When splitting large rounds do you give any consideration to the final shape of the splits? Do you split them square, or triangle, or rectangular? Does it matter? Is a mix of shapes best? I know with some wood there is not much choice because of knots. My question is when there is a choice. Maybe this is much adoo about nothing, but I have found myself thinking about this many times while splitting with a vertical splitter. What do you think?
It depends on the size of the round being split. Smaller rounds give me triangle shapes and larger rounds may give me some square or rectangle pieces. They all have to be small enough to fit in the stove and easy for the wife to handle.
I try to split all of mine into the shape of a toilet seat or a rolltop desk. So far, it's been a dismal failure.
I think you need a set of radio head phones to take your mind away Seriously, I shoot for a certain "volume" of wood in each split, couldn't tell ya how big it is, but I know it when I see it.
I aim for the checks with a maul. They set the stage. Then, go for a serious mix of sizes/shapes. No cookie-cutting here! Rounds with serious knots/forks get sent to the "Group-W" pile for some later partway-noodling-therapy, then hit again. IOW, the plan is to have no plan, just swing that steel. Obsessively non-compulsive? Crank up the music and hold onto the headphones!
Really anything will do and having a variety of shapes and sizes works out pretty good. I know what you mean though - I split by hand so I do think about how I'm going split it. Some types of wood like to be split a certain way - pine likes to split radially but not so good the other way. Unless they're really stubborn, I like to split knots in half (any wood) because the pieces will usually be shaped nicer for stacking.
Is D shaped not an option? Frankly, I'm disappointed. My wood consists of lots of half splits, but mostly triangles.
big clean rounds usually end up as nice squared-off splits, and I use those for cribbing the ends of the stacks. but as I've said before many times, I've got splits of all shapes and sizes......and they all fill up space in the stacks!!
I always try for squares, rectangles or three square sides and one side with bark. Square wood definitely burns better! Especially after it's been stacked three years.
I'm amazed at the small size splits that I did back when I started Oct. '13. In retrospect, it was probably good since those small splits (some hardwood, some softwood) seasoned and dried quickly. Now, my focus is C/S/S as much as I can as fast as I can. Which means my splits now are at least twice the size of 2 years ago! No matter, when you are 4-5 years into your 3 year plan as I am. If it's not seasoned and dried by 2020, yea whatever, I'll use it the next year.....
If a round will allow a square or rectangular piece, or pieces, that is my goal. I'm always looking for the right split for corners/ cribbed ends as many here do. The rest, they all stack in between the cribbed ends. I'm fine with half logs though too. They stack and make nice cribbed ends too.
I found myself getting into a rut with trying to split in the shape of Long Island. Guess I was waxing nostalgic at the time. Very labor intensive. Squares, 1/2 rounds and planks for cribbed ends, any other geometry is game for in the middle... a little variety is good for mixing it up and allowing for better airflow.
I have a small stove so I want splits that I can stack without risk of tumbling into the glass, but also allow me to stack them pretty much vertically at the front. This means rectangles are best and I avoid triangular cross sections. I also find that I need at least three splits in the stove at a time to get a decent fire, and four or five works better. This means I can't make the splits too big. So the result is medium rectangles are ideal for me. However, with most trees being more or less round, I end up with all sorts of shapes.
