If the Fiskars was more effective solely because of the weight, then the 9/4 lbs Pro Splitter would be the cats meow. Same handle material, same design concept in the head, quality of construction, etc. The only variable is weight, and the heavier tool works better, even with a slower head speed. Why would that be?
x27 now costs over $100.
- Thread starter DonNC
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
Creekyphil said:
I have both, they both work extremely well. I can't wait to get the new longer handle version and really get some speed at the head.
As to your question, the 2.5 versus the 4.5, under 4.5 I asume the law of diminishing returns comes into play, in other words, the larger one can already be easily swung fast, not enough extra speed is gained from the lighter ax to offsett the loss of weight.
And that makes sense. Just because a splitting tool weighs half as much as another, doesn't mean it has any more energy at impact.
I really don't know one way or the other, but making assumuptions like that is bad science.
Again, none of this is personal. I think we should get together over a pile of MA hardwoods and discuss the finer points of splitting tools, or physics, or whatever it is we are talking about. I'll even bring the 12 pack.
I really don't know one way or the other, but making assumuptions like that is bad science.
Again, none of this is personal. I think we should get together over a pile of MA hardwoods and discuss the finer points of splitting tools, or physics, or whatever it is we are talking about. I'll even bring the 12 pack.
Creekyphil said:
I would not buy it either. Why do you think they done make extremely light baseball bats? no, not because they will break, because there are sweetspots for the weight v velocity that defy your straight calculation.
Creekyphil said:
My point was that velocity of the tool impacting the wood is more important than weight (within reason of course) when it comes to imparted energy. I'm sure there is a sweet spot for both, but the fact is a light tool will be easier to swing. There are so many factors at play, but from a simple analysis perspective, energy at impact is what is of primary importance. Of course tool shape, wood type ect ect ect all come into play.
In an attempt to inject some data into all this rumination, I found an article, with real data, showing that as far as the damage done by bullets, momentum is the key determinant, not kinetic energy.
I can't post it, because hearth.com won't accept .pdf files as attachments, but here are the key paragraphs. I can email to any who want the whole thing. There is data to support their conclusions in the paper. Imagine that they are talking about mauls and wood instead of bullets and bodies:
"The problem occurs in that energy, while a useful notion in physics, is not
particularly effective in determining the lethality of a bullet. This is because of
the nature of terminal ballistics - the behavior of a bullet when it enters a target,
and the mechanics of wounding.
The only two factors of importance when looking at effectiveness (lethality)
of a cartidge are:
1. Penetration - the bullet must penetrate far enough into the target to reach
vital organs or the central nervous system. Note that as long as a bullet
can reach vital organs, additional penetration is irrelevant.
2. Size of hole - the larger the permanent hole generated in the target, the
faster it bleeds to death, or the less precise the shot needs to be to destroy
the central nervous system.
Rifle rounds, due to their high velocities, produce trauma from temporary
cavities which are much larger than the bullet diameter. This affects the pre-
cision to cause a lethal hit, and increases the bleed-out rate. Hence, rifles are
more lethal for a given bullet diameter. This is only an important point when
comparing handguns against rifles.
Energy does not accurately correlate with either of these factors. Penetra-
tion is a linear function of velocity and cross-sectional density of the bullet.
The higher the cross-sectional density and velocity, the greater the penetration.
However, cross-sectional density is a function of bullet geometry and mass; for
similar geometries, density is purely dependent on bullet mass. Size of the
permanent cavity is dependent on the diameter of the bullet and the degree
of expansion or fragmentation when the bullet travels in the target. For both
lethality factors, scaling is linear with velocity and mass, not quadratic, which
is why energy does not correlate well."
This is probably as close as we can come to the issue, as I doubt anyone has published data for maul vs. wood.
But as I said, it is momentum, mass times velocity, that determines the capability of penetration. Not kinetic energy.
So both the mass of the maul, and its velocity, are equally important.
I can't post it, because hearth.com won't accept .pdf files as attachments, but here are the key paragraphs. I can email to any who want the whole thing. There is data to support their conclusions in the paper. Imagine that they are talking about mauls and wood instead of bullets and bodies:
"The problem occurs in that energy, while a useful notion in physics, is not
particularly effective in determining the lethality of a bullet. This is because of
the nature of terminal ballistics - the behavior of a bullet when it enters a target,
and the mechanics of wounding.
The only two factors of importance when looking at effectiveness (lethality)
of a cartidge are:
1. Penetration - the bullet must penetrate far enough into the target to reach
vital organs or the central nervous system. Note that as long as a bullet
can reach vital organs, additional penetration is irrelevant.
2. Size of hole - the larger the permanent hole generated in the target, the
faster it bleeds to death, or the less precise the shot needs to be to destroy
the central nervous system.
Rifle rounds, due to their high velocities, produce trauma from temporary
cavities which are much larger than the bullet diameter. This affects the pre-
cision to cause a lethal hit, and increases the bleed-out rate. Hence, rifles are
more lethal for a given bullet diameter. This is only an important point when
comparing handguns against rifles.
Energy does not accurately correlate with either of these factors. Penetra-
tion is a linear function of velocity and cross-sectional density of the bullet.
The higher the cross-sectional density and velocity, the greater the penetration.
However, cross-sectional density is a function of bullet geometry and mass; for
similar geometries, density is purely dependent on bullet mass. Size of the
permanent cavity is dependent on the diameter of the bullet and the degree
of expansion or fragmentation when the bullet travels in the target. For both
lethality factors, scaling is linear with velocity and mass, not quadratic, which
is why energy does not correlate well."
This is probably as close as we can come to the issue, as I doubt anyone has published data for maul vs. wood.
But as I said, it is momentum, mass times velocity, that determines the capability of penetration. Not kinetic energy.
So both the mass of the maul, and its velocity, are equally important.
I don't think it matters which angle you argue here (momentum versus transfer of KE) I think the real point is efficiency.
I believe that the design of this head simple transfers the energy and/or momentum (remember both things must be conserved) it has to the wood better than other designs which is why so many people seem to be getting good results with it.
I picked one up this winter and can't believe what it can do in comparison to the 8lb maul, 10 lb sledge, and 12 lb maul I grew up with. It certainly outperforms other similarly light weight axes I've tried and matches my heavy mauls in many cases.
pen
I believe that the design of this head simple transfers the energy and/or momentum (remember both things must be conserved) it has to the wood better than other designs which is why so many people seem to be getting good results with it.
I picked one up this winter and can't believe what it can do in comparison to the 8lb maul, 10 lb sledge, and 12 lb maul I grew up with. It certainly outperforms other similarly light weight axes I've tried and matches my heavy mauls in many cases.
pen
JeffRey30747 said:
Here too... I sold 3 or 4 a couple months ago when my brother and a few of his friends were splitting up a bunch of wood. I took my Fiskars and people just couldn't believe it. Everybody had to take a try at it, and they were trying to have a bidding war to buy mine right then and there. One guy even offered to pay more than new price for it, but I wouldn't sell. I didn't want to go without my beloved Fiskars until I could get a new one. I told him he'd just have to wait.
Sorry, but I'm going to call BS on this. First of all, what article is this? You didn't even cite anything regarding it.dave11 said:
Second of all, "Rifle rounds, due to their high velocities, produce trauma from temporary
cavities which are much larger than the bullet diameter. This affects the pre-
cision to cause a lethal hit, and increases the bleed-out rate."
The temporary wound cavity is a HUGE player in terminal ballistics. What exactly do you think causes such a large temporary wound cavity from rifles? It's the high energy, due to the high velocity.
This article seems to skip over that fact and focus on the permanent cavity. I think maybe that article (or at least the section you quoted) is only trying to relate momentum to penetration, when really the picture is much larger than that.
Want some real world terminal ballistics anecdotes that are more related to splitting wood? After all, we're trying to make the wood "come apart" aren't we? I don't really care how deep my splitting tool penetrates the wood, I care about how well it makes the wood come apart.
40 grain .22lr, ~1100 fps shot at a starling will kill it, might even leave a pretty nice size exit wound.
17 grain .17HMR ~2550 fps shot at a starling will literally make it explode. I am not exaggerating this at all, in the aftermath you will find a few feathers, the 2 wings, the 2 legs, possibly the head (or at least part of the head) and a few unidentifiable bloody parts and pieces. I've done it, seen it, and I can attest to it. I don't think a person really understands energy until they've seen how much destruction a tiny little .17 caliber bullet weighing 17 grains (.0389 oz for those not familiar with firearms) can do when pushed to high velocities.
Both rounds have nearly identical momentum 6.281 for the .22 and 6.196 for the .17 (the .17 actually has less momentum AND a smaller diameter).
If the above quoted article were telling the entire truth about terminal ballistics, the .22lr would have done a better job of incapacitating the bird, but it doesn't. Will the .22 penetrate deeper? Heck yes it will, because it is a larger mass, but the wound cavity left in the wake of a high velocity bullet just beats out penetration every time (on small targets where the deep penetration isn't required).
Momentum may be a major player in actual penetration depth, and with this I would agree. However, I must reiterate what was already posted above, it is not simply penetration that we are looking for, we're trying to convert impact energy into an outward force to separate the pieces of wood as efficiently as possible, and for the same momentum, a lighter, faster tool will simply do better. That is, to a certain extent though, a feather at 10k fps is not going to split wood efficiently, but a 4lb axe compared to an 8 lb can, and often does split more efficiently.
I got my new x27 and put it right to work on a load of oak and hickory. These are good size logs 14-20" and they are really putting up a fight. Im to the point where once I get the slightest crack I look for my wedge. I noticed the edge is getting chewed up a bit too. I didnt think it would happen after just two days. Time to get the grinding wheel rolling.
ONce i get my log splitter I will demote the x27 to something softer than oak and hickory
ONce i get my log splitter I will demote the x27 to something softer than oak and hickory
Good Grief, gravy or what ever. I recently purchased the Fiskers 7884 on Amazon for $41 plus change with free shipping! Looking foreward to trying it out after reading all the posts. Happy splitting
oldspark said:And I thought some of our posts about wood drying got carried away.
Yep, I don't really give a hoot about kinetic rotational mass inertia or any of that math stuff. All I know is I used an 8 .lb maul for years, bought a Fiskars SS about 4 yrs ago, and have never picked up the 8 pounder since
Oldspark,
That's Walnut in my Avatar. Will be a couple of years before I heat it up in the Quadrafire. Season those rounds if you have the option.
That's Walnut in my Avatar. Will be a couple of years before I heat it up in the Quadrafire. Season those rounds if you have the option.
OK I need to be honest and get this off my chest. I said earlier that I am a "Old School Guy". True enough being 66 years on the planet. I have been called stubborn, bullheaded. stuck in my ways, you know all the things that I believe in and a lot that the younger generation will never understand. So I got the X27 dispite having put new handles on the old maul on a few occasions and clearly thinking that the new fangeled Fiskers was most likely a waste of money. I figured it most likely was selling well because of name brand and reputation. So what do I think of the newfangeled X27? Wish I had it 30 years ago! It works for me. I can't swing a axe as hard as I used to, but I cut, saw, split, and stack wood by myself and enjoy the exercise and satidfaction that comes from doing it. I think the X27 might help keep me in the game a little longer or at least help.
- Status
Similar threads
