gearhartironwerks Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Here is a link to a vid on the completed hammer as per Ron Kinyons specs with some exceptions. Bob Thomas and I built this hammer and it is his hammer. Parts for another hammer are nearly complete and it's simply a matter of construction...or deconstruction as I have some more ideas to hopefully improve it. Just can't let a good idea reach the finish line without some tweeking. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianinsa Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 That's beatifull John, Thanks for posting, (for me the only down side was that it took me 26mins to watch) keep up the good work! Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HWHII Posted May 17, 2011 Share Posted May 17, 2011 Nice clean job! Thanks for the video. How many hours did it take you to make it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhartironwerks Posted May 17, 2011 Author Share Posted May 17, 2011 Nice clean job! Thanks for the video. How many hours did it take you to make it? Boy, you would have to ask. Actual construction time was probably 2-3 days. It was all the running around for parts and tweeking with the head that took time. Also, parts for 2 were made simultaneously. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferguson Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Very nice. Thanks for the video. I have a maintainability question. I have thought that it would be advantageous to bolt the anvil to the base, and then wire the bolts to keep them in place. What would happen if you had to replace the tup? Would you just grind out the welds holding the anvil in place? How big are those welds? What do you figure that the whole thing weighs? I guess the other advantage of bolting the anvil to the base would be the ability to break it down for transportation. I understand that you have some ability to tune the alignment of the dies via the bolts on the side of the tubing that the head assembly runs in, which I understand push on the plate that holds the UHMW. I was not clear on which bolt did what. I was thinking that the upper and lower bolts permitted aligning the head, but I think that you said that those only located the UHMW plate. But if you only have left right bolts for alignment, how would you adjust it in the other axis? Richard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhartironwerks Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Ok, so the anvil is welded to the base. The sow block and the 3.5 x 6 dia base of the tup were welded with the flat dies in place to assure correct placement when bolted down. The entire head that supports the tup is removable via the 8 bolts ( 4 left, 4 right) that connect it to the main frame. Ultimately, everything is removable/replaceable. I understand why Ron Kinyon designed this hammer as is presented in the plans by Paul Branch. The hammer plans, as is, are accessible as off the shelf for anyone to build it, and have it work well as designed. The key words here are accessible and readily available. I spoke w/Ron a week or so ago and he is really hoping people improvise the design and present their findings. I think Ron should be considered for the Bealer Award for making home made air hammers available to the smithing world, and for asking nothing in return. Having built a new style Kinyon hammer, and having another one in the wings, I have some changes that require slightly more machining, but that reduces the friction on the head immeasurably, thus allowing the tup to move faster with greater head alignment. I'll post it when completed. Thanks, John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmike Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Very nice hammer Would you tell us a bit more about the guiding improvements you plan for the next one or will it be finished soon, I'm scrounging parts and have two nice big boards of UHMW (one is about 3/8 thick and the second about one inch), I now need the tube to hold the guides and was thinking of making the guides way longer for a better behaviour when working off-center, but if friction is enough to slow the hammer with guides longs as on Ron's plans, twice the length might be a problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhartironwerks Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Very nice hammer Would you tell us a bit more about the guiding improvements you plan for the next one or will it be finished soon, I'm scrounging parts and have two nice big boards of UHMW (one is about 3/8 thick and the second about one inch), I now need the tube to hold the guides and was thinking of making the guides way longer for a better behaviour when working off-center, but if friction is enough to slow the hammer with guides longs as on Ron's plans, twice the length might be a problem Ron's plans call for slipping UHMW btw the the tup and inner wall of the head with clips to hold them in. My concern was that there is no provision for alignment/wear, and the tup has the potential to become sloppy. So, you can see what my solution is/was. The caveat is that my solution also created pressure/friction on the tup and slowed the movement. Keane Randall, who works for me came up with a brilliant solution: use (2) 2"x 24" shafts of accralloy attached to the bottom of the plate that holds the upper die and run them thru 4 (2 on ea side)oiled bronze bearings where the current head attaches to the main frame of the hammer. The current head and UHMW would be eliminated entirely. The bearings will be mounted on a plate that bolts to the main frame, and will virtually eliminate friction as well as keep the alignment. The 2" shafts weigh about the same as the 4x4 tube currently specified, so there is no loss in tup weight. Don't know if this is clear, but I'll be working on it soon as I bought the parts yesterday. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmike Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Don't know if this is clear, but I'll be working on it soon as I bought the parts yesterday. Yes Sir, clear ! You swich from a square tup UHMW guided that needs some tightening to be efficient causing friction to a 'double rod' tup with 'only' 4 points of friction in the bronze bearings... How heavy is your tup ? I already have a 4x4x42 chunk of steel (about 230lbs) an a fair amount of UHMW... Well I think I need to go the bolted way as you did, so I can switch tups when I find better materials Thanks for sharing so easily and... I can't wait to see your second baby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
basher Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 That looks like a really well made hammer. where is the allowance for taking up the horizontal movement that occurs when transferring the ark of the spring into the vertical movement of the tup? my initial thoughts about changing the UHMW for linear bearings made of bronze is that there would be no means of adjusting for bearing wear , unless you consider changing the bearing surface as a routine maintenance schedule. would there be any real problem with reducing the surface area of UHMW you have in contact with the ram? by machining vertical slots in it or removing the middle portion and leaving the top and bottom of the contact surface intact ? this is the first kinyon style hammer that I have seen that makes me actually want to build one . very good job. All the best Owen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhartironwerks Posted May 22, 2011 Author Share Posted May 22, 2011 That looks like a really well made hammer. where is the allowance for taking up the horizontal movement that occurs when transferring the ark of the spring into the vertical movement of the tup? my initial thoughts about changing the UHMW for linear bearings made of bronze is that there would be no means of adjusting for bearing wear , unless you consider changing the bearing surface as a routine maintenance schedule. would there be any real problem with reducing the surface area of UHMW you have in contact with the ram? by machining vertical slots in it or removing the middle portion and leaving the top and bottom of the contact surface intact ? this is the first kinyon style hammer that I have seen that makes me actually want to build one . very good job. All the best Owen Owen, There is no lateral movement as we made UHMW washers to take up the slack on the inside of the 4x4 tube. The plans called for that. You're correct about the bearing wear adjustment. My initial thinking is that the wear will be minimal and the bearings can be replaced as necessary. They're under $10. each so it's no big deal monetarily. I'll try to post some pics as I go. Having used the hammer extensively this past weekend, I'm even more convinced that the UHMW is not the way to go. There was too much movement in the tup and I was constantly lubricating and adjusting the UHMW. The concept behind this hammer is good, and as designed by Ron Kinyon, is accessible to pretty much any smith who wants to take the time to build a hammer that works from pretty much off the shelf parts. Ron did a great job. I just have to tweak. If the bronze bushings don't work as expected, there's always Plan C, whatever that is... John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolyater Posted June 11, 2011 Share Posted June 11, 2011 John, I have an observation regarding your UHMW guide blocks. It appears in a brief glimpse in your video, that your adjusting/locating screws for the UHMW blocks have pointed (conical) ends, and conical holes. I could not see if all of them are such, but if so they could possibly be the reason you are not having as good of results with your bearings. As the tup goes up and down, the bearing blocks have some friction, that would make them want to move up and down some also. The conical points and holes would act as ramps, and tend to push the guide blocks harder against the steel surfaces as the tup moves, increasing the friction as it moves, making proper adjustment difficult. If your adjusting bolts had cylindrical flat bottomed ends and bores, they would locate the blocks, and allow adjustment without tending to increase the pressure on the tup as it moves up and down. Just a thought, but it may make a difference. I think set up right, that the UHMW should work quite well, and be durable and forgiving. Make sure that what you have is real UHMW, and not just high density polyethylene. UHMW is a sentered material, made from powder fused under high pressure, and has the ability to retain a little lubricant. You can also adhere it with epoxy successfully, if you flame treat it first( run a touch over it briefly ). It is the material used on the bottoms of snow skis, snowboards. Your hammer is beautifully designed and built! I enjoyed your videos a lot! Best regards, Ron Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted June 23, 2011 Share Posted June 23, 2011 That looks like a really well made hammer. where is the allowance for taking up the horizontal movement that occurs when transferring the ark of the spring into the vertical movement of the tup? The back end of the spring/arm is on a shackle/pivot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backwoods Blacksmith Posted June 26, 2011 Share Posted June 26, 2011 I just watched your video. very nice, and the hammer seems to work well. I have the 1st plans that Ron made up that I got when a member of AABA. He was a member also and several members built that style hammer. It called for a more robust frame than your style. I like yours better. Your frame looks to be 6 in sq tubing. If so what is the wall thickness? I also like the thrust plates you made for the UMHW. What do you use for lube? I like yourstylee better than the one I have. Could you tell me where to get the plans? Thanks Gene Bland Oakland, Or Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhartironwerks Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 I just watched your video. very nice, and the hammer seems to work well. I have the 1st plans that Ron made up that I got when a member of AABA. He was a member also and several members built that style hammer. It called for a more robust frame than your style. I like yours better. Your frame looks to be 6 in sq tubing. If so what is the wall thickness? I also like the thrust plates you made for the UMHW. What do you use for lube? I like yourstylee better than the one I have. Could you tell me where to get the plans? Thanks Gene Bland Oakland, Or Gene, The plans came from Paul Branch who is marketing them. I don't have his ph # at hand,but you can probably Google it. The frame is a 6x6x 3/8 wall tube. The spacer btw the frame and head is 6x8x 3/8 wall tube. I changed the head entirely and no longer use UHMW. The new head consists of (2) 2" dia accraloy rods going thru (2) 4x6x2" blocks of steel that have been bored for bronze bushings. Imho, this guide system is far superior to the UHMW. I just finished the hammer this past week and will post pics soon. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backwoods Blacksmith Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Gene, The plans came from Paul Branch who is marketing them. I don't have his ph # at hand,but you can probably Google it. The frame is a 6x6x 3/8 wall tube. The spacer btw the frame and head is 6x8x 3/8 wall tube. I changed the head entirely and no longer use UHMW. The new head consists of (2) 2" dia accraloy rods going thru (2) 4x6x2" blocks of steel that have been bored for bronze bushings. Imho, this guide system is far superior to the UHMW. I just finished the hammer this past week and will post pics soon. John John, Thanks for the info. I will try Google. The duel rod design shold give you the stability you want. I may do the same thing. Thanks again. Where are you in Oregon. I am near Roseburg. Later Gene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironsmith Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I am looking forward to the pics, !!!! Very interesting idea, and i just want to see if i am pictureing it in my head corectly Again thanks for sharing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gearhartironwerks Posted June 27, 2011 Author Share Posted June 27, 2011 John, Thanks for the info. I will try Google. The duel rod design shold give you the stability you want. I may do the same thing. Thanks again. Where are you in Oregon. I am near Roseburg. Later Gene I'm in Gearhart, about a mi. north of Seaside on 101. You could always drive up and take a look/play w/it... It's about a 4 hr drive from Roseburg up I5. Let me know and I'll give you directions. John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backwoods Blacksmith Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 John, Thank you for the invitation. I am flying to Wilmington, NC Sunday for a short job. I will contact you when I return Gene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted June 29, 2011 Share Posted June 29, 2011 Sounds a lot like the little air hammer I brought to the Enumclaw NWBA Conference three or four years ago. Pretty much a top die with two shafts at the extreme ends. Allowed me to mount the cylinder in between the two shafts. First one was an "H" frame, second one was a "C" frame, Dave Brandon has the second one now. The shafts need to be securely attached to the tup and still be straight, parallel and the correct distance apart, easier said than done. The devil is really in the details. I'll be interested in seeing what you come up with John. Good luck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.