Buzzkill

Any chance she will let you use it but she still retains ownership of it while you make and sell things to buy your own, or maybe make things for her until she says you are paid off?

You were clear enough. I was just illustrating that you can get a heavier, higher quality, brand new anvil for significantly less than that estimate. If she won't part with it for sentimental reasons then anything you offer will seem like an insult after that bogus estimate. You'd be better off looking for a different used anvil or improvised anvil than pursuing that one imho. Take a look at this thread for some functional, but far less expensive ideas for anvils: https://www.iforgeiron.com/topic/52308-a-collection-of-improvised-anvils/

If the antique dealer thinks it's worth $4K, then have your girlfriend's mom offer to sell it to him for $3K and take that money to buy a brand new 275 lb. Refflinghaus (or similar) anvil for around $2300 and pocket the change. Anvil prices are somewhat location dependent, but a good quality anvil in fair to excellent condition should normally be in the $2.50 to $4.00 per pound range in the US. That one looks closer to "fair" condition than "excellent" to my eye.

I used a power supply from an old PC for the one I built a few years ago. Most of them show which wires carry the various voltages. I believe I used a 5 volt output for mine since the 12v output turned the nichrome wire I used red/orange quickly. IIRC I scavenged the nichrome wire from the heating element portion of an old hair dryer I used for an air supply for a forge for a short period of time. Hard to get all the waves out though, so I did buy a couple feet of wire cheap off Amazon later.

This may be one of the few places that refractory cement or mortar actually has a good use in a forge. I'm not sure the cracks are big enough to be able to fill with cement or mortar though. those cracks would not prevent me from using the forge though. You'll definitely want to monitor them to see if they get worse. Unless you sift the Kastolite to get the bigger aggregate chunks out I don't think you'll be able to get any noticeable amount into the cracks. You could rough up the surface, butter and apply more Kastolite, but it would be more like a patch over the cracks.

TP, that clicks in my head better. Thanks for the explanation. I think I have my mind around it well enough to have an idea of what to expect now. Thanks for staying with me until something sank into my skull.

Hopefully I'll get a chance to try this a few times this weekend. In the interest of making sure I understand what is being said though.... So, if I want to end up with a hole with a 1 inch diameter, then I should make the initial slit probably somewhere between 3/4 of an inch to an inch long to minimize the change in thickness when drifting? Frosty, if I want to end up with a 1 inch diameter hole, but the slitter has sides over 1.5 inches, won't I end up with kind of a tear-shaped hole rather than a circle? Or as the sides which are parallel to the slit get pushed out it pulls the sides perpendicular to the slit inward to end up with a circular hole? I think I may be missing something there.

Makes sense. I just wasn't sure if drifting a hole the width of the starting stock might stretch, and therefore thin, the material as the hole gets bigger. I'll probably try a slit and drift, maybe a punch and drift, and possibly even drill then drift to see what works best for me. Thanks for the suggestions.

I'm planning to forge a couple karambits using slitting/drifting for the large finger ring. The plan is to end up with a hole of 1 inch (maybe slightly larger) diameter with the material a quarter inch thick and a quarter inch wide around the circumference of the ring. Is there a rule of thumb for material starting thickness in terms of how much thickness will be gained or lost by drifting? For example, if I were to drift a 1 inch hole in quarter inch thick flat stock that was an inch wide, could I expect to maintain quarter inch thickness after completing the drifting? I can, and will, do a couple test pieces first, but if there are some general guidelines or expectations for change in material thickness, that could help me get started in the right direction. I'd rather not mess up a pattern welded billet if I can avoid it with some good advice.

Does the beading up happen with plain water or only when trying to apply the rigidizer? If you made the rigidizer yourself did you make sure you got hydrophilic colloidal silica rather than hydrophobic? I have no experience with that particular brand of insulation, so I have no idea if it is the underlying issue or the rigidizer.

I think this may also explain how 3rd party logistics companies have gained a foothold. They decrease efficiency, they create extra work and expense for everyone involved, and pretty much no one who deals with them directly has a positive opinion of them (that I've talked to anyway), but in *theory* they decrease costs by increasing competition. Of course when you ignore the importance of longstanding relationships and overall service, frequently the "cheap" option ends up being the most expensive option. If you can pull up a nifty screen on your computer that shows a bunch of information in real time it must be better though, right?

No, but it gave him a splitting headache.

No. I know that in the US we run on a different frequency than in the UK. Whenever I have to deal with anything other than our normal 110v circuit I do a lot of reading and/or consult with people who know more than I do. I'm certainly not confident in giving anyone else advice in that area. IFC, that's another good idea I'll be borrowing when/if I have to make another drive wheel.

That's pretty much what I did for my drive wheel as well. I clamped the motor to a work bench (with the correct amount of shims for height) and used a piece of RR track as the tool rest. My motor runs faster by a few hundred rpm, but it worked fine and the drive wheel is still doing fine after several hours of use.

You do have a fairly large forge, but that's still (to me) an astonishing amount of fuel burned in that period of time. I run a much smaller forge - less than half your size - using a naturally aspirated ribbon burner (NARB), and while I have never melted steel or pulled out sparklers, I have melted a couple insulating fire bricks. I can get at least 5 hours out of a BBQ propane tank at welding heat. If you're ok with that level of fuel consumption then more power to you, but for me it would be cost prohibitive. You can probably burn significantly less fuel if (as Frosty suggests) you turn the gas and air down a bit once you get the forge hot enough to forge weld. It doesn't take as much to keep it at temperature as it does to get there. Besides potentially making you miserably hot, damaging your steel, and dumping a lot of carbon monoxide into the air near your forge, more heat than you need is just like watching burning dollar bills fly out your exhaust ports.

IF&C, advances in medical care are not dependent on social protective measures. Those will happen regardless. We're already in a pretty good place as far as that goes now, but it will get better. Keep in mind that the average age of those who die due to Covid-19 related issues is still in the high 70's and the vast majority of those people have one or more serious underlying health issues. For a lot of people in that category pretty much any additional health problems could be fatal, whether it be Covid-19, the flu, some other virus that affects the respiratory system, or even the common cold. The reason the focus is on the number of new cases of the virus right now and not the number of deaths is simple: it's not as deadly as was originally thought and we've already developed fairly good treatments especially when we can catch it early. In New York City and a few other places we got caught with our proverbial pants down. That is no longer the case. I said "roughly the same number of people" because I know there could be slightly fewer deaths due to improving treatments. However, we should also take into account the effects of the "lockdown measures." Suicides, substance abuse, domestic abuse, and depression are all at elevated levels as a result. In addition there are quite a few businesses that will be permanently closed as a result. As was pointed out, we do not live in a vacuum. It's disingenuous to only consider one side of the equation. TP if that were the case it might be an issue. It just isn't true in the overwhelming majority of the country. In my area they were putting medical personnel on furlough due to a lack of patients in the hospitals. They were literally laying people off because there weren't enough sick people in the hospitals to justify full medical staff after putting non-critical surgeries and procedures on hold. This was a common theme throughout a lot of the country with the main exceptions being large cities. The stated reason for all the measures was to keep the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. As a sector it was never even close to being overwhelmed, although there were some hotspots which came close to it for a couple weeks. At the outset there were no illusions about stopping the spread of the virus. We were just trying to slow it down enough where we could deal with the resulting hospitalizations. We did that, or the the natural course of things didn't exceed our quickly increased capacity. Either way it's still going to spread through the population, but the narrative has changed to "beat the virus" for all practical purposes. To me that's akin to suggesting you can "beat aging." You may be able to slow its effects to some extent, but it is something that we will endure rather than vanquish. The question for me then becomes, "When you consider all the factors including health, economic, psychological, etc. what is the best way to endure with the least amount of long term damage?" That question does not have an easy answer since it will change from person to person depending on which factors are highest in each person's hierarchy of importance.

One of us is not understanding the other. If you decide that for you and your family it's too risky for you to venture out in public then you won't be interacting with anyone out in public. I'm assuming that also would apply to those with whom you reside if you are the decision maker in the household. If I decide that the risk level for me and those I live with is acceptable if I go out into public places then you and I will never meet. You'll be at home while I'm doing whatever I do in public. People who have assessed the situation the same as you will also be at home and not be exposed to those out in public. Anyone with whom I mingle will have chosen to take the same risk that I chose. You would be not be more or less threatened by my actions because you would not be interacting with me or anyone who chose the same risk level that I chose. The job angle is a little trickier, but if you are convinced the virus would probably kill you if you are exposed, then survival should trump the comparative inconvenience of being unemployed. It's a bit like the people who want to use cheap mystery steel instead of known steel for an expensive time consuming endeavor - or those who want to build a propane forge out of non-insulating firebrick because it's cheaper. You may need the income, but if you die that income doesn't help much. Short term benefit compared to long term consequences have to be taken into account. The other side of the coin also has to come into play. One side of the argument is that our actions affect other people so we should alter our actions for that reason. The other side of the argument is that those who are more concerned (some might argue unreasonably concerned) expect everyone else in society to completely change their behavior to satisfy that level of concern - even if it's not actually warranted. If this were no more problematic than the common cold could you justify all the measures? What about the flu? At what threshold does it become reasonable to expect everyone in society to adhere to significantly life changing measures in order to decrease the rate at which something moves through the population? In the end roughly the same number of people will be hospitalized and the roughly the same number of people will die whether we spread it out over 2 months or 18 months. The outcome is more or less set. The timing is all we can have any real expectation of changing at this point - unless somehow vaccines can be verified, manufactured, and distributed faster than has been predicted.

Some valid points, but it's not as different as you suggest. Whether you drive on the road does not affect only you. It potentially affects family members, others on public roads, EMT's, doctors, etc. etc. Those who decide they will not venture out into public will not be interacting with those who choose to do so. They will have minimum risk of being infected or passing on an infection to someone else. Those who choose to take the risk are more likely to become infected or infect other people who have chosen the same risk. Yes, it can impact other people, but that will mainly be other people who chose exactly the same risk level. One thing that seems to be missed in all of this is a simple truth: All of us WILL be exposed to this virus at some point. There is no scenario where it just goes away. If we slow the spread enough it is possible that there will be a viable vaccine manufactured and distributed before the vast majority of the population has been exposed. Also, the more time that passes, the better the understanding of, and treatments for, the virus. Those things decrease the percentage of fatalities per capita, but they do not change the likelihood of exposure. That approaches 100% likelihood over time. This pandemic ends with herd immunity, whether that be natural immunity due to exposure and survival or manufactured immunity due to immunization. That still will not completely eliminate the virus. Polio is much harder to transmit and still exists in the world after decades of vaccine distribution. All I'm pointing out is that all of the measures do not changes whether you will be exposed to the virus; they just have the potential to change when you will be exposed. Certainly the risks of serious illness or death are greater for those in high risk categories, but for 99+% of the population this virus is not fatal, and we will continue to drive the mortality rate down as time passes. I'm guessing we could agree that we would assess situations where a disease has an 80% transmission rate and is 50% fatal differently than those where the disease has a 99% transmission rate and is 0.001% fatal. This is somewhere in the middle. Regardless, each of us still needs to make decisions for ourselves and those close to us based on the best information available and our particular situation rather than to assume if we follow some set of instructions given to us that everything will be just fine.

No one is suggesting to be on any side other than the safe side. I'm suggesting that each person needs assess the risk for him/herself and those close to them and then, using the best information available, make decisions on how to proceed. I'm not a big fan of mandates from on high, nor do I think that many things have a "one size fits all" solution. If we relate this to smithing, I would suggest that each person needs to assess the risks based on what he is doing in his surroundings, and then determine appropriate PPE, policies, and procedures to minimize his chances of injury, death, and/or property damage. While there would certainly be some basics that would apply to nearly everyone, just blindly following someone else's recommendations would not likely produce minimal risk. For instance, in sections of California the risk of unintentionally setting fire to the surroundings may be far greater than in Seattle or the Midwest, and extra precautions should be taken with that in mind. Nothing we ever do is honestly "safety first." If safety were indeed the primary concern, none of us would ever start a fire or pick up a hammer. We wouldn't drive a car on the road. We'd never swim in the ocean or ski down a mountain. What we strive for is minimal risk while engaging in an inherently risky activity, but participating in that activity is obviously more important to us than completely eliminating risk. Safety is actually second, or even third in the hierarchy, but it is still very important.

That is a fair point of course. However, in general I still am of the opinion that to a large extent each person is responsible for his/her own safety. If you think the risk is too great for you or others around you to leave the house, attend gatherings, or eat in public then don't do it regardless of whether it's "allowed." It is very difficult to contract a contagious disease if you are never in close proximity to someone who has it. We should pay attention to the medical experts about the best way to minimize our chances of becoming infected or infecting other people, but blindly following mandates is no guarantee of anything. There is a phrase I heard some time ago which I have not forgotten, although I can't remember where I heard it: "Compliance does not equal safety." In your scenario, BillyO, you are only pointing the gun at other people who have also chosen to take the risk. You won't be interacting with those who refuse to take the risk. On the other hand if you decide to take the risk and you get the virus or pass it on to someone else, you have no business complaining about it - and you are responsible.

As a matter of principle I agree, but I didn't want to risk getting political. I was just pointing out that there is a scenario, however limited, where the smaller particles can be slowed or stopped by a filter with bigger holes than those particles.

As you know, the short answer is "it doesn't." However, a longer answer starts with "it depends." For instance, if your .2 micron particle is generally contained within a substance which has larger than 150 micron particles or droplets, then trapping the droplets or larger particles which contain the smaller particle is still somewhat effective.

Agreed. That would be scary for a home built machine. 150 to 200 bpm is probably a better target to start with. The nice thing about building your own machine is you can alter it later if you want to make changes/improvements.

I would check to see what Champions or LG's in the 50 pound range have for max bpm and use that as a guideline.

Thanks for replying. I was/am a little concerned about the effect of petroleum based lubricants on the UHMW plastics though. Before starting it up I've just used a squirt (on each side of the ram) of silicone based spray lubricant (produced by the makers of WD-40). That seems to have helped a bit with the amount of heat produced by friction, which probably also means there's less wear on the materials. I haven't used it enough yet to make many confident claims though.