Tom Clark - wood splitter and innovator

[FortyTwoBlades]

It'd be as simple as having a competent welder slap a little extra steel on the poll for ya', really. Would love to see someone like Council come out with a reproduction of the manufactured ones, though. Would be nice for there to be a non-crazy-looking USA-made competitor to the Leveraxe on the market.

 

[Square_peg]

I was a little curious to see that weight he welded on the poll. I could not find the dimensions but I found this, that sold online. Manufactured in the 80s.

For comparison here are a few rafting axes plus a Michigan for contrast.

L-R
Warren Old Faithful rafting axe
Kelly Woodslasher 3.5 lb. Michigan
Walters rafting axe (I love those thick eye walls!!)
Plumb rafting axe

Each of these rafting axes will make an awesome splitter. But that Plumb with its massive long poll and exceptional balance will work as a twist splitter similar to Tom Clark's Buster.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I think the advantages of the Buster for twist splitting were that the poll was deep, which set more mass further from the point of impact for greater leverage, and I bet that it shifted the center of gravity, if not behind the eye, certainly to the very rear of it. Just looking at its thin bit and the fact that most American axe heads balance about 1/4" inside the front of the eye, given the large amount of mass added to the poll, and it's positioning, the CoG would most likely be trailing the axis of the handle. The more mass the further to the rear of the impact point, the better it should theoretically twist-split. Swedish-style narrow splitting mauls would probably excel at twist-splitting as well, though I've yet to hear of anyone trying it. Straight handle, deep bit, long poll...pretty much fits all the criteria.

 

[Steve Tall]

Here's Tom Clark's patent (granted 1983):

https://patents.google.com/patent/US4412572A/en

 

[bengriswold]

I think the advantages of the Buster for twist splitting were that the poll was deep, which set more mass further from the point of impact for greater leverage, and I bet that it shifted the center of gravity, if not behind the eye, certainly to the very rear of it. Just looking at its thin bit and the fact that most American axe heads balance about 1/4" inside the front of the eye, given the large amount of mass added to the poll, and it's positioning, the CoG would most likely be trailing the axis of the handle. The more mass the further to the rear of the impact point, the better it should theoretically twist-split. Swedish-style narrow splitting mauls would probably excel at twist-splitting as well, though I've yet to hear of anyone trying it. Straight handle, deep bit, long poll...pretty much fits all the criteria.

New wrinkle in my brain :thumbup:

Here's Tom Clark's patent (granted 1983):



https://patents.google.com/patent/US4412572A/en

Steve - Thats way more than I would have thought would be available. Did you just go look this up or has this been posted before? Whatever the case that is really helpful in understanding why his technique works so well.

It'd be as simple as having a competent welder slap a little extra steel on the poll for ya', really. Would love to see someone like Council come out with a reproduction of the manufactured ones, though. Would be nice for there to be a non-crazy-looking USA-made competitor to the Leveraxe on the market.

Ya I agree, based on the patent Steve posted you can really see in great detail how Tom went about designing the axe. I didn't realize what a huge mass he left behind the eye. The principles of the lever axe are put into effect in his axe just in a much more subtle and "traditional" way.

For comparison here are a few rafting axes plus a Michigan for contrast.

L-R
Warren Old Faithful rafting axe
Kelly Woodslasher 3.5 lb. Michigan
Walters rafting axe (I love those thick eye walls!!)
Plumb rafting axe

Each of these rafting axes will make an awesome splitter. But that Plumb with its massive long poll and exceptional balance will work as a twist splitter similar to Tom Clark's Buster.

That pic is very helpful.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

Ya I agree, based on the patent Steve posted you can really see in great detail how Tom went about designing the axe. I didn't realize what a huge mass he left behind the eye. The principles of the lever axe are put into effect in his axe just in a much more subtle and "traditional" way.

Not only that, but by using that more traditional method he's able to better preserve head weight, which is still important in twist splitting. The Leveraxe sheds too much weight to the point where it's simply not going to work on anything halfway challenging. The Buster should be able to throw planks from much more resistant wood because of its mass providing more "oomph" when it meets resistance in the split.

 

[Woodcraft]

and the fact that most American axe heads balance about 1/4" inside the front of the eye

You keep saying this. You have provided zero, ZERO, evidence that it is true. If anything the only evidence that has been shown proves it is not true.

 

[Agent_H]

I was reading through the patent info that Steve found for us.

Claims of said "said" patent:

What is claimed is:
1. A splitting axe having a head unbalanced with respect to a handle of said axe, said head having an eye, said handle having a portion received within said eye, said head having an anterior portion extending from one end of said eye and terminating in a cutting edge at one end of said head and a posterior portion extending from the opposite end of said eye to the end of said head remote from said cutting edge, the mass of said head having a weight distribution for providing an unbalanced disposition of said head on said handle whereby the center of gravity of said head is located within said eye and upon an axis passing through said center of gravity and parallel to the longitudinal center line of said eye, said axis being located anteriorly of said longitudinal center line, said center of gravity axis accordingly lying between said longitudinal center line and the anterior limit of said eye, said posterior portion being weighted and oriented posteriorly relative to said longitudinal center line.

2. A splitting axe according to claim 1 and further characterized by a retaining pin extending through the portion of the handle received within said eye and aligned lateral portions of said head, said pin being located downwardly of the transverse center line of said head, said transverse center line passing through said eye in a posterior-anterior direction, at a point below said transverse center line substantially 10% of the extent of said head between the lower and upper edges of said eye.

3. A splitting axe according to claim 2 and further characterized by the center of gravity and the said retaining pin being located on opposite sides of said longitudinal center line.

 

[Woodcraft]

I was reading through the patent info that Steve found for us.

Claims of said "said" patent:

What is claimed is:
1. A splitting axe having a head unbalanced with respect to a handle of said axe, said head having an eye, said handle having a portion received within said eye, said head having an anterior portion extending from one end of said eye and terminating in a cutting edge at one end of said head and a posterior portion extending from the opposite end of said eye to the end of said head remote from said cutting edge, the mass of said head having a weight distribution for providing an unbalanced disposition of said head on said handle whereby the center of gravity of said head is located within said eye and upon an axis passing through said center of gravity and parallel to the longitudinal center line of said eye, said axis being located anteriorly of said longitudinal center line, said center of gravity axis accordingly lying between said longitudinal center line and the anterior limit of said eye, said posterior portion being weighted and oriented posteriorly relative to said longitudinal center line.

2. A splitting axe according to claim 1 and further characterized by a retaining pin extending through the portion of the handle received within said eye and aligned lateral portions of said head, said pin being located downwardly of the transverse center line of said head, said transverse center line passing through said eye in a posterior-anterior direction, at a point below said transverse center line substantially 10% of the extent of said head between the lower and upper edges of said eye.

3. A splitting axe according to claim 2 and further characterized by the center of gravity and the said retaining pin being located on opposite sides of said longitudinal center line.

Awsome find. A lot of words to say he unbalanced the axe to the rear(poll).

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

You keep saying this. You have provided zero, ZERO, evidence that it is true. If anything the only evidence that has been shown proves it is not true.

Clicked to reveal your post knowing that I really ought not to, and was instantly reminded of why I put you on my ignore list in the first place. But here's a few unhafted heads I have floating around at the moment. Not that you'll ever be satisfied by ANYTHING I ever say, even when corroborated and confirmed by both vintage and modern independent sources...

Here's a worn Plumb Connecticut (which should, if anything, have balanced further out when new):

North Wayne Tool Co.:

Great Neck (UK) Yankee pattern hatchet:

Snow & Nealley:

Worn Mann. This has the balance furthest back in the bit of the lot of them:

Good day, sir. Have fun moving those goal posts.

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

I was reading through the patent info that Steve found for us.

Claims of said "said" patent:

What is claimed is:
1. A splitting axe having a head unbalanced with respect to a handle of said axe, said head having an eye, said handle having a portion received within said eye, said head having an anterior portion extending from one end of said eye and terminating in a cutting edge at one end of said head and a posterior portion extending from the opposite end of said eye to the end of said head remote from said cutting edge, the mass of said head having a weight distribution for providing an unbalanced disposition of said head on said handle whereby the center of gravity of said head is located within said eye and upon an axis passing through said center of gravity and parallel to the longitudinal center line of said eye, said axis being located anteriorly of said longitudinal center line, said center of gravity axis accordingly lying between said longitudinal center line and the anterior limit of said eye, said posterior portion being weighted and oriented posteriorly relative to said longitudinal center line.

2. A splitting axe according to claim 1 and further characterized by a retaining pin extending through the portion of the handle received within said eye and aligned lateral portions of said head, said pin being located downwardly of the transverse center line of said head, said transverse center line passing through said eye in a posterior-anterior direction, at a point below said transverse center line substantially 10% of the extent of said head between the lower and upper edges of said eye.

3. A splitting axe according to claim 2 and further characterized by the center of gravity and the said retaining pin being located on opposite sides of said longitudinal center line.

I was reading through that too, but can't quite understand what was novel about the retaining pin?

 

[rjdankert]

. . . and I bet that it shifted the center of gravity, if not behind the eye, certainly to the very rear of it. . .

If the "it" I made bold in the above refers to Clark's patent Splitting Axe (re: Steve Tall post #44 in this thread), I'll take the bet.


Bob

 

[FortyTwoBlades]

If the "it" I made bold in the above refers to Clark's patent Splitting Axe (re: Steve Tall post #44 in this thread), I'll take the bet.


Bob

To begin with, note that the patent images followed my post, so my hypothesis was made based on looking at the tool itself and not the patent documentation. That being said, I think the center of gravity would be further back than the document shows. Based on the mass distribution shown in the drawings I'm pretty sure the CoG would actually lie somewhere between where it's marked and the pin.

 

[rjdankert]

Awsome find. A lot of words to say he unbalanced the axe to the rear(poll).

Patent Lawyers gotta eat too.


Bob

 

[Woodcraft]

Clicked to reveal your post knowing that I really ought not to, and was instantly reminded of why I put you on my ignore list in the first place. But here's a few unhafted heads I have floating around at the moment. Not that you'll ever be satisfied by ANYTHING I ever say, even when corroborated and confirmed by both vintage and modern independent sources...

Here's a worn Plumb Connecticut (which should, if anything, have balanced further out when new):

North Wayne Tool Co.:

Great Neck (UK) Yankee pattern hatchet:

Snow & Nealley:

Worn Mann. This has the balance furthest back in the bit of the lot of them:

Good day, sir. Have fun moving those goal posts.

There is zero frame of rereference for level. Waterstains and the black cord?, in the corner of the WALL point to the axe heads not being held level And you are using fingers.lol. Is this a joke? Is my shun back on Dwight?

 

[Woodcraft]

Patent Lawyers gotta eat too.


Bob

He got paid by the said.

 

[Agent_H]

This conversation reminds me of the wannabee martial arts instructors.
"Grab my arm and I will take you down..........no take my other arm."
It is a parlor trick that you may be able to squeeze some usefulness out of if you squeeze hard enough. But at the end of the day it is still just the parlor trick it is.

Is my shun back on Dwight?

Ok Woodcraft. Couple of things.

1. That is funny right there.
2. You owe me a keyboard; this one has coffee on it.

 

[rjdankert]

To begin with, note that the patent images followed my post, so my hypothesis was made based on looking at the tool itself and not the patent documentation. . .

I pointed to the patent to qualify "it" as a condition for taking the bet. Since you have seen the patent since the above quote, do you still "bet that it shifted the center of gravity, if not behind the eye, certainly to the very rear of it".

. . .That being said, I think the center of gravity would be further back than the document shows. Based on the mass distribution shown in the drawings I'm pretty sure the CoG would actually lie somewhere between where it's marked and the pin.

Below shows the pin (#8) and the shaded area where the CoG is intended:

Description from the patent:

"1. A splitting axe having a head unbalanced with respect to a handle of said axe, said head having an eye, said handle having a portion received within said eye, said head having an anterior portion extending from one end of said eye and terminating in a cutting edge at one end of said head and a posterior portion extending from the opposite end of said eye to the end of said head remote from said cutting edge, the mass of said head having a weight distribution for providing an unbalanced disposition of said head on said handle whereby the center of gravity of said head is located within said eye and upon an axis passing through said center of gravity and parallel to the longitudinal center line of said eye, said axis being located anteriorly of said longitudinal center line, said center of gravity axis accordingly lying between said longitudinal center line and the anterior limit of said eye, said posterior portion being weighted and oriented posteriorly relative to said longitudinal center line."



Bob

 

[Woodcraft]

said posterior portion being weighted and oriented posteriorly relative to said longitudinal center line.[/COLOR]"


Bob

I think this line means the intent of the wieght (extra) in the poll is to move the balance rearward of the center line. Also, whoever wrote this deserves a kick in the junk.

 

[300Six]

For comparison here are a few rafting axes plus a Michigan for contrast.

L-R
Warren Old Faithful rafting axe
Kelly Woodslasher 3.5 lb. Michigan
Walters rafting axe (I love those thick eye walls!!)
Plumb rafting axe

This 'worth a thousand word' photo deserves to be included in your rafting axe-dedicated thread. It really shows the differing practices that makers used in trying to create a hammer-sturdy head. Wide poll on one, thick eye walls on another and a high poll.