Which mallet and why

[Tom Bender]

When selecting a mallet to drive a chisel, weight is important. Let's look at the math without going deep.

There are two assets a mallet can bring to the work, Energy and Momentum.

Energy = Mass times Velocity squared. Energy = M V V (neglecting the constant 1/2 for this non numerical discussion)

Momentum = Mass times Velocity. Momentum = M V

Now let's go to the shop for an experiment. We'll cut across the grain.

Lets hit with a light and fast mallet, high energy. Fibers are cut but not deeply.

Now a heavy slow mallet, velocity is less important. More fibers are cut. Hmmm why is that?


I believe this can be understood without invoking integral calculus but have hit a wall here.

[Kent A Bathurst]

Now a heavy slow mallet, velocity is less important. More fibers are cut. Hmmm why is that?

You live outside the path of the annular eclipse, which would have provided counteracting balancing forces.

Or maybe your arm-swing delta-V is not correct in terms of the delta-M.

But I still think its the eclipse.

[Edward Weber]

When selecting a mallet to drive a chisel, weight is important. Let's look at the math without going deep.

There are two assets a mallet can bring to the work, Energy and Momentum.

Energy = Mass times Velocity squared. Energy = M V V (neglecting the constant 1/2 for this non numerical discussion)

Momentum = Mass times Velocity. Momentum = M V

Now let's go to the shop for an experiment. We'll cut across the grain.

Lets hit with a light and fast mallet, high energy. Fibers are cut but not deeply.

Now a heavy slow mallet, velocity is less important. More fibers are cut. Hmmm why is that?


I believe this can be understood without invoking integral calculus but have hit a wall here.

When selecting a mallet to drive a chisel, I pick it up and judge the weight.

You also need to consider inertia

[Eric Brown]

When selecting a mallet to drive a chisel, I pick it up and judge the weight.

You also need to consider inertia

I prefer Wood-Is-Good urethane mallets. I make better contact, it's slightly quieter, and it's easier on my hands.
Also, how the weight is distributed in the mallet matters. Too much weight in the handle reduces strike force at the head.
Don't even consider the aerodynamics of the different head shapes.

[Reed Gray]

Well, it is like hammers. What are you hitting? Bigger hammers for driving splitting wedges, smaller hammers for driving finish hails. I have 2 mallets, one sugar maple and one persimmon. The maple is the lighter one, the persimmon is pretty heavy. I also have a small hammer with a mountain mahogany head. I use it for adjusting plane irons with very light taps. It just depends on the job.

robo hippy

[Tom M King]

12, 18, and 30 oz. Wood is Good ones here. I just pick a small one for small chisels, and a big one for big chisels.

[Jimmy Harris]

There's too many factors to be worth your time to consider the mathematics of it all. Like, the mallet it a fulcrum, so the longer the mallet (or further back from the strike zone that you hold the mallet), the faster the head travels, assuming you're using it as a fulcrum and not just dropping it straight down. Which brings into the overall equation body mechanics and how different designs will change your swing. Plus there's the hardness and rebound of the surface being struck to consider. Generally, the harder the mallet face, the more energy will transfer to the chisel. Then you've got wind resistance to throw in there.

It's best to just use experimentation and find out what works best for you. Personally, I like heavier mallets. Let the mallet do the work for you by way of gravity and you can adjust the force applied as necessary by adjusting the starting distance between the mallet and chisel and the point of contact on the mallet. It's easier on my shoulders and arms as all I'm generally doing is lifting the mallet to drop it. To me, around 28-36 oz. is the sweet spot for a woodworking mallet. If I need less force than I can comfortably obtain with a 28ish oz. mallet, I generally don't need a mallet at all. About 5 lbs is the max for me. Beyond that, and I'd rather apply more force on the stroke than lift it repeatedly. Flat or round face doesn't matter to me. Making solid contact has never been an issue.

Everyone is different, so as long as it works for you, it works. I know a lot of people hate soft rubber mallets because of the rebound, but I like them for that reason. It gets them back into position easier and takes less effort. I also like my urathane Wood is Good 30 oz. mallet, though I wish the grip on the handle wasn't so long, as it's only really comfortable to hold near the top. But I like how it sits, handle up, on my bench, and doesn't wear out with use like my rubber and wooden mallets do.

[Edward Weber]

There's too many factors to be worth your time to consider the mathematics of it all. Like, the mallet it a fulcrum, so the longer the mallet (or further back from the strike zone that you hold the mallet), the faster the head travels, assuming you're using it as a fulcrum and not just dropping it straight down. Which brings into the overall equation body mechanics and how different designs will change your swing. Plus there's the hardness and rebound of the surface being struck to consider. Generally, the harder the mallet face, the more energy will transfer to the chisel. Then you've got wind resistance to throw in there.


Your elbow joint is the fulcrum, the mallet is the load on a lever.
509051

[Rafael Herrera]

Energy = Mass times Velocity squared. Energy = M V V (neglecting the constant 1/2 for this non numerical discussion)

Momentum = Mass times Velocity. Momentum = M V

Lets hit with a light and fast mallet, high energy. Fibers are cut but not deeply.

Now a heavy slow mallet, velocity is less important. More fibers are cut. Hmmm why is that?


Velocity is as important as mass. To simplify things, consider you're swinging the hammers at the same speed. Also, let's say the light hammer is 1 unit of weight and the heavy mallet is like 2.

The heavy hammer is hitting the chisel with twice the energy or momentum, as simple as that. You can't directly compare Energy and Momentum.

---

In any case, I looked up what the force exerted on the chisel is when impacted by the mallet. The formula for the Force includes the mass and the velocity squared.

So, if you are still swinging the heavy mallet at the same speed as the light mallet, then the applied force is twice that of the light mallet.

However, you just need to swing the light mallet around 40% faster (because of the square) to match the force of the heavy mallet.

---

I've simplified things somewhat, but I think I'm mostly right. I think the bottom line is that you need to swing a lighter mallet faster to match the effect of a heavy mallet swung slower. There's a point where a heavy mallet is just not as comfortable, so your arm strength is important to find the right balance of speed and mass.

Rafael

[Jim Koepke]

Leverage is another important factor to consider. As already said the further out the head is from the hand the larger the arc it must travel. If it travels the arc in the same time the head moves on a shorter handled mallet it is traveling at a higher velocity.

My two favorite mallets are the cherry mallet on the bottom and the hickory mallet on the right.

509052

They are about the same weight. The cherry mallet has a longer handle. It is my go to mallet when cutting a mortise.

jtk

[roger wiegand]

I use a small but heavy mallet-- I have a brass one and a maple one I turned and filled with lead (I prefer round mallets for most uses). Tap lightly for a small chisel or fine cut, whack it when using a big gouge to hog off wood. I find I have more control with the heavier chisel. I have a small urethane Estwing deadblow hammer that is also great for heavier work, unfortunately they discontinued it in favor of a much bigger, heavier model.

[Justin Allen]

All things being equal, a mallet that is mass M, moving at velocity V (which is a vector), and striking the chisel at the SAME angle as a mallet of mass = 2M and velocity 0.5V, will impart the same effect on the wood. The vector component is important, as glancing blows reduce the transfer of momentum to the chisel.

Finding the balance between mass and velocity (as Rafael said) that yields the optimum comfort and control will be the most effective at removing wood.

Kinetic energy in this application is misleading, because only a portion of that amount does actual work on the chisel. The contact angle is still applicable here as well, as work is the dot product of a force vector and path vector.

[Rafael Herrera]

The formula I found yesterday gives the impact force as a function of: mass, speed squared and the distance it takes the object to stop.

F = 1/2 * M * V^2 / d

​The distance "d" would be in our case the depth of the chisel cut into to wood. I assumed it was the same in both cases in my post. However, the point of the discussion is to analyze how much cutting the chisel will do when struck my the mallet, so the value of "d" is important.

Weight and speed of the mallet, and the chisel profile can be controlled. The value of d depends on the type of wood we're chopping, so we'll need an actual experiment to compare mallets.

[William Fretwell]

While increasing velocity is very effective at increasing the energy delivered it decreases control and aim. Miss hitting the chisel end can be unfortunate. Simply increasing the mass of the mallett maintains control while delivering more energy.

This does not prevent you from doing both of course. Beating the **** out of a timber frame chisel with the heaviest wood is good urethane mallet I managed to disintegrate the mallett. Had to collect all the little lead pieces all over the floor and the top to epoxy it all back together. The distance moved by the urethane delivering the energy does decrease the force, but the energy is delivered over a far larger area at the end of the chisel. The end of the chisel showed no distress even after hours of pounding.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

The formula I found yesterday gives the impact force as a function of: mass, speed squared and the distance it takes the object to stop.

F = 1/2 * M * V^2 / d

​The distance "d" would be in our case the depth of the chisel cut into to wood. I assumed it was the same in both cases in my post. However, the point of the discussion is to analyze how much cutting the chisel will do when struck my the mallet, so the value of "d" is important.

Weight and speed of the mallet, and the chisel profile can be controlled. The value of d depends on the type of wood we're chopping, so we'll need an actual experiment to compare mallets.

While not wholly incorrect, the picture painted above is incomplete (and is a linear approximation of the actually more-complicated mechanics). Further, "d" in this linear approximation is the distance the mallet head center of mass travels upon impact with the end of the chisel, not the depth the chisel penetrates into the wood. Without delving deeply into the math or physics (which I would be willing to do if you're interested) Justin is correct that momentum is more important than energy in this case, and that the energy perspective is misleading.

Kinetic energy is not conserved in a collision. Meaning, in this case, the kinetic energy does not all go into cutting the wood. Some goes into heat, some goes into sound waves, some goes into energy stored in residual stress in the materials involved: those materials do exhibit some permanent deformation. Some goes into temporary deflection of the materials, which spring back and push the mallet head back away from the chisel. None of that energy goes into cutting the fibers.

Momentum, on the other hand, is conserved in collisions--specifically, the total momentum of the system composed of the mallet, your arm, the chisel, the bench, etc.

A mallet with less momentum will cause the chisel to penetrate less deeply under otherwise identical circumstances, even if the kinetic energy is identical to that of a mallet with more momentum.

[Warren Mickley]

It doesn't take much experience to figure out how important a heavy mallet is to making mortises and such. I feel sorry for Sellers and his ilk who try to make mortises with dinky mallets.

[steven c newman]

Also....depends on the wood being chopped, doesn't it......from Pine, to Poplar, to Ash, to Oak...to Sycamore (BTDT) to Walnut....

I do watch a video now and then...Traditional Chinese Working Forums ( David Weaver LIKED the show) that only used a "No. 2 Carpenter's Hatchet" He used the non-sharped part of the hatchet to drive his chisels....and could chop a through mortise in about the time it took to type this.....and without the "Usual" Anti-Sellers" digs some are wont to type in this site.

509098
YMMV, of course....

[Rafael Herrera]

I'm not sure what you're trying to show. There was some simplification w my description, but the purpose was to give a sense of what is going on.

The kinetic energy of the mallet and its momentum are related, E=1/2 p^2 / m, where p is momentum, m is mass. They're not distinct, independent properties in the description of what is happening. More of one means more of the other, how they transform into heat, work, or whatever it is, will happen whether you use energy or momentum to quantify the mallet action.

The bottom line is a light mallet needs a fast swing to accomplish what a heavy mallet will do swung slower.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Momentum and kinetic energy are, as you say, related—but they’re not interchangeable. As you state, p^2 = 2 m E. It’s the (square root of the) product of mass and kinetic energy that provides the impetus to cut the wood fibers, not the energy alone. In your simplified example of two mallets with 1 versus 2 units of mass, the lighter mallet will need to be swung twice as fast as the heavier one, not 40% faster. The difference is larger than you indicated, hence the commentary about the energy perspective being misleading.

[Rafael Herrera]

The losses to the other factors you mentioned may be major or may be negligible in our situation, I don't know if they matter much.

The conservation of momentum principle is simpler to apply when you have two objects colliding, like two billiard balls. However, in our case you have both objects moving and then stopping. I don't think it's any simpler to describe what's happening using momentum.

If you have a better explanation that can quantify what's going on, I'd be interested in seeing it.

For practical purposes, the consensus still is that, for a given job, a heavier mallet (within reason) is better than a lighter one.

--

As an aside, once I took a carving lesson. I took my lignum vitae mallet. I soon switched to a lighter mallet, it was too heavy. One needs to determine what's best suited for the job.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

The losses to the other factors you mentioned may be major or may be negligible in our situation, I don't know if they matter much.

The conservation of momentum principle is simpler to apply when you have two objects colliding, like two billiard balls. However, in our case you have both objects moving and then stopping. I don't think it's any simpler to describe what's happening using momentum.

If you have a better explanation that can quantify what's going on, I'd be interested in seeing it.

For practical purposes, the consensus still is that, for a given job, a heavier mallet (within reason) is better than a lighter one.

--

As an aside, once I took a carving lesson. I took my lignum vitae mallet. I soon switched to a lighter mallet, it was too heavy. One needs to determine what's best suited for the job.

I never claimed simplicity: only accuracy. The difference between 2 and its square root is non negligible.

It’s easy to observe the effects of the losses; quantifying accurately would be more challenging. Take two mallets with significantly different weights; the greater the difference, the better. Weigh them. Let’s say they’re X and Y units of weight, respectively. Drive the same chisel using each, letting the lighter one simply fall from Y units of height and the heavier one fall from X units of height. If the ratio of weight is 1:3, the ratio of height should be 3:1, and so on. The energy will be the same, but the momentum will be higher for the larger mallet. Look at the depth of penetration. This will immediately show whether equal energy drives the chisel to equal depth. You can do the same experiment with nails and hammers rather than chisels and mallets, and so on.

You keep repeating your point about choosing the right mallet for the application. Nowhere did I disagree with that point, nor do I disagree with it in any way. I always choose a mallet based on what I am doing. The only disagreement is the degree to which the mallet weight makes a difference.

[Justin Allen]

The losses to the other factors you mentioned may be major or may be negligible in our situation, I don't know if they matter much.

The conservation of momentum principle is simpler to apply when you have two objects colliding, like two billiard balls. However, in our case you have both objects moving and then stopping. I don't think it's any simpler to describe what's happening using momentum.

If you have a better explanation that can quantify what's going on, I'd be interested in seeing it.

For practical purposes, the consensus still is that, for a given job, a heavier mallet (within reason) is better than a lighter one.

--

As an aside, once I took a carving lesson. I took my lignum vitae mallet. I soon switched to a lighter mallet, it was too heavy. One needs to determine what's best suited for the job.

The KE losses can be quite significant. Just as an example, take the scenario where the cutting depth is 0. With no work output done by the chisel, 100% of the KE in the chisel has now been lost to these factors.

[Richard Hutchings]

Slightly off topic but since we are talking mallets, does it matter which way the grain is facing on turned mallets? It seems to matter with baseball bats.

[Tom Bender]

Let's head back to the shop for another experiment. For a given amount of fibers cut, the heavy mallet is causing more collateral damage, split workpiece, slipping clamping, crushed fibers ahead of the cut etc. Why is that?

The heavy mallet delivers more momentum. The lighter and faster blow delivers more energy.

[Justin Allen]

Slightly off topic but since we are talking mallets, does it matter which way the grain is facing on turned mallets? It seems to matter with baseball bats.

Yes. The impulse characteristics will change with the compressibility of the fibers in the wood mallet. You may transfer the same momentum, but aligning the fibers in their "stiffer" direction will exert a higher force over a shorter time (versus a lower force over a longer time). This force delta could be the difference between severing the fibers in the cut or just compressing them.

[Rafael Herrera]

The KE losses can be quite significant. Just as an example, take the scenario where the cutting depth is 0. With no work output done by the chisel, 100% of the KE in the chisel has now been lost to these factors.

And the momentum is zero as well, so we're not better off thinking mementum alone.

To answer the other comment about 40%. If we wanted to get the same force applied, and assuming the depth of cut is the same too (big if). The speed of the mallet would have to be sqrt(2), or about 1.41, hence the 40%.

If you want the same initial momentum in both cases, then the velocity would need to be twice. The claim that momentum correlates to the cutting depth is a big assumption as well.

Neither description is likely to be accurate, this is an inelastic collision after all.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

And the momentum is zero as well, so we're not better off thinking mementum alone.

To answer the other comment about 40%. If we wanted to get the same force applied, and assuming the depth of cut is the same too (big if). The speed of the mallet would have to be sqrt(2), or about 1.41, hence the 40%.

If you want the same initial momentum in both cases, then the velocity would need to be twice. The claim that momentum correlates to the cutting depth is a big assumption as well.

Neither description is likely to be accurate, this is an inelastic collision after all.

Let’s continue with your example of the two mallets of 1 versus 2 units of weight and let’s add the condition of identical force. Let’s further take the linear approximation of F = E/d, where d is still the distance travelled by the mallet head center of mass during the impact, E is the kinetic energy, and F is the force. Additionally, F = M * a, where M is the mass and a is the acceleration. For a constant force, d = 1/2 a * t^2, where t is the time over which the force is applied.

So, we have M * a = 2E/(a * t^2) = M * V^2 / (a * t^2) and therefore t = V/a = M*V/F = p/F, where p is once again momentum. So, for the same force, the mallet with 2 units of mass applies that force for twice the time duration, and further, the time duration is based on momentum, not energy—even though the two are deterministically related and the force is identical.

[Justin Allen]

And the momentum is zero as well, so we're not better off thinking mementum alone.

To answer the other comment about 40%. If we wanted to get the same force applied, and assuming the depth of cut is the same too (big if). The speed of the mallet would have to be sqrt(2), or about 1.41, hence the 40%.

If you want the same initial momentum in both cases, then the velocity would need to be twice. The claim that momentum correlates to the cutting depth is a big assumption as well.

Neither description is likely to be accurate, this is an inelastic collision after all.

Transfer of momentum wouldn't be zero. At least a part of the chisel would be moving (with or without the mallet attached to it). Motion would stop when the chisel deformation has absorbed all of the transferred energy. Or, in the case of a rigid body, it would bounce off the surface (if your fingers weren't holding it in place). In the second case, not all of the KE would be lost, but none of it would be converted to work.

Momentum is conserved across both elastic and inelastic collisions. Kinetic energy is not in inelastic collisions.

Kinetic energy (like all forms energy), is a state of the system. It has the ability to be converted to work. That doesn't mean that all of it is.

[Eric Brown]

One thing you are not taking into consideration is the shock that transmits through the handle. That is energy taken away from the mallet head. It is also absorbed by the hand. Usually heavier mallets have heavier handles also. Less energy would be transmitted. You also are not considering potential damage to the hands/wrists. A person who is new to the craft probably should start with the lighter mallet for control. Exceptions if the person has been doing other work where they have strength already.

[Jim Koepke]

Slightly off topic but since we are talking mallets, does it matter which way the grain is facing on turned mallets? It seems to matter with baseball bats.

This should be easy to visualize. A piece of wood is more pliable to bending flat with the grain than it is against the plane in which the grain is running. Like a board, a bat is more likely to flex, giving up some power, when hitting a ball flat against the grain than when it is being hit in line with the grain.

This is the same with hammer and shovel handles. This makes me very picky about how the grain is running when selecting a new hammer or shovel.

jtk

[Tom M King]

I first tried a Wood is Good mallet so I would have one when the wooden one was worn out if I was off somewhere away from the big tools to make another one. I forget how many I wore out, but the flat faced ones wore out in one spot. I first changed to a round one because they were so quick to make, but learned to like them best anyway and could be worn all around the head. After using that first WiG one, I never used a wooden mallet again. I somehow managed to produce a lot of work without ever thinking about all that you guys are talking about in this thread.

I never noticed that grain direction made much difference. I did find one behind a closed up knee wall in an 1828 house. The worker had evidently tossed it back there when the handle broke at a knot. The owner of that house has it on their mantle at home. The worker had made it from a tree limb.

[Rafael Herrera]

It bothers me when people dismiss curiosity regarding what's going on with the tools and methods we use in woodworking.

Getting work done and understanding are not mutually exclusive activities.

Rafael

[Tom Bender]

Let's head back to the shop for another experiment. For a given amount of fibers cut, the heavy mallet is causing more collateral damage, split workpiece, slipping clamping, crushed fibers ahead of the cut etc. Why is that?

The heavy mallet delivers more momentum. The lighter and faster blow delivers more energy.

So what I'm trying to get at is cutting fibers without collateral damage. It seems that momentum is the enemy here, so a light fast mallet has advantages.

Back to the math;

Momentum = (Mass * Velocity)

Energy = (Mass * Velocity) * Velocity / 2

Yup, lower mass at higher velocity = more energy without increasing momentum. But of course there are limits. Using BBs fired from a Daisy Red Ryder isn't going to work even though the math says it will.

[Eric Brown]

So what I'm trying to get at is cutting fibers without collateral damage. It seems that momentum is the enemy here, so a light fast mallet has advantages.

Back to the math;

Momentum = (Mass * Velocity)

Energy = (Mass * Velocity) * Velocity / 2

Yup, lower mass at higher velocity = more energy without increasing momentum. But of course there are limits. Using BBs fired from a Daisy Red Ryder isn't going to work even though the math says it will.

Another thing to consider is recovery of the fibers. A heavy cut has to compress fibers more than a light cut. So possibly light cuts allow recovery better.

[Johannes Becker]

The theory is deceivingly simple with momentum conversation in the impact of hammer and chisel but gets a bit more complicated when thinking what is actually happening with the chisel cutting wood. The energy transfer is determined by how elastic the impact is and the ratio of the masses of hammer and chisel. If you do the math it turns out that the maximum energy transfer efficiency is with equal weights of hammer and chisel. However, we are not concerned with maximum efficiency here but with maximum chisel energy (which is determining the chisel cut -- at least when we are not slicing). Hence a heavier hammer is capable of transferring more energy to the chisel (while having less effective energy transfer). Instead of this somewhat woolly-headed summary have a look at page 28 if you interested: https://books.google.com/books?id=sl3imKj8258C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false.

509188

The other relevant consideration is hammer energy. Please keep in mind that we are not taking sledge hammers here so the resulting velocity of the mallet is dominated by the weight of your arm rather than that of the mallet when applying constant force to swing the mallet and a handle of equal length. Hence the heavier hammer contains more energy (duh -- not sure I needed an engineering degree to figure that one... ;-).

[Edward Weber]

And every piece of wood if different, so none of this matters
Pick up a mallet that's comfortable to use and get to work :D

[Derek Cohen]

Math to determine which mallet?! :rolleyes: While it sounds good as a theory, in practice it is about the same as determining the ideal speed to push a hand plane.

Mallets have many variable. Among them:

weight of the head
weight if the handle
size of the head
square or round head face
length of the handle
thickness of the grip
Shape of the grip
length of ones arm
height above the bench/workpiece
Sharpness of the chisel
hardness of the wood
depth of mortice
keep this up and you will go mad
you are mad already if you have read this far!

I have 5 mallets/hammers. What they have in common is the attempt to concentrate mass in a small area. I also prefer flat faces to round faces, such as a gennou to a carver's mallet, and the flat face seems - to me - to direct forces better and the is less cance if a glancing blow. But I accept that others will disagree ... which shows how much personal preference is part of our decision, and not math.

I prefer a hard face for the mallet/hammer. Absorbing the blow/force seems counter-productive. No soft leather or urethane faces. At the same time I want to protect vulnerable chisel ends, such as unhooped wooden handles. For such cases my mallets used are faced with UHMV. This is good compromise. Otherwise I use steel ... steel gives the best feedback. Further, the handle material (wood in my case), if shop made, needs some experimentation to find what is the best for shock absorption.

https://i.postimg.cc/ds7CLvtG/Hammer7.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Above - 36oz, 19oz, 7oz ..... note that the shape of the handles/grips allow or two positions.

Gennou for Japanese bench and mortice chisels - 375gm and 225gm ....

https://i.postimg.cc/WT0MG2mn/Hammer3.jpg (https://postimages.org/)

Regards from Perth

Derek

[steven c newman]

Also..at the end of a day of swinging that butt-heavy Mallet....how does your arm feel? Does one have to ice things down?

Grandpa Amu....uses a #2 Carpenter's Hatchet....

Along with that Plastic headed Mallet....I have a 32 Round Carver's Mallet,,shaped to fit my hands exactly ( Spalted Hard Maple, BTW)...and a 12 oz. Ball Peen hammer. All depends on the wood I am chopping...and how my right arm is feeling that day....there is a 10 oz Round Carver's Mallet in the Tool Cabinet...but..I find it is way too light to do much chopping...barely can drive a gouge...
509203
Just some days I simply am in a MEAN Mood...and you have to be when the wood is Ash...
509204
Other days, this is just fine..
509205
This is the 32 oz Carver's Mallet...for when Uncle Arthur (itis) won't let me grip skinny handles (rainy days, usually?)

509206
The mallet in that door, was my Late Father -in-law's....I guess I need to keep it around....skinny handle, too light weight...tends to bounce off of most chisels..

All depends on what is needed to get done...BTW...Chopping Poplar is way easier than chopping Ash...Oak...Maple....

[Mel Fulks]

With mallets for all let us bang the the stuff we are making while making sure the heads ,of wood ….and bone don’t fly off .
That always brings a tear to my eye , so I wear a face shield.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

Math to determine which mallet?! :rolleyes: While it sounds good as a theory, in practice it is about the same as determining the ideal speed to push a hand plane.

(snip)

But I accept that others will disagree ... which shows how much personal preference is part of our decision, and not math.


Maybe you should try going back and reading the thread, including Tom’s original question. Nowhere do I see anyone suggesting using math to choose a mallet—only to understand and demonstrate the “why” in the original post. I see no attempt to answer Tom’s question in your response, but you did a fine job of setting up a strawman and then steering the topic to yourself.

[Rafael Herrera]

I don't think anyone has been suggesting that math will tell us what is the "best", that's absurd.

At least that's what I understand from reading the thread. If that's not the case, you should at least quote the post that you're responding to.

There have been some incorrect comparisons of "delivering momentum" or "delivering energy". Trying to understand what is going on satisfies curiosity, it might not make one a better woodworker, but it might stop one from thinking nonsense like start using a sledge hammer or thinking that because "all wood is different" there's no point in analyzing this.

To generalize, a little understanding is always helpful, specially when deciding on a choice. There are a lot of people that use their purported expertise to dispense advise. In many cases with other motives, sometimes commercial gain without disclosure or simply fame and recognition (barf).

Rafael

[mike stenson]

Maybe you should try going back and reading the thread, including Tom’s original question. Nowhere do I see anyone suggesting using math to choose a mallet—only to understand and demonstrate the “why” in the original post. I see no attempt to answer Tom’s question in your response, but you did a fine job of setting up a strawman and then steering the topic to yourself.

There are a bunch of posts in this thread that are dedicated to physics, not picking a mallet. So I got a chuckle out of Derek's post. Maybe a bit grumpy this morning.

[Edward Weber]

Some of you are taking this way too seriously.
It should be obvious that a light weight mallet requires more speed (velocity) to do the same work as a heavier mallet, which would require less speed due to it's increased weight.
The amount of energy the chisel needs to cut the wood remains the same in both cases. It's how the energy is delivered that you all seem to want to argue about.
One or two hits with a heavy mallet, or eight to ten hits with a light mallet, both methods have their place, both achieve the same outcome, both deliver the same amount of energy to the chisel, the same amount of wood gets cut in each method.

This is just a method of work that is as individual as each piece of wood.
Most woodworkers have more than one weight of mallet for this very reason, as Derek pointed out in his post.
There is no "right" mallet
There is no mathematical formula to determine whats best
Physics tells us the why and how
It's up the the individual to determine which is needed for their work
The easiest way to do this IMO, is to pick up a mallet and try it out

[Michael Bulatowicz]

There are a bunch of posts in this thread that are dedicated to physics, not picking a mallet. So I got a chuckle out of Derek's post. Maybe a bit grumpy this morning.
Whether you’re grumpy this morning or not, you should be able to see that in Tom’s original post he asked a question about the physics of mallets. What followed was a discussion about the physics of mallets. In what way was that discussion off-topic for the thread?

[Edward Weber]

http://www.closegrain.com/2013/04/arguing-about-woodworking-more-popular.html

[Warren Mickley]

http://www.closegrain.com/2013/04/arguing-about-woodworking-more-popular.html

I "Pitiful" but was told it was too short.

[Rafael Herrera]

Hanging out at woodworking forums instead of at the workshop says something about us. Some of us, it seems, find argument and opinion more entertaining than cutting dovetails.

Another one to add to the list above is:

"I would rather woodwork than talk about (fill in the blank)"

[Derek Cohen]

http://www.closegrain.com/2013/04/arguing-about-woodworking-more-popular.html

Brilliant article!

Regards from Perth

Derek

[Jim Koepke]

http://www.closegrain.com/2013/04/arguing-about-woodworking-more-popular.html

By Stanley and Preston?

jtk

[Justin Allen]

I don't think anyone has been suggesting that math will tell us what is the "best", that's absurd.

At least that's what I understand from reading the thread. If that's not the case, you should at least quote the post that you're responding to.

There have been some incorrect comparisons of "delivering momentum" or "delivering energy". Trying to understand what is going on satisfies curiosity, it might not make one a better woodworker, but it might stop one from thinking nonsense like start using a sledge hammer or thinking that because "all wood is different" there's no point in analyzing this.

To generalize, a little understanding is always helpful, specially when deciding on a choice. There are a lot of people that use their purported expertise to dispense advise. In many cases with other motives, sometimes commercial gain without disclosure or simply fame and recognition (barf).

Rafael

I think the math is important. Not in the absolute numbers sense, but in relationships and correlations that, once understood, can be used in addition to experience to help steer decisions. These discussions also (I think) help us who have studied this stuff at one point in our lives to get a little refresh and apply it, as well as fill in the holes where our memory has lapsed.

For instance, I knew that momentum was important, and went on to say that it was the most important. In reality, the most important part is the transfer of energy into work done at the cutting tip of the tool, and what yields that (which many were alluding to this thead).

What I came up with was that, for both completely elastic (hammer and chisel only contact at an instant) and inelastic (hammer and chisel "stick" together) collisions (and treating both hammer and chisel as rigid bodies), the hammer moving faster with less mass would transfer more energy into the "system" (chisel or hammer/chisel combo). Both of these scenarios, though, yield less than 100% energy transfer into the "system" except for the case of an elastic collision between the hammer and chisel of equal mass (as Johannes mentioned). Of course, real world energy losses would reduce the overall energy transfer as well.

So this is all fine and good. It doesn't take into account your body's capabilities, but it does let you know that if you can generate the same momentum by swinging a lighter mallet faster, with control, you'll probably get more work done at the cutting edge.

It also got me thinking of other ways this line of thinking could be applied, as several have alluded to in this thread as well, which is adjusting the chisel mass to that of the mallet (or the mallet to the chisel) to achieve a higher energy transfer efficiency. Related to this is how the mallet reacts after the impact. A mallet lighter than the chisel would cause the mallet to bounce back more after impact, generating more loading on the wrist/arm (I don't think many use mallets lighter than the chisels, but maybe there are some users of really big chisels out there?)

[Edward Weber]

When selecting a mallet to drive a chisel, weight is important. Let's look at the math without going deep.

There are two assets a mallet can bring to the work, Energy and Momentum.

Energy = Mass times Velocity squared. Energy = M V V (neglecting the constant 1/2 for this non numerical discussion)

Momentum = Mass times Velocity. Momentum = M V

Now let's go to the shop for an experiment. We'll cut across the grain.

Lets hit with a light and fast mallet, high energy. Fibers are cut but not deeply.

Now a heavy slow mallet, velocity is less important. More fibers are cut. Hmmm why is that?


I believe this can be understood without invoking integral calculus but have hit a wall here.

I asked the AI chatbot, Is a heavy or light mallet better to drive a chisel
Answer
"When it comes to driving a chisel, the ideal weight of a mallet depends on various factors, including the type of wood being worked on and personal preference. However, here are some general guidelines to consider:

1. Light Mallet: A light mallet is typically preferred when working with softer woods or when more delicate control is necessary. It allows for better precision and reduces the risk of overstriking or damaging the workpiece. Lighter mallets are often used for finer detail work or when working on intricate carvings.

2. Heavy Mallet: A heavier mallet is generally better suited for driving chisels into harder or denser woods. The additional weight can help transfer more force to the chisel, allowing for more efficient wood removal. Heavy mallets are commonly used in tasks like timber framing or heavy-duty joinery, where greater impact is required to drive the chisel into the workpiece effectively.

It's important to note that the weight of the mallet should be chosen based on your physical abilities and comfort level. Using a mallet that is too heavy for you could lead to fatigue or loss of control, which might compromise the quality of your work. Similarly, a mallet that is too light may not provide enough force for driving the chisel effectively.

Ultimately, finding the right balance between the weight of the mallet and the task at hand is crucial. I recommend experimenting with different mallet weights, considering the specific characteristics of the wood and the desired outcome, until you find the optimal choice for your particular woodworking needs."

[James Pallas]

There is a Marketing/woodworking guru who created a need made a product and sold it for 10 times the price. The infamous lump hammer is all you will ever need. 😎
Jim

[mike stenson]

Whether you’re grumpy this morning or not, you should be able to see that in Tom’s original post he asked a question about the physics of mallets. What followed was a discussion about the physics of mallets. In what way was that discussion off-topic for the thread?

Michael, I was referring to you being grumpy. Not me.

[Jim Koepke]

I don't think anyone has been suggesting that math will tell us what is the "best", that's absurd.

…

To generalize, a little understanding is always helpful, specially when deciding on a choice. There are a lot of people that use their purported expertise to dispense advise. In many cases with other motives, sometimes commercial gain without disclosure or simply fame and recognition (barf).

Rafael

Agree.

IMO, how it feels in the hand and doing the work is a better gauge than all the math formulae ever written.

jtk

[Rick Dettinger]

It doesn't take much experience to figure out how important a heavy mallet is to making mortises and such. I feel sorry for Sellers and his ilk who try to make mortises with dinky mallets.

I think it's a good thing that Paul Sellers uses a lighter mallet for chopping mortices, since he uses the same bench chisels that he uses for making dovetails. Likely saves chipped or broken chisels that way.

73,
Rick

[Warren Mickley]

[QUOTE=Rick Dettinger;3280304]I think it's a good thing that Paul Sellers uses a lighter mallet for chopping mortices, since he uses the same bench chisels that he uses for making dovetails. Likely saves chipped or broken chisels that way.
/QUOTE]

As someone who has used mortise chisels for over 45 years, it is obvious that Sellers was trained to make mortises by machine. We have used mortise chisels for a very long time. See Felibien (1676). I believe I have seen mortise chisels from the bronze age.

A bevel edge chisel has no problem being struck by a heavy mallet. For wider mortises we bore out the waste and then chisel to the lines. There is no problem doing this with a heavy mallet and a bevel edged chisel, whether the chisel is 19th century (butcher) or 21st century (Aldi). No chipping.

[Richard Hutchings]

"it is obvious that Sellers was trained to make mortises by machine. "

That's an odd thing to say, at least to me. I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion.

[Michael Bulatowicz]

"it is obvious that Sellers was trained to make mortises by machine. "

That's an odd thing to say, at least to me. I can't imagine how you came to that conclusion.

I can’t speak for Warren, but Paul Sellers can speak for himself: his apprenticeship included machine mortising to some significant degree. I don’t recall any description of how he learned to mortise by hand. https://paulsellers.com/2018/09/george-turns-the-tables/

[Richard Hutchings]

I just don't understand how one has to do with the other. You can't learn to make hand cut mortises by using a mortise machine, I don't care how many years you use one.

[steven c newman]

Because, during Sellers Apprenticeship he was taught how to mortise by hand.....IF one would care to read his blogs about that time...

"Those that dwell in the Past, are apt to repeat it.." as the saying goes...

Maybe Warren was training REAL Neanderthals on chopping mortises with stone Mallets?

FWIW: I have been doing woodworking since Junior High School....back in the mid 60s...and then 4 yrs in the Ind.Arts classes...I just might have learned a few things...maybe?

[steven c newman]

Ok, first year in Ind. Arts Classes...we not only had Drafting/Drawing class....we were given a sheet of paper, showing 8 different wood joints...with boxes for check marks and grades...we were graded on the layout of the joint we made..use of Hand tools to MAKE that joint....and how close to the drawn plan we were. We also had to pull the hand tools used from a Tool Crib, by signing them out...and signing them back IN when class was over (30 minutes, each school day)

We were not allowed to use the power tools, until the 2nd year. Power tools came from the local Rockwell factory....tablesaw, drill press, wood and metal lathes.. Tablesaw was used only with the Instructor standing alongside, making sure the Student was being safe.

Senior Year...was taught how to weld....melt down metal and pour castings. To pass the class each year, we also needed to produce a project, also to be graded.

One of my Uncles worked for Monarch Lathe Co. and would travel to be a Trouble shooter for all the Lathes they produced there...
Another Uncle was a Carpenter by Trade.....even worked in the ODOT Sign department....he also was known to build a house or 3...he also could sharpen any hand saw you gave him..

So much for that "45 years ago.." nonsense....(Yes, I also worked as a Carpenter....both forming Concrete foundations, and doing Stick Builds....)

[Richard Hutchings]

I don't doubt that you and Warren know a few things, much more than I that's for sure. I still don't understand how one could look at PS technique and conclude, just from that, that he learned on a machine which is what I feel was implied. So what is the relationship between machining and the way PS does it? Is he overboard with accuracy or something?

This is bugging me. "it is obvious that Sellers was trained to make mortises by machine. "

I need to get a life.

[Rafael Herrera]

I was working on a reply about the physics of the mallet hitting the chisel, but it's a little more complicated than I thought. So, I'll table it and discuss it with my physicist friend at a later time, she'll set me straight.

Just one more sort of qualitative factor to add to the discussion. When swinging the mallet, the mass of the arm enters into the calculation of the amount of energy of the system. A human arm is 6, 8 lbs? Compare that to the mass of the mallet, 16oz, 24 oz, etc. The size of the ww's arm may vary quite a bit, and for a given size mallet, what works for someone might not work as well for another. Another factor to consider when dispensing the wisdom of guruism around.

-----

Regarding what Paul Sellers does or knows, I think if you're a beginner or a hobbyist, he can get you started, but you're better off moving on from his guruism.

My dad was a professional woodworker, I watched him make many mortises and tenons. Since his was a business, he aimed for efficiency rather than enacting old hand tool methods. He cut mortises with a machine he rigged himself using a chuck and drill bit. The tenons were cut with the table saw. The tenons were rounded with a rasp and fit to the mortises and the job was done.

Now, about Paul Sellers, are we talking about his video of cutting mortises with a bench chisel and a light mallet? I think he was contrasting that approach to some other video, Peter Follansbee using a pigsticker. Which approach is "better" would depend on what you're actually aiming at: get subscribers to your online school, spend many hundreds of dollars in boutique chisels, actually make M&T joints efficiently by hand?

It'd be more useful to contrast the methods as opposed to dwell on how knowledgeable PS is.

Rafael

[steven c newman]

Not you..just the one who said that stupid line...as he has zero clue about it....
509402
After a LONG day in MY shop....other than screws for the seat slats, all else was pinned Mortise & Tenon Joinery..
509403
Can you see the 2 pins?
509404
Because I want to be able to replace any of the slats...no glue, just screws
509405
And, now you see the 2 mallets I used....and a mortise laid out..
509406
to fit the tenon...
509407
But, this was the main mallet in use...
509408
No glue, just a dry fit..
509409
Trying for a fit like this...
Warren's MMV...

[steven c newman]

Also..would depend on HOW hard one swings that mallet.....and, some days, you just need to get downright MEAN...."swing for the fence" sort of thing....other days, you are just trying to "Bunt a runner over to the next base"

IF, not only the part being chopped JUMPS around, but so does your bench...you just MIGHT be 1) swinging way too hard, or 2) using way too big of a mallet.. One does not NEED a 3 pounder mallet to just drive a 1/4" chisel....so, in this case..size does matter....as in..does it fit the tasks being done?

[steven c newman]

Another item to add to the"confusion" of mallet hitting a chisel.....where do YOU grip at on the handle? Right at the end of the handle, or..."choke up a bit" closer to the head of the mallet?

November's Build along Project, is to best a chest of drawers...with Frame & Raised Panel sides....should be plenty of photos about chopping the needed mortises for that...

Coming to a Blog near you....or...just stop by sometime and help out?

As for using a machine to make a mortise....last ones I tried to do, were on a Router Table...You NEED both the fence AND a feather board....otherwise, things can be a bit "squirrelly" ....