# Kellog Impact Splitter Update



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

This is an update for some of you and for some it will be new.   Attached are URLs for pictures of the Kellog Impact Splitter both with and without the protective cover.  

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1202.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1206.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1208.jpg
http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/IMG_1209.jpg

Improvements made since you last saw the design are:
- flywheels are now mounted symmetrically to the I-beam and the motor is mounted off center.
- forward drive belt is now using a ball bearing belt tensioner instead of being attached to the main shaft pulley (this improves the life of the belt)
- new metal cover was made improving the safety, noise level and appearance of the unit

For those new to this concept below is a description of the advantages, disadvantages, principle (how it works), and safety features. I would appreciate any comments, pro or con, to help improve this machine.

*Why an Impact Splitter?* 
If you want to break something effectively, you HIT it. You break a window with a hammer, you knock down a building with a wrecking ball, you break up concrete with a jackhammer, and so on.  Splitting wood is breaking wood.  Splitting by hand you would either use a maul or a sledge & wedges which both rely on impact.

Think of putting a nail into a piece of wood.  You either hammer it in or you use a nail gun which uses impact.  You would never even think to PUSH the nail into a piece of wood.  Why push a wedge into wood to split it?

If someone were to set up the rounds, most healthy men could split a cord an hour with a maul. A man cannot develop more than half a horsepower.  Why does a splitter need much more power?  The answer is, it doesn’t.

*Advantages of the Impact Splitter.*
- Almost no maintenance (clean & grease and very occasional belt and chain tightening)
- No fluids of any kind needed (zero leaks, no engine oil, no hydraulic fluid)
- Starts first time, every time in any weather (must have a 110 volt 15 amp circuit)
- You don’t have to stop to gas up (saves time and $$$)
- You can split in the garage or barn (no cold wind, rain or snow in there)
- Large forces do not build up in the machine (avoids kick outs & violent breaks and the structure of the machine can be lighter)
- Very quiet except when actually splitting (a few seconds per log)
- Speed can be changed to suit the user (change one sprocket and the length of a roller chain)
- Maintenance and Repairs are very intuitive for the “backyard mechanic” (most people cannot effectively troubleshoot hydraulics)
- Safe (as safe as any splitter can be)

*Disadvantages of the Impact Splitter.*
- Splitting in the woods or away from electrical power requires a gasoline engine which negates a few of the advantages of the electric version of the splitter
- Splitting a very, very knotty piece of wood may require more energy than the flywheels and electric motor can supply at one time meaning that more than one shot at the log will be needed  (a 1 to 4 second pause to bring the flywheels back up to speed is needed on a low percentage of rounds)
- When actually splitting, the noise level is relatively high.  There is almost no noise when not actually splitting. The sudden change in noise level disturbs some people. (Hearing protection such as chain saw ear muffs should be used to mitigate this problem)

*How does it work?* 
The principle is very much like a jackhammer however the machine is much simpler without the need for a large energy-hogging compressor.  

A shaft supported on two bearings with a flywheel at each end is rotated by a small gasoline or electric motor at 600+ RPM.  Eccentrically mounted on the shaft in the middle is a needle roller type cam follower.  As the shaft rotates, the cam follower strikes the wedge giving a very powerful, short stroke, pulse to the wedge. This happens every revolution of the shaft, 600+ times a minute or 10+ times a second.  The shaft and its housing along with the wedge move together down the I-beam and the wedge is pounded through the log.

The “impact” is what breaks the log.  Because of the stored energy in the flywheels and the use of the very efficient impact principle, a very small motor can power this machine and get the same effectiveness as a much larger horsepower hydraulic unit.  The low power requirement creates more flexibility in powering the unit.  A 110 volt fractional horsepower electric motor becomes a very practical power source. The pictured splitter uses a 3/4  horsepower electric motor. Prototypes have effectively split with as little as 1/3 horsepower.  A small gasoline engine could also be used.

(Continued in next post)


----------



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

(Continued from previous post)

To the operator, the impact splitter works just like a hydraulic splitter. Place the log on it, pull the handle forward, the large screw turns and moves the whole mechanism along the I-beam. The wedge gets successively hammered through the log. Let go of the handle and it stops moving. Push back on the handle and the screw turns in the other direction moving the whole mechanism back along the I-beam. The large screw needs very little torque driving it as it is only moving the mechanism which is on rollers. You can turn the screw easily by hand to split wood.

The speed of the movement can be varied by changing one sprocket and its roller chain length.  Since the splitting mechanism runs at 10+ “hits” per second, the unit can run quite fast.  Running any splitter very fast can, however, be dangerous as you have no room for error.

*Safety.* 
This machine has a full cover over all the rotating/moving parts except the wedge (for obvious reasons the wedge must be exposed).  There is little chance of getting into the rotating parts of the equipment and being injured.

Log splitters create a large number of pinching accidents each year where a poorly placed finger or hand is pinched between the log and the wedge or the log and the pusher/stop.  

A unique safety feature is built into this machine.  The wedge is spring loaded away from the main housing and the cam follower such that it has to move some distance before the cam follower contacts the wedge.  If you have a poorly placed finger or hand, it will get pinched by the spring force which gives 20 to 40 lbs of force.  This hurts and you pull the offending appendage out of harms way “automatically” prior to the full impact (many tons).  

A patent could have been applied for on this spring loaded wedge safety device but it was not.  I believe any safety device should not be patented but rather left in the public domain for all to use.  I hope log splitter manufacturers incorporate this safety device into their machinery to protect all of us.


----------



## wahoowad (Oct 9, 2007)

Any chance there is a video available of this beast in action?


----------



## titan (Oct 9, 2007)

I second that,we wanna see that puppy splitting wood!


----------



## MrGriz (Oct 9, 2007)

Motion carried; lets see some video!


----------



## Gooserider (Oct 9, 2007)

Looks nice, but a couple of questions occur to me...

1. What happens when bark, wood chips, etc. start building up on the bearing surface between the wedge carrier and the beam?  It would seem like that might interfere with the hammer action by soaking up a lot of the energy produced, or possibly jamming the transport?  (On the hydraulics that I've used, there may be some extra drag, but the wedge just keeps on pushing along...)

2. Would it be possible to reverse the mounting of the mechanism so that one could use the unit in both horizontal and vertical modes?  I realize this might require more of a frame under the beam, and might require that the power head be positioned properly to get the tongue weight low enough to balance well, but it would seem like it would make the machine more versatile.  I know that I'm primarily interested in a vertical splitter as I don't like the notion of needing to pick up big rounds to get them onto the beam of a horizontal unit...

Gooserider


----------



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

Does anyone want a video???

I guess I better get that done pretty quick.


----------



## kellog (Oct 9, 2007)

Goose,

a horizontal/vertical version is certainly not out of the question.  Since the main housing/shaft/flywheels/wedge weigh a significant amount and all move, it would take more energy for the reverse stroke. However it would probably help the splitting as no energy would have to go into moving the components.  It is on the to-do list but not as high as you would like it probably.

As far as things getting under the wedge, I have not seen this as an issue.   There is a leading edge angle on the wedge to help things go over the wedge.  Cannot say that it would never be an issue but in the last two years of testing I have never seen it.


----------



## biggins08 (Oct 10, 2007)

Looks cool Kellog.....When are you bringing it over?


----------



## babalu87 (Oct 10, 2007)

Same design with video

http://www.supersplit.com/


----------



## titan (Oct 10, 2007)

Sweet!That thing is "roadrunner fast".Almost keeps up with me and my maul. %-P


----------



## Jags (Oct 10, 2007)

babalu87 said:
			
		

> Same design with video
> 
> http://www.supersplit.com/



Hey Babs, I think you will find that the supersplit is actually a different design in the way that it uses the stored energy of the flywheel to strike the wood in one splitting blow.  The Kellog splitter is designed for many small "jackhammer" blows as the whole carriage and hammer assembly moves towards the piece to be split.  Kinda two different approaches (one big hit, many smaller hits).


----------



## Corey (Oct 10, 2007)

Ahhh, for the love of a suitable rack and pinion, I would build a supersplitter.  This Kellog is a novel design, though - haven't seen anything quite like it.  I'm in for video.

Corey


----------



## kellog (Oct 11, 2007)

Hardwoods,

The machine in the first post is going to a semi-professional firewood guy to beat up for a couple of months.  I will continue to build machinery (takes two months to build one) and maybe the next one I can bring over for you to test.

Believe me I got the message on the video. I am working on it. 

I have absolutely no video equipment (I am a negative videophile). However I have contacted a friend who says he can make a video. I will go to his place Sat morning to split some wood for him and he will do the video. Hopefully by Saturday night you will have it.


----------



## biggins08 (Oct 11, 2007)

Kellog- I was just messing with you, but, I would love to try out some of your home cooked machinery. Maybe I should just hire you to build my splitter...Hmmmmm....


----------



## kellog (Oct 11, 2007)

Hardwoods,

I am serious about having you test the machine. I will be looking for both professional and non-professionals to test it and give me feedback so I can improve it. Last time I was at your place you had a wide variety of wood; the good, the bad and the ugly.  Would make a good test. 

Since you are so close it might make a lot of sense to do it someday.


----------



## biggins08 (Oct 12, 2007)

Sounds good to me Kellog. Actually, I am taking down the huge oak next to my house as well as a few other trees on the 29th of October...... Probably 6+ cords!


----------



## kellog (Oct 13, 2007)

OK Guys. You sufficiently badgered me into making a video. This morning I went to a friends house to split wood and he made a video with his digital camera. It is a relatively low quality video but I think you can see how the machine works. He had 14"-15" diameter dry birch and 8-9" diameter green hickory. I hope this is what you were looking for. The link is

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u...t=MVI_0444.flv


----------



## kellog (Oct 13, 2007)

Try this link.

http://s169.photobucket.com/albums/u230/kelsmi/?action=view&current=MVI_0444.flv

The other one did not work.


----------



## GeeWizMan (Oct 13, 2007)

May I ask how much the splitter will cost?  Also, can the splitter go vertical?

George


----------



## Hogwildz (Oct 13, 2007)

Thats pretty damn impressive Kellog!!
Any chance of a self returning model?
Much faster than a Hydraulic, but not as quick as a Super Splitter.
Not knocking it. Just an observation.
Still nice machine, and looks very well made.
Do you get about the same amount of one that get stuck on wedge without splitting enough as say a hydraulic?


----------



## kellog (Oct 14, 2007)

GeeWizman,


see post#7 in this thread for the answer to the vertical issue.

As far as cost goes I don't really know how ever I can give you some guidance. 

It won't be in the Ryobi catagory but it is a full sized splitter and if hope you would not expect  that.  

I suspect it will be more than the Northern/TSC/Speeco 5-7 hp units even in similar production volumes.  Hydraulic components (cyl, valves, pump, etc) are made by the multi-millions almost exclusively in China. All my components that are not standard, off the shelf components will be relatively low production volumes.  Volume always helps and I have a whole bunch of value analysis/value engineering to do. 

However if you don't look at purchase price alone but look at total overall cost you may find a slightly higher price is still worth it.  Hydraulic oil costs plus or minus $100 to change.  Gasoline is at $2.50+ a gallon and the electricity mine uses is very small.


----------



## kellog (Oct 14, 2007)

Hogwildz,


-Any chance of a self returning model? 
Great idea! The guy I was splitting with yesterday said the same thing. It would be super easy to implement on this machine.  I really like the idea and I will move that one up the list a bit based on two people saying that in the same day.

-Much faster than a Hydraulic, but not as quick as a Super Splitter. 
The speed of this machine can be varied anyway you want it. The roller chain you see in the pictures is currently at a one to one ratio.  It could be changed to a 2:1 overdrive and double the speed or maybe as much as 3:1 tripling the speed.  On the other hand you could slow it down by half.  That said, I don't like running a splitter as fast as a Supersplit.  Every machine has a balance between safety and productivity and I think the Supersplit is a tad too far toward the productivity side.  

-Do you get about the same amount of one that get stuck on wedge without splitting enough as say a hydraulic? I bet I haven't had three pieces get stuck on the wedge in all the testing I have done in the last two years.  That is because I read the wood and don't get into that situation. If you go right down the middle of a 24"+ diameter piece it will get stuck possibly because the wedge will only split half the log radially.  But if you take chunks off the sides this will not happen.  That birch I was doing in the video could have been split down the middle and it would have split fine but I still did it in chunks off the sides.  It prevents being slowed down by a stuck log


----------



## kellog (Oct 14, 2007)

I will be off the forum for about a week (traveling). 

'til I get back...


----------



## wg_bent (Oct 14, 2007)

MY only comment is that hydraulics are very reliable and powerful since they use the engine torque to power the pump, plus the pump is essentially a stepdown torque multiplier.    The impact you're showing could be hard on the machine.  Hard to tell from the video.  The other point is that when splitting elm, you need to tear the wood apart, not really break it.  That video looks to be splitting birch which is really easy to split.  Try green elm or old growth oak.  

Also, if a hydraulic unit has a problem, parts are pretty common.  That looks like a very custom unit.


----------



## carpniels (Oct 15, 2007)

HI Kellog,

Thanks for the video. I really liked it. It looks like it does the job just fine. 

Some comments/things I noticed:
- It seems like you have to hold on to the logs a little too close for my comfort. I have great respect for splitters, so I like to keep my hands as far away as possible. Could you make one with a log holder?
- I really like the electrical part. No fumes, carbs to readjust etc. Bravo!!
- Dito on the automatic return, that is common on most splitters. 
- as others said, vertical would be ideal if possible.

I am excited that someone has the guts and brains to design and build a splitter different from what anyone else has ever built. Kuddos to you. I hope you keep this up and get it into production. Even on a small scale, with this group of people you might get some of us on as early adopters who can spread the news about this splitter.  If you set up a booth at the woodman's field days in Boonville, NY, you might get more business than you could handle.

Thanks

Carpniels


----------



## kellog (Oct 19, 2007)

Warren,

First, thank you for a well thought out and formulated dissenting post.  

You are right that hydraulics CAN BE reliable.  For instance a car braking system or an aircraft hydraulic system is very reliable. However what I have found is that the hydraulics used in consumer and light commercial hydraulic splitters has be “value engineered” into what I would call a less reliable state.  If you look at the forums that deal with wood splitters you will find numerous examples of people having issues with leaks and poor functionality.  Worse, most people do not know how to troubleshoot hydraulics.  

Let me share one story with you.  I was in a Home Depot in the fall of 2006 and they had 10 hydraulic machines on the floor brand new.  Two of those machines were leaking already and they probably only had a 5 minute test run from the factory on them if that much.

I have built hydraulic machines before and the first one I built in 1982 is still being run by my nephew.  However the Northern Hydraulics seals and hoses originally used have long been upgraded to more commercial grade.  

Can hydraulic splitters be reliable? Yes.  Are they?  Questionable.

You mentioned that impact can be hard on the machine. Yes it can.  There are many design considerations related to this topic.  Just as you can “value engineer” to much on a hydraulic splitter, you can also “value engineer” too much on an impact splitter.  Can it be reliable? Yes it can. There are many machines that rely on impact such as jack hammers, nailers, rock crushers, etc. that are reliable just as there are many reliable hydraulic pieces of equipment.  

In the video I was splitting wood that my friend had available and I would agree the birch was very easy splitting wood. The hickory was what I call typical wood. There was no difficult-to-split wood available at the time.  The last piece of hickory I split on the video had a sizable knot in it.  I was trying to get the video done quickly as EVERYONE was on my case to see it.  

The impact splitter will cut through knots just as a hydraulic splitter will.  Frankly, in the knots, there is not much difference between the cut a hydraulic splitter makes and the cut the impact splitter makes.  Both shear and tear the wood.  The wedge passes thru the knot at the speed of the machine in both cases.   In clear wood however the impact splitter makes a cleaner cut with less splinters and the crack propagates much faster.  

Finally, yes there are some custom parts in the machine such as the main shaft, flywheels, main hsg, drive screw, wedge, etc.  I have used all standard power transmission components (gears, sprockets, belts, chains, pillow blocks, etc.).


----------



## kellog (Oct 19, 2007)

Carpniels,

A log holder such as is used on current hydraulic machines is no problem to install as are other accessories such as a table, log lift, auto reverse, etc.  These are all relatively simple additions but they have to be engineered & tested and I only have two hands.  They will come in time.

Thank you for the kind words and encouragement.  As you know it is a long and lonely road trying to bring something new and different to people.  I have always gone by the saying “if you do what you always did, you get what you always got.”


----------



## raybonz (Mar 8, 2008)

kellog said:
			
		

> Carpniels,
> 
> A log holder such as is used on current hydraulic machines is no problem to install as are other accessories such as a table, log lift, auto reverse, etc.  These are all relatively simple additions but they have to be engineered & tested and I only have two hands.  They will come in time.
> 
> Thank you for the kind words and encouragement.  As you know it is a long and lonely road trying to bring something new and different to people.  I have always gone by the saying “if you do what you always did, you get what you always got.”



Kel,
I think your splitter is absolutely ingenious!! Have you tried making the wedge fixed and have the pusher move instead so it tends to push the splits off the end like the super splitter? How much could your splitter be bought for? I for one would be very interested and feel your machine is much more efficient than a conventional hydraulic unit and it is much safer to boot! Your product is the most innovative idea I have seen in a long time.. 

Ray


----------



## kellog (Mar 8, 2008)

Raybonz,

Thank you for the nice comments about the machine.  I have certainly thought about making the wedge fixed and the moving a pusher plate and this may very well work.  However the elasticity of the log may reduce the impact.  I will need to try this set up but it is not that high on my priority list.  Also if one wants a vertical version it will have to made as designed.  Your thought is a good one though.

As far as cost goes I am not sure yet. I suspect it may cost more than hydraulic splitters of equivalent size because hydraulic components (valves, cyl, pumps, etc) are made by the zillions in Asia (China & India mainly) for many applications not just log splitters.  Many of my parts will not have high production quantities behind them. However you don’t need $100 worth of oil (soon to be $200 at the rate of oil price increases).  Also my design is simpler which may help keep the cost down.  But in the end I think it will cost more.  I think Supersplit splitters have the same issue.

Again thanks for adding to the idea pool, I appreciate it.


----------



## raybonz (Mar 8, 2008)

kellog said:
			
		

> Raybonz,
> 
> Thank you for the nice comments about the machine.  I have certainly thought about making the wedge fixed and the moving a pusher plate and this may very well work.  However the elasticity of the log may reduce the impact.  I will need to try this set up but it is not that high on my priority list.  Also if one wants a vertical version it will have to made as designed.  Your thought is a good one though.
> 
> ...



Performance being on par with a hydraulic splitter or perhaps better and somehow if you could produce an electric version for about half price of a hydraulic splitter you'd have a real winner.. Maybe even make the motor optional and produce the rest? Funny thing is that splitters didn't even interest me until I read your thread and saw the innovation of your ideas.. With your splitter patented you could be living on easy street.. I wish you the best of luck and I will be keeping up with this thread for sure!

Take Care,
Ray


----------



## brad068 (Mar 13, 2008)

Kellog,

Congrats on your design. It is very ingenious. However I'm not giving up the hydraulic splitter design. I hate to be the Simon Cowell, but I'm not sold on the kinetic energy principle of your design or the Supersplit. To many moving parts. The supersplit is almost to fast and you are right about the hammering noise when splitting on yours. Also, when I split my wood on my splitter I have a 4 and 6 way wedge that hyd. can power through with one pass. I don't want to handle the wood anymore than I need to. With the supersplit, I'm curious as to what would happen to the engagement mechanism if the wedge was up against a piece of wood from the start? 

I come from a fabricating background. I have built alot of different equipment from cranberry to farm,(and now into gasifying wood boilers) and if it wasn't for the ease of use and smooth operation of hydraulics much of that equipment wouldn't last.


----------



## kellog (Mar 13, 2008)

Garnification,

Thanks for your comments. I have no comment on the SuperSplit.  I’ll let the Supersplit people do that. 

I’m not going to convince everybody to give up hydraulics that they have been using forever nor do I want to.  I do want to show people that there are other ways to do things that have very good functionality, are more energy efficient and environmentally friendly. 

Sometime in the next 30 years there will be major oil issues in the world and oil will become prohibitively expensive and scarce (per the US General Accounting Office).  Maybe at that point I will be able to convince you. I’m guessing likely not until then.

Again I always appreciate comments both pro and con relative to my design. They are always helpful.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 13, 2008)

Garnification said:
			
		

> Kellog,
> 
> Congrats on your design. It is very ingenious. However I'm not giving up the hydraulic splitter design. I hate to be the Simon Cowell, but I'm not sold on the kinetic energy principle of your design or the Supersplit. To many moving parts. The supersplit is almost to fast and you are right about the hammering noise when splitting on yours. Also, when I split my wood on my splitter I have a 4 and 6 way wedge that hyd. can power through with one pass. I don't want to handle the wood anymore than I need to. With the supersplit, I'm curious as to what would happen to the engagement mechanism if the wedge was up against a piece of wood from the start?
> 
> I come from a fabricating background. I have built alot of different equipment from cranberry to farm,(and now into gasifying wood boilers) and if it wasn't for the ease of use and smooth operation of hydraulics much of that equipment wouldn't last.



Never seen or used Kellogs machine, I think the basic idea is sound, and presume that the implementation is as well, but can't really comment either way on it.  

I have used a Supersplit, and my impression is that it takes a lot more maintainance and futzing with than a hydraulic does - however the wood handling isn't bad, and I don't find the cycle time unpleasantly fast - you have to keep your fingers out of the way, but that isn't a big deal.  However I'm using a unit with a 5 hp gas engine, which we run at about 50% throttle - presumably running the engine faster would speed up the cycle time, possibly to the point where it would be scary.  

I also have doubts about the maximum size log the SS could handle - I'm using it to reduce wood that's already split relatively small, and it works great for that, but I get the feeling that it might not like big rounds...  OTOH, I only have had a couple chunks that I wasn't able to completely handle with a hydraulic in the fairly standard 20 ton class, and what got me on those was knots, not the size.  My experience with a hydraulic was that it would eat anything you could get under the ram, if you couldn't go down the middle, nibble at the edges for a bit.  The ones I couldn't get were multiway crotches that split off diagonal chunks until there wasn't enough of a flat end left to stay upright when I came down on it...

Gooserider


----------



## raybonz (Mar 13, 2008)

kellog said:
			
		

> Garnification,
> 
> Thanks for your comments. I have no comment on the SuperSplit.  I’ll let the Supersplit people do that.
> 
> ...



Kel,
Your design has many things going for it as far as I am concerned.
1) It is very energy efficient compared to a similar hydraulic splitter.
2) There will never be an oil leak because there is no oil.
3) Oil is expensive.
4) Unless you have an electric splitter they are all loud.
5) It appears your splitter should be safer than a hydraulic.
6) Your splitter is faster than many hydraulic units.
7) Drag that bad boy to Carver, Mass. and lets test it 

Keep up the good and original work.. The world has enough clones already!

Ray


----------



## kellog (Mar 14, 2008)

Ray, 

It is interesting that I originally conceived this design with the goal of zero maintenance (hence the electric motor and all mechanical design) and to show there are other (and better) ways to do things.  That was many years ago.  Now I think its value has nothing to do with low maintenance but more focused on oil and the environment.  

First, the world is headed to peak oil (the point where world oil production starts to decline) and no one can deny that. The only question is when and nobody knows the answer. Per the US General Accounting Office it will happen between now and 2040 with a likely time frame of 2020-2030.  When the world hits peak oil, prices will rise exponentially. As has been proven in the past, a 5% deficit in oil supply will quadruple the price.  Nobody knows what will happen when a 10% or 15% or more supply deficit occurs.  

The US is endowed with one of the few large coal reserves in the world.  Due to the fact that coal is best used to create electricity, this design fits right into the largest alternative energy source currently available.  Other viable alternatives are nuclear, wind and solar which all create electricity.  Geothermal is also available but does not lend itself as readily to electricity.

Secondly, there is a move in Europe to require an environmental study be done for every land transfer.  This may come here someday.  Leaking hydraulics could make environmental clean-up required for some property costing big $$.  (I had a guy do some backhoe work for me. He broke a hose and drained a half gallon of fluid on the ground. Didn’t even occur to him to clean it up.)

Thirdly, European manufacturers are coming under pressure to eliminate hydraulics due to environmental concerns, both efficiency and hazardous waste related.  Quite often what happens in Europe on environmental and energy issues happens here several years later.  There is a European manufacturer marketing a water based hydraulic log splitter (no oil).

I am starting to think that I missed the target with my original design criteria but unwittingly fell into the correct design area by accident. Time will tell.

As far as dragging it to Mass, if Goose has another Hearth.com party this summer, maybe I’ll bring it up (he is near Chelmsford, a bit north of you).  I went to the party last year and almost brought it with me.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 14, 2008)

kellog said:
			
		

> Ray,
> 
> It is interesting that I originally conceived this design with the goal of zero maintenance (hence the electric motor and all mechanical design) and to show there are other (and better) ways to do things.  That was many years ago.  Now I think its value has nothing to do with low maintenance but more focused on oil and the environment.
> 
> ...



I sort of agree on the mechanical / hydraulic problems, but I think there are viable alternatives to dino-based hydraulic fluids - water as you mentioned, possibly vegetable oils, (particularly hemp oil if we could get the gov't out of the prohibition mindset) etc...  I don't know just what form the alternatives would take, but I'm sure they will show up - it is worth noting that there are already non-dino alternatives for chainsaw bar oil, and I don't see why they couldn't be adapted to hydraulics over time...  It is also worth noting that there seems to not be any REAL negative environmental consequences for small spills of petro products - as long as they have the time to deal with it, there are a fair number of micro-organisms that can metabolize the stuff.  I've seen some articles claiming that the "remediation efforts" sometimes actually cause more harm than the original spill.

On the other topic, we haven't decided for sure yet, but there is an excellent chance that Mary-Anne and I will be putting on another Hearth Party...  Perhaps I can even get my friend to bring one of his Hydraulics and his SuperSplit over so we could have a bit of a comparison...

Gooserider


----------



## kellog (Mar 15, 2008)

Goose,



> I sort of agree on the mechanical / hydraulic problems, but I think there are viable alternatives to dino-based hydraulic fluids - water as you mentioned, possibly vegetable oils, (particularly hemp oil if we could get the gov’t out of the prohibition mindset) etc… I don’t know just what form the alternatives would take, but I’m sure they will show up - it is worth noting that there are already non-dino alternatives for chainsaw bar oil, and I don’t see why they couldn’t be adapted to hydraulics over time…



I agree there will be alternative hydraulic fluids as I said they are already doing water based hydraulics.  But only for new machinery or completely overhauled machinery not the machines (as is) in use today.  



> It is also worth noting that there seems to not be any REAL negative environmental consequences for small spills of petro products - as long as they have the time to deal with it, there are a fair number of micro-organisms that can metabolize the stuff.  I’ve seen some articles claiming that the “remediation efforts” sometimes actually cause more harm than the original spill.



You are assuming you will be working with an enlightened, reasonable bureaucrat. If they find one drop of oil on the property they will have you remediating regardless if it is good or bad because it says so on page X paragraph Y.  

In any event, the above only addresses the Hydraulic oil issue.  There is still the lack of or very high price of gasoline/diesel issue, the efficiency issue and the exhaust gas pollution issue (California is already putting pressure on the small engine mfgs based on emissions and soon it will be fuel economy. They want to regulate CO2 emissions also).  

As time marches on we will learn more.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 15, 2008)

kellog said:
			
		

> Goose,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Water based hydraulics I agree, though the overhaul might not be that bad depending on what is in the water, but I could also see non-dino "oil" based products - perhaps something using a vegetable oil that would be a direct replacement.  Don't know just what it would be, but I'm sure it could be made - I know some of the hemp advocates claim that they can process hemp into any desired form of petro feedstock equivalent for instance.



> > It is also worth noting that there seems to not be any REAL negative environmental consequences for small spills of petro products - as long as they have the time to deal with it, there are a fair number of micro-organisms that can metabolize the stuff.  I’ve seen some articles claiming that the “remediation efforts” sometimes actually cause more harm than the original spill.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 True, but I don't really see as easy a way around the small engine question - IMHO electric is NOT a viable option for most splitter users, trees in the woods don't have outlets, and even around the house the cords get awfully long.  They can with enough money clean up the existing engines, to some degree but the problem of a small portable power source is still an issue that nothing seems to really solve better than a small gas / diesel engine, and there aren't many cleaner solutions than an engine that runs for the better part of a day on a gallon or two of gas.  The guy I help in his wood business on occasion typically has two gas engines running, one on the SuperSplit, and one on the conveyor that moves the output into the trailer - both are Honda engines in the 4-6hp range, running at fast idle speeds, with the factory 1-2 gallon tanks (I think they are that big...) and I can run all day on one fillup, probably 2-3 cords of wood at least...  At current prices his gas costs are negligible compared to what his other expenses are...

On my chainsaw I get about 5-6 fillups for a gallon of mix, again, I'm not even vaguely worried about the cost of gas for the saw, it isn't worth it to me to worry about compared to the cost of the wood, etc.  Even if gas reaches the predicted by some price of $6-8 / gallon, I still don't think there will be much pressure on the small engine market from the consumer side...

Gooserider


----------



## kellog (Mar 16, 2008)

Goose,

you are probably right in the 0-10 year horizon but further out you just won't get the fuel or it will be prohibitively expensive.  Think orders of magnitude worse than the gas lines of the 1970's. We are going to need some creative people working on alternatives starting now.


----------



## Gooserider (Mar 16, 2008)

kellog said:
			
		

> Goose,
> 
> you are probably right in the 0-10 year horizon but further out you just won't get the fuel or it will be prohibitively expensive.  Think orders of magnitude worse than the gas lines of the 1970's. We are going to need some creative people working on alternatives starting now.



I disagree...  

We already have many possible alternative ways of making fuels that will burn in our current IC engines with minimal modifications, they just cost more than current dino fuels, but as dino-fuels get more expensive, the alternatives become more atractive, which will limit the amount the dino-fuels will increase.  (and as more experience develops with making alternatives the price for them will tend to drop)

I also have significant doubts about "peak oil" being as bad as the gloom & doom folks are pushing - again there are lots of KNOWN resources that will become increasingly attractive as the price goes up, and they become more cost effective using known technology - for instance "eco-sensitive" areas, like Alaska or the CA coast which could probably be tapped today with little risk of damage will be more appealing as demand goes up...  

We already have technology that can extract oil from the HUGE known reserves of oil shales and tar sands that isn't cost effective today, but if the price of oil goes up will become so, especially as experience in dealing with those materials develops.

Bear in mind that in "real dollars" - aka, allowing for gov't funny money inflation games, gas is cheaper today than it was in the 60's, even more so if you look at cost / mile - Even allowing for proportional increase in real dollar terms, we may see economizing, but I don't think we will see fuel becoming unobtainably expensive, especially in the kind of quantities needed for the sorts of tasks that we mostly use small engine powered equipment for, and most of that will be balanced by increased salary demands.

Gooserider


----------



## brad068 (Mar 16, 2008)

Well if anyone caught the "Dooms Day Prophecy" on the HC, it ain't going to matter cause 12-21-2012, its all over.....!


----------



## kellog (Mar 16, 2008)

Goose, 

Yes we have ways of making alternate liquid fuels but not 18 million barrels a day (US) or 85 million barrels day (worldwide).  What lies off our coasts in shallow water and in Alaska won't last but a few years at 18 million / day.  US oil production peaked in 1970 at 10 million barrels a day and is currently at 5 million/day. It will never get back to 10 million.

Tar sands have a poor return on energy invested at this point so will be very expensive.  Shale has no return for energy invested so will never be used to any great extent based on todays technology. Hopefully some new technology will come along to improve these sources.

I sure hope you are right with your analysis but I would hedge my bets a bit.


----------



## bczubko (Sep 16, 2009)

I just came across your thread and am interested in your impact splitter.  

Whatever happened with your log splitter?  Are you selling them?  How about selling plans to build it yourself?  

Thanks.


----------



## MichaelS (Oct 5, 2009)

Any updates?


----------

