 4' oak. We have nothing like oak up here, so I am thinking of a 4-blade knife to nuke everything at once. Thanks for the info. john

 

[bill*67]

My white, which is an mtd, has a wood dislodger down by the retracted wedge in case that problem occures. if you go on their website you can see their designfor an idea or two.

 

[Nofossil]

My white, which is an mtd, has a wood dislodger down by the retracted wedge in case that problem occures. if you go on their website you can see their designfor an idea or two.

My $.02 based on experience borrowing all sorts of splitters:

Low volume simple portable splitter - vertical moving knife is best. Being bent over beats all the lifting.

Higher volume not-so-portable 'production' setup - horizontal fixed knife with infeed and outfeed tables. Load tables from tractor bucket, split wood goes onto trailer or conveyor. No lifting, more comfortable working position, splitter pushes finished wood out of the way.

Small horizontal without tables would be my personal last choice.

 

[Gooserider]

From what I've heard, if you are doing a multi-way wedge, you should have a fixed splitter edge that the cylinder pushes into, as putting a multi-way wedge on the cylinder is likely to cause extra strain on it that is not good.

Gooserider

 

[jklingel]

Goose: I wondered about that, as the 4-way would not be locked snuggly to the ram, necessarily. I don't really know how they lock on, frankly, but unwanted "lateral thrust" (for lack of the engineering term for such) on the wedge is sure a consideration. A fixed wedge would shorten the over-all length of the machine, and simplify bracing the wedge/beam.

 

[Gooserider]

There was a whole bunch of discussion on this a few threads back, it was one of the longer wood splitter threads where folks were debating the merits of Horizontal only or Hor/Vertical - I'm not a big fan of multi-way wedges, as I'm not doing production splitting and I like the better control over split size that a simple wedge gives, and I'm also much fonder of an H/V machine than I am of a vertical only...

However I don't see how the end you put the wedge on really changes the minimum beam length, or the length of the machine, unless you did some sort of offset linkage, which would add it's own complications...

Gooserider

 

[jklingel]

I'm not a big fan of multi-way wedges, ...and I'm also much fonder of an H/V machine than I am of a vertical only...

However I don't see how the end you put the wedge on really changes the minimum beam length, or the length of the machine,

Gooserider

Goose: All good pts, and different splitters exist for different purposes, as you pointed out. I have little use for a vert splitter, as we do not have real trees; 16-18" is getting big, generally. No, the wood does not care from which way the pressure is applied; it does not have a front or back. However, a stuck wedge, the final resting place of the wood, etc, determine a person's preference for which to push. On the beam length, the stationary wedge machine can be a tad shorter because of not needing additional bracing for a (my desire) very high "stop plate"; the length of the wedge provides that. It is not a big deal, either way. I am interested in the 4-way wedge because I don't want to handle wood more than necessary. If some pieces are large and some small, so be it. I am fiddling w/ a simple (may not exist) way to keep the wedge centered on the wood, just for the sake of uniformity.... sort of. Good splittin'. j

 

[Gooserider]

Hadn't really thought about it before, but to me the stuck round question might actually be an advantage for a "wedge on cylinder" design...

If you get stuck with a wedge on the beam, I don't see any easy way to remove the log other than to beat it off, or to try and come up with some sort of chain improvisation to try and attach the log to the pusher plate when retracting the cylinder.

OTOH, every wedge on cylinder machine that I've seen has some sort of "log ejector" consisting of plates on either side of the cylinder sticking down a bit less than even with the end of the fully retracted wedge. If you get stuck, all you do is retract the wedge, and the plates hit the top of the log and stop it from coming back with the wedge, knocking the log off. Worst case is to put a split between the log top and the ejector to give it a bit more purchase, no big deal... The ejectors don't change the design any as they don't reduce the length capacity (that's determined by the wedge and the stop plate) and aren't where they would interfere with any of the mechanical action - most of the ones I've seen just clamp on the end of the cylinder, though there is no real reason they couldn't be part of the beam hardware or cylinder mounting.

Gooserider

 

[jklingel]

Another individual mentioned that the "blockers" may pose a safety hazard; one more damn thing that can get you. I don't see them as being THAT bad, as I guess one rarely gets a stuck wedge. In general, I think they are a good idea, but if I ever left my lazy hand in the wrong place and got it caught between the blocker and a log, I'd rethink the situation. At this point, I think I will likely use a push-plate and fixed 4-way, as I can easily adjust the ht of the 4-way to center it on the wood. That may be a trivial notion; I'll have to "live and learn" that one. Glad to have all the good ideas here, once again. Great place to share/learn.

 

[Gooserider]

In theory the blockers COULD be a safety hazard, but I find it relatively unlikely - and to fall in the "If you let them get you, are you competent to operate ANY splitter?? class" Stuck logs are very uncommon, and I found my usual pattern when I got one was to pick the wedge up and push it back down a couple of times first - often works... Otherwise it's enough of a non-standard operation that you should be extra alert doing it, simply because it's unusual... I generally had my free hand (the one not on the valve) next to the log so as to hold it up as it came off and not let it fall over. I would then spin the log and give it another hit, or possibly flip it end for end.

Gooserider

 

[Bill]

My splitter goes H/vert and I prefer horz. Mine has arms that catch the splits, so they normally don't fall on your feet. My understanding is the wedge on the ram produces more torque on it. My ram has play in it, maybe keeps you from bending it. I also can use mine verticle with the fixed wedge on end without problems. Maybe it's personal preference, but most of the commercial units push the wood to the wedge, maybe there's a reason for it?

 

[Gooserider]

My splitter goes H/vert and I prefer horz. Mine has arms that catch the splits, so they normally don't fall on your feet. My understanding is the wedge on the ram produces more torque on it. My ram has play in it, maybe keeps you from bending it. I also can use mine verticle with the fixed wedge on end without problems. Maybe it's personal preference, but most of the commercial units push the wood to the wedge, maybe there's a reason for it?

Don't know, but I suspect a lot of the commercial units are designed to be used in combination with some other handling equipment such as a conveyor - pushing the splits off the end of the splitter so they'd fall on the conveyor is a nice thing... Also if you look at some of the other threads, a horizontal only unit, that has the wedge on the back end, will just keep pushing the done stuff into a pile, which as it builds will either get pushed over or slowly shove the splitter forward automatically... I don't think it's a reliability thing as much as it is a "use-case preference" issue.

Gooserider

 

[Woodrat]

I'm not a big fan of multi-way wedges, ...and I'm also much fonder of an H/V machine than I am of a vertical only...

However I don't see how the end you put the wedge on really changes the minimum beam length, or the length of the machine,

Gooserider

I am interested in the 4-way wedge because I don't want to handle wood more than necessary. If some pieces are large and some small, so be it. I am fiddling w/ a simple (may not exist) way to keep the wedge centered on the wood, just for the sake of uniformity.... sort of. Good splittin'. j

The only way hydraulic splitters can "earn thier keep" is by having multiple wedges (unless you're really into the exercise scene) I ordered my timberwolf with the 6-way wedge and an option that the previous mfg (Brute) offered at the time--- the 6-way slips over the single wedge and had a tab welded on the back of the 6 wedge with a short hydraulic cylinder under it and a valve to control it up by the main valve. That way the 6way can be raised and lowered to center (+/-) your log.

Best wishes--Woodrat

 

[jklingel]

Wood: Thanks. I'll look them up, too. Lifting the wedge is a simple solution to centering. The Brutes sound a bit like these http://www.timberwolfcorp.com/log_splitters/
Check out there TW-10.

 

[Woodrat]

Wood: Thanks. I'll look them up, too. Lifting the wedge is a simple solution to centering. The Brutes sound a bit like these http://www.timberwolfcorp.com/log_splitters/
Check out there TW-10.

jklingel--- Go on Timberwolf's site and look at the pic of the TW3HD---see the "tab" on the back side of the 4way wedge? Thats where the short hydraulic cylinder pushes the wedge up to adjust its height. I can't see any actual picture of it in their literature although they do mention its being an option on the TW3hd in the manual. It is a helpful feature if you have to split a lot of "reasonable " size wood (12-20") of varying diameters.. My usage for the machine was more splitting 2'-4' diameter material!

Best wishes Woodrat

 

[jklingel]

Wood: The TW-5 shows pics w/ the cylinder lifting the wedge; pretty slick. How long are the pieces you are splitting that are 2-4' in diameter? And, are you using a 6-way on them? With which splitter? I am curious about your tonnage (force) for wood that size; we don't have anything near that big, so I am wondering if a 5" cylinder is 2 tads of over-kill for me. Over-kill is usually good, though; if the parts don't cost much more, then go over-kill, in my book. Weight will not be an issue.

 

[Woodrat]

Wood: The TW-5 shows pics w/ the cylinder lifting the wedge; pretty slick. How long are the pieces you are splitting that are 2-4' in diameter? And, are you using a 6-way on them? With which splitter? I am curious about your tonnage (force) for wood that size; we don't have anything near that big, so I am wondering if a 5" cylinder is 2 tads of over-kill for me. Over-kill is usually good, though; if the parts don't cost much more, then go over-kill, in my book. Weight will not be an issue.

jklingel-- I have the TW3HD PTO mount. I'm only splitting 16/18" lengths . IRRC, the tonnage on mine was only 22- but the splitter it replaced (a LaFont SS500) was always getting stuck and tearing fins off the fixed 5-way wedge that it had mounted & it was rated at 27 Tons!! Unless Timberwolf has changed the design of the wedge, the reason that it does so much better with less tonnage is that the fins on the 6-way don't all engage the log at the same time-- main (vertical)part hits log first & starts to "halve"it-- next opposing set of fins hits after aboout an inch penetration-- finally last set of opposing fins sinks in after about another inch penetration--- great design With the LaFont, all 5 fins on the wedge hit the log at the same, and even with 27Tons or more, it quite often was too much for the machine.
--------- I learned the expensive way that efficient design is better than brute power. All of the things I came to view as shortcomings of the LaFont were addressed by the Timberwolf design. I don't think that a splitter that does a better job than most machines short of full-blown processors for 60 to 100k can be viewed as "overkill". BTW-- I stick to nice straight-grain oak,maple ash with the 6 way -----anything that looks like trouble I halve & quarter with the single first.
-------- I roll the big cookies into the bobcat bucket & my wife brings them over to the splitter-- I just take a pulp hook & pull the on to the splitter- whatever doesn't get to the size I want , I push back into the bucket rather than letting it fall on the ground-- then just keep "hooking" it back onto the splitter til it's small enough. My wife is pretty good with the Bobcat!
-------- Hope this is of some help to you (Ihave never regretted buying something a little bigger than I actually needed--- I have ALWAYS regretted buying something that turned out to be less than what I needed!

Best wishes-- Woodrat