9 hours ago, ThomasPowers said:

Here in the USA we also see words that have nothing to do with popular hot topics getting "banned" because of people making bad assumptions about them and not being competent to look them up and allow them to be used correctly. They are evidently competent to make a big stink about them in the Media. (I had hoped the Media would be for the expansion of the common vocabulary not it's narrowing; instead they channel Diana Moon Glampers!)

I think that this was covered in Farenheit 451: According to Beatty, special-interest groups and other “minorities” objected to books that offended them. Soon, books all began to look the same, as writers tried to avoid offending anybody. This was not enough, however, and society as a whole decided to simply burn books . Just you wait Professor Higgins just you wait

We have it here too. A couple of public libraries started censoring books but fortunately they were slapped by the authorities since the practice was unconstitutional.

I have seen someone objecting on IFI to bastard files. Now the medieval use of the word was in no way pejorative. Google "the bastard of Orleans".

Agree absolutely. However, we sometimes encounter words that are not generally known but "rediscovered" by authors and public. My English is not good enough to give Engish examples but there are many Swedish words current in my youth and used by good authors which are unknown to my children not to talk about my grandchildren. One reversal is that some Swedish terrestial orchids used to be called "Nyckelblomster" (Key flowers because of the shape of the lip. Same word in German Schlüsselblume). However, a famous Swedish poet ( Erik Karlfeldt (Nobel prize)) referred to them as "Yxne" which was a very local name but fitted a poem. Now they seem to be called yxne by everybody. A local forgotten name is replacing the "standardl" one. Of course, as you write, Karlfeldt made it quite clear by context that a rare flower was meant.    

Thomas. I am always amazed at your erudition I rise my hat (when I get it bak from where I mislaid it) and bow deeply.

Words that are loaded enough to be used in this way usually has several meanings. Of course some meanings are more common than others but since we are talking about spoken languages mot programming languages all meanings can be valid in certain contexts. The speaker really has the right to choose. What would happen to literature if the author must chose his words after a standard. 1984 is long past but the era may still be in front of us.

44 minutes ago, SmoothBore said:

 

Choosing to misunderstand, ... can only happen, if the word has first successfully communicated to you, it's intended meaning.

 

Absolutely! You are so right!  However I was thinking of something that here is called "tolkningsföreträde" (prerogative to interprete). The question is: Has the speaker or the listener right to decide what has been meant? It is sometimes used in discussions. A says something whereupon B deliberately misinterpretes and calls A a moron/raceist/pig or whatever. In my view only the speaker can know what is meant and the listener cannot take over this right although especially politicians often do.

OK but I sometimes see a situation where the listener choses to interprete a word in a way the listener knows the speaker did not intend. Who is then right?

"Traditional" is one of those words that need a context. It means belonging to a certain tradition. Without that tradition being specified, it can mean anything. To me, traditional blacksmiting means using hammer, anvil and a solid fuel forge. However, to me, it also means that the products have a style that goes back a couple of hundred years or more - even if a grinder has been used instead of a hacksaw instead of a hardy.

Some people frown on reproduction furniture and other paraphernalia. I think they are wrong. There are designs that are (very) old but still very good.

You have got the two "difficult" items in a blacksmith shop. Read threds in the forge section. You can set up a forge quite easily and cheaply. Then you are fit to go. I assume yo own some hammers. If you use longish stock, you will not need any tongs. When you get a little further down the road  you make your own tongs. Good luck.

PS There are waxes and oils that are more efficient than linseed oil (but not so traditiional LO is may be the best for a third generation heirloom). You can find out about that here as well. 

You can also figure out a way to divert a part of the air stream elsewhere. There are many ways depending upon what kind of junk (sorry I mean material) you have lying around.

I mean the thread where Thomas describes how to do it in detail. IMHO it is a great text for a beginner I did not find it in the sniffimg thread.

Have you heard about a guy called Occham? A reasonable answer would be: "The last time one of these were sold it was in good condition and changed hands in XX at YY$". In other places than IFI this would be the likely answer. It would also make the questioner feel more welcome,

Now let us make the question more elaborste. Can YOU answer the question on the condition that it were sold as an antique in New England and were complete but worn and without amateurish renovations. Or for that matter on any other condition?

PS. I did not say that it was milk retail price in the supermarket. 

OOPS

 I cannot find Thomas original description of TPAAAT 

Where is it??

I think that there is a tendency to overdo this call for precision. Would you put the same set of questions  to someone asking for the price of a pint of milk. Worth to a cow, a starving calf, as coolant in a vehicle, as refrigerant, as ....... 

The guy means "what would a reasonably complete original be sold for?"

Normally any object older than a hundred years is an antique (Anvils and certain musical intruments excepted) and traded as such.

Hej Joakim Det är väl bäst att jag fortsätter på engelska 

I cannot add much to the advice you have been given (which is very sound) but: Read up the 

Thomas Powers Applied Anvil Acquisition Technique (a thread under 'Anvils')

It will apply also to places where you can set up. Do you not have any friend or relation who is or knows a friendly farmer who is not too far away?

Around here, many would give you a welcome. Even if you are a beginner, there is usually something that needs straightening or bending on a farm.

I am unsure about "allemansrätten" in Norway. In Sweden you would need to ask the landowner for a smithing operation.

18 hours ago, SLAG said:

Herr Gote,

"Yup but Kant did not exist...." Herr Gote.

I must respectfully disagree.

" KANT could! "

Warm regards,

SLAG.

p.s. it is rumored on good authority that Herr Kant once espied his charming face in a mirror, so he must exist per se.

Herr Kant claimed that one could not know "das Ding an sich". (The thing as itself) Since he claimed that it was impossible to know the true nature of anything he must have doubted that he himself existed in the way he saw himself. Of course we can discard his ideas and believe he existed in the way we believe but then we probably must discard Herr Heisenberg as well. Somehow M. Descartes solved part of the enigma: I think (about my existence) Thus I exist. Question: Do we know for sure that Kant did think or was that just a quantuum fluctuation? Since so may claimed that Shakespeare did not write his plays, perhaps Shakespeare wrote the "Kritik"    

A shop (or home) is never finished. If it is, it turns into a museum. (Just laid in my wooden floor. more shelves next)

10 hours ago, Will W. said:

Technically, that's incorrect. 

Inhaling coal smoke is terrible, yes. But coal does not produce sulphuric acid. Coal can create sulphur gas (depending on each specific batch of coal and it's sulphur content), which, when coming into contact with water (like the sweat on your skin) can create sulphuric acid. It's called forge rash.

Or the inside of your nose throat and lungs

On 2017-07-24 at 5:48 PM, SLAG said:

Note to JHCC,

Did Kierkegaard exist?

SLAG.

Yup but Kant did not exist "an sich"

Beautiful Jennifer (Yes you too )

In my part of the world all doors and windows are designed like that so they can be lifted off when open. Some peple used to take out the inner leaf of double doors and windows in the summer but this seems to be history today.

Welcome back

Meridianfrost.

If you cannot behave you should keep out of the forum. This is not a place to show off an agressive attitude. Good Bye

The ones we use here (mainly for making holes in the ground but for any kind of prying really) look very much like Alan's but the handle is octogonal and the business end is wedge shaped not pointed. You turn it every time you lift it so the edge has a new direction. This helps in avoiding that it sticks in the ground. The edge is also stronger than a point when you use it the way SmoothBore describes and not only for RR cars.

If people use anvils as garden ornaments, Why not a cleat brought inland by the retiring dock man.

Tools are a kind of insects. They creep away into a hidden corner, turn into a chrysalis and then emerge as something different. I have read somewhere that the adjustable spanner is the larval stage of the wire clothes hanger. I wonder what the corkscrew is the larval stage of??

On 2017-06-30 at 2:35 AM, Judson Yaggy said:

  You can straighten a bar on a flat anvil as easily as you can on a swaybacked one, but a flat anvil also allows the smith to instantly index the work piece to a flat surface, even the zone that would be up in the air on a swayback. No wasted steps to a secondary flat work surface or "eyeballing" while the piece cools.  Energy costs money. 

99% of the professional smiths I know or have seen working have a dead flat primary working surface. 

hear hear!

I have no difficulty whatsoever in straigthening on a dead flat anvil

Dear Jennifer,

Thank you for taking on the effort of expressing yourself so eloquently. At the moment I am pressed fot time so I only comment a small thing.

A Kamae is the stance between the movement. The rest can be short or longer depending upon cirumstances. I am very sure since I many years ago had the enormous fortune to spend a too short week with Otake shihan, Don Draeger and a former Tokyo Police martial arts teacher plus a fourth guy also from Katori Shinto Ruy. I cannot have got it wrong. They used the word that way when we trained. It s also clear from Otake's three books.  

16 hours ago, Frosty said:

I've found keeping my elbows indexed into or as close to my hips as possible and keeping the strike zone on my center line has a number of advantages. 1 it means my blows are generally much more accurate. Fewer mistakes less reworking, less tired, good control.

The thread has moved into the realm of stances and bears.

As everyone else I can only speak about what works for me. I will be 80 next year and I am definitely a hobby blacksmith with probably less than 1000 hours behind me. I practically never work heavier material than 1/2" x 1" and I need to be careful with my back.

My elbow ends at waist height not at hip height so the distance from the hip is a meaningless measure. My elbow and shoulder joints give my right underarm a 45° angle to the left when held horizontally. If I do not want the hammer to rotate my wrist, the hammer handle will point in the same direction. I prefer to have the striking target in front of me. This means that the elbow must be out from my waist at the moment of impact unless I stand very far from the anvil. The distance elbow-waist (or what I have instead of a waist ) is 4-6". The resulting trajectory of hammer head is fairly close to Frosty's "plane of rotation". However one has to take into account that even if the nave of the rotating arm is the shoulder joint, the movement in the elbow tends to move the plane outwards.   

The martial art stances are intended to enable the martial artist to move suddenly. They are not "designed" for repetitive work. Unless we keep our center of gravity above our feet we will fall to the ground. A cyclist has a third suppport in the saddle.

When I was making a number of "tent pins" from 10mm square to keep the bottom of my anti boar/deer fence down I experimented with a 2.5 lsb hammer and a 4 one to see which was more efficient when forming the point. The result was that it did not matter. Every point took the same time. The heavier hammer made more impact but I could get more hits in the same time with the lighter. The heavier hammer was tiring so I stuck to the lighter. My normal hammer trajectory with the #2.5 is somwhere between 20" and 30". I might get a higher impact speed if I hit from three feet but the frequency would go down (probably also precision) Question: do I get more done with less frequent but harder hits? (with the same hammer).

The agressive position is obviously a must if the anvil is low and it is also a necessity when working hooves. Question: Is the low anvil a result of the need for an agressive position or or is it the other way round. I.e. have anvils set to a heigt adjusted to working with sets and a striker forced the "crouching tiger" stance? If I were to use a sledge hammer on a strength test contraption at a fair I have no doubt that I would strike from overhead and bend knees and back in the strike but I see no reason to hit with my whole body when using a #2.5. Since the body is very heavy compared with the hammer head, frequency tends to go down if I strike with my whole body. Part of the reason for the bent knees etc is to compensate for the reaction. If I make a heavy object move, my body will move in the other direction unless i check it.

Heavier stock forces a heavier hammer (to avoid fishmouthing etc) and a heavier hammer will need a longer acceleration distance giving the same arm strength. I believe that there is a kind of limit to the speed we can move our limbs (Otherwise a weight lifter would be the best javelin thrower) and that causes a kind of diminishing return on the striking trajectory lengt. A way to overcome this limit is to use a handle. A handle speeds up the hammer head and Frosty's "flip technique" (sorry Frosty I do not have a better word) makes more of this effect. If I need to choke up on the handle I am using a hammer that is too heavy for me to lift. Ideally I would lift the hammer close to the head (to decrease load on the wrist) and hit holding at the end of tha handle but we have to compromise.

What puzzles me when looking at videos by known smiths is that many of them have a low frequency and some choke up on the hammer.

On 2017-06-22 at 3:16 PM, Black Frog said:

It is a Columbian anvil.  The smaller circle logo down low between the feet is the reverse "FB" mark for Fagersta Bruks. 

Fagersta Bruk (no 's'). Another Swedish manufacturer