Extending the "depth" of an anvil

[Andrew Leigh]

Hi,

I am busy completing a square post anvil that when machined should end up with a face a little under 6x6" and will be 10" high.

As this anvil will be mounted in a stand to raise the work surface to the appropriate height I have been musing on bolting a piece of say 4" round bar to the anvil base as a location lug to stop the anvil from moving. That then got me thinking, what if I was to extend that 4" bar to say 20" or so long. Would that significantly alter the performance of my anvil or is the cost not worth it.

If that is a good option would the bar need to be welded to the anvil to "mechanically" couple the two?

Regards

   

[Ridgewayforge]

Honestly, if I had the choice, I would build a wooden stand for the 6x6" and use that, and then also mount the 4" round bar upright to use as a secondary anvil. I don't know how much length you have of that, but if you have more than 20", I say use the whole thing. The more cohesive mass under your hammer, the better. If you have a very long piece of 4" round, why not bury part of it, and concrete it into the ground to keep it from wiggling? Then you can have two anvils for different purposes. 

 

Related, I have often wondered about making an axle anvil, with the top of it domed to the same circumference as a good rounding hammer, and using those two together to draw out stock more effeciently. Perhaps one day! 

[JHCC]

30 minutes ago, Ridgewayforge said:

Honestly, if I had the choice, I would build a wooden stand for the 6x6" and use that, and then also mount the 4" round bar upright to use as a secondary anvil.

Very good suggestion. The 6" x 6" x 10" block will have a mass of ~100 lbs; a ~29" length of 4" dia. round will have about the same mass, but better rebound because of the greater mass directly under the hammer blow.

[51 Papy]

Bed it down in some sand. Wedges it in and keeps it in place and kills any ring. Then enjoy!

[Andrew Leigh]

Thanks for the valued input. Will keep you all (y'all) posted.

[beech]

On 1/30/2017 at 10:59 AM, JHCC said:

 The 6" x 6" x 10" block will have a mass of ~100 lbs;

So mass is measured in pounds?  Has something changed? 

It bugs me a bit when people refer to weight in kgs as well.

[ThomasPowers]

You want to slug it out?

[JHCC]

1 hour ago, beech said:

So mass is measured in pounds?  

I beg your pardon; that should be "a little less than three and three-quarter stone".

[Glenn]

Much can be said about the mass or weight of an anvil, usually the heavier the better for blacksmithing, up to a point. London pattern anvils 100 to 300 pounds are good, as the majority of the anvil is under the impact of the hammer. They manufactured a bunch of them in that weight range to be both useful and affordable. Bragging rights not considered, anvils weighing 400, 500, 600, and 700 pounds are generally found in industrial shops for industrial use. A different tool for a different type application.

RR anvils are suggested to be used on end so the majority of the anvil is under the impact area of the hammer. You can not make a 10 pound anvil into a 310 pound anvil by putting a 10 pound anvil on a 300 pound stand. 

Your 100 pound block of steel will allow you to do many things. Securing it to a sturdy stand will make it convent for you to use. If you still have questions, make enough product on the block anvil to allow you to  purchase another anvil of your choice. Keep the block anvil while you learn to use the new (to you) anvil. It will take a while to learn how to make it work for you in your shop doing the things you do. 

[Ridgewayforge]

On 2/6/2017 at 6:02 PM, ThomasPowers said:

You want to slug it out?

Now now, we don't want anyone to throw any punches- sure they make slugs, but if you catch my drift, I just don't want anyone upset! 

[JHCC]

31 minutes ago, Ridgewayforge said:

Now now, we don't want anyone to throw any punches- sure they make slugs, but if you catch my drift, I just don't want anyone upset! 

I'm not sure you're giving us the hole story.

[gote]

On 2017-02-06 at 5:59 PM, beech said:

So mass is measured in pounds?  Has something changed? 

It bugs me a bit when people refer to weight in kgs as well.

Sorry I do not understand. I believed that a pound is approximately 0.45 kg both being dimensions for mass.

Then for practical reasons we calibrate our scales (which we use for weighing) in kgs (or pounds) rather than Newtons since we usually use them to determine mass. We do not buy a Newton of potatos we buy a Kg or a pound. A Newton of potatoes is probably a ton of new potatoes or??? 

[Mark Ling]

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 2:26 PM, Ridgewayforge said:

Now now, we don't want anyone to throw any punches- sure they make slugs, but if you catch my drift, I just don't want anyone upset! 

guys, guys, try not to loos your temper again.

                                                                                                                          Littleblacksmith

[Andrew Leigh]

On ‎2017‎/‎02‎/‎06 at 6:59 PM, beech said:

So mass is measured in pounds?  Has something changed? 

It bugs me a bit when people refer to weight in kgs as well.

I often quote both units, and it depends on the target audience. If I am speaking to people in Europe and ex commonwealth countries I will exclusively quote SI units. When speaking to those who I know are Imperial Unit based I will add the imperial equivalent. Many Americans are fully conversant with SI units I know but I do this as a courtesy so people don't have to whip out a calculator when reading simple threads.

I am on numerous forums and some have units that are more complicated and cannot be easily be converted through a simple mental calculation like mass. This side of the pond we shooters use imperial units like feet per second and ft/lbs but we will shoot at a metre demarcated range.

[JHCC]

Getting back to the original subject, there are two issues at play with the weight of the anvil: mass under the hammer, and total mass of the system. 

Mass under the hammer (as discussed above) is how much anvil material there is directly under the hammer blow. The more you have, the better the rebound.

Total mass of the system is the mass of the anvil plus the mass of the stand. This does not affect rebound, but it does affect the stability of the anvil and whether or not you have any energy lost to a moving or rocking anvil. Not all hammer blows are straight down on the sweet spot of the anvil: you get angled blows, blows that curl a scroll around the horn, etc. The more total mass you have in the system (especially if the stand sits flat on the floor and the anvil is rigidly attached to the stand), the more the anvil will resist being moved, and the more energy will go from the hammer blow into distorting your workpiece.

To give an example, imagine you're using a baseball bat to hit a watermelon suspended by a string. If the watermelon is in front of a brick wall (high total mass), your bat will smash it to bits (assuming you swing hard enough). If the watermelon is in front of a single end-on brick balanced on top of a broomstick (same mass-under-hammer, but much lower total mass), you'll still do some damage, but not nearly as much.

[SLAG]

Gote,

You are right, as usual.

But mention the "Metric pound".

Whazzzattt?

It is an unofficial measure of weight used in some countries in Europe, that gets around a practical problem. Few people buy a kilogram of meat at the grocery store. A kilogram is roughly 2.204 pounds. Which leaves a lot of leftovers after a family meal That is a lot meat unless you are planning a barbeque for the neighbors. A half a kilogram is 1.102 pounds which is a little messy. IMHO.

Hence the use of the Metric pound.

Then there are kilometers. Great for the smaller distances between here and there in Europe. But perhaps excessive in North America. (for example distances between major cities , in Western Canada, average out to about 500 miles between them.). That is a lot of kilometers. (and millimeter measurements are a bit excessive).

Which brings up centimeters, used for smaller measurement, instead of millimeters. (e.g. room sizes etc.). Unofficial, but used notwithstanding

S.I. officials go nuts. But ugly, crass centimeters are more, practical & useful.

SLAG.

[Frosty]

I much prefer a decimal system for pretty much everything, humans are adaptable or we'd have gone extinct a long LONG time ago. You think metric is a hassle?  I grew up in a machine shop and I had to take a note home to Mother telling her I wasn't learning how to measure things. Everybody knows there is no such thing as 0.375" it was probably a learning disability and the teacher recommended special ed.

Mother had a talk with the teacher, in the principal's office. Teachers don't like being sent to the principal's office.

Then, many years later I'm an exploration driller and Draftsman drawing prints for road system projects and everything, every darned thing is measured on a decimal scale. A foot on an engineer scale has 10 inches which are longer than an inch foot pound scale.

I don't use metric enough for it to be automatic, I have to think a moment to visualize it. However, I can tell you how many liters in a cubic kilometer faster than you can calculate how many fluid ounces are in a cubic yard. No looking it up now. Decimal is just easier and having everything based on the same thing is far better than any other system of measurement.

Oh, we went to the moon in millimeters, not miles.

Frosty The Lucky.

[Andrew Martin]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2017 at 4:58 PM, gote said:

Sorry I do not understand. I believed that a pound is approximately 0.45 kg both being dimensions for mass.

Then for practical reasons we calibrate our scales (which we use for weighing) in kgs (or pounds) rather than Newtons since we usually use them to determine mass. We do not buy a Newton of potatos we buy a Kg or a pound. A Newton of potatoes is probably a ton of new potatoes or??? 

Now I'm confused... isn't it "a pound(weight) is to a Newton as a slug(mass) is to a kilogram"? Or do I need to review basic physics again?

Frosty, you lost me- how does .375" not exist?

I think I may be getting early onset Alzheimer's....

[swedefiddle]

If you start with Decimal, you stay with Decimal. If you start with Metric, You stay with Metric. Apples and Pears.

You have a long Ton (imperial measure), A short Ton (US measure) and a Metric Tonne. How much fuel is in the Fuel Tank? The Gimli Glider is a perfect example of what not to do.

5/16"=.3125", 8mm=.3149", close but no Cigar (unless it is a Cuban Cigar).

Neil

[beech]

Sorry, I was not intending to start a big deal over this.  While you are indeed correct that weight and mass can be used pretty much interchangeable in everyday life, technically there is a fundamental difference.  Weight is defined to be equivalent to mass (the amount of matter in an object) times the acceleration due to gravity.  This means that an object's mass never changes, but it's weight can, depending on the strength of gravity it is experiencing.  Thus, on earth, since gravity doesn't change (much, but that's a whole 'nother can of worms), we can use them to refer to how much we are purchasing, etc., without it being an issue.  Again, sorry for the trouble this caused.

[JHCC]

In the violin shop, the instruments themselves were measured in inches, but all the repair work was done in millimeters. That was fun. 

Oh, and just as Weight isn't quite the same as Mass, Mass isn't quite the same as Liturgy. 

[ThomasPowers]

in Geophysics class we did a gravity survey as a lab as gravity does change with respect to what is underground and altitude. The precision of the instruments to measure these subtle differences was awesome.

[gote]

Beech, You should not be sorry. You just gave some of us the opportunity to show off our erudition.

I have a nice old apparatus that determines mass with an accuracy of 0.01 milligrams (If I do not sneeze) and I have another that determines weight and is calibrated in kg which theoretically is wrong. The first is based on balance and the second on springs. If we assume that the second one is correctly calibrated it also determines mass by determining the weight and translating it to mass. Now we normally refer the use of any of these as weighing so it is natural to talk about weight. Weight should theoretically be expressed in Newtons since it is a force but this particular force, which is the force excerted by the combination of mass and gravity, is by common consent expressed in kg. To confuse the issue there used to be a Kilopond (Not Kilopound) which was (If I remember correctly) the weight of one kg at 9.81 m/s2 gravitational acceleration. 

I have never heard it called a metric pound but in Germany you buy groceries by the "Pfund" which is 0.5 kg (not 0.45) and is used for practical reasons as said above.

A mile is really one thousand (mille) double steps by a Roman soldier on march. (Which tells us something aout the stature of Roman soldiers). This mile which is approximately 1.6 km was used in some European countries but not all. Some, including Sweden, used longer miles (all different of course) just over 10 km. So today Swedish people mix "kilometer" and "mil" (today meaning 10000m) in their speech. I have 20 mil to Stockholm but 26 kilometer to Örebro and my car uses 0.9 liter per mil.

I assume most of you know that a 1/2" pipe has no dimension that is 0.5" In an attempt to become metric it has been renamed NW15 but it is of course not 15mm anywhere either.

We have a similar problem with timber. It appears as sawn and as planed and ouf course the planed dimension is different from the sawn dimension. but we are using the same names.

Welcome to Chaos Manor!