I'm looking at these at the moment, not too much money, and specifically the
Logmaster currently advertised in The Times at £199, and the Ferm from
Screwfix at £99. anyone have any knowledge of either of these?

Regards and thanks in advance


Pat Macguire

The message
from "Syke" contains these words:

I'm looking at these at the moment, not too much money, and
specifically the
Logmaster currently advertised in The Times at £199, and the Ferm from
Screwfix at £99. anyone have any knowledge of either of these?


No. We (a tree felling company) always used steel wedges and a sledge hammer.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:

I'm looking at these at the moment, specifically the Logmaster currently
advertised in The Times at £199, and the Ferm from Screwfix at £99.

No. We (a tree felling company) always used steel wedges and a sledge hammer.

I've used log splitters working on the back of tractors using the
hydraulics from them -and they are crap. They take forever. It's OK on
knotty sections but far quicker to just dump those and go at the
straight grained stuff with an axe.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:

I'm looking at these at the moment, specifically the Logmaster
currently advertised in The Times at £199, and the Ferm from
Screwfix at £99.

No. We (a tree felling company) always used steel wedges and a
sledge hammer.

I've used log splitters working on the back of tractors using the
hydraulics from them -and they are crap. They take forever. It's OK on
knotty sections but far quicker to just dump those and go at the
straight grained stuff with an axe.

We have one of these which we work off a MF35 and it's absolutely
brilliant. We have special axes and wedges etc as well but nothing is
anything like as good as this thing. Don;t know about the quality or
brand though, I expect it's a Makita equivalent as opposed to the Lidl
version, that might well make a difference :-)

--
Holly, in France
Gite to let in Dordogne, now with pool.
http://la-plaine.chez-alice.fr

Holly, in France wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

I've used log splitters working on the back of tractors using the
hydraulics from them -and they are crap. They take forever. It's OK on
knotty sections but far quicker to just dump those and go at the
straight grained stuff with an axe.

We have one of these which we work off a MF35 and it's absolutely
brilliant. We have special axes and wedges etc as well but nothing is
anything like as good as this thing. Don;t know about the quality or
brand though, I expect it's a Makita equivalent as opposed to the Lidl
version, that might well make a difference :-)

There is no denying their power. And if you just want tostand behind a
tractor all day wrapped up to the nines waiting patiently to see if you
guessed a good trajectory, they are OK.

I dare say if the one I was using split long lengths, that too might
have been some compensation but it just dropped a wedge onto an anvil
for 2 or 3 feet.

I would have liked to rig it up to compress the tremendous amount of
saw chips from the chain-saw. If it could have made doughnut blocks of
some 18 to 24 inches they would have made brilliant fuel cells for a 45
gallon drum.

Weatherlawyer wrote:
Holly, in France wrote:
Weatherlawyer wrote:

I've used log splitters working on the back of tractors using the
hydraulics from them -and they are crap. They take forever. It's OK
on knotty sections but far quicker to just dump those and go at the
straight grained stuff with an axe.

We have one of these which we work off a MF35 and it's absolutely
brilliant. We have special axes and wedges etc as well but nothing is
anything like as good as this thing. Don;t know about the quality or
brand though, I expect it's a Makita equivalent as opposed to the
Lidl version, that might well make a difference :-)

There is no denying their power. And if you just want tostand behind a
tractor all day wrapped up to the nines waiting patiently to see if
you guessed a good trajectory, they are OK.

Couldn't work out what on earth you were on about here until I read....

I dare say if the one I was using split long lengths, that too might
have been some compensation but it just dropped a wedge onto an anvil
for 2 or 3 feet.

Ours is not like that at all. It brings down the wedge slowly(ish) under
great and constant pressure and you control the wedge coming down, or
lifting up, with a lever. So you put in the log and bring down the
wedge. You can adjust the log to the right position just as you see
where the wedge is about to touch it. Then the wedge just keeps on going
down into the log, splitting as it goes until the log cracks, at which
point you send the wedge back up whilst picking up the two pieces of the
log. Then, if you want to split the pieces in the other direction you
turn them and put them back under as soon as the wedge gets high enough
and then bring the wedge down again. Thus, when you get the hang of it
and get a rhythm going, you can get the logs in and split and out again
without wasting much time with the wedge travelling up and down. Helps
if you have someone else bringing on the logs and others taking them
away and stacking so that the person doing the splitting can just
concentrate on that. It does make an uneven/rough split occasionally if
it hits a big knot but mostly it splits them quickly and cleanly.

I would have liked to rig it up to compress the tremendous amount of
saw chips from the chain-saw. If it could have made doughnut blocks of
some 18 to 24 inches they would have made brilliant fuel cells for a
45 gallon drum.

You have a point there, although I can't think of a suitable application
just now! The pressure of the log splitter could well be put to some
other use for compressing something one day. We have lots of oak chips
from the planer/thicknesser but usually just burn them or spread them
somewhere, wouldn't be worth the bother of making fuel blocks since we
have so much oak to use up anyway.

--
Holly, in France
Gite to let in Dordogne, now with pool.
http://la-plaine.chez-alice.fr

The message .com
from "Weatherlawyer" contains these words:

I would have liked to rig it up to compress the tremendous amount of
saw chips from the chain-saw. If it could have made doughnut blocks of
some 18 to 24 inches they would have made brilliant fuel cells for a 45
gallon drum.


I can help there perhaps: find a friendly farmer who has cattle,
(preferably dairy, 'cos they have to come in twice a day at least) and
cadge a few buckets of raw muck. Mix it with the chips and slop into
plastic flowerpots. Tamp down, then turn them out under cover like
sand-castles and allow the 'castles' to dry out. Makes a fine fuel.

Can also be used with coal dust and slack.

Years ago, the Ole Man cleared out his coalshed and asked me if I could
use seven sacks of the stuff. I mixed it with a few buckets of sh-tuff
and had enough 'bricks' to last for months in a Parkray stove. The
slight peaty odour was not unpleasant.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

"Rusty Hinge 2" wrote in message
k...
The message
from "Syke" contains these words:

I'm looking at these at the moment, not too much money, and
specifically the
Logmaster currently advertised in The Times at £199, and the Ferm from
Screwfix at £99. anyone have any knowledge of either of these?


No. We (a tree felling company) always used steel wedges and a sledge
hammer.

So do we.

Mary
not a felling company but idle and stingy, therefore wanting the most
efficient with little cost and no storage problem :-)

Rusty Hinge 2 wrote:
The message
from "Syke" contains these words:


I'm looking at these at the moment, not too much money, and
specifically the
Logmaster currently advertised in The Times at £199, and the Ferm from
Screwfix at £99. anyone have any knowledge of either of these?

No. We (a tree felling company) always used steel wedges and a sledge hammer.

I have a few large lumps of oak lying about, about 9" x 12" x 18". Bit
weathered on the outside, but hard as anything on the inside. I imagine
they were part of the house before it was renovated in the 80s. They're
just a bit too large to go in our woodburner and they laugh at my
chainsaw. Is there any other way I might split them, or should I just
find another use for them?

James

The message
from James Fidell contains these words:

I have a few large lumps of oak lying about, about 9" x 12" x 18". Bit
weathered on the outside, but hard as anything on the inside. I imagine
they were part of the house before it was renovated in the 80s. They're
just a bit too large to go in our woodburner and they laugh at my
chainsaw. Is there any other way I might split them, or should I just
find another use for them?


You can get a panel saw-shaped 'frame' which carries a hacksaw blade. It
would be slow, but you'd cut them with that. (A tungsten carbide tipped
saw chain would do too, but a bit expensive for a one-off job.)

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:04:18 +0000, James Fidell
wrote:

Is there any other way I might split them, or should I just
find another use for them?

Steel wedges and a 4lb bronze (or lead) maul on a long shaft. (A steel
lump hammer mushrooms the wedge). Three wedges is about the minimum, in
case you have to work down the side of a long log. "Log burster" twisted
wedges or grenades are IMHE only good for timber that's easy to split
anyway.

The trick with oak is that it splits cleanly and easily along the radial
rays but is a pig of a job if you try and go through a ray. So start it
off with the wedge placed accurately radial and then follow the split
however it wants to go.

Splitting oak is easy. Try elm or hornbeam if you really want to work at
it! I still need to work on my oak riving technique though as I need
to make usable timber by this method, not just firewood.

I've never found hydraulic splitters to be worth the trouble. They need
too much care with getting the logs to identical lengths, so they're
less than ideal for randomly-sized clearance timber. Feeding them random
lengths slows them down. They're also (if hand pumped) slower to use
than a good few wedges.

The message
from Andy Dingley contains these words:

Steel wedges and a 4lb bronze (or lead) maul on a long shaft. (A steel
lump hammer mushrooms the wedge).

After a long time. Our wedges are still in use, sloshed with a
sledge-hammer, and we bought them around 1965

Three wedges is about the minimum, in
case you have to work down the side of a long log. "Log burster" twisted
wedges or grenades are IMHE only good for timber that's easy to split
anyway.

The trick with oak is that it splits cleanly and easily along the radial
rays but is a pig of a job if you try and go through a ray. So start it
off with the wedge placed accurately radial and then follow the split
however it wants to go.

Splitting oak is easy.

All true.

Try elm or hornbeam if you really want to work at
it! I still need to work on my oak riving technique though as I need
to make usable timber by this method, not just firewood.

Hmmm. Most of our early work was with elms, and mostly, it split more
easily than oak. However, a knotty bit can be a pig. See one of our jobs
at:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/elm.jpg

I've never found hydraulic splitters to be worth the trouble. They need
too much care with getting the logs to identical lengths, so they're
less than ideal for randomly-sized clearance timber. Feeding them random
lengths slows them down. They're also (if hand pumped) slower to use
than a good few wedges.

My experience of them is similar.

--
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig

"Rusty Hinge 2" wrote in message
. uk...



Hmmm. Most of our early work was with elms, and mostly, it split more
easily than oak. However, a knotty bit can be a pig. See one of our jobs
at:

http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/elm.jpg

You were splitting atthat height?

:-)

Mary

Andy Dingley wrote:


I've never found hydraulic splitters to be worth the trouble. They
need too much care with getting the logs to identical lengths, so
they're less than ideal for randomly-sized clearance timber. Feeding
them random lengths slows them down. They're also (if hand pumped)
slower to use than a good few wedges.

Ours is tractor pumped, so not quite the same. We cut 1m ish lengths
where possible for tidyness of stacking and because they are the right
size for our fire, and when cut in half they are the right size for the
woodburner. But since we are clearing fallen trees we have loads of logs
of uneven sizes. Our splitter has no problem *at all* with this. The
wedge just goes down until wherever it meets the timber and then goes
down right through it. Must be a different sort of animal....

--
Holly, in France
Gite to let in Dordogne, now with pool.
http://la-plaine.chez-alice.fr

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:31:50 +0100, "Holly, in France"
wrote:

Feeding them random lengths slows them down.

Ours is tractor pumped, so not quite the same.

The electric ones are slow moving, so they're slow going if the wedge
needs to change position much. The tractor ones are quicker, but their
speed of movement also makes me a little wary of them.