Increasing mass of an anvil

[Ferrous Beuler]

I recall seeing here somewhere on IFI the technique of placing a thick plate of steel beneath an anvil to increase mass.
Can't seem to find it though...
Could someone who has done this weigh in on the pros/cons of this?
Is it really beneficial?
Common sense tells me that putting say an additional 50 pounds under a 92 pound english pattern Peter Wright does not give me full writ to ignore the 2% rule or 3 % rule, or whatever it specifically is ( not using too heavy a hammer and result in damage to the anvil) but will I see better rebound, better overall performance?
I use mostly a 2 1/2 pound crosspein, if I go to a ballpein they are all progressively lighter than that.
Also I must admit if I go from the 269 pound anvil to the 92 I don't change hammers. I use "my hammer", the same one almost always. If I want heavier I go to a 3 pound double faced engineer's hammer.
Any thoughts? Dan.

[Glenn]

Hammer size vs anvil size

[BeaverDamForge]

I recall seeing here somewhere on IFI the technique of placing a thick plate of steel beneath an anvil to increase mass.
Can't seem to find it though...
Could someone who has done this weigh in on the pros/cons of this?
Is it really beneficial?
Common sense tells me that putting say an additional 50 pounds under a 92 pound english pattern Peter Wright does not give me full writ to ignore the 2% rule or 3 % rule, or whatever it specifically is ( not using too heavy a hammer and result in damage to the anvil) but will I see better rebound, better overall performance?
I use mostly a 2 1/2 pound crosspein, if I go to a ballpein they are all progressively lighter than that.
Also I must admit if I go from the 269 pound anvil to the 92 I don't change hammers. I use "my hammer", the same one almost always. If I want heavier I go to a 3 pound double faced engineer's hammer.
Any thoughts? Dan.

Pretty much a noob, but my anvil is a piece of rail (given to me with a sorta "anvil" shape) on a fish plate. It's not tied down well, and I haven't tried it without the plate, so I can't comment.

What I did want to say is I agree with you, adding weight under the anvil is no reason to use too big a hammer on the anvil. If anything it will be more detrimental with the extra mass underneath.

I've been given a "good" (hopefully) anvil, I just need to go to TN to pick it up.

Good Luck!

[Ice Czar]

Efficiency and Energy Transfer in Pile Driving Systems

Poor contact surfaces at the interface points.

think of force transfer as a kin to heat transfer

Thermal Interface Basics (pdf)

the ideal transfer is a continuous molecular interface, atomic bonds transferring energy. Past that the larger the contact area between the two separate objects the more kinetic energy can be transfered.
Hand scraper



Newton's Three Laws of Motion

the reason a large mass is preferable to a smaller one


sorry can't elaborate till after work, got to fly ;)

[jayco]

INcreasing the mass under a London pattern anvil won't make the horn or heel any stronger.Using a larger hammer and/or hitting harder might cause breakage of either of these.
In fact,increasing the mass and making the mounting of the anvil more rigid might make the horn and heel even more vulnerable.

[irnsrgn]

lots of myths involved in your questions, reason for a larger anvil is its needed for larger work and has a larger working face.

certain size hammer for a specific size anvil is also a myth, it evolved from a discussion of power hammers and some mistakenly applied it to anvils.

An anvil that is fastened solid to a solid base without some sort of reflex material (a piece of thin wood or plywood) will do, has no resiliance and will tear your arm up after a while.

An anvil is nothing more than a mobile semi solid base used to back up the hand hammer and make it do its job.

Large bulky anvil = bragging rights, ie my anvil is bigger than yours.

[Thomas Dean]

I think Francis Whitaker said it best when he stated 'I have used a 150# anvil my entire life, do you think you can do twice the work with a 300# anvil?' This may not be the EXACT quote but close. This statement in in George Dixon's book "A Blacksmith's Craft, The Legacy of Francis Whitaker".

[irnsrgn]

good one tommy and true

[fat pete]

that sounds to me like settling for what you have Thomas. I like I have a big face....maybe it doesn't equal more work but it does equal more room to do it in....

[Glenn]

One size does not fit all. You have several sizes of tongs, several sizes hammers, a car AND a truck. Each does a specific job well. The anvil is a tool. The size of the tool is chosen for a specific job (in the case of anvils, jewelry vs plow lays). The anvil should have a good base (to keep it from moving) as should any tool. For instance, a machinist vise can be used straight out of the box, but is much more useful when it is secured to a table. If adding mass under an anvil made it a bigger anvil, we would all be buying 10 pound anvils, and 1000 pound anvil stands.

[Rich Hale]

Mass and anvil size is good. Maybe more important is how solid the stand is and that the anvil is solid mounted to the stand. I have watched from the side and portable folding avil staned give with each blow to the anvil. waste of force. Even the rr track anvils will work better if your tie them down tight to something heavy.

[Ferrous Beuler]

Thank you all for the answers given. Jayco I hear you loud and clear- I have always been leary of being too heavy around the heel especially, the weakest part of the anvil. Always I focus on using the middle of the face for heavy blows, centered over the waist/ feet, the heart of the anvil.
Anything that can be done with the hardy hole or pritchel hole can be done elsewhere and not risk the heel of a 150 year old anvil. The vice can hold many tools and take the brunt away from the anvil...
Glenn's gist of "use the right tool for the job" is of course right on the money, and on the flip side, putting a 40 inch piece of hickory into a one pound hammer head will not make it a sledge.
Still, I think there may be merit here within reason, say increasing mass by maybe 1/4? And exercising some common sense.
Has anyone done this who can weigh in? Dan

[evfreek]

Hi Dan. Before trying to beef up the apparent mass of your anvil, try to get a little more blacksmithing experience.

One experience that I highly recommend is doing some hot cutting with a chisel on the top of a cutting plate, which protects your anvil face. You will notice a lot of noise and slop between the plate and the top of your anvil. That should give you an idea about how the masses add. The plate weighs about 1 pound, and it is much better with the anvil than without it, so there is some additive effect, but the combination of the two is less than their sum, and probably even less than just the mass of the anvil. It is hard to communicate. You will understand exactly what I mean after you do it a few (dozen) times.

[Ice Czar]

Jayco has a very good point about the design weakness of the typical London Pattern. Without a proportionally larger dimension to the heel and horn, and some sort of give to the anvil mount, at some measure of force they will fail since they are cantilevered.

However, its possible to keep that in mind when using an augmented or improvised anvil, while there is no substitute for the right tool, generally a substitute is better than no tool at all.

I mentioned before that the best solution is a continuous molecular matrix, that is in fact what my anvil is, Its a 1844 William Foster and was originally forged in several pieces then forge welded together. While its possible with a big enough drop hammer to forge weld an added base to an anvil (provided the anvil itself is strong enough to take the force) at that point you can simply make a bigger forged anvil

The next best bet is to transfer the force across a molecular discontinuity, for that the greater the contact area between the two surfaces the better, which generally means very flat, which is where the hand scraper comes in (and the process they employ for surface plates) Ideally you'd mechanically grind and lap to as flat as possible then true. While that approach makes some sense for making high accuracy machinery, for an anvil seat interface its overkill. Eventually the surfaces will deform into each other, but the flatter to start the more rapidly that will happen.


another consideration again relates to heat transfer, the greater the pressure across an interface the more heat or in our case force can be transfered. In short more micro peaks get crushed together increasing the total interface contact. It would be worth while to cinch down the anvil to whatever base mass is employed limiting bounce, periodically re-tightening. This will speed the deformation into each other.

With enough mass the anvil could be mounted on a beach ball and serve our purpose, but lacking a larger starting mass, for some uses and improvised patterns there could be advantages transferring the force to a larger mass


Some basics of material science physics that apply to this issue
Continuum mechanics
Solid mechanics
Young's modulus
Dislocation

[Ferrous Beuler]

Pretty much a noob, but my anvil is a piece of rail (given to me with a sorta "anvil" shape) on a fish plate. It's not tied down well, and I haven't tried it without the plate, so I can't comment.

What I did want to say is I agree with you, adding weight under the anvil is no reason to use too big a hammer on the anvil. If anything it will be more detrimental with the extra mass underneath.

I've been given a "good" (hopefully) anvil, I just need to go to TN to pick it up.

Good Luck!

Hey BV, Nice to hear your views, and by the way, WELCOME TO THE NOOB CREW! Feel free to chime in with any notion you might like to share. "COMMENT"! Your views matter just the same as the next. :)Dan.

[Ferrous Beuler]

Ice Czar, I would reply by quote but the result would stretch into next week. I always enjoy reading what you have to say but could I ask just one thing?-
Could you please type just a little slower 'cause I don't read so fast...
Yes I do follow what you have to say but honestly the links take a little time to delve into and absorb in their entirety (But I DO enjoy where they take me/ and come to fully understand, and learn a lot along the way).
Yes I get it, thanks.:)Dan

[HWooldridge]

This anvil weighs 250 and the block of concrete weighs just a touch more - around 260. The whole mass is enough to keep from bouncing around under sledge blows.

[Ferrous Beuler]

Hi Dan. Before trying to beef up the apparent mass of your anvil, try to get a little more blacksmithing experience.

One experience that I highly recommend is doing some hot cutting with a chisel on the top of a cutting plate, which protects your anvil face. You will notice a lot of noise and slop between the plate and the top of your anvil. That should give you an idea about how the masses add. The plate weighs about 1 pound, and it is much better with the anvil than without it, so there is some additive effect, but the combination of the two is less than their sum, and probably even less than just the mass of the anvil. It is hard to communicate. You will understand exactly what I mean after you do it a few (dozen) times.

Where were you going with this besides the slights?
This thread was about adding a plate beneath an anvil to increase mass of said anvil.
It was not about pontification or condescension. Then again, it is easy and safe to lurk in the shadows behind a username and snipe, no?
I invite you to lose the silly fake name and join the ranks of those of us who are who we say we are in the open.:DDan

[easilyconfused]

I believe what he was trying to say was that it's not just adding a plate to the anvil. Like what Ice said, they need to be meshed other wise you have a lot of absorption. However, I am with Beaver in that a plate underneath the anvil isn't necessarily a good thing for a smaller anvil if you are working too hard on it, as it will, at some point give out, as Jayco said. I'm no physics major but what I do remember from physics 101 is the law of inertia and such. The kinetic energy has to go somewhere and if the metal you are working is not able to absorb the kinetic energy, it is passed to the anvil and so forth which can lead to bouncing if the force of the hammer is large enough to move the larger mass, the anvil. Essentially, the anvil is caught between a rock and a hard place. However, we don't want the energy being transfered into motion of the anvil. We want the anvil to stay relatively put, either by increasing the mass of the stand or the anvil. And I've lost my train of thought......

there it comes again. What about rigging up the plate of steel so that it has a way to strap it down tight to the top of the anvil? Say with chain? That would add to your mass and protect your anvil better than underneath.

[philip in china]

For what it is worth I use a British made London pattern anvil weighing in at 2:2:0. It is on a stump but to hold it in place I have a couple of pieces of 20mm plate profiled to match the base of the anvil and the circumference of the stump. With the anvil being as big as it is I don't need any extra mass but a plate at the base of the anvil sure is useful for upsetting and doing other heavy work. Maybe an oversized plate would be useful for just that and save some heavy use of the small anvil.

Anybody want a free anvil by the way? You would have to collect it.

[Glenn]

What size anvil, brand, condition etc?

[evfreek]

Hi Dan. No slight intended. I just wanted to point out that the masses do not add, even if the contact is pretty good. If you have ever tried cutting over a plate, it subtracts, rather than adds to the rigidity of the anvil. Try cutting out a complex shape in hot 1/8 or 1/4 plate with a chisel, and you will have plenty of time to think about this observation.

As for the possibility of damaging the anvil, the theory behind a heavier anvil is that, for an elastic collision, more of the energy goes back into the hammer, so less is available to damage the anvil. My suspicion is that anvils get damaged by getting their faces gouged up and swaybacked, as well as getting the edges chipped. Adding mass around the bottom might not help as much as changing the shape to the blocky one associated with the larger anvil. This is more guesswork than experience. I only sledge on the big anvil at the farm, and it is more damaged than the small one, mostly because the face is softer. One day an old man came by and said that he used that big anvil 70 years ago, and it was old at that time. I have never chipped an anvil, nor have I put a swayback in one. But, I did see a striker knock a chip out a fairly large (300 lb) anvil. It was scary. I have this funny feeling that it would not have helped to have a big plate under that anvil. But it may have helped if the plate were on top :)

[philip in china]

There is a 150 pound one. It is cast. 1" hardy hole. No prirchel but one could be drilled easily enough. It is less that a year old.