What's new
What's new

OT Weighted Impact Sockets

I don't see how 'flywheel' effect would apply when the socket isn't spinning. If a nut/bolt is stuck, the impact is trying to break it free by 'hammering' against it. But there isn't any rotation yet.

At $61 per socket, I think I'd just buy a bigger impact.

I believe the increased mass at a greater distance from the axis retains some of the energy, thereby amplifying the power of the impact wrench.
 
I believe the increased mass at a greater distance from the axis retains some of the energy, thereby amplifying the power of the impact wrench.


Dunno, you can't make something out of nothing. The power of an impact (not the wrench) could be amplified by transferring rotational energy gained during spin-in, but where no free spin time is present, I don't think there is any amplification to be had. There may be some effect with resonance, but that would vary with each device and fastener combination and impossible for the common man to predict at time of use.
 
Dunno, you can't make something out of nothing. The power of an impact (not the wrench) could be amplified by transferring rotational energy gained during spin-in, but where no free spin time is present, I don't think there is any amplification to be had. There may be some effect with resonance, but that would vary with each device and fastener combination and impossible for the common man to predict at time of use.

Sound thinking, but maybe the effect takes place within the lash of the whole system (gears, interface between SQ drive & socket, etc...)
 
Dunno, you can't make something out of nothing. The power of an impact (not the wrench) could be amplified by transferring rotational energy gained during spin-in, but where no free spin time is present, I don't think there is any amplification to be had. There may be some effect with resonance, but that would vary with each device and fastener combination and impossible for the common man to predict at time of use.

It's not creating something out of nothing. What it is apparently doing is retaining some of the force of previous "hits" through inertia.

A flywheel doesn't increase the power of a motor but it does greatly increase the stall torque for uneven loads through retained energy.

A shot-filled hammer greatly increases the power of a blow through retained energy that stretches the impact force curve.

I took a look at the official description. IR describes the design as "Dual Mass Spring Oscillator" so there is apparently some movement between the socket and mass ring. Also, for those who say the wheel lugs will be too tight ... they are designed to work (only) in reverse.

Ingersoll Rand PowerSocket(R) adds up to 50% more torque - YouTube
 
This is pretty interesting. The test video 52 Ford linked to was well done and showed clearly more force happening with the IR socket. They also showed some of the IR patent application (not that that means anything definitive). There are probably several physics PhD theses waiting to be written here.

I assume most of us use impacts to break fasteners free to get them off rather than to (maybe over) torque them putting them on. Maybe the guys in that video have other videos about that, I didn't check. My gut says Scottl is exactly right here and even with a fastener coming off where it's not moving there is "spring" in the overall system that can be harnessed.

Jeff
 
Last edited:
Reminds me of the theory that sports car should use a lighter flywheel so the engine can rev up, and down,faster. A big heavy Cadilac should have a heavy flywheel to smooth out the power strokes.
I was using my nail gun yesterday into 50 year aged old growth douglas fir 2x4's. It shot 1.5" nails flush no problems. The 2.5" nails, same diameter, barely penetrated. I assume the almost doubled mass soaked up the power. It seems like they should have gone in the same 1.5 inches but they only went in about 1/4 inch or less.
Bill D.
 
Reminds me of the theory that sports car should use a lighter flywheel so the engine can rev up, and down,faster. A big heavy Cadilac should have a heavy flywheel to smooth out the power strokes.
I was using my nail gun yesterday into 50 year aged old growth douglas fir 2x4's. It shot 1.5" nails flush no problems. The 2.5" nails, same diameter, barely penetrated. I assume the almost doubled mass soaked up the power. It seems like they should have gone in the same 1.5 inches but they only went in about 1/4 inch or less.
Bill D.
Time for a new nail gun! All of my nailers will countersink the max size nail they take. Including my 3-1/2" framing nailer. What type of gun is it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk
 
Way i see it is the slop in the socket to bolt head allows for the socket to gain some rotational momentum before it slams into the bolt head (with the hammer in the impact gun behind it)
 
I'm glad I mentioned these sockets.


I am looking at it, seemingly, the opposite that you are. I'm thinking that the inertia of the "flywheel" forged into the "power socket" keeps the socket flats in contact with the bolt/nut flats between impacts, allowing for better transfer of energy. I'm thinking less of the force is wasted by pushing the two parts away from each other and instead that force is being stored in the flywheel and released by forcing the socket and bolt/nut together in the same direction as the impact force. Even if the force isn't transferred additively, I imagine it'd help to negate the rebound of the socket against the anvil.


Very late at night, very tired. I hope that made sense.
 
A flywheel does little to store energy when it is in an oscillating mode, i.e back and forth impact. What it stores in the CW direction is spent on the CCW return and retrieval.

And the stored energy of a 3" diameter flywheel with little weight when moving at a slow speed is also pretty small.

I still discount the flywheel idea.

IMO, the diameter is there not for flywheel effect but to house the newly-arrived spring. Nothing else.
 
I don't see how 'flywheel' effect would apply when the socket isn't spinning. If a nut/bolt is stuck, the impact is trying to break it free by 'hammering' against it. But there isn't any rotation yet.

The Ingersoll-Rand patent (US9463557) is pretty clear. The impact gets the outer ring spinning, and that ring then drags the socket along. It seems to almost double the impact from a given impact wrench. Someone did a youtube test.

US9463557B2 - Power socket for an impact tool
- Google Patents



At $61 per socket, I think I'd just buy a bigger impact.

Plus a big, heavy tight-fitting socket.

 
Time for a new nail gun! All of my nailers will countersink the max size nail they take. Including my 3-1/2" framing nailer. What type of gun is it?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Tank pressure is 120 PSI regulated down? to 140PSi at the gun. A Hitachi positive placement nailer so a smaller piston diameter then a regular framing nailer.
Bill D
I think those gauges may be just a little out of calibration, don't you?
 
Looks to me like the only positive effect this 'flywheel' would have is when running a fastener in with a fair amount of free spin time before seating. If you hand-tighten the fastener and then hit it with the impact wrench, it seems the added mass would be detrimental, not beneficial. Also, good impact wrenched are pretty predictable on a given power setting, and using the fancy flywheel would make that a wild guess since the faster it turns before seating, the bigger the effect. I also see no possible benefit to removing fasteners. Still a gimmick to me.
My feeling as well. While good 3/4" impact wrenches are expensive (>$500) it would only take buying a half dozen $100 sockets to surpass that and the 3/4" model has WAAY more than 25% more torque.

Impacts are available from1/4" drive all the way up to 1". I have two 1/2" models and one 3/8", all Ingersoll Rand.

And when I put lug nuts on I always use a dab of Lubriplate and turn the setting down to "3".
 
My feeling as well. While good 3/4" impact wrenches are expensive (>$500) it would only take buying a half dozen $100 sockets to surpass that and the 3/4" model has WAAY more than 25% more torque.

Impacts are available from1/4" drive all the way up to 1". I have two 1/2" models and one 3/8", all Ingersoll Rand.

And when I put lug nuts on I always use a dab of Lubriplate and turn the setting down to "3".
IR offers them to 2-1/2" with ~6000ft-lb.
 
Mechanically, there are two things going on, total weight and rotational inertia; these are different. Total weight has nothing to do with the shape of the object in question, while rotational inertia directly depends on the shape.

One can easily see the difference by comparing a solid rod with a dumbbell of the same total weight when trying to twirl it like a cheerleader's baton.

The IR flywheel moves maybe half the mass out to the ring, and the ring is attached to the body elastically (see post #33 for the details). Thus the IR design has far more rotational inertia that a thicker-wall socket, and there is also a spring in between, so the ring stores a bit of the shock from the impact wrench, and delivers it back just after the original shock is over. The hollow socket recently tested will do roughly the same thing.
 
Further to the multiple impact thing my Makita 18 V battery driven 1/4" hex impact screwdriver has a spiffy chart in the manual showing how tightened torque increases with drive time. From memory about 20 seconds of rattling to gte up to its maximum quoted 40 (ish) ft lb. Linear (ish) curve up to 30 and a bit then it slows up.

Presumably same with the garage gorilla doing a permanent wheel fitting job holding his impact gun on for half a minute or so to make sure its tight.

I know I've held my old 1/2" air imact gun rattling away for half a minute or so to shift something that was right up at the top end of its ability. Now have a top end Makita battery one claimed to break 300 odd ft lb so the issue is more not breaking my wrist rather than waiting. Dunno how true 300 ft lb is but it shifted 200 with barely a couple of rattles. Darn near took my hand off on the first one tho'.

Clive
 








 
Back
Top