Treadle Hammer Question

[wd&mlteach]

Knots, I plan on filling the head with lead. I have nine 20# lead bricks just sitting around to be used for something. This might be just what I was saving them for. The head is pretty heavy already as it is made from 4 inch square tube that is 1/4 thick. The it has two 1 1/4" plates welded to it one is the face and one is fit inside the square tube. I milled two slots in the tube and then welded the square plate up inside. in the process the milled slotes were filled in with with the weld bead. I also will use your "hande" idea as the top of my hammer head. Right now the top is very sharp.

Frosty, is this what you are trying to communicate to me? Forgive me for the ipad artwork.

[Frosty]

I was actually thinking about attaching it to the treadle hammer head rather than replacing everything out from the post. Still, it was just a flash thought as I was reading the thread. I like my multi tasking equipment to require as little conversion as will work well. I'm pretty sure I'd be spending time refining it if I had a treadle hammer.

 

Frosty The Lucky

[knots]

I was actually thinking about attaching it to the treadle hammer head rather than replacing everything out from the post. Still, it was just a flash thought as I was reading the thread. I like my multi tasking equipment to require as little conversion as will work well. I'm pretty sure I'd be spending time refining it if I had a treadle hammer.

 

Frosty The Lucky

 

The concept that I preposed is to to mount the planishing hammer on the back side of the frame.  The rear mount configuration would provide two seperately functioning machines on the same base.  That way both machines can be used without remounting or dismounting any component.   The only change required is the position of the opperator.

 

In extreme the circumstance of lack of space I suppose that the air hammer could be mounted on the TH ram .   But it seems that solution would be less than ideal. In that case the air hammer could be mounted to the front or one side of the ram and a supplimental tool holder provided to the corresponding side of the TH anvil .  This just seems a bit over contrived to me. Under those circumstancces I would choose to build a compact unit like MacBruces that would store easily out of the way when out of use.

[Frosty]

You're right, it's a field expedient based on limited floor space. Ideally there'd be room for a Pullmax a few feet from the English wheel and neither would interfere with the forging area where a fellow would have a couple Bulls, one for forging and the other for single blow tool work. MetalMangler, Mark has two Bulls and it's really sweet being able to change tooling by putting the work in the other hammer.

 

Any time you're making one tool do more jobs than it's intended to you WILL run into compromises, either in function or another area you have to consider. In this case floor space the more critical characteristic i floor space so convenience of changing tools or function will have to accept the compromise. Just as a quick thought I placed the bulk of compromise on the least effective characteristic. It will take time to change over but with some mods should be plenty functional and most importantly not take up unavailable floor space.

 

Not to get semantic or picky but I'm tempted mightily by your use of "contrived". Isn't EVERYTHING humans do contrived? Please, I'm not taking issue, I'm just tickled by the straight line possibilities.

 

Your arguments are cogent and well considered.

 

Frosty The Lucky

[knots]

You're right, it's a field expedient based on limited floor space. Ideally there'd be room for a Pullmax a few feet from the English wheel and neither would interfere with the forging area where a fellow would have a couple Bulls, one for forging and the other for single blow tool work. MetalMangler, Mark has two Bulls and it's really sweet being able to change tooling by putting the work in the other hammer.

 

Any time you're making one tool do more jobs than it's intended to you WILL run into compromises, either in function or another area you have to consider. In this case floor space the more critical characteristic i floor space so convenience of changing tools or function will have to accept the compromise. Just as a quick thought I placed the bulk of compromise on the least effective characteristic. It will take time to change over but with some mods should be plenty functional and most importantly not take up unavailable floor space.

 

Not to get semantic or picky but I'm tempted mightily by your use of "contrived". Isn't EVERYTHING humans do contrived? Please, I'm not taking issue, I'm just tickled by the straight line possibilities.

 

Your arguments are cogent and well considered.

 

Frosty The Lucky

 

 

There was a modifier used with "contrived".   The correct quote woud be " over contrived " .   However since we are both just  - thinking out loud - I understand your point.

 

I really consider the use of back to back machines with a common frame to have space saving benefits over seperate machines especially In the case  of Wd&mtteach's double channel frame.  That frame would support a robust planishing hammer .  I do not see a functional down side.

[Frosty]

He would have to move it away from the wall far enough to make another safe work space behind it. Space he doesn't have.

 

Frosty The Lucky

[knots]

" My response from posting 23 of this thread "

 

"So far as the Planishing Hammer Idea is concerned, the idea is there, maybe a future need will arise."

[wd&mlteach]

Once life settles down a bit then the wife and I are planning on a selling and buying a new bigger place to live. One of my stipulations is that it has a bigger garage/workshop and is out of town. Or at least the capability to have enough land to build one of my own design. As for right now I have what I have and I will make do. Knots I loved of a dual purpose machine and Frosty you a correct, the more complicated a machine gets the less functional it is. Hence the reason why I enjoy blacksmithing more than I like machining. Not that i can't appreciate machine work, because I do. And I do like it but I would just rather hammer something out on my anvil then tram-up an end mill.

Here is what I did today, which was not much. I cut a couple smaller channel for side supports and clamped the whole thing together. Tomorrow I plan on welding the smaller channel at the upright and drilling/tapping the anvil side. That way I can break it down into sections light enough for me to move.

I have another question I am hoping you folks can answer, did you fill the anvil with weight? Right now the anvil side is a piece of 3x6" tube that is 3/8" thick. it is hollow except for the top 1 1/4". i welded another chunk in there that contains a 1" hardie. I have access to 180 pound of lead bricks that I could shove inside the tube. My other possibility is punching slugs. the last time i was at the scrap yard I climbed a mountain of slugs that I am sure i could get pretty cheap. Most of them were 1/2" round x 1/2" thick.

By the way thanks for the feedback so far.

[Jim Coke]

Greetings WD,

 

Did you weld the top plate with the hardie yet? If not it's wise to put a plate about 3in down the tube at an angle with a hole cut out of the side.. This will serve as an exit skid for punchouts and things dropped down the hardie hole.  To answer your question..  I have 3 treadle hammers and the anvil tubes are filled with cement...  It looks like your build is going well....  I wish you continued progress..

 

Jim

[wd&mlteach]

Jim, I did weld it in but it is not the top plate. The top plate or whatever tooling I put in will be removable. The plate tha is welded in is a drop in piece that I cut out to fit the ID of the tube. I then gouged out a rough hole in the center with the OA torch and welded a pice of 1" square tube in the hole, then ground it all flat. This formed the hardie. I can still put the clear out ramp in if cut a hole in the tube I think.

[Jim Coke]

Greetings again WD,

 

I have several top plates , Some much larger with hardie holes 6in offset for sping tools ...  #32 Richard Shepard  I also own #41 and a Clay Spenser design like yours...  When you finish I will try to get some pictures up of some custom tooling that I have made...  Treadle hammers a blast .. so to speak.

 

Jim

 

 

[wd&mlteach]

Jim that is a beautiful hammer. I am jealous. I would love to see pictures of tooling.

[knots]

Jim - That is working work of art. Never have seen one quite so clean.

Wd&miteach - I packed my anvil column with railroad steel. Welded it together and to the bottom base plate, threaded it up into the anvil column and then welded the top of the bundle to the inside of the anvil column. Why not combine your scrap steel punch outs with Jims concrete idea . Fill the anvil column full of steel punch outs grouted in place ? 180 pounds of molten lead would be give a super result but the thought of dealing with that much molten lead is thought provoking.

[Jim Coke]

WD/Knots,

 

Another on just like it in one of my other shops... I have been T hammering for quit a few years..   Knots you already seen the flicks of my Bumblebee.

 

Jim

[knots]

treadle hammer.jpgWD/Knots,

 

Another on just like it in one of my other shops... I have been T hammering for quit a few years..   Knots you already seen the flicks of my Bumblebee.

 

Jim

Jim,  The Bumblebee Is a fine machine.  Because of what you have shown us there, I am looking at the hydraulics for the anvil.   

[wd&mlteach]

What do you guys use for return springs? I have been pricing out springs for about a week or so and I can't find anything in my budget. The cheapest I can find is about 8 dollars a spring. Would garage door springs work? I thought about cutting them with the OA torch.

[Frosty]

It appears treadle hammers are easier to use with more light springs than fewer heavy springs. A light pull spring doesn't stiffen up as quickly and stretches farther than heavy springs. Using two "heavy" springs with enough length still means a lot more work near the end of the stroke as the spring near the end of their range. 4,6 or even 8 light weight springs don't stiffen up a much because they just don't have the beans.

 

This is anecdotal, I haven't tried it. Heck I don't have a treadle hammer. What I do have though is many online friends who have been using and building treadle hammers for a long time and the consensus of several is more light springs works better and is less tiring than the "right" number of the "right" draw strength springs.

 

Frosty The Lucky.

[lupiphile]

I can second that from personal experiance. More, lighter, better(er). Take Care, Matt

[knots]

Since each build is unique and local avalability of springs varies, it is really difficult to plan/get the springs right the first try.  Multiple spring sets are easier add or sub tract spring power to fine tune your machine.  

[wd&mlteach]

Small springs make sense. The Hammer is progressing nicely, made the treadle and half of the adjustment rod. I spent quite a bit of time working through what I wanted to do there. The original plans called for a solid rod from the treadle to the lower spring. Since my hammer will be adjustable I can't use a solid rod. I had looked at a bunch of what others had done and it looks to me like they focused around the use of a turnbuckle. I don't have any of those just lying around at the moment. I went online and to four different stores to figure out what would work best. The local True-Value only had some itty bitty ones, the farm store had some bigger ones, and TS had medium ones. All of the ones that would have worked were expensive, like 30 bucks. But none of them were great, as they were not close tolerance, galvanized heavy, and not really robust enough to take a good hammering.

I briefly toyed with the idea of making my own out of a right and left nut welded onto flats. I could machine all of the stuff I needed, but at this point I do not have all day to work on this. Then I priced out all-thread and thought maybe I could do something with one nut and a top pice that just spun on a pivot. Something like half of a turnbuckle. But that priced out over 20 away so I was getting close to the pre-made junk turnbuckle.

I wandered around TS for quite some time looking at various items like ratcheting load straps and everything else. Eventually I found the winner! A top link! With a little modification it is perfect and robust enough to do the job.

[Frosty]

That should do it for you, good searching.

 

I've never understood why so many guys want solid linkage. A good cable with a chain adjustment is solid in the direction I want. It's solid with my weight on it in the impact. If the treadle stops before the ram the cable just goes slack so a person never needs to worry about getting a foot under the treadle and being pinched by more than their other foot. The spring return mechanism pulls the swing arm and returns the treadle under tension, the linkage is always under tension and cable is a safer no pinch point feature.

 

Thats the return mechanism I planned  for my treadle hammer but I was building a Watt linkage system similar to Bruce Freeman's Grasshopper. Similar to the Grasshopper in that both use a version of the Watt linkage to convert reciprocating rotational motion into linear motion. Significantly different mechanics same principle.

 

That's just my take on it.

 

Frosty The Lucky.

[wd&mlteach]

Frosty, I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing as I believe the linkage I made has to be solid. Or it will not work. I used a toplink from the tractor supply that needed modified. The modification I made was to cut off one and weld on black pipe and knurled the barrel of the toplink, then reweld the linkage,

[Frosty]

Where are your return springs? Unless you attach the return springs to the treadle almost anything will do for a linkage, a hank of rope will do it. The only reason you'd need a solid link is if your return springs are lifting the treadle and it has to push the hammer up.

 

A lot of guys use a solid link to push the hammer up, it makes for a little more compact design as the springs can be inside the hammer frame. I prefer a tension return using springs to pull the hammer arms up and the cable/chain/ rope/etc. linkage and treadle. With this system there is NO force on the treadle but your foot. With a solid linkage the treadle will hit the stops with the full force of the hammer weight behind it. It not only puts unnecessary forces on components that don't need any such forces on them it is a little extra hazard if your other foot gets under the treadle.

 

In response to your statement. What I'm talking about will NOT work the way you've designed your hammer. Unless you have your return spring on the hammer rather than the treadle. I'm in no way saying what you're doing is wrong. I'm just saying how I do such things and why

 

Frosty The Lucky.

[wd&mlteach]

The return springs are not on yet, but they should be here today. Following with the designs I bought, for inspirational purposes, the springs are mounted between the treadle and the cross frame supports. Which is why I went with the solid linkage as you pointed out. I thought about putting a rear spring from a garage door with a cable over the top, connecting to the upper arm. It would have been the cheapest and easiest spring option. However, after some feedback here I elected to go with smaller springs mounted to the treadle. Two reasons. First, as you pointed out earlier smaller springs are easier to work. Second, my pivot point for the swing arm is adjustable and if the springs stay in the front connected to the treadle, their tension will remain constant. If I go with the back spring with an over the top method then the tension would change as I change the pivot point. Or at least that is what I figure would happen. In reality it may not have mattered as much. An engineer I am not, but I do try to design. Thanks for your and the rest of the forum's help so far. If only I could have anticipated the correct angle of the solid linkage. Right now as it sits and is pictured it is wrong, I need to fix that today. The spring mount is too sharp of an angle. Force from the treadle goes directly to the bottom spring pivot and will not lift the arm assembly. Now that I look at it, it almost forms a triangle. I tried lifting the treadle to see how we'll it functioned and I can't, it will not move. In fact I thought it was just really heavy and put some effort behind and lifted the whole machine, oops. I will have to cut the black pipe down and weld it back together.

[knots]

Frosty - I remember Grant Sarver's spring assembly was a compression spring in a tube .  That system was compact and worked directly on the parrallel arms from below to lift the ram.  

 

I have also seen other hammers using the cable treaddle linkage where the springs were mounted above the hammer and parrallel arms.  That system required more headroom for the machine but freed the treadle of the lift linkage function.   A picture of your machine would help us better understand the specifics of your machine.  I am always interested seeing alternate design solutions.