What size and shape do you make your splits?

[DBoon]

I have a small E-W stove. Square up pieces for me, mostly. Cleaved off rounds get spit into small pieces to go into the middle between square off pieces stacked in back and front.

 

[Backwoods Savage]

I split into OVALS.

Seriously. How can ya split and NOT get triangles. I know ya can get some squares in the middle, but ya GOTTA have SOME triangle, unless you are starting with a SQUARE tree, right?

How to split without getting triangles? Yes, you can get some triangles but with a good sized log, you can get more rectangles or squares than triangles.

Hopefully I can explain this so it is understandable. Looking where you see the two 1's, that is splitting a round into halves. Where you see the two's and three's, this just takes a thin slab off the edge. From this point you simply turn the log so that you can then slice the remaining part into rectangles. Depending upon the size of the logs, this could be rectangles or squares.

Also, if those end up too large, they can be split once more. For example, if you had a really large log, you would first split in half. Then split like above but also split those rectangles into squares. It really is easy to do this rather you are splitting by hand or with hydraulics and you will like the results. Hope this helps.

 

[bobdog2o02]

How to split without getting triangles? Yes, you can get some triangles but with a good sized log, you can get more rectangles or squares than triangles.
View attachment 131940
Hopefully I can explain this so it is understandable. Looking where you see the two 1's, that is splitting a round into halves. Where you see the two's and three's, this just takes a thin slab off the edge. From this point you simply turn the log so that you can then slice the remaining part into rectangles. Depending upon the size of the logs, this could be rectangles or squares.

Also, if those end up too large, they can be split once more. For example, if you had a really large log, you would first split in half. Then split like above but also split those rectangles into squares. It really is easy to do this rather you are splitting by hand or with hydraulics and you will like the results. Hope this helps.

I like your explanation. I LIKE triangles. I think the surface area to volume ratio helps accelerate dry times... It's just a hunch though.

 

[Charlie2]

If you rotated Savages photo 90 degrees, that's the way i split, some come out so square and purty i hate to burn them.

 

[velvetfoot]

Split round in half then in slabs, relatively thin. Splitting in slabs seems to quicker (I split only vertical).

 

[Fred Wright]

Been working up some sweetgum lately. Get the worst done first, lol.

Gum has to be slabbed around the edges so we end up with a lot of edge pieces. The rest ends up as squares, slabs and partial squares. Smaller rounds make for half round splits.

The oak and red maple, they're not quite as picky and will split pretty much any way. I prefer to make triangles with as little bark as possible. Like pie slices.

I used to split large slabs but quit because they don't seem to burn as efficiently as smaller splits.

 

[smokedragon]

Need I say more?

NICE

Mine are a lot like this, triangles, and squares, with a few rectangles........my wife calls them 4x4's (squares) and 2x6's (rectangles).

I like a variety of shapes, makes packing the stove easier.

 

[smokedragon]

I do Hypocycloids

Why not truncated icosahedrons? Your kids could use them as toys before you burn them...........

 

[bobdog2o02]

Why not truncated icosahedrons? Your kids could use them as toys before you burn them...........

Lol. Soccor balls

 

[BEConklin]

I go for the squares and rectangles mostly to get pieces without bark. ....or at least that's what I tell myself. Truth is, if I have nice, straight-grained wood, it's just more fun for me to split them that way......and they're nicer looking - and I can do it accurately with a Fiskars. I keep some of the bark slabs for the top of the pile.

BTW - in the pic I posted, there's plenty of uglies in that pile - but they're on the other side. The "display" side faces the neighbors

 

[red oak]

Looking at Dennis's diagram, in addition to getting more squares and rectangles it has the advantage of most pieces not having bark on them at all. This should speed up drying, as well as solving the bark up vs. bark down dilemma.

 

[smokedragon]

........ as well as solving the bark up vs. bark down dilemma.

Is this really a dilemma? Do people really argue about this?

I stack the wood the way that is the most stable, like playing tetris but with weight and splinters.........I don't think twice about the direction the bark faces.

I mean it is hard enough making hypocycloids, now you got me worried about which way the bark is facing......sheesh

 

[bobdog2o02]

I agree most stable for stacking. Bark doesn't matter.

 

[BrotherBart]

Is this really a dilemma? Do people really argue about this?

I stack the wood the way that is the most stable, like playing tetris but with weight and splinters.........I don't think twice about the direction the bark faces.

I mean it is hard enough making hypocycloids, now you got me worried about which way the bark is facing......sheesh

I don't see any arguments. Myself after planing them all to the same size and shape for optimum stacking and stove loading, I bar code each split with the weight, species and stacking date and then enter the information into a database. Then scan them as I load the stove.

 

[Tinder]

I think there is an argument for almost any shape. Sometimes rectangles are better. Sometimes triangles work best. Other times it's sure nice to have some wide, yet thin sheets.

 

[jatoxico]

I split by hand so I go with what the wood wants do, it speaks to me . Red oak will usually let you have your way with it though .