Jump to content

jake pogrebinsky

Members
  • Content Count

    559
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by jake pogrebinsky

  1. Very clean and controlled there,Rob;and good proportioning eye/blade/poll,too. Good for you to harden the poll too,neat little job altogether.
  2. Very nice forging,Gerald,yes,right on!:)
  3. It's a nice size eye...May not be easy to find a regular,hardware store handle in those dimensions.But you're in some good hickory country,and surely have your sources... Good luck,Alan,4140 will make a great drift;mild works,but gets damaged and needs fixing up with annoying regularity...So it'll be worth every effort you put into it. A photo of one of JA's drifts for inspiration- http://forgedaxes.com/blog/
  4. Alan,i don't know how close to any kind of historic context(if at all)you've aimed at,but i notice that most axes of similar pattern seem to have an added poll... https://cooperstoolmuseum.com/edge-tools/ In drawings it's not so easy to tell(above is only one of examples),but in surviving originals for the most part pretty sure there's more mass there... Any plans for adding a any,for balance or looks? Another thing i meant to ask is what do you know about the intended purpose for this pattern? Not that it isn't a neat shape in and of itself,just wondering...
  5. I think it's excellent hammer-control,Alan,wonderful,clean forging... Finding material for drifts Is a total botheration...i can totally relate...(as well as working without one,using whatever you got!:)
  6. P.S. Ironically,this iron was not without it's own connection to England...(was Anything,in Industrial Age?:) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancashire_hearth
  7. Sweet,Aiden. You're hitting it very close to the holy Grail of axe-forging,minimum shaping by grinding.
  8. Hey Dan!:) No,i'd imagine that you're more likely to encounter some cruder,dirtier grades among the structural/architectural iron,even though they may pre-date this scene. At the time this video was shot the industrial world had already found cheaper substitutes for that good Swedish iron...Ironmaking in Sweden was dying(this particular smith unemployed and almost literally starving at that juncture),exports of iron or tools from Sweden down to almost nothing. Sweden had those lovely kinds of ore,+ centuries of experience in processing it,+ their coniferous charcoal...Both ore and charcoal pure as driven snow... But the world no longer had any use for it. A friend who uses an old Wira axe says that in sharpening,and even in handling the tool he can "feel" the loveliness of that iron...
  9. Yep,that's a standard operating procedure for me as well:Sketch on a pre-form with a soapstone,get rid of the main mass with a cut-off disc,grind the profile. Axes are an awkward bugger of a shape being so flat in one dimension,a bear to set down in that direction. Another bit of theory here:Most axes have a balance point somewhere 1/4" or so inside the eye(if you chuck a ruler or an old knife in a vise and balance the head across it).It makes an axe neutral,i.e. neither blade-,nor poll-heavy when hafted.Saves on some muscles in your hand/wrist... Yes,the top of the cutting edge is the Toe(bottom-Heel). Good for you,man,i think you're doing an excellent job.
  10. Aiden,right on,good job on welding that bit on. What you're ending up with is (not surprisingly)a GB type head,here's their average shape: Now,when you say "too tall",do you mean in that transition zone,between the eye and blade? If so,it's a natural effect of not beginning to control it soon enough,while in it's stubbier stage. It is challenging to edge-set an axe blade,but possible.If you have a large-ish radius on one of your anvil edges,place the inside corner of the bottom of the blade on it,and whack it from above,hard. (sorry if i misunderstood your point here). In general,that was a common feature in many Swedish/Norsk axes,the height at poll was bigger than at base of blade,(it was done quite deliberately,for balance). Sometimes,especially when it was fairly radical forged-in diff.,it was done with a special,dedicated forked/cleft chisel type of tool...But in milder cases like GB pictured above an anvil edge would do. Good job on controlling All factors/parameters so far,none of this is easy....
  11. Aiden,another thought for you:You'd probably (eventually)have to come up with a different drift. (I know only too well what a pain it is to come up with big enough chunk of steel...AND all the work to make something like that...:(....) But,that taper in plan view,fore and aft as oriented in the axe,it's not quite the "thing". The front and back of the eye should really be parallel with each other...That is the reason that your haft was so shy of filling the top of eye. Possibly you can modify just the very top of your drift?The parallel-sided section only needs to be really just a bit over half the eye height in length,and it can be at the very top,and applied right towards the end of shaping sequence. Alan has also brought up a rather important point-the section of the eye does not necessarily be that of a modern felling axe(something weighing 3+lbs and swung hard on the end of a 3' haft). Many bench/carpenter/et c.axes were hafted in a surprisingly modest cross-section of haft,in spite of some of them being quite heavy. It's perfectly appropriate in any type of axe that is used mostly one-handed,and in a more exact,precise,calculated sort of way(bench work).
  12. Right on,Chris,glad you enjoyed it!:) Here's another cool video pertaining to overlaying the bit: Here the bit is not pre-shaped,also it appears to be more modest in size... One must remember though that in Sweden of the time re-steeling an axe was a common and accepted procedure(kinda periodic,like re-soling a pair of decent boots). So the eye and poll of an axe was viewed as a permanent part(small wonder,it';s not easy to forge),while the bit was disposable. That is one of the reasons that there isn't really hard and fast rule for the angle of convergence of an axe blade....It was a sliding kinda deal....
  13. Right ON,Aiden! Fantastic job on pre-forging that bit steel,that's exactly what is called for. Obviously your basic forging skills are up to speed,so i'm sure you'll figure out the corresponding shapes et c. that are called for for that weld. "Stubby" is one of the hardest criteria to judge.It looks like you're right in the ball-park,if anything-not stubby enough.Extra length is(can often be) a challenge to control. Right on,Joshua,yes,ain't it something...There's a Lot of energy that goes into forging an axe head...(And grinding...uff...:( Aiden is Very wise in his attempts to keep it all under 2#...I often end up pushing 3,and that one pound of steel is critical in kicking one's ass...:(
  14. P.S. As an historical example,here's an old classic filmed about the process at E&S,Maine....overlayed bit at about 4:00...it may not be quite as massive as i write above,but these guys have their process down,et c.,et c......
  15. Aiden,it's looking really good,nice length/height eye slit,lots of potential there. I'll make a suggestion that may be hard to follow,but here goes just in case:When thinning down the "cheeks"-the sides of eye-watch that valley/divot that will be trying to form between the eye and poll.To keep it from getting out of control you may try to not let it get too deep.... An "outie",or an "overlayed" bit is a commonly practiced technique,actually more common than an inserted bit in most US axes in 20th century. However,i'm not sure if bent flat stock will give you enough mass in the end...(for everything-the forging initially,and trimming,and decarb,and grinding,et c.,et c...). Most commonly an overlay was shaped out of a thicker chunk,maybe 3/4" or so thick,with outer edges fullered off and bent down to form a U. Much like you Did do,but more mass in the center.... All the Very best of luck tho man,you're doing great!
  16. Beautiful work,Joshua.I especially like that texture,before final grind(i know it'd not be the most practical finish for a knife:)! But yeah,great looking puukot!
  17. ...Yes!And you're guaranteed to become thoroughly confused!:) My thesis is simple-axes are darn hard to forge,we must accrue data in as many other ways as we can,or we'll simply kill ourselves forging before we get far... History is a good place to start,thankfully here in USA it's fairly recent and ambient. One of the most educational patterns of American axes is the Rockaway.Here's a photo of a good example: The reason i think that is that it's a descendant,a derivative of this "type"(a much less formally distinguished pattern),which was brought/developed by Germanic immigrants.Here's a decent random example: I'm not sure if that commercial Plumb Rockaway was slit&drifted or welded up like the older axe,but that is what happened eventually-the pattern was "translated" into more modern method. But what we were discussing above can be "read" in these shapes,the slight curvature of the top line,the rise of toe,et c. That is because those shapes came From forging...Obviously,those old guys were interested in removing as little as possible,and forging as close to the final shape. So yes,those American patterns derived from earlier axes are most educational...Rockaway,Jersey,Kentucky...I'd certainly observe and study up on where that metal moved for those guys.... Speaking of that curvature,Swedes did use a dedicated tool,a bolster for the anvil-face,but it's mighty anal-retentive for most of us one-horse forges... And,this same design was quite often rather flat,as well:
  18. Aiden,i think you've done Great,man,right on! You've already gotten some high quality feedback,so i'll limit the verbiage to (hopefully)only helpful. In regards to Proportioning...You never said how Thick your starting piece of plate was.Typical for the simpler of slit&drifted axes the dimensions of the back of the poll are/were the starting stock.That normally results in somewhat of a "boat-tail" effect,such as yours.(this is a short version and only since you asked;there's actually quite a bit more about the relative mass distribution between poll and body but no point in complicating things). I agree that your punch can use being longer in section...(a cheap,US-made cold-chisel off the shelf will do;it'll probably crap out on you as a slitter,so will be easy to reshape as punch). I may be wrong,but is that "brashness" inside your eye,on the poll-side of it?If so,it'd happen probably from needing to expand the eye so radically length-wise(but also from maybe working too cold or too fast).Forgive me if i'm wrong about that,hard to see in photos. The thickness of your blade is probably excessive,at least at the Toe.The (very)general rule of thumb for angle of the blade itself(not bevels or edge)is a ratio of 5:1(so 1/2" thick 2 1/2" from edge),or Less.Remember,an axe is pencil-like in that it'll wear back over time,and so it's best to give it a bit more potential life. (all that goes for Chopping(as in parting a chip when cutting Across the grain,Hewing axes are Way different(much thinner yet). "Trouble" is a matter of perception,is it not?:)...You obviously had a preconcieved notion of where you'd like to see that shape end up,but the forging had it's own idea,which was based on physics. In actuality,the shape of your axe as forged was more consistent with the average "axe-shape".The toe would rise,from peining(most axes have a toe that is higher than that straight line you've cut yours to;only a rare specialised ones are straight,lathing hatchets and few other types). That upward curvature of the top is also determined by your wanting the langettes to be only on one side,the bottom...(that's why Alan wisely notes about drawing them both ways and so on). Possibly,in straightening the top by forging,is how you stretched the top of eye longer... But again,most axes allowed these "naytural":) forging dynamics to take their course,that is what gave us majority of predominant "types" of axes. Finally,the angle of your edge in profile is(has been made to be)parallel to the line of poll.Think of a longish tool-heads like dog-headed hammer,say-they commonly have a slight curve,right?It corresponds to the arc of your swing,as you use the tool. Axes too,usually,have somewhat of an angle to their blade.Your rough forging was again,naturally,tending towards that... But please feel free to disregard,i'm a peevish old fart that likes to overthink a lot of this. You're obviously a careful,consistent,methodical craftsman,and will come into all this minutiae if/when you'd really need it.
  19. Excellent,Joshua,it looks like you're happening on this,right on! From experience i know how both the top and bottom edges of an axe blank suffer in forging.(They're also challenging to correct,as few if any of sections of curvature would lay against any surface you may have on your anvil...unless like some Swedish shops you actually forge special top-tools/bolsters for that specific axe shape). I'll even be a total wuss and go ahead and confess that i no longer even use a prick punch for laying out.On number of occasions the marks from my small square punch have grown into fairly unpleasant(both visually and structurally)stress-riser issues...But that's going a bit far,i'm sure you know what effect your marking system will have. Best of luck,man!Happy forging!:) (and safe&happy holidays:)
  20. Thanks,Jerrod,yes-that is a very good way to describe that action. Here's a good example of a weld that failed to within about 50% of it's intent: https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-J-B-Stohler-Axe-Head-Jersey-Type-Honed-to-a-Razor-Sharp-Edge-/202821916120?hash=item2f3920d5d8%3Ag%3AwJIAAOSwGEFdzH6E&nma=true&si=umXEE57fR%2B1XIUPiPUv78KWLIM0%3D&orig_cvip=true&nordt=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557 If you look at all the photos there you'll see how one entire half of the cleft-weld holding the edge insert didn't make a bond... Yet,that tool is all wore,it served in it's intended use well;the other half of that Very ample weld area has held up. That is btw one of the best,most reputable American makers of late 19th-early 20th c.c.,J.B.Stohler,failures like this were Most uncommon for him. Also,if you look carefully at the top views you'll see how the poll is comprised of 4 parts,3 laminated pieces(for added mass+room inside eye),and a hardened steel butt-plate,which helps secure that 3-part weld further.
  21. Thanks,Alan,possibly that's the engineering term? And here i quickly stole some schematic off the net...It's representative enough of the Principle...(just wish they drew the weld areas larger,those stingy-looking welds make me cringe:)
  22. Jerrod,my apologies,i'm sure that i used that technical term incorrectly. What i meant by that is that the weld is positioned in a Plane that parallels that of the force in which the axe is used...Yet not exactly,as the two usually cross at a slight angle. A good example of maximizing the efficiency of a weld in the the general forging practice of course is a chain-link...(i'll try to find a schematic in case someone is not familiar with that weld). What happens there is for the weld to fail the two halves of a lapped joint must Slide past each other(or fail in tensile manner as you indicate as the strongest point). That is what i meant to indicate by bringing in "sheer",obviously a misplaced term. But the Idea of lap-weld used in chain-making is what works well in axe construction. The Area of the weld is maximised too,for further security. (although that is the stick of two ends-the smith has better have the skill to close the entire weld before it cools or oxidises,or he'd be better served by a weld of lesser area/better bond....
  23. Joshua,good job,glad to see you're trying this out. In the third photo from top,those aren't cold-shuts,looking straight at the edge of stock? If so,i'd grind those out before you go about shaping things further. (sorry if i'm seeing things).
  24. That is Finnish axe called Piilukirves,it is a hewing tool,specifically for levellin and planishing log walls in a very specific type of log-work they practice in Finland. The one above is it's relative,possibly an ancestor,from Sweden in late Middle-ages... referred to as "1700"...(by those that been falling down this rabbit-hole a while now:) all this verbiage is to put forth an idea that it's not at all random,all these choices of methods of cobbling together an axehead...
  25. Basically,the decision is based on what is wanted/and how to get there most expeditiously. For example,that axe you forged of late in Hot Work topic(great job,btw;my internet is intermittent,and i couldn't comment just then),you chose a type of axe that is essentially almost poll-less. However,to create even the transition from poll to cheeks,as well as thin those some,and to make that transition forward all took time and energy. Potentially,especially if were you up against a design that called for more variance in mass, you could accomplish it easier or faster by welding. Heres a cool photo of a yet-unwelded components of an axe similar to one you posted: It is by a smith Mathieu Colette,from Montreal,here's his FB page: https://www.facebook.com/pg/Taillanderie-Claudel-609826759129934/photos/?ref=page_internal That photo doesn't really show that the middle piece that grips the blade and the front of socket is cleft on both ends,this kinda "bow-tie" shape in section. The blade is forged from two more pieces,and socket is comprised of three more,so this particular method is a 6-piece construction.
×
×
  • Create New...