BACKGROUND OF THE INVENΗON

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

This invention most generally relates to portable striking tools, more particularly to mauls, sledges, and single-bit and double-bit axes with a n improved striking face angle. Even more particularly to a wood splitting maul having a head unit with an improved striking face angle and a handle. The improved angle is created by a straight line of the face extended to a pivot point in a bottom end of the handle substantially at a user gripping section and a line along the longitudinal axis of the handle.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PRIOR ART

Not much has been described regarding the angle of the striking face of a tool. U.S. Pat. No. 4,433,709 by Porter describes a drywall hatchet with a striking end at an angle of about 95 degrees to enable the user to drive nails close to the intersection of two room surfaces and to reduce the risk of dimpling the drywall. U.S. Pat. No. 4,882,9555 by Savnich teaches a hammer with a generally square striking head offset 45 degrees to improve vision and accuracy, but no angle is specified for the striking face. U.S. Pat. No. 5,261 ,164 by Bellegante teaches a swiveled axe an d hatchet where the striking face angle is varied by a flexible joint in th e handle for use by firemen.

The safe way to split wood is to adopt a swing bending the knees so that the hands end up at approximately the same height as the head of the maul or axe at the end of the stroke. If one stands with his knees

straight without bending over and the implement misses the intended target, the axe, maul, or sledge may continue its arc and strike the leg or foot of the worker. Therefore, the bending of the knees and the lowering of the hands is an important safety step.

Generally, the prior art shows a head unit with an angle of the striking edge or face which is substantially parallel to the handle. Using a safe wood splitting technique with the prior art maul results in th e striking edge surface meeting a log surface or a wedge surface at a n angle. This uneven contact results in a loss of energy, a burring of th e wedge and/or the striking face (if metal to metal contact), and a jarring sensation to both the handle and the human user. Over a period of time these slight imperfect contacts result in unnecessary fatigue to the u ser through loss of efficiency, burring of striking surfaces, breakage or weakening of handles, and possibly significant jarring to the user. Observe that a hardware store will stock as many spare handles a s original mauls, axes, and sledges. They expect the handles to break in ordinary usage.

It would be desirable and advantageous to have the striking face parallel to the wood to be split if the sharp end of a maul is used. 1 1 would also be desirable and advantageous if the striking face of a sledge (or blunt end of a mall) would be parallel to the metal wedge to eliminate the disadvantages outlined above. It would be an additional advantage if the improvements cost no more than for a normal maul or sledge hammer.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

Basically the present invention in its most simple form or embodiment has the striking surface of the maul or sledge hammer at a n

angle defined by a straight line through an uppermost point and a lowermost point on a striking tool head unit striking face to a pivot spot substantially between a handle bottom end where the hands would grasp the tool in normal use and the approximate location of the elbow of th e user and a line along the longitudinal axis of the handle. The exact location of the pivot and thus the angular measure of the angle formed b y the two lines is necessarily a compromise location and angular value because of the differences in the size of the persons using the maul

The inventor hereof wishes to further provide some reflections which lend additional insight into how and why the invention developed as it has.

Having split wood a good part of his life (80 years), he came to th e conclusion that the wood-splitting mauls, as they are manufactured today are about the poorest tool imaginable. There appears to be n o engineering considerations given to the design of the tool.

Up until the time that he got into the chain saw business, he n ever gave any thought as to why, after installing several hundred handles, h e noticed that they were being broden by good woodsmen with no sign of why they broke. To try to solve this problem, he watched several people swing their splitting mauls.

It became quite clear what was causing the problem. What was involved was centrifugal force and a 360 degree angle. A maul head, from any he has seen, would work very well in a pile driver. Put a handle on it and you can no longer bring it down straight. No matter if you swing only one foot in distance, it is part of the 360 degree circle. The back corner of the splitting edge would cause a percentage of th e power to be wasted. Worse, the power lost had to go somewhere. I t ended up trying to break the handle and put a terrific strain on arms an d back.

Using a cutting torch he cut out what he thought was a perfect splitting head. He angled the splitting edge so that a straight-edge placed in the center of the cutting edge would line up with the handle at about 44 inches. He left the steel wedge-striking end (the hammer face) with no angle. After cutting and splitting considerable amounts of wood an d using the hammer face to hit wedges in the process of wood-splitting because of the soft metal of the maul head the hammer face "peened" over.

After grinding the splayed edge, i.e., the burrs off a home-made (soft metal) maul one day, the inventor noticed the surface of the hammer face was no longer flat but had substantially the same angle as the cutting edge. That is, the angle formed by a line defined by the hammer face an d the center line of the handle was about the same angle as that of th e cutting edge. The surface of the hammer end of his maul, if extended, pointed to a pivot point somewhere between approximately the handle bottom end where his hands normally held the maul and the location of his elbow of his left arm (which elbow location may be the "pivot location or pivot point". He made another maul designing the end with splitting edge along this same angle. With the new angle of the striking surface, the inventor noticed a much improved efficiency. Less energy w as required to split the wood. Because less energy was required, th e inventor was able to shorten the handle to approximately 28 inches, still use less force, and take a shorter swing than before. Yet his results w ere the same or better than before. The angle of the burring of the blunt en d did not change with further and continued use. There was almost n o handle breakage anymore. Although not verified through clinical studies, he felt much less tired and fewer aches and pains than before. He attributed this reduced level of discomfort to less jarring because of parallel strikes which resulted in no handle counter forces. Clearly, i t

appeared that there had to be considerable advantages in making th e splitting maul with the angle substantially as described. People who h av e been involved in the wood splitting and cutting business have for m any years been concerned about the breakage of handles by very experienced users. Why did handles break when there was no evidence of so-called "strike over" (that is causing the handle to hit upon the target rather than the maul or sledge head hitting on the target)? The answer lay in the fact that unwanted forces develop in the handle wasting energy and causing handle breakage. These undesireable or unwanted forces are cause a t least in part by the lack of an appropriate angle to the cutting edge an d the hammer face.

Clearly, the improved face angle may have a variety of applications more than just a splitting maul, such as sledges or single-bit or double-bit axes and may be made from a variety of materials.

An advantage of such an improvement is saving wear and tear on the tool itself. A look at a hardware store where such items are displayed will confirm the fact the stores stock as many replacement handles a s original tools.

It is a primary object of the present invention to provide a striking tool head unit suitable for attaching a handle where at least one of th e striking faces conform to the improved angle described above.

It is a further primary object of the present invention to provide a striking tool comprising a head unit and handle where one or both of th e edges (or face) conform the improved angle described above.

It is a another primary object of the present invention to provide a n improved wood splitting maul where the striking faces conform the improved angle described above.

These and further objects of the present invention will become apparent to those skilled in the art after a study of the present disclosure

of the invention and with reference to the accompanying drawings whi ch are a part hereof, wherein like numerals refer to like parts throughout, and in which:

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 is a perspective view of a maul with one edge at an improved angle.

FIG. 2 is a perspective view of an embodiment with both the front and back striking faces at the improved angle.

FIG. 3 is a side partial view of the end of the straight face embodiment.

FIG. 4 is a side partial view of the end of the slight curved face embodiment.

FIG. 5 is a side plan view of the applied force and upward resultant force from a non-parallel strike.

FIG. 6 is a side plan view of the applied force and downward resultant force from- a non-parallel strike.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS

The following is a description of the preferred embodiment of th e invention. It is clear that there may be variations in the tools to which this invention may apply. The construction, exact shape, and material of the head units may vary to the use intended. Likewise, handles my vary in size, shape, or material composition. However, the main feature of th e invention is consistent: the angle of the striking surface of the splitting edge is defined by a straight line through a topmost point and a lowermost point of a striking edge to a pivot point at the handle bottom

end where the tool is grasped by a user and a line through th e longitudinal axis of the handle. The exact angle is a function of the handle length and head unit width.

Reference is now made to Fig. 1. Wood splitting maul 10 is shown having a head unit 12 with a handle 14 suitably attached. The head unit 12 has a splitting edge 20 which has a topmost point 22 and a lowermost point 23. Improved angle 25 is determined by a straight line 26 from the topmost point 22, through lowermost point 24 to a handle pivot point 27 and a line on the longitudinal axis 28 of handle 14. It is important to note that angle 25 has a magnitude which may vary as a function of the length of handle 14 and also the size of the user of the maul. It appears that th e true pivot point may be at the approximate location of the elbow of th e user. However, pivot point 27 must be characterized as lying somewhere between the user gripping location of the handle and the approximate location of the elbow of the user of the maul.

Fig. 2 shows another embodiment of the invention. A wood splitting maul 30 is shown having a head unit 32 with a handle 34 suitably attached. The head unit 32 has a splitting edge 40 which has a topmost point 42 and a lowermost point 43 and a hammer end 50 which has a topmost point 52 and a lowermost point 54. The splitting edge 40 has a n improved angle 45 which is determined by a straight line 46 from th e topmost point 42, through lowermost point 44 to a handle pivot point 4 7 and a line along the longitudinal axis 48 of handle 34. The hammer face 50 has an improved angle 55 which is determined by a straight line 5 6 from the topmost point 52, through lowermost point 54 to the handle pivot point 47 and the longitudinal axis 48 of handle 34. Here again pivot point 47 is defineable as being between about the grip section of th e handle and about the location of the elbow of the user of the maul.

Fig. 3 shows a detail of splitting edge 20 of head unit 12. The

straight line 26 is shown connecting topmost point 22 and lowermost point 24. This embodiment shows splitting edge 20 to be an essentially straight line.

Fig. 4 shows a detail of another embodiment. A head unit 60 is shown with a splitting edge 62 which is slightly curved. This embodiment is different because the splitting, edge 62 is slightly convex although still generally defined by a straight line 68. A topmost point 64 and a lowermost point 66 are shown with the straight line 68 which are similar to their counterpoints in the other embodiments.

Figs. 5 and 6 show the result of an ordinary maul 90, which could b e a maul, single-bit or double-bit axe, or sledge, when the surfaces are not parallel. In Fig. 5, when maul 90 is swung toward target object 92, the applied force 94 is down. The maul 90 stops and the maul rotates around pivot point 95 and resultant force 96 is a downward thrust of the handle. The resultant thrust, although slight, jars the user and weakens th e handle. In Fig. 6, when maul 90 is swung toward target object 92, the applied force 94 is down. The maul 90 stops and the maul rotates around pivot point 95 and resultant force 98 is an upward thrust of the handle.

The use of an improved wood splitting maul is no different than th e use of the mauls defined in the prior art. The safe way to split wood was described above. The user bends his knees and back to finish the swing so that his hands are close to the level of the target object. The difference is in the result: less work expended by the person, more efficient splitting of the wood, and less wear and tear on the equipment and user.

It is thought that improved mauls 10 and 30 and many of th e attendant advantages will be understood from the foregoing description and it will be apparent that various changes may be made in the type of striking tool, in the size, the construction, arrangement and materials u s ed for the parts thereof without departing from the spirit and scope of th e

invention or sacrificing all of ■ its material advantages, the form hereinbefore described being merely a preferred or exemplary embodiment thereof.