arftist

May be a very old anchor.

Hinges are not cheap, especially stainless steel hinges.

9 hours ago, theimi said:

Thanks for the answers guys.

How did all those blacksmiths manage for the thousands of years before grinders were invented?

No matter if you have it figured out but since you asked here...

Synchrowaves are still bringing big bucks around here.

You have to do the same amount of work to it to return the surface condition as it took to create it the first time.

Grinding is the last thing, next time work out the roughness with forge and hammer...voila.

Wrought iron is found in the shape of anchors at the coasts, fences in cities and rims in the country. 

I have also found wrought iron tie rods in convenient small round shapes

Mild steel trusts out in random patches, wrought rusts less and leaves a wood like grain behind. 

I could have given you some wrought iron when you were at my house the other day.

Didn't realize you were so afflicted.

If you are ever out this way again...

Those drill bits are worth a lot of money.

I would be highly interested if you were in the US.

The reamers, not so much, one reamer should never touch another.

If you put a file to the taper ends of the drill bits you would find them soft as well. 

Don't try to use it up just to be rid of it.

Having some stock is a good thing.

As you grow in skill and equipment you will use it all and be glad to have had it.

That is known as a jig or fixture.

Most blacksmiths make at least some and what they do/ how they work is usually lost information to future generations. 

"Some" are universal enough that use can be determined but most are not.

2 hours ago, jlpservicesinc said:

Not sure about your specifications on welding in New England..   We here in the USA use  a set of guidelines posted by a National organization usually also with charts, graphs etc, etc..   Technically your still brazing and it's not my words or description..  AWS writes and specs the "Specs".. and the previous words come off Wiki.. 

I was taught cast iron repair by the president of United Welding Process in Boston Mass some 35 years ago.

Perhaps you have heard of them?

Their main customer is Caterpillar.

That is why I write articles on cast iron repair. 

Please quote Wiki again. That was a first.

7 hours ago, ThomasPowers said:

"Actually brazing is really bronze welding."  If you are brazing iron or steel and NOT melting the iron or steel then it's NOT welding! Now as JLP mentioned: if you are brazing brass/bronze then it really is a fusion weld.

Base metals in the context of welding means the metals being joined as opposed to the filler metals

I am sorry for your misunderstanding but I didn't say I was brazing. 

I said I was bronze welding.

I do indeed melt the cast iron; ie it is fusion and therefore welding.

Suggest you take a breath and read the words I used.

On 11/27/2018 at 7:20 PM, jlpservicesinc said:

I understand the notion of it being welding.. It all comes down to how someone was taught and the language used..

I think the use of a TIG torch changes the dynamic...it is very easy to melt cast iron with a TIG torch; with oxy-fuel your description would be more correct.

On 11/27/2018 at 10:30 AM, ThomasPowers said:

When you braze does the base metal you are working with melt?

I do indeed melt the base metal, think you reversed your words.

If you didn't melt the base then it would not be fusion.

Either way it is an ongoing perpetual misnomer since brass isn't used in either case.

Can we settle for bronzing?

On 11/22/2018 at 6:59 PM, jlpservicesinc said:

Bronze welds are really more like brazing unless of course the article is in fact bronze you are welding together.. 

or if they are pressure welds.. 

Actually brazing is really bronze welding.

Been down this road before.

Nice, structural design. are you surrounding the pipes or just filling them?

On 11/22/2018 at 4:21 AM, Farmweld said:

We do a line of replicas of the old cast jointed field gates that used to be available in Australia.

Excellent but I question your bronze technique. My bronze welds are left as is and are virtually undetectable after paint.

Sounds like a great product though.

My father used to say, The best still isn't good enough.

On 11/11/2018 at 9:20 AM, Farmweld said:

I have seen a couple of bedheads and gates with joints like this that have cracked and in most cases the bar or pipe has been cut with a mechanical shear which distorts the end of the material and provides a "key" into the casting.

Hi Andrew. I have only dealt with 2 of these gates. 

I replaced a lot of wrought with mild steel.

Most of the welds were made with 6011, if I were able to leave enough steel studs sticking out of the cast iron.

If I had to weld to the cast iron,  I used silicon bronze applied with a TIG torch.

Also, where I had to repair the spear points, I welded it with TIG silicon bronze.

On 11/12/2018 at 2:19 PM, JHCC said:

But isn't tension where a concrete anvil stand would give you trouble? It's not crumbling under compression, but from the low-pressure side of the impact curve. In other words, the concrete gives you strength during the blows, and the rebar gives you strength between the blows.

Sure, if he is doing full wind up blows with a 10 # sledge on the side of the horn.

Otherwise, not so much.

Yes, concrete is very strong in compression BUT rerod only adds strength in tension.

On 11/9/2018 at 4:14 AM, Marc1 said:

Sorry Arf, been there done that, no idea what your are talking about, and the rest of your inertia claim ... well ... we covered it already to no avail. How about using the whole earth as stand? ... again ... been thee done that, too late.

If you want to believe that the stand adds mass to the anvil, be my guest 

Marc1,

Thanks to Buzzkill I read the ridiculous thread which you think settles this.

It doesn't, not even close.

First, the physics you reference describe an unmounted anvil, the author himself admits it is of very limited value and a mounted anvil requires a further article.

Second, many of your posts contain unproven assumptions described as facts.

I couldn't address them because the thread was closed but they are still false.

Third, the very limited discussion quickly devolved into an ego contest, in which you were greatly involved.

Fourth, when I post legitimate fodder for the topic at hand you unceremoniously brush off my comments and attempt to make me look foolish. 

Your answer is, " been there done that".

That offers no more proof than any of your comments, ie, none. 

Finally I would add that both of your PW anvil are considered large, invalidating your points.

If you wish to be taken seriously then reply in a serious non-pejorative manner.

18 hours ago, Buzzkill said:

While this is true, it's largely irrelevant in this context.  If you are not applying enough force to overcome the inertia of an anvil and its 200 pound stand, then you certainly aren't applying enough force to overcome the inertia of a 2000 pound stand.  In other words the effect is roughly the same for both below a certain threshold of force.  It only matters if the force applied to the anvil is great enough to move one anvil/stand combination but not the other.   To some extent extra mass can be simulated by good anchoring of the anvil to the stand and the stand to the floor.   It's actually all about how much force goes into the work piece compared to how much of it is absorbed by all the other factors.  We digressed deeply into that topic on another thread.  I'm not sure we all ever agreed on anything except that we want as much of the force of our hammer blows as possible to transfer to the hot steel rather than anything else.

Link up.

On 10/28/2018 at 1:12 PM, JHCC said:

Some quality cast anvils (Fishers especially) have mounting holes cast into the bases; many don’t. An absence of mounting holes might indicate an expectation that the end user would figure out their own mounting system, while their presence might indicate that the manufacturer also had cast bases for sale. 

Fisher had cast bases for sale.

On 10/23/2018 at 12:19 AM, Marc1 said:

Not to mention it is hard to work the hammer over the anvil laying under it

The reason I tend to get engrossed in the topic anvil+stand, is that most ... or at least some ... people think that a bigger stand will add mass to the anvil. It is intuitive to think so and you must excuse those who think so.

The scientific explanation can be rather long and dry, and from previous attempts and judging from the inquisition replies i received, I rather let that one go. 

i will however attempt a thought for the thoughtful.

If the addition of Mass one (anvil) + Mass two (stand),  in the case of a collision system like hammer and anvil+stand, is so easy to achieve, just by bolting the anvil down ... why is it that when someone talks about repairing an anvil we make such a fuss about the faceplate and how it should be attached to the anvil? 

if bolting down an anvil makes the mass of the stand be added to the mass of the anvil, why can't we just make a faceplate with 4 lumps, one at each corner with a 20mm hole in each corner, weld 4 nuts on the side of the anvil and strap the face down nice and tight with 3/4" bolts and Bob is your father's brother? 

No one would think that such is a good idea, however if it is not, then the anvil anchored to the stand, is only good for stability purposes and not for mass adding. 

A 200 lb anvil on a 100 lb stand or on a 2,000 lb stand will perform almost the same unfortunately. if you then add some caulking compound between them ... well, then it will be like having the anvil on your belly ... or rather your striker's belly. Not very different anyway.

Wrong.

You probably couldn't break your finger hammering on it with your anvil on belly.

Whip out that long boring explanation if you are going to make that claim.

It is all about inertia and a 2000 #

block has a lot more than a 200 #.

On topic, yes, concrete has tremendous strength in compression...but small diameter rebar doesn't. 

In no way is this stand designed so that the rebars have compressive strength. 

Sorry, it just isn't.

Another thing about concrete,

It is light, it doesn't make a good filler. 

Use lead to fill pipes for weight,

Better yet, use solid stock.

On 10/21/2018 at 9:58 AM, Ted Ewert said:

The stand wouldn't be too hard to move. I oiled the slab below it before pouring, so it can't be stuck too bad. The weight is somewhere north of 200 lbs. 

I love the old  popular mechanics stand idea! The lead is a bit much, but you could do the same thing with a big piece of pipe. A flange on the top and bottom, fill it with concrete and you're done. 

It is the lead that made it quiet, very important in a school.

Yes, without doubt you are losing energy using the horn as a fuller, compared to the edge over the waist.

What do you mean, nice edges, the ones you can't use because they are too sharp?

What is nice about that?

At least make the thing usable.