Stiletto Ti Hammer?

I don't use a hammer much for nails anymore, nailguns you know... That said, there's a 16 oz Stilleto hammer with a plastic handle on my tool belt. It is a little easier on the elbow than the 20 oz Estwing I used to use and I can sink a nail in about the same # of blows with either.
 
russtang said:
This is from Stiletto:
Patened Technology
MORE PRODUCTIVITY
Titanium delivers 97% of your swing energy to the nail
compared to 70% with steel hammers
Click to expand...

You know, studies how that 78% of all statistics are just made up.





How do I know? Well.... I just made it up... which only proves the point.

I have no idea how one would go about measuring the "swing efficiency" of a hammer.

The next question becomes: where does the wasted energy go? You see, energy can't be created or destroyed (except in a nuclear reaction). Energy can be stored as in a battery or a spring. It can be converted to another form as a lightbulb converts electrical energy to light and heat energy. Inside your muscles, energy is stored chemically and then converted to mechanical energy on demand. But energy can't just go away. So, if your hammer only delivers 70% of the energy you impart to the swing to the nail, where does the other 30% go? I think it's safe to assume that it's not stored somewhere. Into moving or heating the air, i.e. wind resistance? I doubt that you loose 30% to wind resistance in a hammer swing of nomially -- what? -- four or five feet. No. This idea that a hammer swing is only 70% efficient is just silly.

Inefficiency could occure if energy was dissipated deforming the face of the hammer. Ti is harder and would deform less than steel. But, I think that for the purposes of an impact powered by human muscle, the deformation of the face of the hammer will be negligible with either steel or Ti.

Loss could come from heating of the hammer head due to the shockwave oscillating back and forth in the hammer head (what might be perceived as a ringing sensation). Ti has less of a mismatch with air and so the reflection won't be as great. But, again, I'm grasping at straws here. The loss in question will be minuscule regardless of whether the head is Steel or Ti.

If nothing else, the heavier hammer picks up more energy from gravity so it ought to be more efficient.

The engineer in the house calls BUNK on this claim.
 
Lycosa said:
Paul---Your tech questions need to go to Stiletto Tools. The hammer, works for me. Try one. Hammers are almost, but not completely, obsolete!
65535---Thanks for the Post! > I've had folks tell me my $400. dollar Sebenza, was Insane! Maybe it is ---but I like it! :)
Click to expand...

Lycosa by all means enjoy your hammer; it is with the quoted selling points I found issue. ;) It is almost as if they wrote add copy for Dark Ops or something. :eek:
 
I wonder if the Stiletto hammer controls the blood splatter if you miss the nail?

For $120, I certainly hope that hammer can penetrate Comm Bloc body armour.
 
Pro's don't miss. :)
Did I mention, no rust. When I get drunk and leave this bad-azz hammer in the back of the truck all week-end, not a spot of rust will be on that hammer come Monday! ;)
 
Gollnick said:
The next question becomes: where does the wasted energy go?
Click to expand...

I wuz thinkin' 'bout that. It's gotta be neutrinos. The hammer ain't deformed, the nail ain't deformed, it don't heat up, it don't give off gamma radiation -- so it's gotta be neutrinos. Every time you hit a nail with a hammer 30% of the energy comes out in a spray of neutrinos.

If we kin build a sufficiently sensitive and focusable neutrino detector we kin detect alien critturs hammerin' nails on other planets. I suspect all the SETI research so far ain't been lookin' in the right direction. Why use the electromagnetic spectrum when ya kin communicate between the stars with neutrinos? Now we know thet neutrino bursts r so ez to generate we kin redirect r SETI efforts.
 
P.S. Unless the alien critturs on other planets r usin' titanium hammers. Then we would not be able to detect them. :(
 
Gollnick said:
You know, studies how that 78% of all statistics are just made up.





How do I know? Well.... I just made it up... which only proves the point.

I have no idea how one would go about measuring the "swing efficiency" of a hammer.

The next question becomes: where does the wasted energy go? You see, energy can't be created or destroyed (except in a nuclear reaction). Energy can be stored as in a battery or a spring. It can be converted to another form as a lightbulb converts electrical energy to light and heat energy. Inside your muscles, energy is stored chemically and then converted to mechanical energy on demand. But energy can't just go away. So, if your hammer only delivers 70% of the energy you impart to the swing to the nail, where does the other 30% go? I think it's safe to assume that it's not stored somewhere. Into moving or heating the air, i.e. wind resistance? I doubt that you loose 30% to wind resistance in a hammer swing of nomially -- what? -- four or five feet. No. This idea that a hammer swing is only 70% efficient is just silly.

Inefficiency could occure if energy was dissipated deforming the face of the hammer. Ti is harder and would deform less than steel. But, I think that for the purposes of an impact powered by human muscle, the deformation of the face of the hammer will be negligible with either steel or Ti.

Loss could come from heating of the hammer head due to the shockwave oscillating back and forth in the hammer head (what might be perceived as a ringing sensation). Ti has less of a mismatch with air and so the reflection won't be as great. But, again, I'm grasping at straws here. The loss in question will be minuscule regardless of whether the head is Steel or Ti.

If nothing else, the heavier hammer picks up more energy from gravity so it ought to be more efficient.

The engineer in the house calls BUNK on this claim.
Click to expand...

No. You are wrong. 48% of all statistics are made up, most of the time.;)

I have not spoken to any stiletto engineers. I don't know if they even have any.
There seems to be several engineers posting in this thread. I wish they would tell us why the wild claims are false.
As I said, I'm not a scientist or engineer. I'm just a dumb%$# that thougt it was simple physics. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Well, I was kidding around, but Gollnick's post is serious. Maybe I can put it in simpler terms for you: if 30% of the energy you put it into swinging a steel hammer is wasted, if it doesn't go into driving the nail, well, it has to go somewhere. Energy can't just disappear. You can see for yourself it doesn't go into denting the hammer, or the nail, or into waste heat, or into a blast of gamma rays that would kill you, and I was kidding about the spray of neutrinos; a hammer blow isn't powerful enough to start nuclear reactions. The only reasonable conclusion is the advertiser is lying. What a surprise....
 
Gollnick said:
You know, studies how that 78% of all statistics are just made up.





How do I know? Well.... I just made it up... which only proves the point.

I have no idea how one would go about measuring the "swing efficiency" of a hammer.

The next question becomes: where does the wasted energy go? You see, energy can't be created or destroyed (except in a nuclear reaction). Energy can be stored as in a battery or a spring. It can be converted to another form as a lightbulb converts electrical energy to light and heat energy. Inside your muscles, energy is stored chemically and then converted to mechanical energy on demand. But energy can't just go away. So, if your hammer only delivers 70% of the energy you impart to the swing to the nail, where does the other 30% go? I think it's safe to assume that it's not stored somewhere. Into moving or heating the air, i.e. wind resistance? I doubt that you loose 30% to wind resistance in a hammer swing of nomially -- what? -- four or five feet. No. This idea that a hammer swing is only 70% efficient is just silly.

Inefficiency could occure if energy was dissipated deforming the face of the hammer. Ti is harder and would deform less than steel. But, I think that for the purposes of an impact powered by human muscle, the deformation of the face of the hammer will be negligible with either steel or Ti.

Loss could come from heating of the hammer head due to the shockwave oscillating back and forth in the hammer head (what might be perceived as a ringing sensation). Ti has less of a mismatch with air and so the reflection won't be as great. But, again, I'm grasping at straws here. The loss in question will be minuscule regardless of whether the head is Steel or Ti.

If nothing else, the heavier hammer picks up more energy from gravity so it ought to be more efficient.

The engineer in the house calls BUNK on this claim.
Click to expand...

You could ask the same question about golf clubs or ball bats

Is it possible that one club or bat is more efficient at converting energy than another? Are they all equal?
How in the world could you test that?
Could a nuclear scientist figure that out?

I wonder if stiletto just copied info from wikepedia? :eek:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammer
 
The Wiki article says
A titanium head has about 3% recoil and can result in greater efficiency and less fatigue when compared to a steel head with about 27% recoil.
Click to expand...

Um. There's a kind of anvil called a "live" anvil that bounces a lot -- when you hammer on a piece of hot steel on a live anvil the hammer bounces back and saves you most of the effort of lifting the hammer for the next stroke, but of course the energy that does that is diverted from forging the piece of hot steel, so it isn't as much of a labor-saver as it might seem.

There's a kind of mallet called a "dead-blow" hammer that's hollow and filled with lead shot, and when you whack a piece of steel with that it doesn't bounce at all.

When you drive a nail, though -- surely all of us have driven a nail sometime in our lives, haven't we? Did the hammer bounce back at you?

The advertiser didn't copy the Wikipedia article -- the advertiser just wrote down every excuse for claiming his hammer was better he could think of, and the author of the Wikipedia article copied what he'd read in advertising for titanium hammers without thinking about whether it made any sense or not.
 
This Thread is turning into Hammer-Time.
The Battle of the Brains. :)
Remember---It's a hammer, not a knife or gun. ;)
 
Wiki pedia article gave me my answer. Ti is lighter and allows for a longer handle for same weight to give more velocity at the head.

There had to be some way they get around a lighter hammer. force=massXvelocity, so if you lose mass you need to boost velocity to get the same(or better) force.

Paul
 
I've been thinking seriously about picking up a titanium crowbar. Would a titanium crowbar be more or less effective than a similar-sized steel model for bashing in zombie skulls?

I'm betting it'll be better. At the very least, it will impress the ladies.
 
Evidently, Titanium is useless as a hammer. It is too expensive, and no better than a steel head hammer.

I was thinking of getting one, so I'm glad I caught this thread before I bought one.:thumbup:
 
pcnorton said:
Wiki pedia article gave me my answer. Ti is lighter and allows for a longer handle for same weight to give more velocity at the head.

There had to be some way they get around a lighter hammer. force=massXvelocity, so if you lose mass you need to boost velocity to get the same(or better) force.

Paul
Click to expand...

orly.jpg

How about if you get a hammer with a longer handle and the same weight head made of steel?
funny-pictures-doh-cat.jpg
 
I don't think I have a sledgehammering lolcat in stock, but maybe I could make one up ... or find John Henry Was A Steel Drivin' Man on youtube.... Seriously, an aluminum baseball bat hits harder than wood -- a little bit. Maybe a titanium hammer does perform a little better -- or maybe performance is a little worse and people only think it's better because of the placebo effect of all the hype. I want to see some real evidence before I believe in it, and I haven't seen any evidence at all yet (and I posted that the first time years ago).
[youtube]TfkihMR7e3Y[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top