Jump to content
I Forge Iron

Ironduck

Members
  • Posts

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Maine USA

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm comming late in reading and now posting to this thread, and it is tempting to let the dog lie but in the oft chance that someone is still considering the OP I shall offer the following assessment. For me it has been both an interesting and disapointing thread to read. So many knowledgable Smiths in regards to methods that have worked for them, both in practice and in teaching settings, but I'm not sure that many were listening to each other or staying on the topic or kernal of the OP. Brian didn't help his cause much during his opening proposal or his early attempts to convey motivation of the same. I usually find Brian very good at explanations, but he failed to explain clearly what was deficient about the weld or the teaching method, and worse yet, failed to offer suggestions, early on before the emotions surfaced, as to how to mitigate the weld's shortcommings or a better method of accomplishing the weld. You made several attempts, but each was late in the game and at that point emotions seemed to be surfacing by all. Now if the weld was taught with a purpose and as a means of both building confidence and rudimentarily showing a simple forge weld, then I think all is well and good. But while the glow of success is still bright (during that teaching session) there needs also be an explanation or demonstration as to what the weld or method deficiencies are so that the student understands what to look for in a weld, and furthermore gives the student cause to consider what is going on near and at the boundaries of the joint so they can better choose jointery methods or preparation. Is this done in classes coving forge welding, I don't know. But it should be, otherwise the learning experience is more than just lacking. IMO kudos go to Anvil for his understanding of the OP and his methodlogical explanation of how to achieve a proper (translation: as near complete weld with most importantly, no loss of cross-sectional area at the weld or adjecent to it). Unfortunately others continued talking about end use, completely missing premise of the OP (poorly presented as it was I still understood that Brian wsa concerned about x-sectional area preservation as much as fusion along the boundaries. Now, I am not a disciple of any of the smiths that post on this or any other forum, though it would be a disservice to say that I haven't learned a good deal from each, herein or at demos. As was said more than once in this thread there was "a failure to communicate."
  2. Ironduck

    forge

    interesting design. With all the air currents flowing under, and cooling, your forge shelf, does the chamber get very hot (all things being realitive)?
  3. Ironduck

    Tongs with an attitude

    Too beautiful to use - definitely a display piece.
  4. Ironduck

    5# of 1095

    OD, I'm shocked that none of the experienced Smiths on this site haven't commented about your choice in metal. Do you really dislike your anvil that much that you'd use 95pt carbon steel on it? (a good bit higher concentration than is warranted - 45pt might be a better and safer steel.) You should always want your hammer a bit softer than your anvil (a hammer is a good deal less expensive to replace or repair than an anvil). Hopefully someone PM'd you, but that doesn't help the other new smiths that might see this chunk of steel and think that it's OK. You asked for advice, so that is my contribution (find some 1045 for your first hammer - also a tad bit easier to forge than 1095).
  5. Ironduck

    Mystery tool

    Ben Smith is the closest to being on mark. They were used by linemen to twist hard drawn copper overhead lines (making what was known in the 40s, and there about, as a Westinghouse splice). You needed two sets of the "crimpers", as shown, with a proper space between them and then they were rotated about the axis of the wires that were placed in adjacent parallel grooves. Some time during the 50s it became common to place the wires in a copper sleeve first and them twisting the bundle.
  6. Peter, Thanks for your interest in my optimization of JasonM's original post. I don't have any dimensioned drawings for the entire treadle hammer, except for the free-body diagrams of the Hoecken's mechanism, as the rest of the treadle hammer would need to be sized according to the user. (I'm 6'-2" tall and what would be comfortable for me for the type of use I would want for this hammer might not fit the needs of most others). The wooden prototype that I threw together was aproximately 1/2 scale, and was mostly just cut on the fly - no drawing for the frame (only the Hoecken's mechanism). As in the PM I sent you, I will look about my boxes some time over the next two weeks and dig out these drawings and calculations and forward to you what might be useable or readable (I tend to do a lot of margin scribling and doodling on my drawings while I'm thinking, so I'll probaly not send much of that). But If I recall most, if not all, of the critical size ratios for the linkage is shown in one or two of the pictures I inserted in my original post. Tubbe, I'd be interested in what the arm and linkage ratios were that you used (Maybe I'll try to scale them off your lego mock-up). Placement of the ram pivot points in front of the ram would make for a more compact hammer mechanism, but the drive link operating within the space of the throat (space between the ram, or anvil, and the column) reduces again your available working space if one where workiing a larger piece. (it's all a trade-off no matter how it is designed). I'll be interested in doing some calcuations to see if your optimization of the linkages maintains as straight a line as the Hoecken's. At first glance I like what you did, but I fear that the change in geometry and pivot rotation points will cause some front to back oscillations. What was your expected ram travel for a specified arm length? -Charlie
  7.     Daniel, I'm a bit late to the parade, there's been a good deal of deserved encouragement and positive feedback given by others, but I'd like to offer some unsolicited recommendations. Now please don't take any of this negatively. You're young and show tremendous talent (you tongs are well made), so this is all the more reason that it would be a crime if you were to leave the craft prematurely due to frustration, fatigue, or injury (I mention that only because you seem really tense in the film - relax your shoulders and breath naturally). Now for the benefit of others, digital cameras are notorious for showing hot metal as being hotter than it really is, so my first suggestion is to let that beefy chunk of metal soak up some more heat and reheat it long before it gets to cherry red (that's likely what it was when the video showed orange). You'll find the metal moves easier and you don't have to work as hard (more on that shortly). A good example of what I'm talking about is at 3:26 into the clip - you'll notice the outer surface of the metal is moving lengthwise but the center is not keeping up (that's one of the reasons for the spikes at the end of your stem). I realize that tapered stems are all the craze, and I'm not going to comment on their time or place, but what you desperately need is a set of butchers, a set tool, and someone competent to strike for you when you are trying to move stock that size. Making bottom tools out of 1-1/2" stock on a 100kg anvil with a 1.5kg hammer without someone striking is boarder-line madness. The persistence that you show is commendable, but we should be working smarter not harder - the craft is more enjoyable if you're not beating yourself up at the anvil. Besides, you've got to make that arm, and all its joints, last a long time yet. (I won't belabor this point any further - I've taken off my medical hat.) Otherwise, real nice work. Be the future of the craft. -Charlie
  8. Dale, I'm not sure I know what tongs you are calling "round nose", unless you are talking about farrier's tongs? As for making the jaws on your tongs, always consider their intended function. For example, box jaw tongs made too light or thin will not do well to hold thick material, and conversely rivet tongs made too stout will draw too much heat from the rivet before you get to upset the rivet. Considering that you're just starting and looking for information, I would like to add to the reference that Francis Trez Cole provided, The Blacksmith's Manual, thought slightly off topic, you might be interested in other "free" manuals that were published by The Rural Development Commission (RDC) such as The Blacksmith's Craft, Wrought Iron Gates, and others. You can download PDF versions of these at http://www.hct.ac.uk under the reference or download tab (just can't remember right now). Another good site for information is ABANA or doing a search on the Internet Archive (search for tongs, blacksmith, metal work, etc). Good luck with your hammering, Charlie
  9. Deadlines definitely work for you. Not quite traditional celestial Pisces in layout, but unquestionably elegant in form. -Charlie
  10. Fancy word - well as ciadog already stated: "Door lites", but possibly Door fenestration is more what you were looking for. And regarding the iron work - very nice indeed, and all in eight hours - I trip over too much stuff in my shop to be able to work that quickly.
  11. TubularFab, The candle holders look real good. Your trouble with maintaining uniform pitch could be addressed by instead of curling the rod individually, take two rods (or three rods if you want a really steep pitch) side by side and wrap them simultaneously around your form (pipe, large rod, or some other mandrel) and when you've got the coil length you want just uncoil the rods from each other and finish the ends as necessary. The extra rod (s) will determine the pitch and help in maintaining uniformity in the wrap, and it also means one more gift for someone - Just a thought. -Charlie
  12. Arranged as they are, they're look good - but they might interfere with use of your anvil. ;) Or is that why your wife liked them, so you'd spend more time inside with her.
  13. Dave, Looks nice. I have to second JohnB's suggestion regarding the guide tube for the latch handle - but that would be for your next stove. Also regarding the handle it looks like it will be terminating somewhere in close proximity of the stove's heat surface - maybe it would be better to have had it angled differently and had the handle portion more loosely spaced like that of the old parlor stove lifting handles - better cooling (looks like a tapered coil springs wound around the shaft of the lifter). Overall, nice work. -Charlie Had to go back in and edit my post, which I made before seeing the last of your photos. (just deleted a bit about a impingement or baffle plate. Regarding you draft, how high above the roof line or nearby obstructions is the top of the flue?
×
×
  • Create New...