Ramsberg

Here is a perfect example.

Over 50 examples of magnification lenses have been found in the excevations of Troy, 23 optical lenses are on display at Heraklian Museum from the ancient Cretan civilization and two found at Gordion the ancient capital of King Midus in central Turkey. One lense found in the sacred cave on Mount Ida in Crete is from around the fifth century BC., it can magnify with perfect clarity up to seven times and when held at a good distance up to twenty times but with distortion.

Ancient seals and coins often held micro script that was used such as the anti-counterfeit measures on our paper currency of today. These seals could only have been practically produced with a magnification of ones vision, as magnification is required to see them clearly.

However there are a great deal of academics, such as Professor Cyril Smith, who is a noted metallurgist and historian of science of MIT, proposed that such products were only used as decoration and in 1984 Smith stated that they were "mere baubles" and dismissed them all of any importance. In 1981 two medical scientists from the State University of New York, Loenard Gorelick and John Gwinnett stated that all of the micro script on the ancient seals was produced by people with myopia. Which is a condition of nearsightedness in which small objects are very clearly seen.

The reason for such statements is that the "permanent idea" regarding magnification dictates that it wasn't invented until the thirteenth century AD. Changing that "permanent idea" or theory would not only alter the timeline of a different discovery and the culture to which it should be attributed, but it would also negate DECADES of work, pride and prestige of a number of "very important academics".

The same is true of the invention of wrought iron, there are numerous examples of it in some areas predating copper working, although the "permanent idea" there is that a progression of technology occured and that is that.

The reality is that a great number of significant inventions were produced individually by people unaware of others work in a given technological area.

What really bothers me now is seeing the more and more popular idea that anything produced by the ancients that we can't understand or explain was a result of some alien influence or alien technology. That is just about the most disrespectfull idea out there regarding our ancients and their curiosity.

Uri Hofi is an example of someone who studied under a master, yet he questioned every single thing that was presented to him in regards to blacksmithing. Now he is a master and he disagrees with the methods and techniques that a great number of other masters use. Hofis hammering technique is not new, it is new to a great deal of people including him so yes he created it, but others created the same technique as his at different times and in different places. I for example studied the how and why of hammering when I first got into blacksmithing and developed a hammering technique that is almost identical to Hofis, yet I had never heard of Hofi when I started and although I had never seen anyone else hammer like me I was sure that others had used "my" technique centuries before I was born. There are hundreds of ways to do something and I for one don't believe that there is "one best way", nor should there be.

Caleb Ramsby

I apologize for using a blanketed statement, I try to never do such because a mis-understanding is almost always the result.

The scientific method is:

1: Form a Theory to make a prediction
2: Form an experiment to test the prediction
3: Conduct the experiment and observe the results
4: Use the results to modify the original theory

I do not disbelieve in science as conducted strictly from the scientific method, not at all.

The area I am most knowledgeable of is steam power, so let me use that to give an example of a theory being misused.

There is what is called a theoretical engine. This engine does not exist in reality but is produced via calculations based on the properties of steam and heat energy. These are properties that have been found via experimentation and are very exact. For the theoretical engine the greatest efficiency is always produced by using the hottest steam possible with the greatest expansion ratio possible. That would be taking steam at 2,000+ psi at 1,300 + deg F and expanding it down to a hard vacuum.

Then there is the real engine for which factors have been produced to convert ones calculation of the theoretical to the real engine. These factors are called "card factors", said term comes from pressure lines being drawn on literal cards to show what the pressure is of the steam in a working engine as it goes through its stroke. These factors account for leakage, resistance to flow from the valves and other things. Using these factors one can modify the calculations of the theoretical engine to give results that will be close to the real engine.

Then there is road use. Said card factors are for stationary engines and for engines used on the road or rails things are vastly different. What with starting from cold, vastly changing engine speeds and loads along with different atmospheric conditions and operator techniques.

The theory proposed by many of the steam power experts is that higher temperatures, pressures and expansion ratios always result is greater economy, it must that is what the theory dictates. The reality however is very different. An outfit called SES(Scientific Energy Systems) back in the 70's went to great lengths to produce a steam power plant for a car which embodied all of the aspects of what should theoretically be a perfect and very efficient system.

Things didn't turn out as they expected. Firstly when they ran the engine on the dyno it didn't give the results which their theory had predicted, then when they tested it on the road the results were not even close to what they had produced when on the lab dyno. What they found was that on the road any steam temperature above 750 deg F didn't produce a significant efficiency difference, nor did high pressures and the engine gave the same fuel efficiency on the road for vastly different expansion ratios. When it "should" have given much better economy with the higher steam temperature and greater expansion ratios. Stan Jakuba, one of the SES guys later stated that had they known that those extreme temperatures wouldn't have made any difference they would not have gone to the very great and expensive lengths to produce and use those temperatures.

My point here is that many of the experts in the steam power world completly ignore the results produced by SES and still believe that one must use steam temperatures as high as possible, as well as use very great expansion ratios. They ignore the truly scientific results and believe what they want, they are human and that is what humans do best! (a bit of humor there)

My point is that there is a huge difference between a scientist working with something real which can be tested and observed in a lab over and over again, then verified by any other scientist which conducts the same experiment and a scientist forming a theory based on something that can't be directly observed and tested in a lab.

My argument against "science" was aimed mainly at the ground diggers. In the Bernifal Cave there were paintings found of a mammoth combating a dinosaur, that section of the cave has been gated off and is now no longer open for observation.

Neanderthal children didn't have the heavy brows that are depicted by TV, they had thin skulls.

Jack Cuozzo, an orthodentist of 30 some years, in his book "Buried Alive" details his adventures with a portable cephalometric X-ray machine. This machine is used to hold a skull in perfect allignment with the X-ray so as to produce plates from which measurements of bone thickness can be taken. It is a very fascinating book, filled with data which he recorded, however it is also riddled with theory and religion so it will be difficult for many to read without becoming distracted by the religion aspect.

France is an example of a place where their tourism accounts for a lot of their jobs, said tourism is directly related to the Neanderthal caves and there is a lot of pressure from their government to have the "correct" results from their researchers! When Cuozzo was granted access to Le Moustier he was shocked to find that the display piece(formed from castings) was very different from the actual piece when x-rayed by himself, frankly he discovered that the jaw placement was way out of socket to produce a more ape looking face. Very few people have been granted access to the actual skull of Le Moustier and the drawings of it are what the scientists know about.

My point with Mount Saint Helens is that, the two eruptions produced layers of strata and a fully formed canyon. This was observed and studied. When Darwin was heading out on his voyage on the Beagle he stoped at a small river and was struck by the idea of a small, almost imperceptible action producing a significant if not grand result over a great length of time. This is a great way is the idea of evolution, a very small change occuring many times over a great period of time.

What has been proved is that strata and canyons can be produced by violent actions. Does this prove that all strata was produced this way, NO. Does this prove that all canyons were produced this way, NO.

What I am really trying to point out is that there are fields in which a discovery that disproves or at the least brings into question the theory that said field is using as a basis for all of their experiments is NOT accepted with open arms.

Let me put it this way, a scientist could take samples from the rock that hammer is embeded in, the metal head and the wooden handle and determine what they are composed of. That is true science.

Now the problem arises when one attempts to use those facts as a basis for a theory as to the how, what, why, where and when of it all. If one tried to find the closest examples or rock, metal and wood then one could apply via association what they were related to. However the issue is that the hammer in the rock is an individual.

Well, I could go on and on but this is getting way off subject and going no where.

Caleb Ramsby

Today "science" is more often then not, nothing more then sudo-science. Recognizing a theory as an unproven idea has been converted into demanding that an unproven theory is a fact through the effect of what I call "permanent idea syndrome". That is when an idea has been believed for so long by so many that even if its base or foundational theory has not been proven. The idea is defended to the ends of the Earth as a true-ism.

Archaeology is based on layers of strata being indicators of "ages" or a time table so to speak. This has never been proven to be true. Not only has more advanced artifacts been found in layers under(sometimes directly under) more crude ones, but radioisotope dating is flawed in the effect that one must assume the conditions that the tested segment has been exposed to. There are too many "unknowns" out there to truly prove or disprove many "permanent ideas".

http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders.htm

The web pages that I have linked to are from a religious entity, however if you just look at their studies and nothing else it is interesting. This is NOT easy to do, regardless of ones religious beliefs! Lets face facts for a second, the hard core evolution people commonly bash the creationists as religious wackos who are touched in the head. The creationists riddle every study they conduct with scripture and preaching. NEITHER of those combined acts are scientific! Science is supposed to be about looking at the evidence from experiments and THEN fitting the theory around the evidence. NOT the other way around such as is done by BOTH sides!

To get back to the hammer.

This issue is also alive with archaeology, VERY much alive and kicking. It is common for a researcher to ignore indications that an artifact is pointing to one thing if it "should" belong to such and such a group. These institutes live off of grant money and said grant money doesn't appear out of thin air. The granters demand results, not just any results but ones that pump up their heritage. So if an artifact of great import or development is found in one "country" that oboviously originated from another it may very well be stuck in a drawer and forgotten. Archaeology is just as tainted with pride and corruption as anything else that we people do, it is sad but true.

Having said all of that, the hammer is very interesting.

I wish there was a ruler or size reference in the picture.

That eye looks rather wide doesn't it? As in the cheeks are thin and bulged out a good bit. The eye looks to be around 4/5 as wide as the hammer billet. Looks like a mining hammer/stone hammer to me. That bit surrounding it could be just from the mineral cave drips.

When I was on a cave tour(guided spelunking) as a child we were walking down a asphault path in the cave as the tour guide was saying how it took hundreds of years for just a fraction of a inch of minerals to build up in the cave. Then I came upon a section of the asphault walk way which was coated with 1 1/2" of minerals from the drips! Well, either that guy was going on the wrong theory or that asphault path pre-dated the Mayflowers voyage by a few centuries! Never trust anyones opinion, especially an "experts", they believe their puke is worth its weight in gold!

Caleb Ramsby

For the steam car boilers, which use rather large venturi type burners consuming, when at max output, up to 6 gallons per hour of fuel, they use straight pipe mixing tubes. However since there is a grate that the air and fuel mixture must pass through(thousands of small drilled holes in a giant plate) and the burner must also push the combustion gases through the boiler tubes the burner must be able to generate a good bit of energy in the air and fuel mix.

Their solution is to run the fuel pressure rather high, for the "hot rodded" cars this can be up to 150 psi. I should mention that the steam car burners are bunsen types which hold the fuel in an air over fuel pressure tank. The fuel going from there through a valve, to a tube that is placed over the fire. Said tube transfers heat from the fire to the liquid fuel(gasoline, diesel or kerosine) and said fuel is then vaporized and on its way to a orifice and into the "venturi".

Many steam car guys have added "trumpet flares" to the input end of their venturis(aka, straight tube). This increase the ability of the venturi to draw in air and makes the burner capable of running at a higher output. For their steam powered race car known as "Whistling Billy", White used five nozzles in a + pattern, with the fifth nozzle in the middle and they also used one LARGE mixing tube instead of the multiple mixing tubes as used by most other steam car makers.

Here are some links that show what I am talking about.

http://www.steamgazette.com/chanburner/channels.htm

http://www.steamgazette.com/techpage/30hpboiler.htm

http://www.steamgazette.com/techpage/venturis.JPG

http://www.steamgazette.com/photoalbum/vennerbeck/parola-bunsen-boosters.jpg

http://www.steamgazette.com/burner1.jpg

http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/Parts/BurnerVaporizer.htm

http://www.stanleymotorcarriage.com/Parts/burner.htm

As to a paper being produced by students, here is a link to a paper produced in 1920 at MIT as a bachelor thesis on the shape of venturis as used in burners that I came across years ago in my steam car studies.

http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/36671

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Dave,

Maybe you could make a hook or two with GIANT mushroom heads on them to make the finial scrolled hooks look smaller, you could say they are for holding doughnuts. HA! Hummm, blacksmithing out of spite, maybe not the wisest idea!

I thought that I remembered some photos that you posted of your first or second rack and the hooks having a finial, that was why I was asking.

Unfortunatly it is more often how people think something will work that dictates the design, more so then if it will actually work or not.

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Philip,

On Anvilfire a few years back there was posted a recipe for a penetrating lubricant as found to be the most powerfull by a group of steam traction engine guys. It was half automatic transmission fluid and half acetone. With the same "scientifically rusted" bolts it required only 53 ft lbs to break free the nut, the closest was Kano Kroil at 106, Liquid Wrench at 127, PB Blaster at 214, WD-40 at 238 and no lubricant used at 516. I haven't had the chance to try it out as of yet for myself so I can't verify the results.

Are you going to bash that hammer eye closed and or forge weld it to make the bick more solid?

One place to get so great steel for cheap is a big rig repair shop. If you ask the guys they should be able to get you some broken leaf spring stacks, that is some heavy spring steel, although sometimes it takes a while for them to have a truck come in with broken springs and they may already have guys coming in who pick up the scrap steel, worth checking out though.

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Dave,

That curve on the tapered inscribed flat stock looks a lot like a corn leaf to me, maybe that would go over better.

Just curious as to why you didn't use curls on the tapered end of the pot hooks? Would they have gotten in the way of getting the handles of pots and pans on the hooks?

Great looking piece!

It would make a perfect hanger display for some hand forged ladles. . .

Caleb Ramsby

Here are links to two blacksmithing books on Google.

This first one has a few different designs for brick forges, ones that work.

http://books.google.com/books?id=phgLAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Blacksmith&hl=en&ei=_wjETva7NvG02AWovPiPBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Blacksmith&f=false

This second one has a few also, but more of an industrial design, still usefull information though.

http://books.google.com/books?id=RWkUAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA3&dq=Blacksmith&hl=en&ei=_wjETva7NvG02AWovPiPBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CGcQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=Blacksmith&f=false

Caleb Ramsby

These links may help.

http://www.beautifuliron.com/thecoal.htm

http://www.beautifuliron.com/thecoal1.htm

http://www.beautifuliron.com/thecoal2.htm

http://173.201.227.192/docs/Blacksmithing/Forge/Homestead_Forge_And_Fabricate_Your_Own_Hardware_1995.pdf

There are also a number of old Blacksmithing books scanned by Google that give the how and why of forge manufacture.

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Dave,

Don't know if you have checked it out yet, but Ron Reils website is in my opinion the best out there for designing and building your own propane forge of any size.

http://ronreil.abana.org/Forge1.shtml

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Dave,

Propane as a liquid has a very low boiling point and just like every other liquid out there is has a latent heat of vaporization, the exact btu per lb depends on the pressure of the liquid and its temperature.

The latent heat of vaporization is the heat energy required to convert a liquid to a gas or a gas back to a liquid. With water at atmospheric pressure (14.7 psi it requires 970 btu per lb and must reach a temperature of 212 deg F to boil. A btu is short for "British Thermal Unit" a single btu is the heat required to raise one pound of water one degree F. If water is held at 150 psi then it must reach 358 deg F to boil and the latent heat is 864 btu per lb, at 1,500 psi it must be 596 deg F and the latent heat is 556 btu lb.

Propane is the same way, the higher the pressure the higher the liquid temperature must be and the less the laten heat is.

With a boiler one uses fire to give the water the energy required for it to evaporate and maintain the temperature required at that pressure.

Propane absorbs the heat from the atmosphere, here are two links to two charts giving the latent heat at different temperatures and the temperature required at different pressures for propane.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/latent-heat-vaporization-propane-d_1203.html

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/propane-vapor-pressure-d_1020.html

If one used a 25 lb tank in 15 hours that would be 1.67 lbs per hour, with roughly 155 btu lb that would be 258.85 btu per hour that the propane would absorb to maintain its temperature. If it is supplied with less heat then that it will drop in temperature and as the temperature lowers the pressure lowers and the latent heat required rises!

Propane has a specific heat of .576, so to raise its liquid one degree F it requires .576 btu per lb. This is also how much heat it will give up for one degree F drop.

So if you have 25 lbs of propane liquid at 70 deg F and it drops to 50 deg F then 20 deg F times 25 lbs times .576 then that is 288 btu that would be released. This is making it simple though, because as you draw off propane not only does it require heat to vaporize it but it also takes its heat energy along with it. Put another way if you have 60 lbs propane and you took 288 btu away from it, initial temperature being 70 deg F it would drop to 61.67 deg F. If you had 6 lbs and took away 288 btu then it would drop from 70 to -13 deg F! Which would only give about 15 psi, I don't know if that chart is in absolute or gauge in regards to pressure, absolute is considering the atmosphere and gauge is zero at atmospheric pressure, probably it is absolute.

As you can see from the temperature/pressure chart that I linked to, the lower the temp the lower the pressure and from the other chart the lower the pressure the higher the latent heat. So it is a double down situation, especially with just a little left in a small tank, then any significant draw of gas from it will drop the temperature so much that the pressure will be too low to do anything.

The freezing deal is from the tank walls becoming so cold that they not only condense moisture on them, but they freeze moisture on them.

The simple solution is to place the tank in a bunch of water, that way it can absorb the heat from the water instead of trying to absorb the heat from just the air around it, there is a LOT more heat in water. So in effect you can get the operational aspects of a big tank from a small one sitting in a bit of water.

However as Doc put it a small forge doesn't use as much gas and in turn the tank doesn't cool down as fast so for what you are doing it is probably a mute point.

Caleb Ramsby

Thomas,

Very good points. Honestly I believe that much more often then not developments were isolated and not a spread of knowledge as is often assumed.

Reall, if we look at the very small percentage of the Earths surface that has been painstakingly excevated then it is a astounding that we have found anything!

Caleb Ramsby

The Chinese were using trip hammers at least as early as 20 AD for pounding grain. I don't know how early they began using it for metal working, but they were no idiots. There are a good deal of people who believe that their trip hammers originated around 1000 BC.

It is funny, or more sad really, Europe was behind the Chinese or Asians in generaly in virtually every catagory of technological development, such as inventing and using the ship rudder 1000 years before Europe, in the 5th or 6th century they were already using paddle wheels on boats, then in the 12th century during an internal arms race their paddle ships grew to 300 feet long, held up to 800 men and were propelled by more then 20 wheels, powered by the sailors of course.

It has always bothered me that regardless of who was actually first the focus is always on Europe, nothing against Europe just want the credit to go where it is due.

Caleb Ramsby

Beth,

I keep on forgetting, I think that you nailed it with the "Hospital" analysis. You mentioned the use of the term "home". I don't know about over there, but here interestingly if one uses the term "the home", such as "Bob is in the home." Then one is refering to a mental institute or a place for old people. If we say, "Jill is at home", then we are refering to Jill being in her house.

Caleb Ramsby

Jake,

To be honest, I think that maybe part of the disorder of the membrane is that you arn't letting your true artist out to play! Only a true artist takes 10 hours to make a hand forged spoon and being an artist myself(note that my little picture deal that is beside my posts is an old painting of mine, about 10" by 8", scaned it before I gave it away, it is displayed a bit squished on this forum) have found the greatest limitation to the depths of creativity as being purpose of production!

Not the reason of production, that is an aspect of the inspiration, but the subject of creation.

I started all of my paintings(havn't picked up a brush in WAY too long! ) with a single stroke of the brush using a color that I mixed up and "felt" was the right begining of it at that moment. I never started with pencil to outline the piece, except for when I was in class and learning how to paint and draw. From there it would spread rapidly and take on its own life, often with little bits and pieces popping up here and there that suprised me a bit.

When I painted my greatest inspiration was always to use the work to see into other peoples minds, my stuff was always very bold with great depth of color and somewhat dark in context. This always produced some very significant opinions from the viewers of it, not always good ones. What I do know is that if everyone loves a piece of art then there is something WRONG with it!

A few weeks ago one of my friends told me of an art exibit done by a guy(years ago) who placed a block of butter in a cardboard box, let is sit for a few days so that the butter melted and soaked into the box. Then he admitted a wolf into the room with the box and the wolf tore it apart! At first I thought, "Is that art?", the more I thought about it, it seemed to be a statement of action, a guided, but uncontroled action, one born of nature but forced by man. Is that not exactly what all true art is? An action, born of nature, forced by man.

I really like your animal trap idea, could not two skulls be used, one large and caught, the other smaller and striking the trap?

Wild stuff!

One book that I really dig is "The Holographic Universe" by Michael Talbot.

Caleb Ramsby

This also reminds me of a mantra of sorts that I came up with at about the same time.

You are not what you were,

You are not what you have been,

You are not what you are,

You are who you shall become.

Caleb Ramsby

This all reminds me of a saying that I came up with a few years ago.

"A contrivance a day, keeps the psychiatrist at bay."

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Jake,

That spoon is INTENSE! It is amazing how many transions and elements you fit into such a compact space. Absolutly none of which are there without purpose or reason.

The photo of your spoon has just replaced a photo of Walter Christies 1904 inline four racer which he ran at Ormand and in the Vanderbuilt Cup a year later, as my desktop background photo.

Of all of the pieces that you have posted on this thread I think that spoon has the best. . . flow, it is very difficult to stop looking back and forth along its lengt.

The faceted ball on the end of your poker looks very simular to the one shown in Googerty's book on page(reader page) 88, page 104 shows that it was made from a collar, as contrasted to page 107 which shows a round ball being swaged off and with the length of the handle drawn out instead of being of lesser stock with the collar thickening the end. Ever experimented with a collar? I never got around to that technique, but I have a feeling that it would greatly reduce the drawing out of larger stock for long handled tools with an engorged end on them.

Another trick for getting rid of "drunks" is to keep offering them a cup of tea. . . sounds like you are really getting the real village blacksmith experience. The rural shops were often the meeting house(most often from randon, enraged and unsoliceted guests) for the locals to "discuss" politics and consume a bit too much hard cider! Maybe it has something to do with the large open doors they used.

Caleb Ramsby

I was always under the impression that wrought iron cooking hardware was finished the same as a cast iron pan. That is, it had some vegetable oil baked on and that was the protective coating.

In regards to numbers of use, don't overlook the Chinese and thier ubiquitous woks. These were hand hammered out of iron sheet and traditionally had the hammer marks left in them to help hold the food up on the sides when cooking. They also used the fire as a trifecta tool, in some regions the furnace had a large hole in the top of it that the wok sat in and more then less sealed, the exhaust from the fire was then directed through a large horizontal clay(usually unfired brick that was "fired" by the use of the furnace) table or elevated platform that went all the way to the ground, the exhaust then went up and out a chimney. The large platform would absorb a tremendous amount of heat from the fire, such as the walls of the Roman and Azteca hot houses, and radiate it to the room. The family would then sleep on this warm(not HOT) platform and it would keep them warm during the night. For summer use, they usually had an outdoor fireplace for the wok, which had an open top with three or more cutouts in the rim of it, simular to the top of a castle wall, these were where the exhaust from the fire would exit. This type of furnace would make the bottom of the wok rather hot and further up the walls it would be cooler, so the one cooking instrument had different and usefull heat zones for cooking the various food stuff for the meal all at once! It makes me laugh to see the teflon or otherwise coated woks in grocery stores, those are next to useless, the food just slides down the sides to the bottom!

Also of interest is that in the Szechwan Province of now China natural gas was piped for street and domestic use from as early as 347 ad., they used hollowed out bamboo as the piping for it.

The Turks and others of that region have used a flat plate of steel(wrought iron) over a fire set on the ground to cook their unlevened bread. The bread is flat and around two feet in diameter(depending on the iron plate size) and when half cooked it is taken off of the fire, cheese(usually goat) is placed over one half of it and it is pinched together to make a half moon shaped flat of bread, then of course the cooking is finished. This product will keep for over half of a year without going bad and without being cooled!

Fciron,

Sorry to hear about the injury, but glad to hear that it wasn't nearly as bad as it could have been! I always tell anyone new to working in a shop, "ALWAYS BOLT DOWN YOUR WORK!", no one in their right mind would place a piece of work in a lathe chuck without it being secure, but nearly everyone(myself included more times then I wish to admit) just hand hold a piece of work in the drill press. I hope that it heals up OK.

Ironically for the last few weeks I have been trying to figure something out. Here in the States we say, "they need to be taken to THE HOSPITAL" or "I was in THE HOSPITAL", always with the in front of hospital. I have been watching a few British documentories and movies as of late and noticed that they all say, "they need to be taken to HOSPITAL" or "I was in HOSPITAL".

I don't think that it has to do with gramer, if it did then we would say "a hospital", which I have heard a few times, but much more often, "the hospital".

Might it have something to do with our rather different hospital payment methods?

Beth, as a British person could you shed any light on this subject? This has been stuck on my brain for a while now and I can't figure it out.

Caleb Ramsby

Found an interesting book on the design of hand forged iron, from an artistic perspective, "Ironwork: From the Earliest times to the end of the Medieval Times", by Gardner: free from Google.

http://books.google.com/books?id=izw2AAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=related:LCCN11033614&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

I haven't had time to even read all of the introduction as of yet, but skimming through it, it appears to be a very interesting read, not a how to, but more of a "why they" did something, or at least the authors ideas of such.

Speaking of swords, this is one place where I am completely lost! I have never aspired to wield a sword, much less to produce one. I was rather shocked when I first got into blacksmithing(firstly to create wood and stone working tools, then to create just in general) to find that half of the people asked if I shod horses, the other half asked me to make them a sword.

A little tale, many years back my sisters then boyfriend said that he wanted me to help him make an axe. I asked him what kind of axe and he said a 100 lb axe! I thought he was joking, then he went on to say that since he was a child he had dreamed of wielding a 100 lb axe and at the time he was doing the "play fighting" with "fake" weapons with friends in the woods thing. I told him that firstly, I didn't have the capacity to forge a 100 lb anything, much less an axe, secondly there is no such thing as a "fake" 100 lb weapon, thirdly it would be almost impossible to wield it safely, much less for a guy like him who only weighed 150 - 160 lbs!

I told him quote, "Even an idiot deserves a chance to learn." and showed him how to forge a small knife blank.

I must admit to have gotten a bit upset in regards to the whole sword thing, I don't want to kill anyone and for self defense I learned how to fight with my hands, they(so far at least) are always with me. I have a great respect for the skill which is required in their production, but honestly is not 80% or more of the hands on time spend grinding and grinding and grinding and polishing them, not in forging them? The only time a grinder or file has touched my hand forging has been to produce a cutting edge on a chisel or the working face of whatever tool I was making.

A good friend of mine once told me, "If you encounter something that you really hate, then revisit it and expose yourself to it more.". What I got out of that was that hate is an emotion, an emotion is an inborn and learned response to an input of some sort. What exactly is the input that causes hatred or despisement? Is it the thing that we consciously attribute it to or is it much deeper and a compilation of things from our subconscious?

Caleb Ramsby

Hey David,

In lue of the tongs are log skid hooks, I have never used them but know that they were popular many years ago. They were made short and stuby, from thick stock, say 1 1/2" square with a square section blunt hook forged on one end and a hole punched in the other with a ring forged in it.

These were used in pairs, two being driven into the log and the chain attached to the rings in the hooks, as Charles McRaven describes them in his "Country Blacksmithing" book, "Two were used together, as a sort of free-form pair of grabhooks."

It seems to me that the individual hooks would be much more versatile but may take a bit longer to use.

Caleb Ramsby

Beth and John,

I couldn't agree more that the art and craft of Blacksmithing is very alive and well, frankly if it were not then this website wouldn't exist for us to debate if it is still alive or not!

I don't think that there is anything "wrong" with computers or other "fake" items of use. They all have their purpose, I just believe in balance and see that as one of the greatest issues facing all of America, if not a lot of the world now.

The balance of how much we eat to how much we work or play, how much we learn to how much we live, how much we worry to how much we work to fix things and how much we love to how much we hate are all too often way out of wack! The only solution that I believe has any chance of success is to lead by example, if not us then who?

Hey Jake,

Havn't read the Ruskin on Gothic either, however I ran accross a great old blacksmithing book that is downloadable for free from Google.

Here is a link to it:

http://books.google....epage&q&f=false

The first chapter is about design philosophy and reads to me as if, you Jake had a hand in writing it! Are you sure you arn't over 100 years old?

I once made a rather large trellis for gords to grow on out of apple tree suckers and twine. I was astonished by the almost perfect proportional taper that the suckers had and must say that they inspired me a good deal in my metal work. I must also say that I am not in love with "reproductions" of nature out of forged metal as elements in a grill, fence or railing, however I do like them as individual sculptures. . . why I see a difference there I don't know!

As to texture of materials, I will try and get a photo of a crowbar that my Great-Grandfather forged many years back. He swaged the entirety of its length in about 1 1/8" by 1" rectangular sections, which not only gave it an interesting look, but also gave it a great gripping capacity. The few times that I have used it(my brother has possion of it) I found that it holds the hand easier then modern ones. There was also a fire poker that he made, which my Grandfather left at his house with the wood stove that it went with when he moved. It was very simple, made out of round stock with a non-welded ring at one end, then a round section then a simple round finished hook at the work end. What was curious about it was then it hung on the side of the stove and thusly was kept hot and dry, it had NO finish yet was perpetually rust free and I truly believe that it was the smoothest metal that I have ever felt. It had a smooth look and feel that can only come from decades and decades of handling and constant use, it was as if a part of the handlers of it over the years was stored in it.

One of the favorite items that I own is a Stanley quad fold with pins, two foot ruler. It it made of a boxwood core, brass hinges and brass sides. What is interesting about it is its hand made nature. The brass edges are darn near perfectly straight, while the union between the wood core and brass edges are wavy and somewhat undulating. What was the craftsmans(or craftpersons) key was to make the working surfaces as perfect as possible, while literally seamlessly joining the two "imperfect" parts of the tool.

I must say that I have greatly enjoyed all of the words written by everyone in this discussion and thank you Jake for starting it!

Caleb Ramsby

Hey Beth,

Sorry to hear that your youthfull curiosity was shuned, saddly that happens all too often, especially to girls.

I was very lucky, having been home schooled by my parents(both were profesional teachers) from the 5th to 9th grade. Amoung other things I was able to make and use my own potters wheel and most importantly I learned to teach myself!

We really need more teaching of the youth the true arts and crafts, of which I see blacksmithing as the master of them all. For without it there would be very few crafts that would have the proper tools!

Jake,

Two things I like to ask kids when showing them something hand made, are "How would you make it?" and "Why would you make it that way.". Once their mind is engaged in a constructive way then there is little stoping their curiosity and ambition!

I have been thinking about your battle with the art commision and have come up with an idea which you may or may not like.

They want "pure art" non-commercial, which is most likely meening, something unusual or unique at its core.

What about combining your efforts with another artist. I was thinking of something different, a stand for a picture, say, a tall base simular to that used for a tall candle holder, but it would at the top merge into the form of a picture frame that would hold a canvas at center eye level.

It would be an interesting irony, a functional hand forged piece of art that holds/displays a "pure" form of art. It would give you the ability to produce something that is both beautiful and functional, while actually giving the art house(and prospective buyers) two pieces of art for one!

Caleb Ramsby

Jake,

Did the items you presented to the art society all have a usefull purpose?

Often an art house or art society does not view an object that has an actual use as a "true piece of art".

When I first got into blacksmithing my buddy and I were walking past an art house and in the window was a sculpture forged from wrought iron, with some very well done and beautiful transitions, curves, punches and it was forged all over. As I was admiring the skill displayed in the piece, my friend said, "That is what I like about your blacksmithing work, everything you make has a function.".

Up to that point I hadn't really thought much about what I was making, I got into blacksmithing to make wood and stone working tools, then became very side tracked by the craft of hand forging and never really got around to making the wood and stone working tools! HA!

I like to say that form and function should walk hand in hand. One should not follow the other.

To me at least, work comes from play. That is, only 40 to 50 years ago when children played, they played with real objects, there simply wasn't another option. Think of the model cars, science kits(gasp danger!), erector sets, even doll houses etc. All the way down to making forts out of sticks and MOST important of all using ones imagination. Even if it is just something as simple as making a parachute for G.I. Joe, it is the production of something that didn't exist before, something that you must figure out how to make. My idea is that if one can get the youth to play with real objects, they will progress at the very least to having hobies later in life that are "real".

Caleb Ramsby

If the water cooling doesn't work try a copper tube. Sounds insane I know and although I havn't tried it I read in an old book that the copper tube is supposed to last a lot longer then cast iron ones for a side blast.

The copper is much more reflective and so absorbs a lot less heat via radiation as opposed to the iron. The copper also has a much greater capacity for heat transfer so the tip stays much cooler.

One other thing you could try is to pack ashes around the tube, those who have tried this with steel tubes say that the tube burns back to the ashes, then stops there.

Caleb Ramsby