NATE379 said:$55 from Fiskars.
http://www2.fiskars.com/Products/Yard-and-Garden/Axes-and-Striking/X27-Splitting-Axe-36
What you would do with a 6lb spliiter is beyond me though. My maul is ~15lb and I'd like to find a heavier one.
Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
Creekyphil said:Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
I've seen this explanation before, and I'm just not buying. If it were just the weight that made the different, other 4 lbs splitting axes would work as well, or nearly as well as the Fiskars. They don't.
Regardless of the weight of the splitting implement, the same amount of energy is going to be imparted into the swing. Using the example above, that is 400, ft-lbs/s^2. If the 8 lbs maul can generate 400 ft-lbs/s^2,
E=1/2*8*10^2
then I would expect the Fiskars to only be accelerated to 14ft/s.
400=1/2*4*14^2.
You can't expect that just because the Fiskars weighs half as much, that it can be accelerated to twice the speed. That is using the equation when it suits, and ignoring it otherwise. If anything, I would expect the Fiskars to have less energy at impact, because the time of the swing is shorter, due to increased velocity (all Fiskars) and shorter path (with the older 28 inch handle only).
I think the efficiency is better because of better shape, and possibly recoil in the handle. Elastic collisions impact much more energy than inelastic ones. That is why things like dead-blow hammers exist. I'd be curious to see how a Fiskars does on a wooden handle, or a maul does with a Fiskars-type Nyglass(sp?) handle.
I really think a lot of the math is pointless, because it is ingoring the effects of rotational inertia, diff eqs, etc., and is really a huge oversimplification. But it makes sense that only such much energy can be put into a swing, and that same amount of energy comes out on the round at impact, no matter the weight.
For the record, I don't even own a maul anymore. If the Fiskar's SS won't do it, I get the sledge and wedge.
dave11 said:I believe it's momentum that determines the effectiveness of a striking tool, not the kinetic energy.
dave11 said:So I'm not sure quite what to say about a Fiskars now selling for $110.
MMaul said:But it's also one of those things dont nock it till you try it. I have sold 3 to people I have never said a word to them they use it and are amazed.
Creekyphil said:Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
I've seen this explanation before, and I'm just not buying. If it were just the weight that made the different, other 4 lbs splitting axes would work as well, or nearly as well as the Fiskars. They don't.
Regardless of the weight of the splitting implement, the same amount of energy is going to be imparted into the swing. Using the example above, that is 400, ft-lbs/s^2. If the 8 lbs maul can generate 400 ft-lbs/s^2,
E=1/2*8*10^2
then I would expect the Fiskars to only be accelerated to 14ft/s.
400=1/2*4*14^2.
You can't expect that just because the Fiskars weighs half as much, that it can be accelerated to twice the speed. That is using the equation when it suits, and ignoring it otherwise. If anything, I would expect the Fiskars to have less energy at impact, because the time of the swing is shorter, due to increased velocity (all Fiskars) and shorter path (with the older 28 inch handle only).
I think the efficiency is better because of better shape, and possibly recoil in the handle. Elastic collisions impact much more energy than inelastic ones. That is why things like dead-blow hammers exist. I'd be curious to see how a Fiskars does on a wooden handle, or a maul does with a Fiskars-type Nyglass(sp?) handle.
I really think a lot of the math is pointless, because it is ingoring the effects of rotational inertia, diff eqs, etc., and is really a huge oversimplification. But it makes sense that only such much energy can be put into a swing, and that same amount of energy comes out on the round at impact, no matter the weight.
For the record, I don't even own a maul anymore. If the Fiskar's SS won't do it, I get the sledge and wedge.
dave11 said:Creekyphil said:Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
I've seen this explanation before, and I'm just not buying. If it were just the weight that made the different, other 4 lbs splitting axes would work as well, or nearly as well as the Fiskars. They don't.
Regardless of the weight of the splitting implement, the same amount of energy is going to be imparted into the swing. Using the example above, that is 400, ft-lbs/s^2. If the 8 lbs maul can generate 400 ft-lbs/s^2,
E=1/2*8*10^2
then I would expect the Fiskars to only be accelerated to 14ft/s.
400=1/2*4*14^2.
You can't expect that just because the Fiskars weighs half as much, that it can be accelerated to twice the speed. That is using the equation when it suits, and ignoring it otherwise. If anything, I would expect the Fiskars to have less energy at impact, because the time of the swing is shorter, due to increased velocity (all Fiskars) and shorter path (with the older 28 inch handle only).
I think the efficiency is better because of better shape, and possibly recoil in the handle. Elastic collisions impact much more energy than inelastic ones. That is why things like dead-blow hammers exist. I'd be curious to see how a Fiskars does on a wooden handle, or a maul does with a Fiskars-type Nyglass(sp?) handle.
I really think a lot of the math is pointless, because it is ingoring the effects of rotational inertia, diff eqs, etc., and is really a huge oversimplification. But it makes sense that only such much energy can be put into a swing, and that same amount of energy comes out on the round at impact, no matter the weight.
For the record, I don't even own a maul anymore. If the Fiskar's SS won't do it, I get the sledge and wedge.
I believe the ability of a sledge or maul to split wood is more closely correlated to its momentum, which is equal to its mass (in kilograms) multiplied by its velocity. So its a 1 to 1 contribution from both mass and velocity.
I believe it's momentum that determines the effectiveness of a striking tool, not the kinetic energy.
TMonter said:dave11 said:Creekyphil said:Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
I've seen this explanation before, and I'm just not buying. If it were just the weight that made the different, other 4 lbs splitting axes would work as well, or nearly as well as the Fiskars. They don't.
Regardless of the weight of the splitting implement, the same amount of energy is going to be imparted into the swing. Using the example above, that is 400, ft-lbs/s^2. If the 8 lbs maul can generate 400 ft-lbs/s^2,
E=1/2*8*10^2
then I would expect the Fiskars to only be accelerated to 14ft/s.
400=1/2*4*14^2.
You can't expect that just because the Fiskars weighs half as much, that it can be accelerated to twice the speed. That is using the equation when it suits, and ignoring it otherwise. If anything, I would expect the Fiskars to have less energy at impact, because the time of the swing is shorter, due to increased velocity (all Fiskars) and shorter path (with the older 28 inch handle only).
I think the efficiency is better because of better shape, and possibly recoil in the handle. Elastic collisions impact much more energy than inelastic ones. That is why things like dead-blow hammers exist. I'd be curious to see how a Fiskars does on a wooden handle, or a maul does with a Fiskars-type Nyglass(sp?) handle.
I really think a lot of the math is pointless, because it is ingoring the effects of rotational inertia, diff eqs, etc., and is really a huge oversimplification. But it makes sense that only such much energy can be put into a swing, and that same amount of energy comes out on the round at impact, no matter the weight.
For the record, I don't even own a maul anymore. If the Fiskar's SS won't do it, I get the sledge and wedge.
I believe the ability of a sledge or maul to split wood is more closely correlated to its momentum, which is equal to its mass (in kilograms) multiplied by its velocity. So its a 1 to 1 contribution from both mass and velocity.
I believe it's momentum that determines the effectiveness of a striking tool, not the kinetic energy.
Actually because one object is held stationary and cannot move momentum in this case doesn't have an impact. It's all about delivered energy to drive the head of the object into the wood and cause it to split. If you were attempting to make the object move momentum would be a factor and it certainly is a factor in the swing.
I would be interesting to test and see how fast one could swing a fiskars axe versus a 6 or 8lb maul and compare them.
TMonter said:dave11 said:Creekyphil said:Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
I've seen this explanation before, and I'm just not buying. If it were just the weight that made the different, other 4 lbs splitting axes would work as well, or nearly as well as the Fiskars. They don't.
Regardless of the weight of the splitting implement, the same amount of energy is going to be imparted into the swing. Using the example above, that is 400, ft-lbs/s^2. If the 8 lbs maul can generate 400 ft-lbs/s^2,
E=1/2*8*10^2
then I would expect the Fiskars to only be accelerated to 14ft/s.
400=1/2*4*14^2.
You can't expect that just because the Fiskars weighs half as much, that it can be accelerated to twice the speed. That is using the equation when it suits, and ignoring it otherwise. If anything, I would expect the Fiskars to have less energy at impact, because the time of the swing is shorter, due to increased velocity (all Fiskars) and shorter path (with the older 28 inch handle only).
I think the efficiency is better because of better shape, and possibly recoil in the handle. Elastic collisions impact much more energy than inelastic ones. That is why things like dead-blow hammers exist. I'd be curious to see how a Fiskars does on a wooden handle, or a maul does with a Fiskars-type Nyglass(sp?) handle.
I really think a lot of the math is pointless, because it is ingoring the effects of rotational inertia, diff eqs, etc., and is really a huge oversimplification. But it makes sense that only such much energy can be put into a swing, and that same amount of energy comes out on the round at impact, no matter the weight.
For the record, I don't even own a maul anymore. If the Fiskar's SS won't do it, I get the sledge and wedge.
I believe the ability of a sledge or maul to split wood is more closely correlated to its momentum, which is equal to its mass (in kilograms) multiplied by its velocity. So its a 1 to 1 contribution from both mass and velocity.
I believe it's momentum that determines the effectiveness of a striking tool, not the kinetic energy.
Actually because one object is held stationary and cannot move momentum in this case doesn't have an impact. It's all about delivered energy to drive the head of the object into the wood and cause it to split. If you were attempting to make the object move momentum would be a factor and it certainly is a factor in the swing.
I would be interesting to test and see how fast one could swing a fiskars axe versus a 6 or 8lb maul and compare them.
Dune said:Creekyphil said:Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity Squared
IE E=1/2MV^2
Thus with a heavy maul if could swing an 8lb unit at 10 ft/s but a 4 lb at 20ft/s you actually have considerably more energy with the 4lb axe than with the maul.
E = 1/2*8*10^2 = 400 ft-lb/s^2
E= 1/2*4*20^2 = 800 ft-lb/s^2
Thus impact speed makes a tremendous difference in energy delivered.
I've seen this explanation before, and I'm just not buying. If it were just the weight that made the different, other 4 lbs splitting axes would work as well, or nearly as well as the Fiskars. They don't.
Regardless of the weight of the splitting implement, the same amount of energy is going to be imparted into the swing. Using the example above, that is 400, ft-lbs/s^2. If the 8 lbs maul can generate 400 ft-lbs/s^2,
E=1/2*8*10^2
then I would expect the Fiskars to only be accelerated to 14ft/s.
400=1/2*4*14^2.
You can't expect that just because the Fiskars weighs half as much, that it can be accelerated to twice the speed. That is using the equation when it suits, and ignoring it otherwise. If anything, I would expect the Fiskars to have less energy at impact, because the time of the swing is shorter, due to increased velocity (all Fiskars) and shorter path (with the older 28 inch handle only).
I think the efficiency is better because of better shape, and possibly recoil in the handle. Elastic collisions impact much more energy than inelastic ones. That is why things like dead-blow hammers exist. I'd be curious to see how a Fiskars does on a wooden handle, or a maul does with a Fiskars-type Nyglass(sp?) handle.
I really think a lot of the math is pointless, because it is ingoring the effects of rotational inertia, diff eqs, etc., and is really a huge oversimplification. But it makes sense that only such much energy can be put into a swing, and that same amount of energy comes out on the round at impact, no matter the weight.
For the record, I don't even own a maul anymore. If the Fiskar's SS won't do it, I get the sledge and wedge.
As much as I hate to admit T is ever right, he is this time. Because the velocity is squared, the speed does not have to double.