Monster Anvils - Why?

[ThomasPowers]

Why? Because they were *cheap*: 515# Fisher Mint condition $350 410 Trenton, poor condition, $200---now rebuilt and gleaming!

[FieryFurnace]

I can always tell a big difference working back and forth between my 86 pound trenton and my 280 pound fisher. That fisher ain't movin and one guy with a pick up would a dandy time trying to load it alone! (Two guys.....yes!)

Anyway, would I mind having a 1000 pound anvil? Not really! Would I pay $7000 for one? NO! LOL

I'll let y'all have the bragging rights!

Seriously though, is there a point where the gain in the resistant mass becomes void.
Like if you have a 80 pound anvil and you get a 200 pound anvil then you gain X% in efficiency.
Then you upgrad to a 400 pound anvil and you gain another X% in efficiency.
Is there a point where you quit gaining that efficiency?

[patrick]

A few points:

From an historical perspective, very large anvils were used to do very large work. See the chain making and "Welding the Big Ring" videos on youtube or check out pictures of the old steel mill blacksmith shop in Johnstown PA. Also note that large anvils were used in shipyards.

From a modern point of view, the best example I have seen of ornamental work done by strikers was the dragon sculputre display at this years ABANA convention. The dragon heads were forged from 2 or 3 in square bar using strikers during a public demo in Texas. The smiths that did the work had to bring all their own equipment so I don't think the anvils they were using were more that a few hundred pounds. However, the heads were pretty intricate and I personally would find it difficult to forge them under a power hammer. I'm sure they could have been roughed , but a lot of the details were created in such a way that a striker was probably the best method.

From an efficiency standpoint there is a definite point of diminishing returns. Chambursburg figured this out for steam hammers and they came up with a 20:1 ratio for the weight of the anvil compared to the weight of the hammer. I don't think the same number applies to hand forging because of a number of variables such as anvil hardness, blow energy and how well the anvil is achored.

From a personal standpoint I find that I, like many others, am attracted to large anvils, but that the attraction dimishishes if the anvil becomes so large that it is a characature of historical pieces. That is to say I would love to have the largest anvil I could that was actually produced for real work and not for show. The biggest I've personally seen were in the 700-800 lb range and I've seen advertisements for some larger, upwards of 1000 lbs. I've also seen an anvil that was cast as more of a show piece than anything else which weighed 2000# or so and I found that one to be less desirable to me since it lacked any historical reference that I know of. Having a tie to history is important to me.

Patrick

[ThomasPowers]

Patrick---the "mile Long" anvil at Q-S was the biggest that I recall at 5280 pounds; but I thought it wasn't made from a hardenable alloy.

[Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver]

Patrick: Well, usually we think of all those variable as being constant for discussion. IIRC the Chambersburg numbers gave about 55% of maximum efficiency at 20:1. Trouble is, because the anvil is not moving, it takes infinite mass to reach 100%. It's a parabolic curve, so you get lots of effect adding 100 pounds when you're at 4 or 5:1 but very little effect adding a hundred pounds when you're already at 20:1. At this end, adding huge amounts of weight gains very little.

[maddog]

I wish a mechanical engineer would say something on this topic.

But in the meantime I opened my college physicis book and played around with the equations for elastic collisions. This assumes that the hammer just strikes the anvil face, without any deformation and rebounds. A real life forging blow is more complicated.

For different ratios of anvil mass to hammer mass, I get these numbers for the percentage of energy lost to anvil movement.

Ratio %Loss

5:1 55%
10:1 33%
15:1 23%
20:1 18%
25:1 15%

The equation I used was %Energy loss = 4r /(1+r)^2 x 100 where r is the anvil to hammer mass ratio.

These results should be treated with some skepticism. I am not an ME. The numbers do seem plausible. They say there is not much point in going beyond 20:1 which seems to be industry practice and it's hard to get more than 80% efficiency.

[bajajoaquin]

This is fascinating. Thank you all.

I took maddog's formula and put it into Excel, adding variables for hammer and anvil weight, as well as changing the result from percent lost to overall percent efficiency. It made more sense to me to visualize the diminishing returns. I've attached it as a .zip file so people can see the numbers or play with them themselves.

Assuming a 2.5 lb hammer, reading comments from lots of people, and using the equation with a big grain of salt, I focused on the difference in efficiency between 250 and 400 pounds for an anvil. Just for the sake of argument, it seems like smiths can pretty readily tell the difference in forging between these two sizes.

2.5 lb hammer, efficiency:

250 lb anvil: 96.1%
400 lb anvil: 97.5%

Difference: 1.5%

So, again for the sake of argument, a good smith can easily tell a difference in efficiency of 1.5%, and there is a strong preference for being over 95% efficiency.

If we look at the numbers for a 5lb hammer,

5 lb hammer, efficiency:
250 lb anvil: 92.3%
400 lb anvil: 95.1%

Difference: 2.8%

And note that you don't hit that 95% (arbitrary) threshold until you're at 400 lb. Getting back to my original scenario that caused me to ask the question, I punched in a 10 lb hammer, like you might use with a striker.

10 lb hammer, efficiency:
250 lb anvil: 85.2%
400 lb anvil: 90.5%

Difference: 5.3%

To look at the effects of something the size of stewartthesmith's anvil and the 1000 lb Refflinghaus, we would be looking at:

10 lb hammer, efficiency:
750 lb anvil: 94.8%
1000 lb anvil: 96.1%

Given the fuzziness of this whole process, I'd call the 750 lb anvil close enough to the arbitrary 95%, but I also note that it's pretty close to the 1.5% that it seems can be readily noticed by smiths.

This also sheds some light on the engineering choices made by power hammer manufacturers. Somewhere around 20:1, it's cheaper to hit the material again than it is to design in a heavier anvil. When you're forging by hand, and the power isn't coming out of a electrical circuit, the calculus changes, and the ratio at which people seem to start to say "good enough" is 75:1 or 100:1

Very, very interesting.

hammer_anvil_ratio_efficiency.zip

[Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver]

This also sheds some light on the engineering choices made by power hammer manufacturers. Somewhere around 20:1, it's cheaper to hit the material again than it is to design in a heavier anvil.
Very, very interesting.

Not only that, but it's cheaper to just build/buy a larger hammer than to try to squeak more out of the smaller one.

[Jacob Tkalec]

This is fascinating. Thank you all.

I took maddog's formula and put it into Excel, adding variables for hammer and anvil weight, as well as changing the result from percent lost to overall percent efficiency. It made more sense to me to visualize the diminishing returns. I've attached it as a .zip file so people can see the numbers or play with them themselves.

Assuming a 2.5 lb hammer, reading comments from lots of people, and using the equation with a big grain of salt, I focused on the difference in efficiency between 250 and 400 pounds for an anvil. Just for the sake of argument, it seems like smiths can pretty readily tell the difference in forging between these two sizes.

2.5 lb hammer, efficiency:

250 lb anvil: 96.1%
400 lb anvil: 97.5%

Difference: 1.5%

So, again for the sake of argument, a good smith can easily tell a difference in efficiency of 1.5%, and there is a strong preference for being over 95% efficiency.

If we look at the numbers for a 5lb hammer,

5 lb hammer, efficiency:
250 lb anvil: 92.3%
400 lb anvil: 95.1%

Difference: 2.8%

And note that you don't hit that 95% (arbitrary) threshold until you're at 400 lb. Getting back to my original scenario that caused me to ask the question, I punched in a 10 lb hammer, like you might use with a striker.

10 lb hammer, efficiency:
250 lb anvil: 85.2%
400 lb anvil: 90.5%

Difference: 5.3%

To look at the effects of something the size of stewartthesmith's anvil and the 1000 lb Refflinghaus, we would be looking at:

10 lb hammer, efficiency:
750 lb anvil: 94.8%
1000 lb anvil: 96.1%

Given the fuzziness of this whole process, I'd call the 750 lb anvil close enough to the arbitrary 95%, but I also note that it's pretty close to the 1.5% that it seems can be readily noticed by smiths.

This also sheds some light on the engineering choices made by power hammer manufacturers. Somewhere around 20:1, it's cheaper to hit the material again than it is to design in a heavier anvil. When you're forging by hand, and the power isn't coming out of a electrical circuit, the calculus changes, and the ratio at which people seem to start to say "good enough" is 75:1 or 100:1

Very, very interesting.

Wonderful little Excel file. I'll be holding onto that.

[fciron]

I think it's worth noting that a smith works on the horn and heel of the anvil as well as the center of the face. A larger anvil is going to tell more as you move away from the center of mass. As has been noted earlier, variables such as the mounting of the anvil can make a difference as well.

Bajajoaquin, thanks for doing the math.

[bajajoaquin]

Yes, I agree. I was worried that it would degenerate into sort of an anvil equivalent of bashing soccer moms for driving SUVs. "You don't need that Ford Excursion! You never haul more than Masie and Cindy to practice!"

And Jacob, I love me a good Excel file. I've got them for everything from converting acres and hectares to square feet, to steel block weights, to tire diameters from standard sizes. :)

[Jacob Tkalec]

Yes, I agree. I was worried that it would degenerate into sort of an anvil equivalent of bashing soccer moms for driving SUVs. "You don't need that Ford Excursion! You never haul more than Masie and Cindy to practice!"

And Jacob, I love me a good Excel file. I've got them for everything from converting acres and hectares to square feet, to steel block weights, to tire diameters from standard sizes.

I know people who are addicted to them. They do come in handy, that's for sure.

[bajajoaquin]

I think it's worth noting that a smith works on the horn and heel of the anvil as well as the center of the face. A larger anvil is going to tell more as you move away from the center of mass. As has been noted earlier, variables such as the mounting of the anvil can make a difference as well.

Bajajoaquin, thanks for doing the math.

You're welcome, but let's give credit where it's due. Maddog did the math. I just plugged it in.

And let's all remember: he's not claiming much accuracy for his formula, and I riddled my spreadsheet with lots of arbitrary assumptions. Just because it's in writing, doesn't mean its correct. Having said that, it "feels" directionally accurate to me. I'm hoping some more people will weigh in with opinions on that matter.

[bajajoaquin]

I know people who are addicted to them. They do come in handy, that's for sure.

Sorry to go so far off topic, but I just looked at my spreadsheet archive here at the office (I'm running reports for a meeting tomorrow):
Acre/sq foot converter
steel weight calculator
Tire size calculator
Hammer/anvil ratio calculator
Mortgage overpayment payoff calculator
Calculator for pricing campers with varying options/standard equipment
Calculator for the number of sand dollars my fiancee will need on our wedding cake
Drilling/milling FPM calculator
Vacation accrual
Motorcycle sprocket ratio calculator
Incremental growth for a sphere in diameter, volume, and circumference
Retirement funds calculator with compound interest and wage growth factors

This may explain to some why I keep asking, "why?"

:D

[Dragons lair]

Sorry to go so far off topic, but I just looked at my spreadsheet archive here at the office (I'm running reports for a meeting tomorrow):
Acre/sq foot converter
steel weight calculator
Tire size calculator
Hammer/anvil ratio calculator
Mortgage overpayment payoff calculator
Calculator for pricing campers with varying options/standard equipment
Calculator for the number of sand dollars my fiancee will need on our wedding cake
Drilling/milling FPM calculator
Vacation accrual
Motorcycle sprocket ratio calculator
Incremental growth for a sphere in diameter, volume, and circumference
Retirement funds calculator with compound interest and wage growth factors

This may explain to some why I keep asking, "why?"

Spread sheets be dammed. Worked one place the boss came out and said "see this" I said here is the tool show me how
to do it in that time frame. Worked in one place piecework shop after 15 yrs was told spreadsheet says your too slow.
Da m it was fast enough last yr. I left Co along with many others. Co went from 22 million to 2.4 million the next yr. Took 15 yrs to get that high. 15 weeks to get that low. Spreadsheets are a great way for companys to screw the troops or themselvs. Visited there 18 yrs later thier still in the hole. Got help try telling them they need to do 3X as much for 1/2 the pay. I don't care I moved 1000 miles away. Now it's just me

[fciron]

Spread sheets be dammed. Worked one place the boss came out and said "see this" I said here is the tool show me how
to do it in that time frame. Worked in one place piecework shop after 15 yrs was told spreadsheet says your too slow.
Da m it was fast enough last yr. I left Co along with many others. Co went from 22 million to 2.4 million the next yr. Took 15 yrs to get that high. 15 weeks to get that low. Spreadsheets are a great way for companys to screw the troops or themselvs. Visited there 18 yrs later thier still in the hole. Got help try telling them they need to do 3X as much for 1/2 the pay. I don't care I moved 1000 miles away. Now it's just me

That's not spread sheets, that's user error. ;)

[dkunkler]

Calculator for the number of sand dollars my fiancee will need on our wedding cake

Won't that make the cake extra-crunchy? :blink:

[DaveMartell]

this has turned into a marvelous thread, and I have learned plenty........thanks

Yes, me too, thanks everyone.

[Mainely,Bob]

Spread sheets be dammed. Worked one place the boss came out and said "see this" I said here is the tool show me how
to do it in that time frame. Worked in one place piecework shop after 15 yrs was told spreadsheet says your too slow.
Da m it was fast enough last yr. I left Co along with many others. Co went from 22 million to 2.4 million the next yr. Took 15 yrs to get that high. 15 weeks to get that low. Spreadsheets are a great way for companys to screw the troops or themselvs. Visited there 18 yrs later thier still in the hole. Got help try telling them they need to do 3X as much for 1/2 the pay. I don't care I moved 1000 miles away. Now it's just me

Yer such a buzz kill Drag.
Why ya always bringing reality into play to rain on our theoretical parade?

There`s the "knowers" and the "doers".Problem is while the "knowers" go to school and read books to practice the theory they have been taught the "doers" are busy getting after it in the real world and figuring things out with their hands then filing those experiences away in the reality file.
More and more the two schools are teaching and speaking different languages.
One talks in numbers the other talks in steel.

[Sask Mark]

The knowers are necessary for industry. Without the knowers and financial backing, there wouldn't be much opportunity for employment of the doers. You might not have much respect for them as they probably can't do a fraction of what you do with your hands, but without them, you wouldn't be working with your hands. They are usually the ones who do the procurment, coordination, logistics, HR, financing etc. etc. etc. If they weren't important, then who would you blame when the company fails? The doers? I don't think so.

Spreadsheets are not the problem, application of them is where the challenges come in. Just remember that it's easy to say that a manager doesn't know what he is talking about, but chances are there is a lot more to be taken into account with his decision that you realize.

[bajajoaquin]

Won't that make the cake extra-crunchy?

Yes, good point. I should have said "white chocolate sand dollars." The problem was that she didn't know the diameter of each of the three cake layers, and hadn't decided what size to make the chocolates. And you don't want to have partial sand dollars on your wedding cake, right? So I made one that would calculate to the whole number with variables for layer size and item size.

Of course, at the end of it all, she just ordered a bunch to have lots of extras.

I agree with the comments that it's not the spreadsheet, but the user. I mentioned in the "Business side of Blacksmithing" forum, a cost model I developed when working for some friends. Once I built the sheet, I was able to show that they were seriously undervaluing the work they did. It also helped illustrate the difference between doing production runs assembly-line fashion and as 100 individual pieces. As a result, they were able to both raise prices, and reorganize how they made some of their mass-produced parts. The company grew from 8 guys on the shop floor in a 12,000 sq foot facility to 25 or 30 in a 40,000 foot facility in 18 months.

[ThomasPowers]

Perhaps we should add in the term "Bean Counters" for our castigation of formula F*****s.

My Father once was in charge of a large factory, +/- 5000 workers. Business was good and they were running flat out, 3 shifts with mandatory weekend overtime. The sales staff came to him and told him that they had sold 40% *more* for delivery next year than this year. So he authorized a factory expansion so he could "keep his customer's satisfied". Home office told him he had mucked up the financials for that *quarter* and so he got an early retirement and the factory got trimmed back and nobody got their stuff on time the next year!

I attended the auction when the factory was shut down a few years later. The work had been sold to a Canadian Company who found the American Factory superfluous. (That was where I got my *big* screwpress so cheap---won it on an unopposed $50 bid! Nobody was buying the old tech stuff; though I did get to meet a fellow who remembered when that screw press was bought in the late 1950's for the tool room---he was an apprentice T&D guy back then and was long retired but came out top the auction too...)

[Mainely,Bob]

I understand that there`s a balance that needs to be struck and the dance must be done as a a pair not singly.
What galls me is when,as Thomas said,you`re working flat out and giving it your all so that everyone can benefit and then some consulting firm twirls on in and watches you for a few days and then the decisions start coming down from above about moving to things like "just in time" manufacturing,supply timline studies,minimizing cost overheads,work cells and a myriad of other theories learned from the auto assembly lines that the "knowers" are now trying to cram into a box built to fit a custom yacht building company.
When it all goes to hell in a handbasket guess who gets the blame? Not the boys who wrote the books I can tell you that!
The KNOWERS are the same people shipping all the "doer`s" jobs overseas and then importing toxic children`s toys, lead laced reusable grocery bags and toxic sheetrock among other things.
That`s as close to "global economy" as I care to skate.

I`m goin over in the corner now to see what Dragon`s up to.(mumble,mumble)

[bajajoaquin]

Reminds me of the lyrics to a song from The Damned in the '80s:

...and only the wounded remain
the generals have all left the game
with no will to fight
they'll fade with the light
there's nobody left they can blame

We went through rounds of layoffs here. They kept firing the indians, but the chiefs who made the big directional changes which lead to our problems somehow always made it through the cuts. Every quarter, during the layoffs, that song would go through my head.

 

[ThomasPowers]

My company had 100,000 fewer employees from when it was spun off when I was downsized---and yes the decimal is in the right place. As it was being downsized we were continually being told that we had to make the same sort of financials as Enron was. Funny thing that: Enron wasn't making "Enron's financials either.