dan_m

My thoughts as well. And in case Fe-Wood doesn't see this, I PM'd him last night and he said he ended up finding a press for cheap at an auction and never built the one he was referring to in the thread.

Oh, and in that picture, the ram plate is 2" thick by 8" deep, and the guide plates on either side of the .5" spacer are 1" thick by 8" tall.

I'm using WF 8x35 I-beams as the guides, photos of someone elses can be seen in the second link in the original post. Here's a screenshot from my sketchup drawing showing what I plan on doing: The flange on the beams in .495" thick and the spacer on the guide plates is .5". Hopefully it's sturdy enough, I've already got the beams cut to length and have all the plate so redesigning it with round posts at this point isn't really an option. Plus Randy's works really well and while not the same design it uses the same principle. I just read through the post that kubiack linked to, and Fe-Wood mentioned using a bar linking the two cylinders with a piece underneath that drives the plate. That sounds pretty reasonable to me, so I might run with that idea. As designed now, it's got a maximum opening of 19" between the plates, so I can spare the extra inch or two. EDIT: Just put that idea into sketchup and it makes no sense to me, although maybe I misinterpreted this: Here's what I got: I can't imagine that crossbar not bending, and putting anything under the rods defeats the purpose.

Gotcha, I was trying to figure out whether I should get the open center or tandem center (what you're referring to). I went with open center because I figured not blocking the flow to the A & B ports would maybe ease the pressure slightly when I took my foot off the switch, saving a little heat in the workpiece. Probably nothing significant, but that was the only real difference I could think of. Never considered the press at rest with the dies open! I just looked at ordering the tandem center version of the open center solenoid I posted the link to, but the GPM rating on that is just under what my pump puts out, and the next size up is double the price, and I'd need a bigger manifold too. I guess it'll just fall down when I'm not using it, but it's good info to have. Thanks!

ptree, I was going to have the guides 8" tall above the 2" plate. Any thoughts on the sufficiency of that? The maximum stroke is 20". What kind of situation am I looking at if they did go out of sync? Thanks for the link kubiack, I'll check it out tonight as I'm about to leave for the afternoon

Thanks ptree! I'll definitely take your advice on the o-ring flange connections, thread sealant, and tubing guards. This is the solenoid I ordered: https://baileynet.com/index.php?page=Search&id=14&srchsrc=SearchBox&sbmfrmas=Submit&baileynum=220-308. The guy at Bailey told me that would work, hopefully you won't tell me he wrong.

Thanks for the tips Jimmy. I'd already planned on what you recommended for the tank, the fittings, baffle, drain etc. Got a filled gauge too. Didn't think about unions in the lines, but that's a good idea. Grainger has an adapter to make a 184T frame a 184TC, so I can use of of those pump/motor adapters that covers the coupling and keeps everything in alignment. The motor is three phase, so I can set its rotation to match the pump.

Get a spring centered valve, it has springs on either end that are depressed when you are in either of the engaged positions, so it automatically returns to the open center when you take your foot off the pedals.

I'm going to be using two 6" cylinders for my press, since once you go above a 6" bore the price seems to jump drastically. My two cylinders cost $295 each, versus well over $1000 for any 8" I could find (two 6" cylinders is equivalent to a single 8.5"). I hadn't done any research into synchronizing them because Randy is running his parallel cylinders without any control mechanism other than the mechanical coupling of having them both attached to the plate they are moving. When I was putting together my order at Bailey last week, the guy strongly recommended getting this 50/50 flow divider/combiner: http://baileynet.com/index.php?page=Search&id=14&srchsrc=SearchBox&sbmfrmas=Submit&baileynum=270-704 It is out of stock and they don't know when it will come back, so I looked at Surplus Center for something equivalent. The flow dividers there specifically state that they are not suitable for synchronizing cylinders, and upon doing some more research I'm finding that synchronization without digital control is apparently difficult to achieve. Randy's works fine without even a flow divider though, so if anyone has experience with this I'd like to know your thoughts on the best way to go about it. Is the mechanical coupling to the plate enough, or am I risking damaging the frame if one cylinder decides its going to push more than other. And would a 50/50 flow divider help the situation, or is it useless for this application? Some extra info that may be helpful for this, the cylinders I'm using have a 5/8" hole in the rod ends, and will be pinned to thick tabs welded onto a 2" die plate. I'm using the ibeam frame and guide system that Eric Fleming used (pictures here: http://www.flemingknives.com/largepress.htm). My beam has a flange thickness of .495", and for the ram guides I'm planning on using a 1/2" spacer with a 1" guide plate on either side (will make sense if you look at Eric's pictures). I'll make the plumbing from the control valve to each cylinder exactly the same to minimize any differences in flow to the two — rigid lines, exactly the same distance, etc. Any thoughts?

Mine will be foot operated, electric though rather than mechanical linkages to a manual control valve. Solenoid and manifold with a double, momentary foot switch. Try baileynet.com too, their customer service is top notch. Last week I spent over an hour on the phone with a guy there, and he had me explain what I was doing and then helped me assemble a list of components that worked with each other, and even went through each part of the system and recommended hose sizes etc although he knew I wasn't buying those from them. I asked if I should order with him over the phone so he could get a commission but he said no, he's just technical support. They'll always get my business from now on, that phone call saved me at least a few days of research since this is my first hydraulics project. And I figured I'd build a larger press from the start...I'll end up saving in the long run by not building a smaller press and then needing the bigger one shortly after. I had originally planned on building a 35 ton (one 6" cylinder), but after Randy was nice enough to have me over and show me his press, I decided I didn't want to go any smaller than that so I just got another matching 6" cylinder. I'll take some pictures of the materials I've got in the next couple days and start a thread for it.

Ah, well I most certainly appreciate the detailed response, but I just ordered everything about an hour before you posted that (trying to start the build this Thursday, waited way too long to ask the question). Given that I'll have NPT fittings, what's the best way to deal with it? I'd rather not return the components, especially since I can't order new ones until I get a refund. Is pipe dope the best way to go for that? I understand the potential/inevitable leakage issues, but at least with overrated rigid lines I won't have the safety issues of pinholes or bursting and can always convert things as needed down the road.

The anvil on my scranton hammer is also hollow. It's a single piece of cast iron, with 1" thick walls and a solid 5" thick block on top of the hollow portion. The base is not open, and im not aure how thick that section is. There are two large holes in the backside. I'm on my phone so cant add a picture, but you can see what it looks in the scranton scramble thread (the pictures are of it installed, not laying down).

So I'm about to start building my press, and am slightly confused by the recommendation to not use NPT/NPTF fittings on the hydraulic system. Pretty much everything new you read on hydraulics now recommends against using these fittings as they are prone to leaks, so I was planning on getting hoses made with JIC 37 degree flares. However, ALL of the components I ordered (and pretty much all of the ones I looked at in various places around the internet) have NPT or NPTF ports. If I have to use hose fittings that are JIC 37 on one side and NPT or NPTF on the other, doesn't this defeat the purpose? Am I missing something here? I ask mainly because I would prefer to use schedule 160 seamless pipe instead of hose for the majority of the lines, but that would mean all NPT/NPTF fittings. Anyone here have some experience with this issue? Thanks! EDIT: Sorry, forgot the basic info I'm sure you'll ask for. Running two, parallel 6" bore/20" stroke cylinders with a 28 GPM two-stage pump. Relief valve set at 2500 PSI. Cylinders mounted up top. Also, when I start the build later this week I'll make a thread for it with progress pics.

Just go for it, sounds like like you haven't got much to lose and you can always make a new anvil if it doesn't work out. You'll help some people out down the road regardless, whether it's by proving or disproving an idea. New and awesome things don't come about by doing what everyone else has already done.

Mark, have you thought about going with annular cutters for the bigger stuff? I picked up a mag drill for cheap a couple months ago that came with a 1" annular cutter, and after drilling a few holes with it to test it out, I'm slowly switching over to those for everything 1/2" and up. They are much more expensive up front but don't require frequent sharpening, are much faster, and produce a cleaner and more accurate hole. Though they're most often used with mag drills, you can get an adapter for the drill press which apparently works well—I haven't done it yet, but will as soon as the need arises.

My press is going to be right next to an exterior wall, so Im thinking of putting the motor and pump in a box on the outside of the building and running the hoses through the wall. I'll probably run the cylinder on the vise off the same setup, with an adjustable flow control valve (probably a bit too much speed having a 28 GPM pump pushing a 3" cylinder at 15 inches per second!).

Better yet, make it hydraulic. After I build my press, I'm going to make something similar to what Larry did, but fabricate my own instead of converting a post vise: I have a piece of 2" x 8" 1018 plate I'm using for the platens, and will split the drop for the vise jaws. 1/2" through holes will allow for using a bunch of different jaw inserts, bending jigs, etc. In addition to being an awesome vise, it will also function as a horizontal press/bender.

Bought a multicolor pack of electrical tape the other day. Makes it easy to tell which plug is which without tracing it back to the tool.

I didn't realize that was a joke, you should try it sometime and see how it works out. I cut my leg short like Brian's (not quite as much, the top of the jaws are at 30"), and welded the leg to a piece of 7/8" flat bar. The bar is bolted to the slab, with 1/4" piece of rubber between the steel and concrete for a shock absorber. The main plate under the vise stand has the same thing under it. Works well. Picture and description here:

Glenn, I like your idea for using carraige bolts. I don't mind the pockets that will fill with scale, since I can always vacuum them out if I needed to remove the nuts, but they'd look nicer. And yeah, I'm not really into the way the Hay Budden is mounted, and I think what you are describing is how I mounted the Peter Wright (correct me if I'm wrong...), but that's how it happened and I'll leave it unless it proves to be a problem. I don't agree that the only point should be to prevent the anvil from moving sideways though. When you strike with a hammer, you are presumably, at least most of the time, putting force straight down on the anvil. I dont think this alone should move it sideways across the stand, rather I believe it's a result of the anvil hopping ever so slightly with each blow. If it's even slightly airborne, as in even just a fraction of a millmeter on one corner, it can move any which way with relative ease. They do rebound hammers after all, so consider their springiness. If I had to choose between bolting it straight down and putting in brackets to prevent sideways movement, I'd go with bolted down. Preventing sideways movement is accomplished with either, but even though I haven't tried it I'd bet that if you took the same anvil, and same stand, and tried bolting down vs bracketing you'd find that bolting it down made it quieter. I could be wrong, but that logic makes sense to me, and my anvils barely make a sound the way they are mounted. I like my vises on dedicated stands so I can work 360 degrees around them. My primary bench vise is on a stand similar to the one pictured for my post vise, but it's higher and lacks most of the vibration reducing features since I don't hammer on it. I also just bolted some 1.5" square bars to the bolt holes of a spare bench vise, so I can drop it into my platen table to use for holding stuff to weld after tacking it together, but not much else since the pegs have a decent amount of play.

Rory, did you forge the rings or run them through a roller? Your work looks excellent, as usual.

I'd recommend this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLkDQUOu_Y0

I've always heard it as "prior planning prevents xxxx poor performance". I suppose the "proper" is an important modifier. Glad you're alright!

Stick a big hamster wheel on that and you've got a cat-powered blower. Your arm will never get tired with that setup.

The legs are cut at a 20 degree angle, so the ends are a little bigger than 2" in one direction. I welded them to the top part of the frame and a little bit of each leg protruded on the inside of the rectangle. Alternated pouring sand and oil with a piece of folded sheet metal to prevent spilling it. On the vise stand, I just welded the tube to the base, filled it, and welded the top plate on from the underside. Edit: the top part of the frame is not filled, since I drilled through-holes for mounting the wood. Just realized you might have been asking about that part. If you wanted though, you could mount the wood, lay it down, drill a hole through the side of the top part, fill it, weld it shut, and stand it up. But then you'd have a huge mess if you ever needed to remove the wood.