John Larson

I tried to no avail. It seems to be for on line reading only. Hope I am wrong about that.

Hurray! The shiny edges of the die faces suggests you have had the dies remade. That was fast.

DD, your new shop capabilities and amenities are inspiring. Love the ceiling height and overhead crane. You can do your work without other workers if you want to. The setting of those steam hammers by yourself made a big statement to me.

I opened it and can read it, but it eludes me as to how to print it. Can anyone help?

Very nicely done. Congratulations on your quality workmanship.

DD, I'm glad John N chimed in with his experience-based advice. There is also the option of one totally new die of more height, because you will need to watch the 3/8" safety line closely as things move over time. one inch would give more comfort. The 3/8 needs watching because there is more wood to shrink under the anvil than under the frame. A new die could solve both problems. A rebuilt die would involve the same heat treating expense and some of the same machining. So the extra expense is material and some more machining.

Maybe one of the dies has to be turned around a half turn.

Perhaps, bizarre, but remake one of your dies, or their shims. Maybe each die can be shimmed over half the needed distance and then new wedges made. Many old hammers ran shims on both sides of the dovetails to achieve the alignment they wanted.

BEAUTIFUL. Now let the concrete cure.

Danger Dillon, I'm curious about the anchor bolts you will use to hold the hammer frame. Do you have the crete socketed in some way?

Sorry to read about your delayed pour. Nice dies.

Very interesting DD. Thanks for the video. Your shop looks really nice.

Really good news, DD. I sense your confidence factor has risen immensely--and that is surely a good thing. I very much look forward to your video and full explanation of your set up. So far IFI conversations have been super informative and I know from decades on the web blacksmithing sites that hammer knowledge has been advance immensely. Thank you.

First of all, I have been assuming your hammer reciprocates on its own. That is why I suggested releasing top chamber air to get the tup to rise, believing that it would then reverse without working the control lever. I think iron woody refers to single blow behavior where the motion lever movement gives tup movement. Maybe I didn't understand him.

Second, I intended to suggest only a momentary release of upper chamber air, just enough to get the tup to move so that the motion valve moves away from its center position. The air released would be small so that there would be no dramatic movement to induce upper contact. If the valve I suggested is toe controlled, just take your toe off to stop the air release.

To test the idea you do have to drill and tap a hole for a hose barb. If it doesn't work a plug can be screwed in to replace the hose barb.

Steam locking is a term I pirated out of an old steam hammer pamphlet and it means that after the motion valve lever (or treadle) moves the motion valve off center, the tup movement causes the valve to re-center itself. If there is no inertia effect the tup stops, stopping the motion valve, and stopping air flows. This is what is going on in Ken Z's videos when the treadle is moved (and then held constant) and the tup moves to it, and stops.

Danger Dillon, here is an idea with respect to treadle control that I think will work for most hammering situations. Allow the stroke length control lever to be in a manually set position. Run the hammer with the treadle connected to the throttle valve. As a new thing, add a secondary air bleed off valve for momentarily releasing air from the chamber on top of the piston so that when you step on its switch the bleed off of the air allows the tup to rise, thus eliminating "steam locking." Once the tup is moving, the treadle control of the regular throttle valve and tup inertia should keep reciprocation going. The secondary valve that is the new idea could be activated by a toe switch, separate from or attached to the regular throttle treadle.

You can also use a second treadle to foot control the stroke length control ala Ken Z. In this case the air flow would be manually set to a constant position appropriate for the work being done. Here my secondary air bleed off valve has no role to play because the control valve is moved by treadle and/or lever.

Note that the Ken Z slot adjustment that is used to achieve the treadle hammer action can be envisioned on one of the two levers that connect the curved spear to the control valve. By adequate shortening of the radius via the slot position the tup will descend but the tup will tend to stop when the valve reaches the middle "steam locked" position and not overshoot so easily (hence less chance of reciprocation). The tup will follow the treadle and stop and then move up or down according to what you next do with the treadle position. The slotted lever will be most easily accessed if it is the lever on the curved spear's shaft.

All of this offered with the need for others who are more experienced to evaluate and comment.

Danger Dillon, the 3-position valve is what is causing the hammer to "steam lock" at the middle position. Once reciprocating inertia will tend to allow that middle position to be crossed without the tup stopping. Once stopped, the throttle lever won't get it to move (except possibly by some differential leakage). Maybe John N knows a standard way of handling this. I suspect there may be several approaches. I think you have to set priorities on the two controls, probably making the throttle valve secondary so that it has its effect after the position control has been "jiggled" a bit to get it off center. That is what the hammer man always seems to do in old film clips I've seen.

You guys have so much energy. I'm thoroughly impressed with your workshop DD. Rick thanks for the e-book in entirety and thanks DD for the relevant chapter. I've leaqrned a great deal today.

Art Jones demonstrated at Ashville ABANA in my distant memory and had a video of some big machinery in one of the halls. I was such a newbie that the shock and awe weren't fully appreciated. His linkage is interesting fer shure. Thanks for your sketch.

I have read the chapter on foundations that you referenced for us. It should be mandatory reading. Good research on your part. Thank you.

Certainly seems that old time manufacturers went up from 10:1 to 15:1 mass ratioes. Or higher. The need for foundation mass falls as the mass ratio rises, and with less foundation comes less foundation maintenance over the long term (timber deterioration). Steel and cast iron are expensive, but so is concrete and labor. I certainly favor new hammers having big mass ratioes. The beauty of the reference book is that it teaches accomodation for the older hammers and why.

I believe that not attaching the anvil to the material below it is okay as the chapter author indicates (with a fence around the anvil base), however I do not think it increases the mass ratio, per se. It accomodates the ratio that you have. The timbers keep the "bouncing" minimized and the concrete absorbs the shock.

The timbers are going to shrink from moisture reduction as they age. They shrink across the growth rings. Timbers do not shrink in length. Something not mentioned in the chapter, but worth considering as you set the machine height.

DD, that is a very nice reference book. Thanks for sharing it I've printed the relevant chapter out and will study it more carefully.

DD, is the crete and the timber all tied to the anvil? Must be given that you included them in the mass ratio.

Being a very long time mathematical model builder as a former professor, I am reminded of the pretty curves produced for the Club of Rome report on how the world was going to eventually end. Robert Solow from MIT ran their equations starting "at the time of Adam and Eve" and had the world come to a nasty end before recorded civilization. His point was that the curves are mere mathematical artifacts and not truly desc riptive. Some formulas have peaks and valleys in their graphs because that is what those formulas do inherently. I do not know the math being graphed and purported to be scientific proof of the mass ratioes needed for power hammers. Could be legit or might not be. The author had best intentions I am sure.

When considering the productivity of a given anvil mass you can be sure that as the ratio rises the effect will taper off. I personally disagree with the 10:1 ratio being near the top of the hill. The analogy that Tom Troszak and I have used with size of manual hammer relative to size of manual anvil is a good one. A 10 pound sledge hammer on a 100 pound anvil is not a pretty picture.

Larry, I disagree with your statement about Beaudry versus Kinyons. I've had both. My Iron Kiss hammers will do at least as much as Beaudries. Kinyons vary tremendously, of course, and generally shop made hammers use anemic pneumatics. When hits per unit time and falling weights are equal, and strokes are equal, the added force of pneumatics tends to favor the pneumatic hammer. That said, the fact is that Beaudries are built extremely well. Often they run too slowly, but that can be fixed.

It is very nicely executed.

I thought Blacksmith Journal was outta business some time ago.