TechnicusJoe

Members
  • Content Count

    281
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About TechnicusJoe

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    The Netherlands
  • Interests
    Becoming the best smith I can be.

Converted

  • Location
    In the Netherlands
  • Biography
    I'm 17 years
  • Interests
    Blacksmithing, casting metal, making things out og wood and model live steam engines
  • Occupation
    Still in high school

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Forge welding bars of mild steel together or welding it over on itself will produce a comparable internal "grain" to that of wrought iron. Pattern welded steel also has that "grain". Though, mild steels and other modern steels (for pattern welding steel - "damascus") are homogenous materials. The grain will come from the welds between them and that isn't very visible, because the material is homogenous. Wrought iron gets its pronounced grain from not just only being made of blooms and forge welded together. The very blooms are not homogenous. Then by forge welding blooms and turning them into bars, you get strongly pronounced different materials that are now next to each other. Stacking new bars together and drawing them out, again and again will make that grain smaller and smaller, finer and finer. Mild steel lacks this, it's "too clean". Again, you can create a "grain" pattern that is hardly visible if you want to make that. But it's never the same, because mild steel doesn't contain bits of bloom with more, or with less bits of inclusions that have been drawn out to very long lengths. The alloy, composition of mild steel is not similar enough. It's the combination of the alloy of wrought iron and how it was processed. - different from mild steel.
  2. This is a hand forged anvil. You can see the handling holes, the weld seams on the bottom of the anvil and many more details that scream this anvil was forged, not at all cast. The picture with the "crack" doesn't show where it is located on the anvil. The "crack" may very well be a forge weld seam from forge welding the central mass of the anvil. Or it is a forge weld seam where one of the two horns has been forge welded onto the central mass. Which means it is not a crack at all, just a sign of its production method and there is nothing wrong. On a cast steel anvil, this would be alarming, but this is not a cast steel anvil. It is hand forged, and it is not uncommon that forge weld seams are visible.
  3. The reason for the "fake face plate" is not to imitate a face plate that doesn't exist. That's a waste of valuable time. The reason they do this, is in order to be able to save the anvil, should there be any air bubbles in the casting, or any other deformation from the mold. It gives the foundry some leeway that can be ground or milled out and they will still have an anvil that can be sold. Casting flaws simply happen, and in the anvil face and/or edges is a vital spot. Not all manufacturers remove this overhang. And not all manufactures put this overhang on the entire length of the edges. Should an edge chip, then the smith can still remove the overhang, left from the foundry. I personally dislike the look of an overhang.
  4. Making a pair of bolt tongs for Lars. Lars is the striker. We drew out one rein, and forge welded on the other for exercise. Forge welding can be applied in many other places.
  5. It confirms the play dough experiement. You are not looking at steel being forged. That is totally different from a ball bearing bouncing. With a ball bearing bouncing, there is (practically) no inelastic volume displacement. Whereas with forging hot steel, we displace volume, inelastically, and this takes up energy. Any energy that makes the hammer spin, makes sound, anything else, means, it didn't go into the steel. The same for the anvil, rocking motion of the anvil is energy that didn't go into moving the steel. This even occurs when the anvil is very stightly bolted down to a thick steel stand and that stand bolted down to heavy concrete slab. You can feel the shockwave in the concrete, ground, steel stand and the anvil itself. "So much" for a high rebound anvil focussing the blow onto the steel. Though when the anvil is sufficiently solft, it will deform and absorb the blows. This will plastically deform the anvil. Cold mild steel can dent and deform cold mild steel. A (cold) mild steel anvil easily stands up to hot mild steel and forging tool steels hot on it. Well why bother with the hard face, and forge welding that on then???? Simple, for the same reason they steel an axe. It will last way longer than if it were only iron. Smiths really used to forge a lot, especially at the anvil, if not already with strikers. These tools used to see so much use, that if it were just a soft iron block, which they used to be, they would deform too fast. Not within a day, but in a couple of weeks, the anvils would have to be reshaped again. This is expensive! Especially if the anvil is large! Thus it's benefitial to add a face that will help with wear resistence AND impact resistence. So the anvil face lasts longer, strays true longer and edges that stay longer. Arguably, most smiths today don't need a well heat treated and produced anvil. How many actually spend at least 60% of the time at their anvils, forging? Most stand at the power hammer, press, drill press, workbench or welder. There are only very few left in the world who actually spend most of their time at the anvil and actually produce on there, not just straightening out stock.
  6. If you are going to post the ball bearing bouncing, rebound video, which is an elastic collision, you should post my other video as well. In the bearing video you have cold steel, hardened if I may add, bouncing from the surfaces, hardened as well. Nor the faces, nor the bearing want to deform, they want to keep their shape. So you get a spring action, and it will keep bouncing, whilst a small % of the rebound is lost to air resistence, sound, heat, etc. . In forging we want inelastic collisions. We swing our hammer, or have the power hammer force the hammer ram down and make the steel move. In those collisions, it is preferable that energy is transfered to push the steel around. 100% efficiency isn't even possible: sound is produced, the steel lights up (that is energy that didn't end up moving the steel), and the hammer, anvil, anvil stand also play a roll in energy absorbtion or transfer. What do we ideally want??? We want the steel to move the most efficiently with each blow (in most cases). So if the hammer is swung and hits the steel, and "drops dead", most of the energy will have gone into moving the steel. If the hammer does anything else, produce more sound, rotates in your hand, smacks back in the palm of your hand, etc. Then some of that energy went to that result, and not focused on the steel. Here are a couple of why questions you may want to think about: Why don't people care about rebound on Power hammers? No one talks about that. If it is such an important role, why only the hand hammer? Why don't people care about the rebound on forge presses? That should move steel more efficienctly, correct? Both a hammer and press apply pressure to the steel. Why don't carpenters care about rebound from their hammers on nails? That should make their work easier, correct? it lifts the hammer back up for them? Why aren't general blacksmithing books addressing how important rebound is? I mean a proper explanation. Not the nonsense that boils down to: "oh it's nice to have an anvil with high rebound (but we fail to give an explanation and only address it subjectively.). Why has Fisher & Norris anvils published at least 3 advertisements promoting their anvils with less rebound!!! And I could bring up many more questions, but I'll leave it at this. Don't get me wrong! I'd take a hard hammer and anvil over soft ones any time. They last longer, the face lasts better. Forge scale will pit the faces less, the edges slightly deform over time, or not at all, till the point of breaking. Smiths used to put tool steel, in/on wrought iron where the material has to last a significant amount of time. You can see this on older hammer, anvils, chisels, vises, axes, and many more tools. Do you think they put a steel bit in an axe to make it rebound more when it chops through the wood??
  7. Thank you all for your kind words and concerns! This means very much to me! I'll try to elaborate a bit about my position. I'd call myself a forger, someone who forges, regardless of time period, tradition, etc. Firstly, what I don't understand is that many people, especically now, refer to me as a traditional blacksmith. I am totally not traditional. I haven't been an apprentice, I haven't had a master to teach me, nor been a Guild member ever. I don't use charcoal, but bituminous coal, or coke (not the white stuff). I don't use 2 separate leather bellows in a clay forge on the ground, nor the more modern double lung bellows and a cast iron tuyere essembly. Occasionally I use electric blowers, but I very much prefer my Champion 400 blowers which I can crank myself, which is a modern tool. They are not that old. Welding (non forge welding) came about at roughly 1900, that gives 117, nearly 118 years of time for a couple of generations to learn welding, use it and pass it on. Arguably welding is "traditional" as well. Though, welding is welding, not forging. Just like forging is not drilling, and grinding not forging. I love using my cast tool steel Refflinghaus anvil, certainly because I know Refflinghaus personally and have visited him numerous times in Germany. I like especially the 100lbs model, but also the drop forged steel anvils of Peddinghaus, whom I have visited in Germany as well. Pretty much everything of my equipment is modern, from anvils to forges to vises and tongs. And I am not set in a specific time period. iron age is "traditional" for the Viking age. The Viking age is "traditional" for the medieval times. Medieval times are "traditional" up to the industral revolution. And to us the Industrial revolution is traditional again. AND everything that is in between all of them. To me, personally, traditional is a word that really has lost its meaning. If it's not welding and grinding it almost immediately is "traditional". Even though for as long as we have had welding, you could consider welding a traditional thing. Though it's not at all the same as forging. I use modern PPE, safety boots, dust masks, safty specs with correction lenses for my otherwise blurry vision, ear deffenders, etc. All this stuff we didn't really have in the last roughly 5000 years? Or did we? Arguably, you really can't call me a traditional blacksmith. And I certainly don't aim to be or become one. I am a forger, I love and want to forge, specifically with hammer and anvil, and / or with a striker. Or a power hammer or press from time to time if it happens to be convient and present.. But often I will choose for hand forging (with a striker). Because that is what I love and like doing. As stated in the video, I don't care for what is economical and don't often base my choices of production in regards of that aspect. Secondly, what needs to be established concerning my work and my way of working, is that I go about in way that I like doing it, and that is as much hand forging as possible. That is what I like. I will and do run into moments that a drill, welder and grinder are extremely useful. And I make good use of them when I do. Though I rarely use them. BUT, you don't see me go about welding, grinding, drilling anything and then present it as a "hand forged wrought iron XYZ". I consider people / "Smiths" who do this, liars. Again, I don't care for the economic aspect. I like to forge fast and well, because I like to be good at it, it fascinates me, but not with the economic aspect in mind. I haven't started this hobby because I made money with it or desired to make money with it. I started forging because of an interest for learning about it, which became a passion. If I had to take economic aspects in mind, I would completely stop hand forging. And mechanise as much as possible. It's silly, in my opinion to forge by hand and try to compete in that outdated manner. I would invest in the developement of machine jigs. Jigs for the production of tools, gates or whatever, that are adjustible. So that I can produce in the largest quantities with the most options to customize still. I would remove as much as possible of that silly time wasting "traditional (hand) forging" which most of the customers " don't care about" or "aren't able to tell the difference from anyway". But I am not that type of person. I see more important things in my life than money. Even though I have a very bad addiction to food and shelter. I don't get joy from working in that manner and producing machines that will kill the craft I love so very much, even more than it already has been. Take that love away, and I have no reasons anymore to forge. And if I were to have to be in this field without a love for it. I would completely rip out all "romantical" aspects such as the "traditions", forging by hand, the idea of the village blacksmith. ( all that nonesense, with economy in mind) I would completely destroy these perspectives/ideas that slow production down and do anything that boosts profits. There is no love to take into account, but only MONEY. But then again, that is not my position and no who I am. Then why go to France? I was given an extremely unique opportunity. Here I thought I would spend a large % of my time forging, and a low % welding and grinding. I was up for doing that. And have gone through the difficult processes such as moving to France, all the paperwork etc. But reality has proven that to be different. Thus I stopped. Again, I like forging, the welding, grinding etc. not so much. I respect different ways of working. And I certainly don't have anything against welding, drilling, grinding. But me personally, I don't like using it much, and I especially don't like to mix it with forging. If anyone produces a gate or anything, welded, with forged parts. Then it is that, a product with forged parts. That is honest. Anyone can produce anything they want and or like. But be honest about what it is. On a new or modern gate, I'd personally rather see tenon joints, forge welds and collars and no welding. But that's me. If the gate or product is sold for what it truly is, that is honest. And I have absolutely no problems with that. I must also add, that these views are mine. I haven't had a master, or other people who have "taught" me and/or "told me" what I should think is right and what I should think is wrong. What I do in forging is what I think is nice and would like to do. Extremely selfish, that I won't ever deny. There are also a couple of arguments which I am going to address, which have no value to me, personally. If they do mean anything to you: brilliant! 1. "If blacksmiths X years ago could make use of XYZ, then they would". I hear and read this one very often. I totally don't care about this. I set my path on what I would like to do. NOT what someone else's opinion is on what I should do, or what other people who have been resting in peace for a long time SUPPOSEDLY (and yes it is realistic, I am not saying it's not true) would have done and used. I follow what I like, from my perspective and not what other people tell me what I should think or like. It's also regardless of again, the economical aspect. I love to forge and that is what I persue. 2. "I have been taught to do XYZ by ABC. Or, My Father/grandfather has always done it this way". That's all brilliant and good. But it's another argument that doesn't hold any value to me. If you want to do ONLY that which you have been told and/or taught. Then go ahead, I won't ever stop you. But please let me think for myself what I'd like to do, whether it agrees or disagrees with your teachings. That's what I recommend people. Do the things that you like! Whether I agree or disagree with it, is totally not important. It's your life. 3. "Without welding, grinding, drilling, machining, etc. blacksmithing is not viable otherwise and so many others have done it before me". I think I have already esthablished that I don't care about that. I am not forging for the viability of a company. I am forging because I have a love for it. Rip that love out, I have no reason to do it anymore. And in that case, I would rip out all "traditional and romantical aspects and focus purely on production and money. What others have done before you, especially if it worked; Brilliant, is not going to dictate for me what I will do. Please let me decide for myself what I am going to do. Just like I let you decide for yourself. This is again why I have gone back into hobbyist position. Being a professional smith involves too many bits that are not-forging, in my grossly selfish opinion. I don't care for the affordability, I don't get any joy from working like a "modern smith". So I totally am in the wrong place and should stop ASAP. And that is what I have done. I am NOT suitable as a professional blacksmith. I care too much about forging and how something is produced, instead of profits. In short. I am not a traditional blacksmith, nor do I care about being one. I am a forger, and forging is what I love to do. I found that making a living by actually (hand) forging, whether traditional or not I don't care about, forging is forging, is not going to be stable and enough to live. I don't care for the economic aspects and what other people's views are on what they perceive on what I should do. Very often it's good advice, but it drags me away from forging and puts a welder and grinder in my hands, which I refuse most of the time. Thus I had better stopped my professional works and stay a little silly romanticized hobbyist blacksmith. So that I can forge as I wish in my free time and work somehwere else to make a living and being able to support a family in the future. How others want to work and earn their money is their job and decision. Just like it's my job to sort out my ways with which I have peace. I am being very selfish here, it's only from my perspective, and that it is. But then again it's my life. So I try to fill in as many things in my life that I have peace with. I expect others to do the same thing for their lives and respect their choices and let them make theirs. But please, let me make mine too. Wrong ones too, I have lots to learn still!
  8. Contact me via Facebook: Joey van der Steeg. Display picture is me at the beach. Or send me an email [email protected] I prefer Facebook if you have it. I am sure I can help you locate one and have it shipped to you.
  9. I'll be brief. (turns out I failed at trying to be brief) The anvil here, is a real single horn Peddinghaus, made before Peddinghaus was taken over by RIDGID The site link etc. read the VERY LAST post by SinePari. I talked with this person via Facebook. This anvil lacks all characteristics of a Peddinghaus. WHO in their right mind would use cones!? Peddinghaus anvils were forge welded at the waist, unless smaller than 50kg - 110lbs. (more) Modern Peddinghaus anvils are milled flat and then welded at the waist. I have promoted Peddinghaus and Refflinghaus anvils for their quality. I have stopped doing this for the latest RIDGID Peddinghaus anvils. They no longer are the same quality. The recent models are FAR below the standard of what they used to be. Having been at the factory in Gevelsberg, Germany, where they are still made today. I had the honor of seeing their production. Sadly, the factory Chiefs have informed me the market is too small for them to keep up the high standard for their now small range of anvils. They used to make 12 models!!!! It's down to just 3 today!! So they have to keep cutting corners. I have felt, seen and heard about: -Irregular hardness -Ugly waist weld -Not aligned hardy holes -Forging defects on the horns or body (the second one shouldn't matter much, just aesthetically less pleasing) -Irregular chamfering -uneven forged face transition into the horns. I have actually made a small documentation of this and sent this to the Chiefs. They know about it. But for the little demand there is, they can't make the anvils any better. Their main focus at Peddinghaus is their range of vises. I can rant on for much longer in much more detail but this post is getting very long already. I don't suggest people anymore to buy a RIDGID Peddinghaus anvil anymore that is newly made. Quality is just a lot lower than what it used to be. Keep an eye out for the older ones from RIDGID from the 1990s, they were well made. And of course not to forget all predecessors: PFP, Original PFP and Peddinghaus. Such a shame............
  10. Gote, you mention "coal". But it is rather confusing, because I have no idea what type? The type of fuel affects the fire. The discussion isn't just "coal". There is: Brown coal Flame coal Gas flame coal Gas coal Fat coal (bituminous coal) Forge coal (bituminous coal) Nonbaking coal Anthracite What type of coal do you use, that will help clear things up. I made it clear I use, specifically, bituminous coal. And I mention I am familiar with other fuel types. With you saying you use coal. I find it hard to imagine it's anything but an anthracite type of coal. Coal types below the anthracite type produce a big amount of smoke when fired the way you describe. I have my experiences with anthracite. Some can't get anything else but this. But I really don't like anthracite. I had 70kgs - 154lbs I ordered extra next to my bituminous coal to really try it out for research purposes. Boy..... do I wish I had not bought any of it. It doesn't smoke, but it sure does produce clinker! I have heard this from others who use it as well. But what bugs me the most is that anthracite doesn't give me the same hot and intense heat coked bituminous coal and coke can. You can use it to heat stock and get it to forge welding temperatures if you put some effort in it. But it's very different in its behavior compared to coked bituminous coal and even coke. The fire ball tends to stay in the lower portion of the fire, near the tuyere. When heating billets to forge hammers, 2 inch - 50mm diameter stock (or larger), anthracite tends to heat the bottom. You can try and push up the fire ball with more air, but it turns into an oxidizing fire very quickly. Antracite coal has a small surface area for the oxygen to react with. It's not porous like coke or coked bituminous coal, so you quickly have too much oxygen. Coke and bituminous coal can be fired in more versatile ways. I can keep the fire small for smaller stock and works. But I can enlarge it to accomodate 2 inch + stock. And the nice thing it does, it spreads. This I very much use in my advantage. I can create a "furnace" if you will, around my stock that all glows evenly. This provides a nice even heat that can be maintained with a neutral atmosphere. I may only have to turn once to twice for a really nice even heat in a timely manner. All fuel types have their similarities but also still their differences. Your argument of how much air one blows into the fire is a very important factor. But there are a lot more factors.
  11. (I have dropped a lengthy text responding to our (expanding) discussion) Even when you said disagreed and wrong, I think we still agreed from the start. let me explain. Everything is so dependent on context. By my statement: " The larger and higher you pile up, the more fuel gets consumed." I aim at a situation that a higher and more piled up fire, the actual the fire ball that is larger in size; the actually glowing and firey part. Soley, I aim at what you refer to as "fire ball". I can happily concur with this word. Getting an enlarged fire (ball) very easily happens with bituminous coal, charcoal. Coke and anthracite will do too, but slightly slower/differently. All of them have different fire maintenances. I address I use bituminous coal and in what kind of fire pot it is fired in. So what do we have and what do I aim at: an over sized fire ball: we agree this is wasteful. I quote you: " I agree that it is wasteful to make the fire ball bigger than is needed." Thus it's larger, and often higher piled up - You got more fuel consumption. This is with the perspective that the fire ball can and will grow Your perspective is at a different point than mine. From what I can read from your posts we are still agreeing, only looking from different perspectives. What doesn't help is our differences in fuels used and corresponding observations. I have used coke, bituminous coal, charcoal, anthracite, lignite, wood. But I don't get the impression you have used bituminous coal that swells up into coke as it burns (often). My video mainly deals with this fuel, bituminous coal. You include the layer of fuel that isn't yet used inside the fire ball, I exclude this. It's not the part of the fire that supplies the heat. It's not fire or the glowing embers. And the fuel you use, and right now I have to assume it from what you say - correct me if wrong, is coke. Coke works different in it's fire maintenance than bituminous coal. There are enough similarities though. Because from the start we agree that making a fire (ball) bigger than the work at hand, is wasteful. The way smiths pull fresh coke over your fire (ball) - I did the exact same thing when I was in England; using a side blast forge and coke - I had better not done the same with bituminous coal. I can, as in I am able to do it. But it is not desireable. You can ask all smiths who use bituminous coal that you had better not done that. With coke you can just pull it over the fire. With bituminous coal is it better to make 2 fresh coal piles left and right of the fire ball, so it can coke the fresh coal and help keep the heat in as much as it can, whilst burning off the smoke. Or you can make an alround soft of volcano-like structure. Though this last one brings some undesireble effects I will leave out of this discussion. Coke you can choke down, if you do it right, exactly like you describe. Then you can indeed mount it higher, but still only have the fire ball small down inside. But a look around in forges in the main part of Europe and in the US and Canada, you will find many use bituminous coal. If you do the same thing, the fire will spread. you can water it down and extinquish it. But this cools down the fire and makes it inefficient with large piles. The coal will ignite, burn to coke first, but then continues to glow at dull red; burning (if not extinguished.) If you allow the fire (ball) to become larger and have glowing fuel ontop of the fire core, it is very wasteful. It's more apparent with bituminous coal than with coke. By limiting the amount of fuel you have on your fire, you limit the fire (ball) size and already converve a lot of fuel - all proportional to the stock heated. Further fuel conversation can be done with exact amount of air fed into the fire.
  12. Thank you for the compliment! I'm glad to hear you like them. And the more text suggestion has been noted, cheers! The first statement " You cannot consume more fuel than what can be burnt by the air supplied " I cannot disagree with statement, it's fact that it works this way. So, we're on the same page regarding this. But I have to add there is a lot more to it than just that. Yes, this is fact, though a lot more things happen in a forge. The statement you make applies when there is no other possible source for oxygen to react with the fire. But the forge is in open air. Oxygen is all around the fire, so there is always a source apart from the forced air we use to heat up stock. Even if you pile up, coke and the other solid fuels are porous and/or have gaps everywhere where air can move through. It will reach it. This is not as apparent with coke, but clear with bituminous coal that is coked or being coked during forging, charcoal, wood that is charred to charcoal as you forge. Low quality coal turns into ash rather quickly in this case. Coke will die out rather quickly without much ash when air is stopped. Bituminous coal, coal, charcoal and wood will continue to be consumed at their corresponding rates. You can water the fuel in various ways at various stages, but I want to leave this out of the equation for now. Coke you can rake over the fire, it's all the same fuel. With bituminous coal, which I address in the video, it is not desireable to rake over fresh fuel. This will litter the fire, make it dirty - this is especially important for forge welding. Fresh coal is favorable to have around the fire so the heat can coke it, so you can have clean coke by time it reaches the center of your fire. The center of a coal fire tends to be left "open" - by this I don't mean a opening down to the tuyere, but the top layer of coke glows. This will burn off the gas released by the coking coal. If you want to you can smother the fire and create HUGE plumes of whiteish to green and yellowish smoke. Though this is not favorable. Certainly when you do demonstrations with bituminous coal!!! Something else that also affects the fuel consumption in a fire is thermal dynamics. A coal forge lit 10 minutes ago will heat stock more slowly/differently than a forge that has been fired for 6 hours. Heat/energy wants to find equilibrium: heating some 3/8" rod, say 1 foot long, heating it at the end. After some time, you will feel the heat at the other end. On a cold day the top portion of the anvil may become very warm during forging, but the feet are still cold. After a certain amount of time you can feel the heat in the feet. Piling fuel ontop of the fire does this too. It will always search for equilibrium. So heat wants to go into the cooler piled fuel. Now there is also more to it than how I just phrased that. Coke is a porous material, so it can insulate the fire. Which is what we smiths try our best to do. Though the heat still moves outward, even with very little air. If you leave it as is, the fire will become a big glowing pile, rather than having all heat contained at the core. You're heating the fuel too, the forge etc., rather than soley the stock. So, back to my statement. Making a larger fire (mostly emphasized on making it bigger than necessary) will result in more fuel consumption. I will agree again, it won't go any faster than you feed it air. But it's not a perfectly closed system. More things affect the fire. I'll also happily go the other way around. Say that piling and closing the fire keeps all heat it in and doesn't bring up fuel consumption. I wonder then why I don't see smiths making a large fire by default. It will save time and effort scooping fuel. When I studied blacksmithing at the Herefordshire College of Technology - today Hereford and Ludlow College, the beginning smiths were informed to not make a (an unnecessarily) big pile of coke on their (water cooled side blast forge) fire. Rather, make a suitable sized "mole hill" that is fit for the stock to be forged. But no excessive piling. Here comes my statement again - If you make the fire larger and higher you will consume more fuel. The college very much tries to keep the coke consumed in the forges down.
  13. Ermm.. how can I say this the best. Are you 100% sure you got the context I advanced in the video, or tried to? You know...., making a big fire only to heat for example 3/8" stock, working this all day only, no professional speed applied or production. Thus more fuel is more fuel consumption. Plenty of beginners do this ----> goaled audience. This is an attempt of mine to save them money. In many areas coal isn't cheap. I haven't seen any smiths making their fire bigger than it needs to be. There is a balance to this, you make a fire suited for the stock size. Making it bigger than this wastes fuel. Or please, make a fire the size big enough to forge a sword in. I'd suggest the type and size used by Japanese swordsmiths and then only forge nails. Without putting multiple bars in, just 1 of, say 3/8" cross section. But that's awfully wasteful isn't it? All that energy released and not used to heat more stock. Well then you come to my statement more fuel = more fuel consumption. Either load up your fire or bring the size of your fire down. I hope this clarifies it.
  14. Gegroet vanuit Alphen aan den Rijn, Nederland :). I will continue in English. Jan, your Peddinghaus is made sometime in the 1950s. The "Original P.F.P." anvils are the last ones to have been forge welded at the waist. The after the 1950s Succesor marked "PEDDINGHAUS" and the contemporary "RIDGID Peddinghaus" are electrically welded at the waist. I own several of the "PFP" and "Original PFP" anvils and one RIDGID Peddinghaus anvil. It's a joy to work on these drop forged steel anvils. Groeten, Joe
  15. That has to have reasoning behind it. A context there must be. There are many people (especially with many people posting on Facebook and YouTube) who post what they do, beginners as well. And there is far more than just IFI Assuming it's aimed for the beginning smiths amongst us who don't often forge much larger stock than the 3/8" range, perhaps 1" stock once or twice. If you have a medium sized fire pot, say 3-4 inches deep, 9 x 9 or 12 inches, and load this up with fuel to only forge small stuff, that is fuel wasting. In any size fire pot there is a certain amount of volume of fuel consumed per hour. The larger and higher you pile up, the more fuel gets consumed. It all releases its heat, but if you don't have stock in there to absorb it, it's wasted. A certain % of heat is always lost. But you don't have to waste more than needed. Or do you always shovel a ton of fuel on your fire and let it go up in smoke, hahaha. I assume not. Even with a crank blower or shutting off air inbetween heats, you have a fuel volume that can heat many more pieces of stock than what one puts in. Say with the medium fire pot, you have capacity to easily heat 3" square stock. Now only put in 1 bar of 3/8" round. You still have all that fuel getting consumed. You can minimize it by carefully regulating air. Making the fire smaller, but large enough for the stock at hand is more fuel efficient. Or go the other way around, load up your forge with more bits of stock. A saying comes from this "Too many irons in the fire". For the same reason, one would perferably load up a gas forge with as much stock as you can. Because that burning gas is giving off heat. Whether you put it one piece or load it up, it will release the same amount of heat. Of course some regulation of heat and gas consumption is possible. But that is not the point I am trying to make. Still assuming it's aimed for the beginner smiths amongst us. Who of them can work more than one piece in the fire without burning or messing it up? Especially taking into account many don't have a teacher to watch over their shoulder. Or can instruct them and correct any info. they accidently took on differently than what whas said. I'd bet that whatever video you say, was totally not aimed at more seasoned smiths such as yourself. So that bit of info. doesn't at all apply to you. Context is important. If I could look at the video, I would look for the stock sizes used. If it's all small stock, a shallow fire makes sense. Many smiths (clearly not all of them) in Europe mention stoking a fire appropriate for the stock size you are using - And to not load up your fire pot with as much fuel as you can. It makes no sense to make a big fire suitable for forging an anvil if you're only going to forge nails.