Heavier Sockets Make More Power? Stumps Physicist 

Lmao got a physics professor to Ghost you after making an interesting observation! That's why I love this channel, and also the straight forward approach to letting people know what tools actually do, vs their advertised specs! Thank you for your Content!

What matters is moment of inertia, which is mass x radius squared. This is why your hollow socket performed well - it probably had the same moment of inertia of some of the far 'less heavy' solid versions you tried. The mass at the larger radius has a very big effect on moment of inertia, where the mass you saver by making it hollow has a relatively small effect. It's also why the IR one performed less well with it's flywheel cut off. You probably didn't reduce it's mass by much (30%?), but enormously reduced it's moment of inertia. You only have a limited amount of energy from each impact from the wrench to accelerate the socket. This is why 'heavier' (i.e.a higher moment of inertia) isn't always better. Imagine a socket with an insanely high moment of inertia. The impacts from the wrench will be so small relative t o it that it'll not move at all. This is why the whole front wheel doesn't turn when trying to undo a stuck wheel nut with an impact wrench - the energy from each wrench impact is almost totally insignificant because the moment of inertia of the whole wheel is enormously high relative to what the wrench is designed to turn. There will be an optimum moment of inertia of the socket for each impact wrench running at a particular pressure, where the energy it has from each impact to accelerate the socket is transferred most efficiently to the socket (and then 'dumped' into the nut or bolt. The highest readings you for will be where the moment of inertia of your socket most closely matched this optimum value for that wrench and air pressure (mechanical impedance matching).

Mechanical engineer here, the goal of these attachments is to achieve better dynamic frequency responses out of the tool. The resonant frequencies are difficult to pinpoint and just about every condition influences if you can perform at a resonant frequency. If your attachment makes the tool perform at a natural, resonant frequency, you will see force multiplication on the output. I think there’s a MythBusters episode about this.

Something I noticed from your graphs: The super heavy lead socket seemed to not hit its peak in your short duration tests. It started out slow, which makes sense. It's a lot of mass to get spinning. But it also never hit that plateau that you see from all the other sockets. It's slow to get spinning, but that also means that once it is spinning, it's also carrying more momentum and slower to STOP spinning as well. I'm curious what it would do in a longer test.

06:23 - The welds along the washers will be flexing, reducing torque transmission and losing energy to heat in the flexing motion. The other designs use a single body which massively reduces flexing. The flywheel one may be using resonance to store energy and release it in between hammer blows. It may perform differently on different impact wrenches, providing little gain on one but more gain on another. Total guess.

From the results it would seem like that the more outwards the mass is, the better it is. So maybe you could try to weld together a souped up flywheel design and give it a go? Also, perhaps a good way to test the effects of rigidity vs. outboard mass would be to use pipes of same weight but differing sizes and wall diameters.

Every time I watch a video on this channel, I have the same thought: between your obvious intellect, the creative and entertaining ways in which you test various products and theories, and the ease with which you articulate the results, Astro hit a grand slam when they hired you. I sincerely hope they realize that.

I think the flywheel acts as a resonating element (constructive interference). If so, then it only works well on some tools where the forces, masses and spring constants are in harmony.

This channel is informative, uses clear communication, and delivers it with a humorous, entertaining voice-over. Well done!

A couple of thoughts: -Firstly I think it’s most useful to think about this problem in terms of angular inertia. E.g a weight put further out contributes more to inertia to the socket than the same weight close to the center line. - In those terms it looks possible that all of the sockets that perform well kind of cluster in the same region. Either having little weight far away from the body like the hollow socket or a fair bit of weight concentrated close the the center like the Lyle. -This suggests that there’s an optimum amount of angular inertia for a socket to have -If this is the case then we can explain the lead and heavy washer sockets low performance by them being further from this optimum amount. -But then why does this optimum exist? -I can only hazard a guess but we already know that increasing the hammer mass of an impact improves its performance. -But we’re not increasing the mass of the hammer you say. True but the socket is the hammer from the perspective of the bolt. -That would explain why increasing the weight of the socket improves performance. But we also need to explain why there’s an upper limit where performance drops off. - If we again think of the socket-anvil-hammer system as the hammer from the bolts perspective perhaps the super heavy socket prevents the system from reaching its maximum speed during the split second that it’s being accelerated by the impact before it in turn impacts the socket. This all suggests a couple more experiments. - Does relocating the weight of the socket to further from the centre also improve performance as my tiny knowledge of physics suggests? -Does my guess that it’s the weight of the entire socket anvil hammer system hold up. If we move an oz from the hammer to to socket what happens? -If we force the issue and remove all slop from the socket anvil joint by say welding the socket on does the impact perform the same? Awesome video as always

My gut instinct says it is the difference between regular inertia, like when you throw something, versus rotational inertia, like when you spin something, since an equally weighted socket with more mass at the outside would have more rotational inertia. Regardless of how anyone feels about the matter, there are absolutely some things that you can do to test the theory and narrow down what is causing the particular behavior of the IR Powersocket. What you could do is make 3 more home made sockets as a test. 1: a homemade powersocket, which is a regular socket with a ring at the base. 2: welding a ring at the bolt end instead of the drive end. 3: a powersocket with a much larger ring. Having a much larger diameter ring would absolutely confirm or deny the rotational inertia theory. Testing with a ring at the front versua the back will test if the effect is stiffness related. Perhaps the most power loss in a socket is at the interface between the impact drive adapter and the square hole of the socket and having extra mass/inertia at the base of the socket helps counteract that?

Have you considered making a "flywheel extension" (a short anvil extention with a flywheel welded on it) so the weighted flywheel could be added and removed using any socket? Would be a handy tool to have if it worked the same

Excellent video presentation, you were able to lead us to the conclusion without spelling it out and confirming what your findings suggested with a reputable source. It’s interesting that these impacts are so powerful that you are actually losing power from the sockets flexing as this video shows, and also might explain why the effect could be lesser with larger sockets, because they are larger and more rigid and aren’t being delivered the same power per volume of steel, so there is less lost energy in vibration.

The way to solve this (I think...), is to make a hollow socket with different diameters but same weights (or at least very close). I wonder if at some point there would be diminishing returns as you go wider, or maybe not if you can keep the same weight somehow.

I appreciate how the questions you bring up are the exact questions that pop into my head while viewing your video. Those same questions are answered as best as possible a few seconds later or in a future video. Alot of diy's, professional, scientific, etc...youtubers, just gloss over or completely ignore obvious questions their results bring up. Amazing video. U da best.

Spring tension might be a factor. Metal used in bolts and tool steel isn't 100% rigid, if it was, it would sheer off or fracture under torsional load. The flywheel design might be using that spring tension to keep the socket from "flexing" as much when the impact hammer releases it's energy into the socket.The metal wants to spin the opposite way that you twisted it because of spring tension in the metal. Theoretically, you could reduce that from happening with a flywheel.

Very nice start. Gotta identify all the variables to the extent you can. Fitment to anvil, fitment to bolt, eccentricity of mass, internal rigidity, thermal properties during stress; those occur to me but there are surely more.

Engineer here, my guess is that the free play between socket and nut is critical here - after each impact, the socket is bouncing back and getting a "run up" for the next impact. If so, the extra rotational inertia lets you build up more kinetic energy during this tiny run up window, much like a heavier hammer does inside drive. There could also be a natural frequency tubing element here, getting the socket to bounce back and forth in time with the impacts to help amplify. The high speed footage will hopefully show this. I'd like to see some tests between sockets that have very snug fits vs ones with some slip to see if this helps or hinders.

Love the curiosity here and the determination to confirm things and not just accept manufacturer’s claims! Love the experiment with molten lead socket and “modifying” the IR socket!

I would love to see you test a homebrew socket with and even wider flywheel design. A ridiculously wide, yet similar mass experiment to see if equal or even less mass at a further distance from center increases the moment of inertia.

In a way the heavier sockets help facilitate a form mechanical impedance matching, similar to how a horn amplifies sound. Mark Rober had an excellent demonstration of mechanical impedance matching in his video on the worlds largest horn where he demonstrates the effect on a block of jello. Also the drum might be more efficient due to the moment on inertia for a ring/tube being greater than a disk/cylinder, allowing for a more efficient use of a given mass. You could test it by having to sockets of the same weight but make one hollow.

Maybe some sort harmonic thing happening? Everything is a spring after all. Those webs in the IR socket may be flexing under impact and the rebound is imparting more energy into the blow.

Thanks for doing this - exploring why some things work and some don't 👍 The only sockets that conformed to what I thought were the lead socket and ultra heavy ones. Great channel !

Got home from work and was super happy to see a new video from you guys, especially since I've been waiting for a test like this and plan on buying the Lisle 19mm. Also, I just bought at 4am a Ridgid R86012 with charger and battery for $150 (black Friday deal) due to your amazing videos and still might have to pickup the R86211 HT used at some point. Thanks for all the amazing content!

It would be interesting to see the weighted sockets on the high speed camera. The heavy mass ones, might not show much. I would think the Ingersoll Rand Flywheel design and hollow design might show some interesting things. I would think the flywheel would whip helping the internal weights. I would also think the weight of the socket would be limited by the hammer mechanism of the impact. I’m just a HVACR Tech and ex Farmer, that’s my non engineer opinion. Really appreciate your channel and testing.

I have every Lisle socket they sell and use them many places were you can fit them on chassis and suspension bolts when you need them they are cheap and work great

I had to get a weighted 17mm for my honda crankshaft. It wouldn't budge with a normal impact socket but as soon as I put the weighted socket on it and gave it the beans, came right off. Super useful socket.

Great demonstration!

It makes some sense to me. While it does take more energy to get a heavier socket moving, as long as you have that energy to get it moving it then has more momentum and will apply a higher torque before coming to a stop. Hence why the more powerful wrenches benefit more from the weighted sockets, and why going too heavy is detrimental when you don't have the energy to get it moving at a decent pace. I would imagine that the lead lined socket with something like a 1" impact behind it would perform even better. Things get complicated when you're dealing with impact forces and not continuous ones. Also the reason why the hollow socket performed well despite being light, like the IR socket it places that weight further from the axis of rotation which increases the torque and momentum that it was.

Great video concept and execution! Don't be too fussed about the prof ghosting you, but it would be nice to get some other views from physicists on the matter.

great video! love the science; keep up the great work guys!

Like @allupro said in a previous comment, I believe the further out the weight acting on the pivot point (bolt head), acts as a lever applying torque in the forced direction. They all start out similar to the regular deep socket, but once directional momentum is achieved and the outward most mass is accelerated to the nominal force that the gun can apply, the weight (with its momentum) is applying more torque as a lever effect. The hollow socket reduces mass to achieve the momentum required for the torque, but also has the majority of its mass further from the fulcrum.

I bought the OEM 6 piece set of crank sockets. They work great, would like for you to test them they are only $99 set. My opinion it rigid because it’s thicker and won’t stretch or flex and adds a little weight which helps up to a point

I'd love to see one of those hollow sockets filled with lead shot. I'd be curious to see if the dampening effect would hold the socket against the hex more consistently. Most of the power loss I've seen from impact sockets is from the socket bouncing backwards and the impact impulse being partially lost from the air gap created by that bouncing.

The answer comes not from a static analysis like the Physics prof did, but by a harmonic analysis of the tool. It is the flexible/spring characteristics combining with the outer mass that do several things. In the first stage, the flywheel resists the blow, but stores the energy. In the second stage, the socket hits the bolt head and the flywheel returns the energy to increase the overall torque. In the next stage the flywheel actually stores some energy at the end of the impact. Next stage, that energy anti-rotates the socket between blows. This backwards rotation makes it easier during the next cycle to store energy in the flywheel because the socket gets a tiny bit of free turning before it hits the bolt and experiences resistance from that. Ultimately, the ideal design would have far away mass combined with a golden amount of flexibility connecting it to the socket.

Awesome video guys... I've always been curious about how much of an advantage weighted sockets offer. Interesting findings with the mass distribution too. Thank you very much!👍🏼 - DB Welding Services - England -

I would be curious to see how precise the fit of the socket on the anvil and the bolt would affect it, I feel like I have noticed a difference between different brands before I wonder if it's because one brand fits better

I think the harmonics of the socket might be a really big influence, I'm wondering if the test results would be different with a different impact that has a different hammer mass and/or different BPM?

God bless you for your merit. I loved all of this. Your questioning intrigue and plain spokeness without being high & mighty. Just seeking an answer. And your willingness to question those answers you received. In real world examples. This was a great video. I thank you so much for sharing.

The reason the lead socket didn't work is because lead is a damper material and doesn't transfer impact force effectively. There has to be a balance of torsion and rebound speed along with mass. Those are the physics behind the IR socket, the bigger the diameter, the faster the rotational inertia resulting in more force with a smaller mass. Lisle uses the heavier mass at a smaller diameter approach. I have several variations of these sockets myself both retail and shop made and can confirm they do work. Great video as always 👍

There is a logical solution from physics standpoint. The stiffness of the socket increases the capability as it flexes less as you might think about torsion reducing sticks that only goes so far and start flexing. The mass might improve things but as for why the heavy spacer stack and lead version did not succeed is based on the fact that those have a low torsional rigidity. On the lead the lead is so soft that it flexes itself and the spacers were only strip welded which gives flex also. This is why the hollow large diameter pipe was a good one as the pipe is very rigid. The flywheel one shoud be very hard steel and delivers impact very well.

I would really want to se a continuum of this tests since the lead socket did have a pretty steep slope at the end of the test so might overtake the other sockets in a 30s test or something

Fantastic. 👍 Please keep up the great work. Very interesting 👌

@Torque Test Channel I might be thinking of this the wrong way but here we go. The flywheel socket has its mass farther out from the center. So it is easier to move when the impact happens. Theoretically then the same weight even farther out from the center would hit even harder. Your hollow socket had more mass that the flywheel but it was about the same distance from the center. If you had too much weight closer to the center then it is harder to get moving i.e. the two heavier sockets you used. The amount of force the impact has when hitting was less. An object at rest has the tendency to stay at rest and vice versa. There would be a spot where the flywheel will be too far out/too much weight and you would see diminishing return on the action. But it would be neat to see where the sweet spot is on weight vs. distance.

Wonder if the tightness of fit between the wrench and the socket (and extensions) as well as the socket to nut have just as big of an impact as the weight.

Perhaps the lead absorbed the energy? Maybe a hollow with a heavy flywheel made of strong stiff metal would be ideal?

Learning about tuned mass and such. High speed cameras and impact wrenches are a great combo.

Super interesting topic. Thank you for sharing this with us. 🙏

Do you think a heavier battery transfers more rotational force to the fastener as well. We usually attribute all the gains of a larger battery to the added pixies. Would be interesting if you added weight to a Powerstack.

These are not new (weighted sockets and bits), but your data collection and testing is! I don't wrench every day, but when I do it's helping with 5,000 lb dies with hex bolts with millions of injection cycles on them. Usually, just in an attempt to restore a moulding surface or to replace components. I find AirCats don't do it sometimes without significant heating (which is foul as all heck) so a torque assistive device such as these would likely help. As for the IR (I am not an enginerd but I play one at work) the toroid was attached with 3 spokes. The spokes could act as a delay or offset disconnecting the input torque from the output. Applying the spinning mass outward from the centre of applied rotation might be a torque "run up" with each impulse. The IR socket body just acts as a normal socket without the ring on spokes. I don't know. The hollow socket seems, to my mind, doing the same thing in a round about way. The mass is lower but applied further away from the axis of rotation. Man, this is all so much fun and interesting! (The stacked washers appear to be end welded with a few beads, so one would assume a lot of energy loss is happening there between the lack of connection of the washer's masses) l have to make one of these on Monday. Thanks TTC!

Awesome video. Thanks for sharing.

I've found through hands on experience using many designs of those sockets on many stubborn crank bolts that it has something to do with the sockets ability to not bounce back between impact blows. Heavy alone helps keep it from counter rotation. Flywheel designs move the helpful weight from the center to act as leverage. Making that small weight be more useful than being on the socket wall. Your hollow design multiplied that by being light and even bigger in diameter (leverage). More power is transferred because it's not having to overcome extreme weight but the amount of weight used to hold pressure on the fastener between impact blows has leverage. I suggest a video with a deep socket with a bolt head welded to it. See how far it get. Then add a wrench to it with incremental notches to add weight to. Impact to limit Then add the wrench. Then weight to the first notch to limit. Move out till you run out of wrench.

What an awesome video, I love investigations like this, so much fun!

My stab at this is harmonics/resonance. The inners of that impact gun revolves with a certain speed under a certain load. The speed in combination with the weight of the anvil and rigidity of these parts will ideally translate into the impacts that is relayed from the gun to the nut without delay and energy loss. In most cases the natural frequency of the main components (determined by mass, stiffness, shape etc) mismatch, and there will be a lot of rattling around and wasting of oomph. In ideal cases their frequencies will match (could be first, second or third order and so on ) and the impacts will travel from the gun to the screw head in a cleaner way. There are also several unknown factors as play between the parts that could affect the result.

Fantastic video as always! Interested to see where this goes. Maybe the flywheel added to rigidity somehow? (I'm only a high chair physicist at best)

Thank you for this video - this has been puzzling to me up until I watched your video I believe that also harmonic vibration is at play here from the Impact Wrench . Henceforth some type of small harmonic balancer/damper or dampener may be the solution . The Rattler brand performance harmonic balancer is composed of internal rollers that absorb or displace resonance with variable rpm . Using an impact is WOT (wide open throttle) so a design with a rubber elastomer sandwiched in your hollow socket design may be on the right track .

What is at work here are several factors combining to work together. #1 is a combination of flex and flywheel momentum causing a 'double whammy', especially with the IR flywheel socket. It is the opposite of what happens with a harmonic damper on the front of an engine, because instead of the flywheel being connected by rubber, it is connected with semi-flexible spokes of steel. When the impact from the gun hits, it sends both a shockwave and rotary kintetic energy through the steel. Some of that energy is also potential energy being stored by the flexing of the steel in the socket, then as the flex hits the flywheel, it sends the energy on through the socket and eventually hits the end of the socket which turns into kinetic energy at the lug nut. The timing of the potential energy release hits in a way that magnifies the blow rather than dampen it. This also explains why the I.R socket doesnt work as good on hammers with faster bpm or lighter blows, because the timing of the flexing of the material doesnt match the bpm of the gun. It is similar to using resonant frequencies to multiply forces and why anything large made out of metal has to have its resonant frequencies either dampened or mitigated in some way. Bridges, cars, etc. In automotive, cars are so quiet now and dont crack sheet metal as much because much effort has been given to address NVH (Noise, vibration, and harshness). Your lead filled socket didnt work because lead has a vibration dampening property to it- instead of transferring energy to the other side of the socket, it flexes and converts that vibrational energy into heat. Simply having flywheel mass doesnt work without the spring of proper steel. The large diameter, lighter weight socket work well because they transfer the impact torque more efficiently than a heavy skinny socket. It is the opposite effect of using a torque limiting extension. The futher from the axis of rotaion you get, the less force is applied to the steel socket wall, therefore less flex and more direct impact hit. There may be some harmonics helping the equation as well, as there is more surface area to resonate a shock wave.

I love this channel seems to always touch home with me my son and I just got the Lile socket getting ready to remove damper on his daughters Honda hope it works

I feel the hollow socket is near a sweet spot in which the weight (and placement of said weight) allows the socket to reach optimal momentum (therefore delivering more kinetic energy) while simultaneously optimizing the centrifugal force applied to the socket and therefore the torque applied to the bolt. Here's a link to how to calculate it. (I posted this like 2 hours ago with the link but my comment keeps getting taken down? Maybe because of the link? You can find the calculator at omincalculator. Im sure you'll find it) I'll continue researching it more as well! Also, thank you for all your great content. Your clarity, humor, and rigor is more IMPACTFUL than you realize.

One useful thing to test is how much the rigidity of the connection between the wrench and the socket affects the applied impact. I.e. if the socket is shrunk-fit onto the torque wrench, then they essentially act like one piece and you only have impact transfer from the socket into the bolt. But if the square drive is loose, then you have to transfer the impact from wrench to socket, and then from socket to bolt; so that means you have to impedance match the "moment of Inertia" twice, and you have two occasions to lose energy. The looser the connection - the more slack it has to take out before it acts like one piece. Now I reckon, that with a really tight socket (welded, shrink-fit), you wouldn't need any extra weights on the socket, and the extra weights should only hurt. (I'm using simplified phraseology here, obviously it's about dynamic moment of inertia and not weights)

love that you did the practically test at the end! To play armchair physicist for a moment....I think the professor my be under estimating the power of these guns. Given sufficient power, the difference in resulting angular velocity is likely quite small, within the reasonable weight ranges you tested. You could try to find what is "sufficient", rather simply, by restricting the pressure/flow to your gun. really enjoy your videos, well organized and packed with data...and just the right volume on the impact noise!

Great testing! It’s super interesting. I’d recommend for you to get a lathe and make the diameter of the sockets you need 😇

I've used the Lisle and was blown away at how well it worked on those stubborn F-series Honda crank bolts. I figured it was partly the increased mass, but also some increased rigidity allowing better torque transmission. Absolutely bitchin' that Astro's making a hollow socket, good work! Now find somebody to manufacture your gas-powered impact!

Thanks. Very interesting and I could use that homemade one when I take off my leaf springs on my Jeep YJ soon. ;)

Cool testing for sure!

As many others have stated, the mass isnt as important as the moment of intertia. My theory is that the moment of inertia needs to be tuned to the impact mechanism. You might gain some more info by attaching scales to your impact sockets and watching them in high speed video, plot the rotational position, velocity, acceleration etc. I wonder if permanantly attaching the socket to the anvil would help too. Last thing, if you want maximum mass tungstem is the material to use. You can buy tungsten wire on mcmaster, which you can then wrap around your outer tube. Then braze it in place. maximum mass concentrated far out. also a good way to increment the mass.

In my 400 level FEA class in engineering one of the effects we looked at is the multiplication of force caused by the fact that forces applied to a part travel through the part and can reflect back(think pressure waves). So if you manage to set up a reflected wave properly it can multiply the final output force at least on occasion, and you end up landing some heavier blows even if it isn't on every blow from the impact. The lead socket was probably VERY good at dampening vibrations in itself, the best performing sockets probably ring the longest when struck (good luck holding the solid boy from lisle in a way that allows it to ring though) The design of the IR might be based on trying to get vibrations to reliably reflect around to and from the mass ring through the spokes.

I tihnk it's the inertia on the outer ring of the flywheel socket that gives it the extra oomph. The weight is concentrated farther out, giving that mass a larger radius, which gives it more acceleration, which gives it more energy. It takes more energy to slow it down, so when the bolt tries to stop it the socket form turning, the extra flywheel energy is applied to the nut. I suspect what you can't see, is that it takes more energy to accelerate that socket because this socket and the regular socket both accelerate very quickly. It's like using a hammer on a fan clutch removal tool, the bigger the hammer, the more force applied. The longer the arm (so long as it does not twist and absorb the energy), the more force applied to the fan clutch hub. The hollow tube having more rigidity makes sense because more energy is transmitted to the nut and not a twisting twisting socket. Listle wins with rigidity, Ingersoll wins with extra energy. So the most ideal should be a hollow socket with a flywheel mounted on it where the anvil comes into the socket. You would need to draw a line and watch the socket with a high speed camera in order to see if the socket is actually twisting. If you put too much weight on a hollow socket, it will twist, the most weight you could add without it yielding would give the best results. Only other variable I could think of is too much weight could bog down the impact and absorb too much energy, but that's something you would have to test too. Great video! And the guy who made that hollow socket is freakin' smart!

Yeah it appears that centrifugal force meaning the force moving to the outside has the advantage...good stuff... which is why the IR socket makes a lot of sense to me.. and the hollow socket... using all of the weight outside of the center mass... Astro tools could make it a little Slimmer with more weight on the outside it's like throwing weight out while it's spinning and the spinning increases

I had to watch this video twice to soak in all the info, good stuff! I think the professor left the chat because you proved that extra mass on the socket up to a point does improve performance. In my mind I equate you guys tightening a bolt to a carpenter driving a nail. A heavier framing hammer drives a nail in with less blows versus using a dollar store claw hammer as long as you have a big, burly carpenter using both hammers. But give him a sledge hammer and suddenly a bigger hammer is a hindrance. I believe there is a point where a heavier socket is like the carpenter with a bigger framing hammer but there is also a point where too heavy of a socket is the carpenter is swinging a sledge hammer. Too heavy of a socket becomes too much enertia to overcome for the impact.

Nice video I help my brother work on his tractors One of the bolts on the Allis Chalmers is supposed to be torqued to 600 Foot Pounds But after crud build up and corrosion the air impact sometimes had problems So I took a 5" dia piece of 3/4" plate steel and welded a flywheel type add on to a 1 1/4" deep impact socket That made a world of difference breaking those nuts loose So I bet that idea should work also on a 19 mm socket

Wow thats some serious work there!

good for you sharing this new information!

Wow great video man. the best most Interesting content on the stuff 👍

The high speed camera footage will be very telling. The ability for the socket to not flex would be the key ingredient. I have a feeling the flywheel on the IR socket helps keep the socket from twisting has more to do with performance than the added mass helping it. You guys should take the output drive on a impact gun and tig weld it directly to a bolt. By eliminating the slop in the socket fit (on both the socket to bolt head and drive to socket) and 100% of any loss due to twist, the numbers it posts should be the best of all of them. I am a really good tig welder and would be happy to do this for free. Just chuck the bolt in a lathe and turn the face of the bolt flat and the same on the impact drive face. I can have it set out the day after I receive it 👍

Smarter Every Day would love to take a deep dive into this

Awesome video! So I guess the convo with the professor begs the question: do more rigid sockets provide more torque? Also I wonder if some of those sockets weren't perfectly aligned, making it less balanced and potentially lose torque?

Awesome video, thanks. I have the same experience. I made weighted socket for my fake makita, just big nut welded over the 17 mm deep socket, similar to IR. But it's worse than cheap noticeably lighter 17 mm socket. Looks like more weight just eats energy from weak impact wrench and don't transfer it to the bolt.

Haha, I can't say what is happening, but as soon as you summarized the prof, my immediate thought was "No, he's wrong, cut the flywheel off the IR and prove him wrong!" I was very gratified to see that almost immediately.

I have weighted lisle sockets, they work great. Never had a crank bolt not come off using it.

Strain-gauge analysis on an oscilloscope will show that a normal socket delivers a pronounced spike which is readily absorbed by the target material, whereas the modified socket delivers a continuum of stored energy which goes out of phase with the rebound of the target and thus results in a much higher total energy transfer over time. It's quite simple, really.

I had a similar theory about air hammer bits too; a heavier, denser tool will stay more deformed and almost spring loaded between hammer blows of the tool

This is outrageous and I love it

Wheel weights are a reloader’s friend! Loved that lead casting ASMR 👌🏻

Have never had a problem getting those Honda bolts off with a bit of heat. Really doesn’t take a whole lot of torch time on the end of the nut. Below the amount that would melt the seal or belt cover. Done many times with no problem at all. I did get one of those flywheel style socket though for lug nuts that won’t come out. In this way the other fat socket won’t fit most lug nuts. So it is the superior product.

The shot tword the end of the guy using the socket on a lug nut gave me an idea, try making a flywheel type mass out of a short 1 inch extension. I know there would be losses because reasons, but it would be usable on many different sockets. You could also play with weight diameters and see the difference.

The set up measures mechanical losses from the driver to the dyno. Looking at socket weight as the only variable shows that increasing inertia of the socket will lessen the force transfer. The rigidity explanation makes sense in this regard as well. The flywheel is confusing, but I have an attempt at a thought. The rigidity idea got me think king about the atomic bonds as a series of springs(fairly common physics analogy). If the flywheel is attached by a much smaller number of springs( ie the thinner support arms) the initial acceleration of the socket might be less affected by the flywheel. As the rotation of the socket outpaces the flywheel the springs stretch increasing the spring force will decelerate the socket and speed up the flywheel. This then happens in reverse as the socket slows down between impacts. The flywheel smooths out the torque applied by the driver, perhaps resulting in better torque to the dyno? -Mediocre student who managed to get Guy a physics bachelors a few years back.

If you want to add further data, machine a bolt with a square drive in the end. I know this removes one of the joints and that will improve torque. The IR socket is likely creating resonant frequencies that works with the hammers. It's also possible the vibrations are helping the "shuffle" the threads lowering the torque needed to tighten. I have seen that make a difference when loosening bolts using a Hytorc and hitting the socket with a hammer (I do not recommend this, simply relaying information).

Is Astro Pneumatic going to sell the weighted socket? Your Friday videos keep getting better.

The professor is correct on all points. Your last question has to do with the springiness of the long bolt on your test set up(and crankshafts)where the additional mass is able to counteract the lower force of a weighted socket in overcoming the bolt bouncing back on every hit. It's explained in the Ingersoll weighted socket patent.

This needs a smarter everyday collab for sure!

Vibration through the tool in to your hand is a big part of getting power delivery as well. If you're using a sloppy worn out deep impact socket that's shaking all over the place you wont get as much power transfer as a shallow socket, although the deep socket weighs more.

I have the 4 popular size Lisle brand sockets. I use them a lot on rusty suspension bolts. I got mine for $20 each. As I was told. The thickness of the socket kills the deflection and allows more of the impact torque to be applied to the head of the bolt. I don't question the magic behind them. I just know if I need to break these sockets out. It means I am done messing around. Both the 19 & 21 one sizes I have used on lug nut the would come off, and in about 3 blows. It is needing a stud replaced cause it just cranks it right off.

I feel like this would make an awesome collaboration with Smarter Every Day. He always searches for the best most conclusive answers!

I think it's all about finding the right resonant frequency that most closely matches the tool itself , and this subject is touchy for most physicist because everything is frequency even matter and throws just of everything you've learned in high school text books out the window. But if you think of the ir socket with the flywheel before you cut it, I'd be willing to bet if you hit it just right you get a certain amount of ding much like a tunning fork and same with the hollow socket. Maybe those two are closest to the actual resonant frequency of the tool itself. To test my hypothesis one could actually use the blows per minute to come up with a hz value, whatever that may be, then in turn create a socket that will resonate well with that hz value. Think of energy much like a tunning fork. I think Mr Tesla was right when he think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.

If you melted the lead out of your test socket it would work better. You had it before you "fixed" it. I was with you though. Then after seeing the results I saw the flaw in the weighted socket. IR socket is the best. You could make a ring of heavy iron, weld it on with stand offs and make a better socket, but your welds better be top notch. This was a great test. Well done. Really makes you think about what you think you know.

Fascinating. My best guess is that the ring was actually adding rigidity.

I wonder if the skinny cross section of the IR sockets spokes are allowing it to flex in a twisting motion. The spring effect could be allowing the socket to absorb more energy, some being stored as spring tension. Also when it strikes the fastener it may also have a longer dwell time or harder hit because it rebounds. The inner socket strikes and as it's slowed down by making contact the outer section that is flexed releases and rebounds the opposite direction. Damping the blow would seem to make it less effective but I know from experience that with hammer style bullet pullers if you hit it on a magazine or something fairly dense but compressible it's far more effective than a hardwood table top, and the hammer obviously rebounds harder.

Mechanical engineer here. You don't tune a rotating object by just adding mass, you tune it by adding rotational inertia, which is a combination of mass and distance from the axis of rotation. Adding the same amount of mass, but further from the axis of rotation, adds more rotational inertia (while adding the same mass). Hollow fesign (and the flywheel design) maximise rotational onertia to mass ratio. It may also be a case of tuning for vibration effects, but someone already commented on that nicely.

The extra mass further away from the center of the shaft acts like the flywheel that it is. The extra weight does slow the response of the impact twisting. But, the force in motion wants to continue in motion. This would explain the sweet spot of weight and the distance of the weight from the center of the tool. It’s like putting a wrench on a stuck bolt and hitting the wrench with a hammer, the farther away from the bolt that you hit the wrench with a hammer, the more torque is applied at the same hammer speed.