John Larson Posted August 16, 2009 Share Posted August 16, 2009 Mike-hr, no one is really arguing the control versus raw power issue. At leeast I think that is true. And I certainly agree that this particular thread has been quite valuable even though most of the quibbles were expressed long ago by folks such as the late Tom Clark. My friend Deker, the knife guy, says why not both? For me he means keeping good control and raising power. Achieving control WITH power (while keeping hammer head weight constant) is quite difficult and I'm quite proud of learning over the years how to have control AND high power. Getting higher power is, not surprisingly, related to increasing the air flow in an air hammer. Up to a point it is easy to obtain, but control is usually just not there when a choked machine (because of small air lines) is hot rodded with bigger lines and valves. So some outfits don't run big lines and valves, preferring to sacrifice ultimate power for good control (I presume because they don't have my control secrets). The volumetric efficiency of utility hammers like Phoenix, Big Blu, and Iron Kiss is limited by what Norgren engineers refer to as the critical back pressure ratio. Once air outflow pressure is brought to less than about 53% of air inflow pressure no increase in air flow is accomplished. Pushing harder on the treadle doesn't accomplish anything. Essentially, the air flow becomes too fast through ports and valves, like an airplane trying to break the sound barrier. So bottlenecks have to be removed to reduce the air flow speed in order to increase air flow volume. That is what I was thinking about when I did a post following the 150's testing. A custom cylinder with less restriction is needed. For maanufacturwers' regular product lines, the National Fluid Power Association has dimensional rules for all the manufacturers that have been agreed upon so that brand A and brand B are interchangeable. All the catalogs are based on these agreed upon equalities across brands. To obtain better maximum power output from any of my hammers I have to remove bottlenecks that choke the machines at wide open throttle. If I didn't have to have air cushions to prevent damage to cylinders under certain conditions of reckless operator behavior, I could modify my cylinders to achieve what I want. However, I want the factory to create larger air cushion spears and orifices because they have the tooling and parts to do it. It amounts to using parts from a 6" bore cylinder in a 4" bore cylinder, the size used in Octagon 150s and 125s. When I build self-contained hammers I do all the port and passageway "hot rodding" in the master and slave cylinders. My self-contained 160 in my shop hits with such gusto that I'm dang near afraid to run it full tilt. However, for a self-contained there is no air cushioning really possible when the top-of-piston air chamber is at below-atmospheric when the hammer head is near the top of its up-stroke. Another means of cushioning has to be used, or excess stroke capability has to be designed into the (essentially longer) cylinder (the Sayha/Saymak/Kuhn solution). Or, some way of using atmospheric air pressure in the cushion has to be devised, the complicated Nazel solution to the problem. Some old steam hammers used a spring loaded pin that the piston would contact at the top of the stroke. This may be boring as can be to you and others, but to designers it is the area of refinement that separates the best from the rest. Sooooooooooo, the typical solution appears to be and to have been to build hammers so that they really don't have to run "full tilt." Avoid air flow bottlenecks and use air cushions in utility hammers, and avoid having pistons reach and hit the tops of their bores in self-containeds is how to do this. As with mechanical hammers, just keep making the hammer heads heavier to obtain the amount of "squish" that you demand. I very much prefer the elegance of utility hammers and their air cushions that prevent destruction of cylinders when running full tilt. And that is the direction I'm headed right now. Sorry to have blather-itis. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted October 18, 2010 Share Posted October 18, 2010 Got some interesting results with my new Iron Kiss 75. Not sure where to set the stroke for the hardest hit so I just put it in the middle, air pressure was set at 60psi! In five blows I got .625 and on 10 blows I got .388! I kinda think the five blow test shows that it's still just a 75 pound hammer, but the 10 blow test (I believe) shows the benefit of a 20:1 anvil. Even as the work spreads out and gets thinner it keeps driving into the work. That's right where light anvil hammers start to just bounce. My 750 Bell hammer had way too light an anvil, but worked great on juicy or thick material. As soon as the work cooled down a little or got thin that hammer would just bounce. Gotta get used to this hammer and I'll report back. Interesting that it beat some hammers of twice the weight (and cost). As John mentioned, control is more important, but it ain't a trade-off. This hammer has great control, the little I've played with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson G. Phillips Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 Hey. I’m a fan of the power hammer test discussion and have enjoyed fallowing the thread. So a few weeks ago the team at BLU hammers decided to try out the power hammer test with hammers we use in our iron shop. We wanted to clearly show our results and how we did the test .So we made a video. You tube link : Thanks, Andy Phillips Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anderson G. Phillips Posted December 8, 2010 Share Posted December 8, 2010 and the other two parts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Got some interesting results with my new Iron Kiss 75. Not sure where to set the stroke for the hardest hit so I just put it in the middle, air pressure was set at 60psi! In five blows I got .625 and on 10 blows I got .388! I kinda think the five blow test shows that it's still just a 75 pound hammer, but the 10 blow test (I believe) shows the benefit of a 20:1 anvil. Even as the work spreads out and gets thinner it keeps driving into the work. That's right where light anvil hammers start to just bounce. My 750 Bell hammer had way too light an anvil, but worked great on juicy or thick material. As soon as the work cooled down a little or got thin that hammer would just bounce. Gotta get used to this hammer and I'll report back. Interesting that it beat some hammers of twice the weight (and cost). As John mentioned, control is more important, but it ain't a trade-off. This hammer has great control, the little I've played with it. Well Grant,and the rest of the 10:1 crowd, Crow Isn't my favorite dish,but the impressive results re the IK 75 is a revelation to me.My 250 W/a 500lb ( didn't dare mention It was THAT small) anvil got .388 at 10 bl, and my 90 with a common bull wt anvil got .77 at 10 bl, choke. In my defense the 250 was built atop a 2 1/2 ton foundation 10" above grade,a space that it no longer occupies ( It's on timbers now). I think perhaps improved controls played a part in the impressive results re the ik. Forging 3" easily with the ik 150 does indeed seem like a valid claim. My 250 does 3" efficiently though, I think some massive plate under the rig is in It's future. Still, I love my hammers such as they are...................mb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arftist Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Well Grant,and the rest of the 10:1 crowd, Crow Isn't my favorite dish,but the impressive results re the IK 75 is a revelation to me.My 250 W/a 500lb ( didn't dare mention It was THAT small) anvil got .388 at 10 bl, and my 90 with a common bull wt anvil got .77 at 10 bl, choke. In my defense the 250 was built atop a 2 1/2 ton foundation 10" above grade,a space that it no longer occupies ( It's on timbers now). I think perhaps improved controls played a part in the impressive results re the ik. Forging 3" easily with the ik 150 does indeed seem like a valid claim. My 250 does 3" efficiently though, I think some massive plate under the rig is in It's future. Still, I love my hammers such as they are...................mb Thanks for the report MB. You are a man of true integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Thanks for the frank assessment MB. There are things I know and things I think I know and things I just believe. Then there are things I don't know and things I don't know that I don't know and then there is the 90% that I don't believe at all. Anvil ratios are something that I think I know, based on a fair number of hammers. Trouble is, there are way too many variables to just point to one. If all hammers had a 4 foot gravity drop it would be a whole lot easier to compare anvils. I'm starting to come around to the idea that a substantial foundation is more than just helpful and may indeed be a substitute for anvil weight if the anvil is reasonable size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fciron Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Thanks for the frank assessment MB. ... ... I'm starting to come around to the idea that a substantial foundation is more than just helpful and may indeed be a substitute for anvil weight if the anvil is reasonable size. Aw, you all are really getting into the holiday spirit. Lay off the 'nog. MB, my compliments on coming out of the blue to change your mind. Looks like it prompted Grant to concede a point in your direction too. As soon as you guys invent the perfect hammer sign me up for one. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 I use a very simple (and cheap) test for single blow strikes only. A penny struck once using flat dies, then measured with caliphers is an effective test. Not so much for comparing hammer to hammer.A baseline, once established can tell you if any adjustments made to the machine have been effective or not, or to check if It's not up to par.....mb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 What a cheapskate! I'd use at least a nickle!:rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted January 2, 2011 Share Posted January 2, 2011 What a cheapskate! I'd use at least a nickle! Grant, I've heard it costs 1.62 cents to produce a penny! So a nickel would simply be over the top.......mb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I don't think it's that high, but it cost more than a cent for sure ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Well, if they can't do it profitably, they should turn it over to private industry!:blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Well, if they can't do it profitably, they should turn it over to private industry! Here here, I was concerned my figures might be questioned (didn't want to there again)so I googled what we pay for a penny, 1.62c and nickels, 5.79c.And you're right I am a cheapskate, and politics aside I wish the Gov't were too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nakedanvil - Grant Sarver Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 I think a lot of us were reading that as a dollar and 62 cents! I see now it's 1.62 CENTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Yeah the article I found said .0129 bucks to make a cent, but 7.7 cents to make a nickel... but only a dime to make a quarter....probably and old article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 and the other two partshttp://www.youtube.c...yer_profilepagehttp://www.youtube.c...yer_profilepage Judging from from some of the dished and curved shapes on your test pieces I question if your dies are truly flat. Is each piece measured in what would be the thinnest part? If so the dies aren't flat. The piece should should be measured side to side and on the end and be pretty close to the same. My eyes have deceived me before, so please correct me I'm wrong........mb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Yeah I dont think they are flat flat either... but it makes for better video... Unless we get a bunch of guys in lab coats and expensive equipment its all just "kinda" information anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 <br>Yeah I dont think they are flat flat either... but it makes for better video... Unless we get a bunch of guys in lab coats and expensive equipment its all just "kinda" information anyway...<br><br>The test surely Isn't 100% accurate, but not bad. If any amount of mateiral escapes from the sides or end then It's being drawn not flattened. That matieral is critical because It's going to cool the fastest and flattening is much more resistance than drawing. Hammers with narrow dies say 2" or less as opposed to larger ones may get some better readings....I'm not questioning these matters cause of my results. Watching the video I had issues with what I thought were a kinda loose interpretation of the test. Those guys in the video were in no way trying to put one over, but it was more or less an advertisement for blu, nothing wrong with blu, I think it needed pointing out.............call me a nitpicker ........m<br>Caffeine has me in It's grip this am so I did another test on the 250#. (the one with the small anvil).I did the bar on the left with 2" wide dies and got .250, the rt with 4" wide and got .388,or 36%+<br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 I guess I should do this.... I happen to have flat dies in all three of my operational hammers today so I'll try it with the KA-150, the 3B and the Saymak 60KG and report back Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macbruce Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 Here's what I'm talkin' bout, Bam Bams' 3b got .155 at 10 bl.........the Blu 155 got .081.hmmm,go figure.....mb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 8, 2011 Share Posted January 8, 2011 You know what, I have a set of "narrow" dies for my Saymak.... I'll throw those in and do the test as well... give a good indication of what a difference it makes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Well I did the test, took a couple pictures.... but didnt right down the numbers.. I'll have to post them tomorrow.. One thing I can tell you is the KA did not do much, the Nazel was the best show... unless you take the "narrow"die saymak run.. So the end two are both the 60KG hammer... done on the real flat dies is the second one, done on the narrow dies which look flat but are not that are shown in the picture is the first one.. I do remember the 10 hit on the narrow dies was .051 When I get in the shop tomorrow I'll post the rest of the numbers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monstermetal Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 ??? I was just watching the last Big Blu hammer test video... And the guys says their hammer has a 80:1 anvil ratio because its bolted to the concrete floor(he must have weighed the floor at 12,000lbs)... By that logic you should be able to include the whole earth as anvil right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peacock Posted January 9, 2011 Share Posted January 9, 2011 Monster would'n it only be half? Everything on the other side of the earth is trying to fall off. This test is not valid, their own test proves it. If the dies were flat why did changing from the end of the die to the side make such a differnce? A die that starts out flat but then has large radius put on them may still be flat in the middle but as soon as the stock spreads beyond the flat the hammer is no longer forging the 1 or 2 inches of stock. Also because the edges are not in contact with the dies they are thicker and retaining heat. It took them 2 years but they have produced a very crafty video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now