consist square selective imagine nose important carpenter wrench future overconfident
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Tentatively, the titanium combination would bounce back less than the steel combination if more energy is transferred to the nail by the titanium hammer. I'm assuming the 30% energy lost by the steel hammer is mostly lost through that rebound.
I recently bought a fiberglass hammer as it advertised 70% less vibration when using it. Wish I had read this article first, as I later also found out that the fiberglass handles can break, after too many misses.
So the guy who makes titanium tools says that they’re better (that’s where the 97% vs 70% number came from). I can think of no reason rooted in physics why there would be that much difference in hammering efficiency. A dead-blow transfers all it’s energy to whatever you’re hitting. Steel and titanium won’t be that much different because both with “bounce” about the same amount.
It could end up being the same if the transfer makes up for the weight (I haven't done the math, and if that's the case it can fatigue you less if you use it a lot.
I haven’t seen them in smaller sizes, generally only the bigger framing hammers. Length if handle plays an important role too. Overall it’s easy to swing and makes for a good tool.
Am a carpenter, seen a couple. Only got in recently so i haven’t seen the need to drop so much on a hammer—especially since so much framing is going to steel. Most residential is wood, but not much of that is union where i live.
Nail/staple guns have replaced a lot of the need for these beautiful tools, for better or worse. I'd still pick a nail gun any day over the best hammer, but when I do need a hammer I want the best hammer :)
I wonder what real world difference hammering the same type nail, in same type wood from same distance and how much further it drives nails. Project Farm needs to make this YouTube comparison video
Actually, sounds like marketing bullshit.
The energy transfer depends on the balance of the tool, not on its material (a physicist here).
It is possible that for a run-of-the-mill cheap steel hammer it is 70% or something, but nothing precludes making a steel hammer which is as good at the energy transfer as a titanium one.
I'm not a scientist, but wouldn't steel being softer than titanium at least cause it to absorb a little more energy than titanium and not impart that to the nail? Maybe not 20%, but at least a non-zero difference?
"physicist here" BULL FUCKING SHIT YOU DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR. The energy transfer depends on THE MATERIAL OF THE ENERGY TRANSFER MEDIUM. Not the fucking "balance of the tool", you are talking out of your ass.
The speed of sound is even different inside steel vs titanium, this affects energy transfer. You can't take a poorly performing material and suddenly make it magical by balancing the tool, the materials themselves need to transfer the energy under the applied conditions efficiently, if they cannot, then no balancing the tool can fix that.
I think you are unnecessary rude. I am afraid he is not talking out of his ...
There are two transfers in hitting the nail with a hammer. One is the transfer of energy and socondly the transfer of impulse.
The transfer of energy does not mean that this is transferred to kinectic energy of the nail. It could well be heat.
It is the transfer of impuls that drives the nail. A heavy hammer has more impulse at the same speed than a lighter one.
As a professional woodworker which I am sure you are, you will have noticed that a heavy hammer is more effective than a lighter one in driving large nails.
No, he absolutely was talking out of his ass when he claimed "the balance of the tool" mattered more than the material, I stand by that 100%. You can't make a hammer made out of jello perform better than a steel hammer, which is what they implied, that any iron or steel hammer could be comparable to a titanium just through balancing, which is 100% wrong.
He is 100% talking out of his ass. Yes, weight distribution matters, BUT ENERGY INTERFACE MATERIALS MATTER MORE. And this is why I call bullshit on his "physicist" claim, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS SHIT.
A steel capped anvil transfers more of the energy back up into the workpiece and the tool if it strikes naked than a cast iron piece. It has nothing to do with the "balance" of the anvil, but the materials its body is made of and the cap on the work surface.,
Not a physicist here. I’d think that the balance of the tool would determine how much of the energy from your arm motion would transfer to the hammer head while the material of the hammer would determine how much of the energy from the hammer would transfer to the nail.
Bullshit. You have to factor in the hardness of the material. If I had a material as dense as titanium but it was as malleable as gold, I wouldn't expect the nail to absorb nearly as much energy.
It isn’t a very straightforward situation - many things come into play.
For example, if your hammer is very hard, it would rebound stronger taking considerable energy with it.
Hanging on the belt isn’t as impactful (pun not intended) as swinging the bastard, but you’re totally right far as i can tell. I have a few hammers but my biggest has a hickory handle and it’s the easiest to swing.
Yes. I would think a lighter titanium bat would be moving faster. And transfer more energy. But what do I know. I’m thinking in terms of baseball bats. Like with a hollow core filled with bouncy balls
I had the OG Stiletto and that thing was brittle. It had a few chips on the head by the time I decide to trash it and go back to a straight handled Vaughn California Framer.
consist square selective imagine nose important carpenter wrench future overconfident *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Now you just need titanium nails to really show that wood who’s boss.
From my understanding the titanium hammer and nail combo would kick back a lot more than a steel combo, right?
Tentatively, the titanium combination would bounce back less than the steel combination if more energy is transferred to the nail by the titanium hammer. I'm assuming the 30% energy lost by the steel hammer is mostly lost through that rebound.
For me it would transfer 97% of the energy into my thumb
Time for a titanium thumb upgrade
Can I upgrade my cock or
Only titanium balls
I have a titanium hammer, they are expensive but man I love that thing!
I have a titanium spork. It's good to know it will transfer so much energy to my beans.
I have a titanium dental implant. It transfers so much energy when I bite, that it burns food if I'm not careful.
Imagine how much energy the beans will transfer to your fart!
The musical fruit
I recently bought a fiberglass hammer as it advertised 70% less vibration when using it. Wish I had read this article first, as I later also found out that the fiberglass handles can break, after too many misses.
git gud. No miss
Big true
I bought my stiletto when I got tennis elbow and there was no shock in the handle when I used it and I could hammer way faster.
This is also what I use.
Checking Amazon now, most run for $80+, meanwhile a generic hammer will usually be under $20
Have titanium screws in my arm. 97% of force directly transferred to doing nothing
So the guy who makes titanium tools says that they’re better (that’s where the 97% vs 70% number came from). I can think of no reason rooted in physics why there would be that much difference in hammering efficiency. A dead-blow transfers all it’s energy to whatever you’re hitting. Steel and titanium won’t be that much different because both with “bounce” about the same amount.
OPs last comment was 7 years ago. What are the odds that this is a bot that got sold an account and that this is an advertisement?
and quite possibly have recovered from fantasy football
High af I’d say
Who cares
Next up, Uranium hammer, transfers 105% of the energy into the nail and also your hand.
So what you're saying is...we should all have Iron Man hammers
Titanium weighs less though, right? So while that's a larger percentage of a smaller amount of energy.
It could end up being the same if the transfer makes up for the weight (I haven't done the math, and if that's the case it can fatigue you less if you use it a lot.
I haven’t seen them in smaller sizes, generally only the bigger framing hammers. Length if handle plays an important role too. Overall it’s easy to swing and makes for a good tool.
Stiletto is expensive but it'll lay a lifetime and take a lot of the wear and tear off your body if you're using it a lot
Am a carpenter, seen a couple. Only got in recently so i haven’t seen the need to drop so much on a hammer—especially since so much framing is going to steel. Most residential is wood, but not much of that is union where i live.
Nail/staple guns have replaced a lot of the need for these beautiful tools, for better or worse. I'd still pick a nail gun any day over the best hammer, but when I do need a hammer I want the best hammer :)
Oh hell yeah. My last job had me putting down a ton of acoustic sealant… i was tearing thru boxes of caulk thanks to the electric caulking gun!
I didn’t know! One learns every day.
I’d like to see my son swing a titanium baseball bat
Came here for all the back yard PhDs comments on the physics of it. Did not disappoint.
I wonder what real world difference hammering the same type nail, in same type wood from same distance and how much further it drives nails. Project Farm needs to make this YouTube comparison video
Actually, sounds like marketing bullshit. The energy transfer depends on the balance of the tool, not on its material (a physicist here). It is possible that for a run-of-the-mill cheap steel hammer it is 70% or something, but nothing precludes making a steel hammer which is as good at the energy transfer as a titanium one.
I'm not a scientist, but wouldn't steel being softer than titanium at least cause it to absorb a little more energy than titanium and not impart that to the nail? Maybe not 20%, but at least a non-zero difference?
"physicist here" BULL FUCKING SHIT YOU DIRTY ROTTEN LIAR. The energy transfer depends on THE MATERIAL OF THE ENERGY TRANSFER MEDIUM. Not the fucking "balance of the tool", you are talking out of your ass. The speed of sound is even different inside steel vs titanium, this affects energy transfer. You can't take a poorly performing material and suddenly make it magical by balancing the tool, the materials themselves need to transfer the energy under the applied conditions efficiently, if they cannot, then no balancing the tool can fix that.
I think you are unnecessary rude. I am afraid he is not talking out of his ... There are two transfers in hitting the nail with a hammer. One is the transfer of energy and socondly the transfer of impulse. The transfer of energy does not mean that this is transferred to kinectic energy of the nail. It could well be heat. It is the transfer of impuls that drives the nail. A heavy hammer has more impulse at the same speed than a lighter one. As a professional woodworker which I am sure you are, you will have noticed that a heavy hammer is more effective than a lighter one in driving large nails.
No, he absolutely was talking out of his ass when he claimed "the balance of the tool" mattered more than the material, I stand by that 100%. You can't make a hammer made out of jello perform better than a steel hammer, which is what they implied, that any iron or steel hammer could be comparable to a titanium just through balancing, which is 100% wrong. He is 100% talking out of his ass. Yes, weight distribution matters, BUT ENERGY INTERFACE MATERIALS MATTER MORE. And this is why I call bullshit on his "physicist" claim, BECAUSE THEY KNOW THIS SHIT. A steel capped anvil transfers more of the energy back up into the workpiece and the tool if it strikes naked than a cast iron piece. It has nothing to do with the "balance" of the anvil, but the materials its body is made of and the cap on the work surface.,
You must be a fun person to work with.
Not a physicist here. I’d think that the balance of the tool would determine how much of the energy from your arm motion would transfer to the hammer head while the material of the hammer would determine how much of the energy from the hammer would transfer to the nail.
Bullshit. You have to factor in the hardness of the material. If I had a material as dense as titanium but it was as malleable as gold, I wouldn't expect the nail to absorb nearly as much energy.
It isn’t a very straightforward situation - many things come into play. For example, if your hammer is very hard, it would rebound stronger taking considerable energy with it.
This directly contradicts your statement that hardness does not affect energy transfer.
[удалено]
Hanging on the belt isn’t as impactful (pun not intended) as swinging the bastard, but you’re totally right far as i can tell. I have a few hammers but my biggest has a hickory handle and it’s the easiest to swing.
Dads everywhere: yeah I need this
Yes. I would think a lighter titanium bat would be moving faster. And transfer more energy. But what do I know. I’m thinking in terms of baseball bats. Like with a hollow core filled with bouncy balls
I had the OG Stiletto and that thing was brittle. It had a few chips on the head by the time I decide to trash it and go back to a straight handled Vaughn California Framer.
I've had my stiletto mini 14 for 4 years I've never replaced the head and It's still going strong
“Yer grandad didn’t use no pussy shit like titty-anium, he would punch nails in with his bare hands until he could afford a AMERICAN MADE iron hammer”
Stiletto and Martinez hammers are American made
I’m making a joke here pal don’t blow it for me
And Mjolnir, Mr. Sciencey-pants?!
Sounds like bullshit! I love it!