Anvil Weight

[Alaric]

I have a question about anvil weight,

What part of an anvil actually contributes to its working weight? If you compare a London pattern anvil to a hornless colonial of the same weight would they behave the same or would the colonial behave like a larger London pattern? If you break the horn or tail (or both) off a London pattern anvil does it behave more like a London pattern of the weight it was or one of its new weight?

 

Richard

[EricJergensen]

The metal of the horn and heel do not contribute very effectively for work done on the main face of the anvil. So, your "hornless colonial" of the same weight would be somewhat more effective in that kind of work.

[Glenn]

If you have a 200 pound block of steel or colonial anvil, and take part of that metal to make a horn and heel, you would reduce the main mass of the anvil. In exchange for the main mass reduction you gain a horn and a heel that are useful to some blacksmiths.

 

An experienced blacksmith could do most of what he wanted without the horn and heel, which in fact he did for many years (centuries) until the London pattern was developed.

 

There is a thread on the site about putting as much mass as possible under the hammer face. The example of forging on an air craft carrier was used, When you hit the hot metal on one end of the carrier, the weight of the other end of the carrier makes little difference.

[Dan C]

A little off subject from the original question, but would you expect the heel of the anvil to have the same rebound as the face?  The reason I ask is mine has ~80% rebound but the heel seems dead and the ring is different.  There's also a couple of torch marks on the heel which would explain the difference.

[Chinobi]

the heel is much thinner and will have a tendency to flex (extremely minutely) and rebound, whereas the rebound from the center is strictly coming from the elastic deflection of the face and material immediately beneath it and within the bearing or hammerhead doing the bouncing.

 

(extreme exaggerations of scale here to illustrate principle)

think of it like comparing what would happen if you were to hold a ruler on the edge of your desk, with say 6" hanging off and twang the tip (your finger would be the bearing analog here), lot of bend lot of return, lot of vibration (noise)

 

then think of dropping an underinflated water balloon (key being that it doesn't break) on a trampoline, balloon flattens briefly and returns to its original shape, dragging itself back up, trampoline sags minutely under the load and then returns to its original position, also forcing the balloon back up with it. (consider the hardness of the face similar to how taught the trampoline surface is, really really tight being very hard, really slack being very soft)

(I was originally going to compare dropping something into Jell-O, which mimics the behavior of a shockwave propagating through a solid pretty graphically, but its pretty sticky so nothing would ever really bounce <_<, which kinda kills the visual)

 

and compare the source of the forces propelling the 'bearing' back up.

 

those may be a little too abstract... just trying to illustrate whats happening with things that people can readily see and mentally picture deforming under the impact.

[Alaric]

If we take this one step further how does the base an anvil sits of enter into this? Or does it?

 

Richard

[EricJergensen]

Yes, the more solid & heavy the base, the better. This is especially true for smaller anvils. (A 120lb anvil on a solid & heavy base is pretty nice for working with a 2.5lb hammer.)

 

The rebound for a ball bearing dropped on the anvil depends mostly on the surface hardness (1/2" to 1" range). The rebound for a 2.5lb hammer swung by a smith is a different story. A 1" piece of hardened tool-steel plate sitting on a hay bale will bounce a ball bearing nicely. The 2.5lb hammer... not so much ;-). You need a lot of solid mass to avoid moving the whole mess. And, as you can image, hay isn't solid backing even if you have a 500lb bale.

[Revtor]

Alaric, get the heaviest anvil you can find and build the most solid base you can..

 

(and now what I really wanted to say...)

-Nice Ride!!

 

I bought my 1969 from a guy 20 minutes outside of Portland ME

 

 

~Steve

[Alaric]

I thought that truck looked familiar, I did some work on it for the previous owner. That’s a nice rig that just needed some TLC from someone with the ability to do the work. The previous owner was in over his head with it, he was not mechanically inclined and was going broke trying to get the work done.  The one pictured in my avatar is a 1961 88" Series II , I also have a 1971 109 Series IIA pickup and 5 Range Rover Classics including projects plus 6 parts trucks, it's a sickness.
  
Back on topic, I’m asking all these question because I have a desire to build an anvil but I don’t want to mess around with welded up faces. I want to do a colonial style about 5” wide, 12” long and 9” to 10” tall and I want to make it out of 4140 and then heat treat the face. If I can source a large enough piece without going broke I’ll do it out of 1 solid piece but I’m all thinking of possible splitting it at the waist and using 4140 for the  top and 1018 or something for the base and arc welding the 2 together. I think the dimensions I listed should give me about 150ish pounds and I’m thinking that should behave similarly to 200 pound London pattern.

Richard
 

[MLMartin]

I believe many haybuddens were made out of two pieces and were electrically welded together at the waist. Welding two large blocks of steel together should be fine. If you chose to weld them together at the waist you need to have a full penetration weld. This could be done by placing something like 1 inch round in the center of the waist between the top and bottom then welding from the center out and creating a solid block of steel.

 

If you set the two blocks together face to face and only weld around the perimeter you will not get the same rebound and the anvil will not perform as well.

 

Welding rods/wire has become more expensive in the past few years. The time invested and the welding consumables might be more expensive than making the anvil from one solid piece.

[jcornell]

I thought that truck looked familiar, I did some work on it for the previous owner. That’s a nice rig that just needed some TLC from someone with the ability to do the work. The previous owner was in over his head with it, he was not mechanically inclined and was going broke trying to get the work done.  The one pictured in my avatar is a 1961 88" Series II , I also have a 1971 109 Series IIA pickup and 5 Range Rover Classics including projects plus 6 parts trucks, it's a sickness.
  
Back on topic, I’m asking all these question because I have a desire to build an anvil but I don’t want to mess around with welded up faces. I want to do a colonial style about 5” wide, 12” long and 9” to 10” tall and I want to make it out of 4140 and then heat treat the face. If I can source a large enough piece without going broke I’ll do it out of 1 solid piece but I’m all thinking of possible splitting it at the waist and using 4140 for the  top and 1018 or something for the base and arc welding the 2 together. I think the dimensions I listed should give me about 150ish pounds and I’m thinking that should behave similarly to 200 pound London pattern.

Richard
 

 

Glenn Stollmeyer (sp?) GS Blacksmith Tongs has an anvil much like what you describe.

 

Check this out:

 

http://www.gstongs.com/id18.html

 

[Timothy Miller]

Hornless anvils are not necessarily colonial they were available from Hay Buddden new in the 1920's.  A I own a couple of anvils that could be classified as colonial biased on shape and materials used.  To really use that term the anvil would have to be made from wrought iron and have a blister steel face.  Its not just a shape its the materials used to make it.  There is a difference in how a block of modern alloy tool steel feels verse a steel faced wrought iron anvil under the hammer. 

[Alaric]

If you set the two blocks together face to face and only weld around the perimeter you will not get the same rebound and the anvil will not perform as well.

 

According to Anvils in America this is precisely what Trenton did with their later anvils.

 

Richard

[Alaric]

Glenn Stollmeyer (sp?) GS Blacksmith Tongs has an anvil much like what you describe.

 

That is what I had in mind, if he wasn’t overseas I might just order one from him but I also like the idea of making one myself.

 

Richard

[Alaric]

Hornless anvils are not necessarily colonial they were available from Hay Buddden new in the 1920's.  A I own a couple of anvils that could be classified as colonial biased on shape and materials used.  To really use that term the anvil would have to be made from wrought iron and have a blister steel face.  Its not just a shape its the materials used to make it.  There is a difference in how a block of modern alloy tool steel feels verse a steel faced wrought iron anvil under the hammer. 

 

Fare enough, but I needed a term that conveyed the general shape I was referring to.

 

Richard

[Timothy Miller]

Fare enough, but I needed a term that conveyed the general shape I was referring to.

 

Richard

They are traditionally called double arch anvils. 

[John McPherson]

The more I work with different anvils, the more I find that nuance is everything. Which is why I cringe whenever a newbie wants to make an anvil. A foundry or welder can make anything that you specify, but you need to know what the difference is between a good anvil and a great anvil to provide decent specs. GI=GO.

 

Last week I was using a Rigid Peddinghaus, and found that the hardy and pritchel holes were over the base, which had no cut-outs or offsets to allow a punch to drop clear, or holdfast clearance. Much like the geometry of the GS anvil above. Rathole/Fontanini, Nimba, Tom Clark, Hofi and Habermann anvils do not have this problem. Neither does my Euroanvil. London pattern anvils made after 1830 put the holes way out on the heel.

 

Jymm Hoffman makes a colonial pattern anvil from modern alloys, and NJ may be close enough for you to see it in person, and take one home. Hopefully he will have a trailer full in the tailgate row at next years ABANA conference in Delaware.

[Alaric]

If I just needed an anvil to use I would agree that I would be much better off buying one, I have a 158lb Wright and a 108lb Trenton. I want to make an anvil for the sake of doing it and to see how good an anvil I can make.

 

I was using a Peddinghaus last month and I know the pritchel hole passed through the upper body of the anvil and I'm pretty sure the hardy hole did as well, it was a model 9. I don't care for the Hardy hole out on the heel of the London pattern, not enough mass under it and I prefer it to be to my left. I do like the looks of Jymm Hoffman's anvils but they are a little smaller than I had in mind, if I were to purchase a new anvil I think it would be either a Fontanini or a Peddinghaus.

 

Richard

[John McPherson]

Yes, the holes pass thru the body. Perfectly adequate if you only use very short tools for punching and drifting, and short stemmed hardy hole tools. Or you have a heavy vise mounted nearby, or an industrial swage block mounted flat on a stand, or a Brazeal style low anvil for punching and drifting. All of which, by the way, allow the hot tool to drop to the ground when driven all the way thru.

 

No, there is no clearance at the anvil base to allow a straight shot to the anvil stand or ground for upsetting, or into a catch basin for hot punches. Long punches and tool stems jam against the curved base, and are devilishly hard to remove without destroying the tool. This is a design flaw, IMNSHO. Easily remedied by providing cut-outs between the feet in the pattern stage, or moving the shoulders of the anvil out an inch past the base, as the other manufacturers have done.

[Alaric]

John,

I just reread you post and think I misunderstood what you where saying about the hardy and pritchel holes being over the base, If you are saying that you can’t pass say a 36” rod through the top of the anvil through either the hardy or pritchel and pull it out the bottom because it would run into the anvil base then that may be true but I’ve never found it to be an issue.

 

Richard

[Alaric]

John,

I just reread you post and think I misunderstood what you where saying about the hardy and pritchel holes being over the base, If you are saying that you can’t pass say a 36” rod through the top of the anvil through either the hardy or pritchel and pull it out the bottom because it would run into the anvil base then that may be true but I’ve never found it to be an issue.

 

Richard

[Alaric]

I was replying at the same time you were, not sure how I managed the double post.

[John McPherson]

I am saying that I could not run an 8" punch thru the anvil without it jamming, never mind a 36" bar. You are restricted to the length between the top of the foot and the bottom of the pritchel or hardy hole. This has never been an issue with any other anvil that I have ever worked on.

 

With any other anvil mentioned, you could drill a hole in the stand, have the stand conform to the base shape, or otherwise be limited only by the distance between the base of the hole and the earth. In this case the shape of the anvil is its own obstruction.

 

Otherwise, I really liked it: mass distribution, shapes, hardness were all spot on. I like the double pike shape, can substitute a hardy tool for the step, and rarely need the side shelf or upsetting block found on other models. The location of the hardy hole at the horn  on the left was convenient for a right hander, and worked well with a guillotine tool and smithing magician. Much better than a London pattern with the hardy hole way out there on the right.

[Alaric]

The 36” bar was just intended an example of something longer than the anvil is tall for a mental visual. I can see where this could be an issue but it hasn’t been for me and as I said I have other options with my 2 other anvils. The issue could also be resolves in both the GS and Peddinghaus anvils but drilling holes in the base the same size or slightly larger and directly under the hardy and pritchel holes, assuming you could bring yourself to drill holes in nice new anvil.

 

I also really liked the Peddinghaus.

 

Richard