Whether this is accomplished through anvil mass, stand mass, or rigid anchoring of the stand to the shop floor is immaterial.įifth, in addition the above, mounting methods that dampen the anvil's ring reduce of workplace stress, increase the efficiency of the smith's work, and make for more happy neighbors. Third, while one can make theoretical arguments for or against any particular style of stand or method of construction, the measurable differences between properly constructed stands are going to be insignificant, regardless of material.įourth, anything that keeps the anvil from moving will ensure that more of the hammer blows' energy goes into the workpiece. Second, the job of the anvil stand is to hold the anvil in the proper position so that it can withstand the force of hammer blows and other operations. Here are my thoughts.įirst, there is no such thing as "the perfect anvil stand". Is there benefit to the compressibility of softer mounting materials? wouldn't move around *at all* Is this right, or am I thinking about this all wrong? Would a theoretically perfect mount be a solid steel tree stump, lagged into the concrete floor? It seems to my thinking that that would be:Ĥ. Now, what is the best primary attribute of a mount? Do I *want* it to absorb some energy, or would it be better if it were 'perfectly' rigid? The metal ones are usually pretty spindley at the legs, so I can't help but think the mount is adding a spring constant of its own to the assembly, and they don't add much mass. The wood mounts seem as though they could add mass, but wood is naturally spongey (compared to metal) so it seems to me that these mounts would absorb some energy from each hammer blow. It seems 95% of anvils are mounted to either tree trunks or fabricated tripods. So my first question is about anvil stands. Which means I know almost nothing, but you can't convince me I don't know it all. I'm just getting into blacksmithing, but I've been in machining and fabrication for 30 some years.
0 kommentar(er)
