[TheForge] Coordinated Hammers (was: Light weight forging equipment)

[Bruce .]

Dan,

No to Problem No. 1.  If the hammers are both suspended by the mechanism,
you don't have to lift them, only accelerate them.   A simple example is
shown in a video somebody on this list may know how to find.  In it a
blacksmith swings what must be at least a 30-lb hammer, suspended from
above on a chain or rope.  Very easy to do that.

Problem 2 could be minimized by proper design of the coordinating
mechanism, but I don't assert that there's any easy way to ensure
simultaneous opposite blows.

But KIS:  Use a hammer and anvil.


Bruce
NJ

On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Daniel T Hayes <dhayes at dthayes.com> wrote:

> Problem #1: The two hammer setup set up doubles the work required to get
> the
> same result. Whatever work you put into lifting the one hammer also has to
> go into lifting the opposing hammer.
>
> Problem #2: It will be impossible to get the timing perfect and the result
> will be like Frosty's example of holding the work off the bottom die in a
> power hammer. The work together with the two hammers would act very much
> like a three pendulum "executive pacifier" (those swinging clacking
> suspended steel ball toys). The work piece will not ride along in contact
> with the first hammer to strike but rather bounce completely off (toward
> the
> second hammer). When the second hammer hits the back and forth action will
> begin.  Neither safe nor efficient from a mechanics/physics perspective.
> Red
> hot steel would have about the same rebound as using lead balls in the
> pendulum toy but placing cold work would be exciting.
>
> I'm sure you could work out an arrangement to control/minimize the problems
> but in the end I doubt the result would be either safe or smaller/lighter
> than the original anvil-hammer combination. As a minimum you'd double the
> work required. You last sentence pretty well sums it up; "But, I can do the
> same thing with ONE hammer and an anvil!"
>
> Dan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: TheForge [mailto:theforge-bounces at mailman.qth.net] On Behalf Of
> Bruce
> .
> Sent: Sunday, December 28, 2014 2:36 PM
> To: Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA
> Subject: [TheForge] Coordinated Hammers (was: Light weight forging
> equipment)
>
> The safety fix could be to have two parallel striking surfaces.  Either the
> hammers strike the workpiece, or, if somebody goofs and doesn't insert the
> workpiece, the secondary striking surfaces hit each other.  These latter
> would be made of unhardened steel, so might deform but wouldn't shatter.
>
> The secondary surfaces could be remote from the primary hammers so as not
> to
> be in the way.  The gap between the primary hammers could be made
> adjustable
> by adjusting the secondary ones  -- which could be a neat feature if you're
> trying to forge to a set thickness.
>
> Of course, if you build a mechanical hammer like this, somebody is gonna
> complain that they can't swing the hammer by hand!  (Voice of experience
> speaking here.)
>
> Which brings on the next thought.  Suppose you took two hand hammers (or
> thing that were nearly so) and connected them through some guidance
> mechanism vaguely resembling a lazy tongs or pantograph such that the faces
> come together at the workpiece.  Use a tool balancer (to take the weight
> and
> to allow some motion of the mechanism) and you could suspend this mechanism
> on the far side of your work support (the mental equivalent of the place
> where your anvil is now).
>
> So you grab one hammer in your left hand and one in your right.  These
> could
> be BIG hammers because the mechanism would support the weight.  You then
> swing the two hammers together against the workpiece, one from the left,
> one
> from the right.  The mechanism would ensure that they'd strike from
> opposite
> sides at the same moment.
>
> I can just see perfecting this only to hear somebody complain, "But, I can
> do the same thing with ONE hammer and an anvil!"
>
> Bruce
> NJ
>
> On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 10:28 AM, Andy Gladish <anjgladish at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Maybe it's old hat, but I just realized, sitting here looking out the
> > window at lake Michigan at our vacation cottage, that the physics of
> > forging might not require a heavy anvil if you simply had two
> > coordinated hammers hitting above and below.
> > Lots of safety considerations, don't try this @home, kids.
> >
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> TheForge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.shutterfly.com
> Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
> Password: anvil
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> TheForge mail list group photo site is
> http://www.shutterfly.com
> Login: blacksmithblacksmith at hotmail.com
> Password: anvil
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>