mudbugone

Maybe this thing IS rare ? http://www.iforgeiron.com/topic/17521-158-lb-swedish-cast-anvil/ I think if I can ID the Star w/ crown inside logo on it I may be better able to ID the actual anvil itself. Found this...here http://www.fholder.com/Blacksmithing/q&a.htm Swedish Anvil Question: I have an anvil that I got from my aunt. The only markings on it are a single star, below that it has “made in sweden” and below that in about 1 inch letters it has the weight, 109 lbs. I don’t have a picture of it that I can get on the net as the markings except for the weight are quite faint. It seems to be one piece with an attached face and rather long horn. Any idea what it might be besides heavy? —Ed Dunn Answer: What you have is an anvil made in Sweden, possibly in the 1930’s. Their weight was in pounds, they had a single star with “Made in Sweden” below it. They were advertised as being made from one solid block of Swedish Charcoal Steel, with no face plate to come loose. Don’t have any information as to who manufactured them. There was an ad in the Janney, Sensple, Hill and Company catalog, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1930 that lists an anvil like yours. —Fred Holder This is the only mention of the star with crown stamp other than the above question.. Beautiful 134 lb. Kohlswa Blacksmith Anvil that is in Excellent condition. Swedish made anvils are one of the best anvils ever made anyway This anvil features a nice face, clean edges and an upturned horn. This anvil's face is perfectly flat with just a few use marks. This anvil has an great rebound and nice ring. The anvil is marked with "KOHLSWA, SWEDEN" on one side and the weight mark "134 Lbs." stamped on top of a "Star w Crown inside" and "MADE IN SWEDEN". That description of the markings pretty much matches the anvil I have---MINUS the Kohlswa,Sweden stamp...

I know it rings like a church bell. It's odd no one seems to know what it is or who makes it. Someone online suggested it's rare,but I doubt that... Hopefully someone will be able to ID it----Not that it matters really since it seems to be perfectly usable and let's face it..... that's what it's for... I'll keep looking and let you know if I find info on it. I was given several short very large pieces of big beams today (18-20" sq. & 2-3' long) which will make mounting the anvil as well as a couple of the large switch plates simple.

I found the following anvil while at the local scrapyard last week looking for items to show the American Pickers film crew when they came to film my stuff last Friday....a 10 hour day! I bought the anvil for $75 and then 700 pounds of railroad rail pieces,3/4" switch plates and 5 cannonballs,..... After I bought the 60's BSA Chopper that was leaned against the back of their building. I think the anvil is a 108 lbs if the stamped numbers indicate weight. The "Star" has a crown in it if that helps to ID it. Thanks

As a matter of fact one of the scrapyard guys called me the other day because someone had brought in a WWII Japanese sword and he wanted to know what it might be worth. I glanced at it and it was in poor condition (rusty),but I did determine it was probably a mass produced sword from WWII. If anyone is interested I'll get more info on it and maybe some pics. The scrap guys are always getting interesting items,but I can't keep constantly in contact with them or I'd go broke and never get things done...

Good Luck Jason... BOTH designs look great...Hope you get it ironed out.

That Grasshopper Hammer design is complicated to the point I think they revamped the design to make it simpler and there are 2 designs available for building it. I found the following linkage design and it may be closer to what is used in the original hammer that started this thread. I would think 4 of these linkages would be required to build the hammer in order to keep things aligned correctly,but that's only a guess on my part. Four assemblies would keep the tup aligned and allow the required motion. The original hammer design has an awful lot of movement going on and 4 of these linkages would also. I may be incorrect on this ,but I'm including the design of the linkage in this discussion for others to decide. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSlMYcC1OM&list=FL5YW2dmKsRRevdup2xsZMMA&index=3&feature=plpp_video

That explains it...over here they use plates and wider bases on the larger rails to do the same thing. From what I've seen an eccentric is usually used on a straight shaft,but there is a lot of machining involved to replicate that design. I found the following design that's for a small scale model,but if sized larger should be workable for such a machine application with some modifications

Good Luck on the project. Looks seriously heavier than your first hammer. Those rail chairs are interesting haven't seen those before. That looks like trolly rail instead of standard rail material,but it looks like it'll be great for your intended usage. I found a bunch of it several years ago and like an idiot didn't grab a couple of sticks,but at the time I was purchasing other material for different projects..Can't hoard everything I guess..LOL Thanks for sharing your project ...that crankshaft looks interesting. I need to make something similar,but I'm going to try to make it so it can be disassembled by fabricating it out of pieces instead of a solid crank.

There is a slight chance we might be able to contact the original builder... He was last active on his YouTube account within the last couple of months... The linkage setup is more complicated than it first appears. As you watch it actuate it seems to progress instead of being a simple action as in the straight line videos. It really is a wonderful design and hopefully how it works will be explained eventually. Just as I thought I understood it's operation something else started moving...LOL... Facinating machine.

I went back and viewed the videos again several times and paused them and tried to superimpose the straight line linkage into the design .. I can't do it... while similar in some ways there is a great deal more going on in the linkages of the hammer design than in the simple Roberts design. It's as if the design was doubled somehow with movement front and rear that keeps the hammer head aligned. If anyone sees this differently Please respond with some insight on it.

The videos aren't that clear because the linkages & the hammer are all in black. It's an interesting discussion though... Similar linkage,but in a vertical pattern instead of horizontal for a clearer understanding of the motion. Do you think this is the linkage design being used on the hammer in question ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5y0rcmESxcY&feature=related

It's a great hammer design ,but you guys do see this original posting is from 2010 ? I even tried to contact the original poster thru the YouTube video comments without success. Don't know if something happened to him or not ,but he seems to have vanished from the internet which is a shame. I thought he might resurface at some point and offer up drawings or plans for sale,but that hasn't happened either. Too bad...like the rest of you it looks like a top notch design ,but I fear it may be lost since the trail has grown cold for some reason..

If you remove the valve and flush the cylinder with either water or CO2 before cutting there should be no issues.... If you leave the valve on and don't take any precautions then you might have a problem.

Very Sweet deal.... that's a lot of money involved. The gas bottles alone are a couple hundred bucks each and that's a really nice Lincoln too. Mine's a twin cylinder onan 225 and it's DC ,but I think yours might be more usable being AC especially since the power outlets are AC too. Probably enough power to use a smaller wire welder off of it and maybe even a plasma cutter,but for sure any power tools.. Keep the Lincoln out of the weather and it'll last a lifetime. Buy your Uncle & his wife dinner out...

Found these pics http://www.leboncoin...s/297703415.htm and an older example http://www.forgefr.c...e1718ec8785bd7b The photo only http://www.forgefr.c...ed/84173898.jpg notice the anvil I don't read French,but thought you guys might like the shots.

Interesting... with a 40-50 pound hammer head weight and a 400-500 pound anvil weight you have a 10-1 ratio which was what I was trying to determine. Thanks..

I didn't say the anvil would be filled with iron dust... The chemicals described back a couple of pages causes a reaction that solidifies the mass... not the same as fluid powder. The resulting anvil would be a very solid mass that would not compress,breakdown,or pack.

All that mass addresses Mac's question earlier about the foundation mass being part of the equation of the anvil mass. The solid concrete mass under the hammers naturally adds more mass to the hammer itself. Those are both rather large hammers and beyond the scope of a 50# homebuilt hammer ,but the general concept of the base adding to the hammer mass is valid. This explains why the old power hammers gave directions for massive foundation blocks for installing these hammers. 5'6" of concrete is a substantial mass and 12" ain't tiny...anyone that's poured concrete knows this.

LOL... I'm not planning on making one out of cement even though I think it would work with a thick enough top plate. With a top plate around 100# and a filled pipe under it I think it would function,but that's just my opinion and I'm not advocating that anyone should do it that way. This whole discussion started about using the granular cast iron particles and finding a way to solidify that material into a mass to use as an acceptable anvil for a power hammer. I've seen nothing that would preclude using this material for doing just that. Actually if anything I think it's been proven that this stuff can be solidified and will make as good if not a better anvil mass than even a Little Giant hammer... at least it'll actually be a solid mass directly under the tup. I'll make you a deal though... I'll build a pipe anvil filled with re-bar and cement and fix whatever hammer I fabricate so the anvil can be swapped to try out such an anvil and we'll all see what happens to it. I've got the pipe and I'm willing to gamble some re-bar and a bag of cement to experiment a little. I intended to make the hammer anvil a bolt on assembly anyway. Worst case it'll make a super vise stand...LOL

I'm sure those are all valid points and reasons why the casting is hollow... What I find interesting is the general demand that the anvil "MUST" be a solid mass directly under the tup while in reality that demand was obviously circumvented with the Little Giant design and considering the quantity still in use it surely didn't seem to cause a problem. Makes one begin to think that the general thinking on this matter is more hogwash than reality when dissected and examined with logical thinking.If the Little Giant can function without the mass directly under the tup...then there is no reason any other design couldn't function just as well if designed in a similar manner. Yes..the heavy cast iron hollow housing is tapered and this probably aids transfer of the impact to the mass of the base,but it in no way alters the fact that the base is as hollow as a log.It would probably work better if filled with concrete or scrap steel.

LOL... I don't know it might be an interesting experiment... Having done my share of de-construction when much younger I know several instances where we attempted to remove plain concrete (no re-bar) from pipes using sledge hammers and jack hammers... we gave up the folly. Giving it some thought...If you continually hit the side of the pipe filled with concrete "then" the concrete might start to breakdown(slightly) ,but if the impact were to be from the top of the column onto a steel plate...How long would it take to cause breakdown ? will we live that long ? to notice a difference in performance. The whole discussion is giving my idea of using this granular material more validity instead of less. I'm thinking the concrete weighs less than steel so the block would have to be much larger than even cast iron which is lighter than steel too. I'd still be interested in an explaination of the Little Giant void and why that doesn't impact (no pun) the ability of those machines to function considering the lack of mass under the die itself ??? When you consider the harping generally associated with making an anvil for use on a power hammer this fact sorta blows that thinking sky high. There sure seems to be a great deal of assumptive thinking associated with this matter rather than actual knowledge supported by facts.

That fact seems to be omitted from most conversations on the subject.... Any thoughts as to Why.?

I have to agree on the cement composition anvil...I seriously think the repeated cycles of impact would eventually pulverize the concrete. Woodsmith clearly states it hits like a 50# LG and I'm certainly not going to dispute his observation. If anyone noticed there is a huge chunk of steel on top of the filled post anvil which probably weighs a 100# so the filled post acts as a heavy mass under that anvil structure. No one is saying that a totally solid anvil isn't the best option...only that it obviously isn't the only option. I'm looking forward to Woodsmiths action video of the hammer in operation. He stated he's used it to draw 1-1/4" rod and was happy with the ability of his hammer... I could live with that ability. I didn't know the anvil was a composite post until this morning... I'm glad to see someone else is thinking outside the norm and I'm very interested in what he's done.... especially if it works.

This example of building an anvil while not exactly like what we're discussing is certainly along the same lines and the anvil post was filled with metal junk and then filled with sand. I think he built a usable hammer using what he had. I've been following his (woodsmith) progress since he posted the original concept and construction thread on youtube and his finished project seems to be totally functional. I didn't know he was a member here until today when he posted the finished video. http://www.iforgeiro...d-helve-hammer/ The way he used the tire drive is especially interesting.... Great job for $160 and a lot of out of the box thinking. Here's his original build log... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNXm7EiMNw8&feature=relmfu

Well alright Woodsmith... Glad to see you finished and it turned out to be acceptable... I've been watching your progress since I found the first video on youtube a while back. I really like the tire drive assembly mounted so low in the framework that should eliminate rocking generated on other hammer designs where the tire is up high. The positioning of it inline should help also... I like it too.