Looking for Fairbanks hammer operating manual...

farmer12888 said:
Anyone know when the Fairbanks versus Dupont thing happened and which was made first?

Mike, did you ever get a chance to measure that flange on the back of the hammer that the drive pulley rides against? Thickness and diameter. Bruce, could you do the same? I need to know what to do back there to mount the drive pulley off the back. I hope that I don't have to grind off the little flange that I have on my hammer.
Click to expand...

I've got it in my head it was DuPont then Fairbanks then United Hammer Co. but I've not come across any history to validate that. Doug Freund doesn't indicate this history in his book(s)?

I haven't gotten to the shop recently (it's a drive to get there). I'll try to go today and get you some numbers tonight. I know I can measure the end of the shaft but am probably not going to be able to get truly accurated dimensions anywhere else, but we'll see.

Mike
 
When I go to the shop today I'll see if can get a blade down to the rubber mat our hammer sets on between the anvil and base... I'm figuring yes but don't remember if there is a ledge at the anvil bottom or not.

I wonder... will the de-cruded anvil/base gap hold water?

Where on your hammer is the hole you ran the picture taker in?

Mike
 
Last edited:
Thanks Mike. Don't make a special trip.

My anvil has a hole in each side in about the middle of the anvil.

Good thought on Freund's book. On page 261, he says that Dupont patented the coil-spring linkage in 1890; Dupont initially "participated" in the manufacture of the hammers in St. Johnsbury, Vermont; Fairbanks acquired the hammer line in 1902 and changed the name; 15 years later the line was sold to the United Hammer Company; the hammer line was again sold during the Great Depression to Barbour-Stockwell and then discontinued in the 1950's. Freund does not say what name they were made under when they were made by United or Barbour-Stockwell.
 
Robert, could you explain what flange you were referring to? Not quite sure what part you're referring to.
 
Robert,

Thanks for posting the history. I should have bought Doug's book a long time ago... ment to and didn't make it happen.

On the "off side" of the pictures Dan put up of our hammer, there are two brass tags pinned on raised, cast ovals. Top one reads... Brown Machinery Co., 2323 N. Ninth St., St. Louis, Mo. ... one over the other. Bottom one reads... United Hammer Co., Fairbanks, #1749, Boston, Mass. Stamped and painted, top and bottom following oval with number area between and stamped with numeral stamps... your "182" looks like it could be done by hand... is it?

Might be Doug Freund would know if #1749 was total of all since invention, number of 50#... either since beginning or out of United, or ??? Sid might know, too, seeing he "owned" DuPont/Fairbanks/United/Barbour-Stockwell.

The catalog Bruce sent you a copy of... Barbour-Stockwell... never mentions either Fairbanks or United. The hammers are always referred to as DuPont. Given that, both my hammer and Bruce's have to be 1927 or newer to be tagged "United Hammer Co.". It's too bad Doug didn't say when Barbour-Stockwell bought the patents from United.

Just to say it, I think your hammer and Roger Smith's hammer are from the same time frame/hammer patent owner... I'm basing that soley on the intricate front plate casting. That kind of stuff is "old timey", do you think Bruce?

I've been meaning to mention and have forgotten to more than once... In the pics of Roger Smith's hammer, the front shot with the Halloween decorations, there are spring guards on it. I don't know if Roger built them, a previous owner built them, or if Roger's hammer came that way... Bruce might, though, as ForgeMagic is one of the places he frequents. Looks like as good a solution as I've seen, if a person feels spring guards are essential.

Mike

Mike
 
Last edited:
I would think the imprinted faceplate is off an older machine.
Mike , I have just a flat piece of 420hc (3"x10" mebbe) mounted in front of the spring to act a s a spring deflector in case of breakage.
 
Robert,

Not a big deal to go to the shop, no time at all to get there... just takes doing.

I've been re-reading the thread. There are somethings asked and said that have gone by without answers or noting. Hopefully I'll get all of them in here.

I stuck a hacksaw blade down both sides and the front of the anvil/base. There's plenty of room on ours (I'll bet on Bruce's, too) and it's clear all around to the rubber mat our hammer sets on.

So you know, I've e-yapped with a small historical society in the town (or near by) Barbour-Stockwell was based in. I was asking about operating manuals. There's a link in a "Barbour-Stockwell Company" search on Dog Pile that took me there. Friendly folks... they found no data on hammers at all. I may get the Doug Freund history you posted to them and see if it moves them to dig more, because they don't know about the manufacturing aspect.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Shaft dia. at drive pulley: 1.875", protrusion 1"
Gib key (approx.): 0.525" wide x 0.441" w/ 0.244" in shaft key way

I got rough numbers for shaft diameter at sleeve and behind drive disc... real rough... Front to back it's 1.755"... 1.913"... and the correctly measured 1.875" at the exposed back end. Given the measuring goat screw at front and sleeve, our shaft is same dia., end to end... or that's the way I'd bet it.

Between the drive pulley and the rear side of the rear yoke there is an approx. 5/8" recessed space and the rear trailing edge is 45 deg. chamfered (about 1/8"). Whatever it is, it disappears forward under the rear yoke, it doesn't turn, and it's steel, not brass/bronze. I have no access to bushing view (sleeve dia. 3.280" and wall thickness of 0.683" (approx.) and couldn't feel it at the front yoke... the only place with enough room to probe.

I forgot to rotate the sleeve when I had the set screw out to measure thickness. I'd guess I'd find a keyway in the shaft under the sleeve for mid-drive-pulley configuration.

In the pictures of our hammer, the rear view shows two set screws. They are drilled/tapped at a slight inward angle (same size as all other set screws on our hammer) to clear the overhang of the drive pulley. One of them locks the gib key, one of them sets into the shaft. Seems to me the set screw holes are modification of standard mid-mount drive pulley at the time whoever configured for "motor-driven" and/or jackshaft configuration.
--------------------------------------

Given that you are nearly totally stripped, and you've got both room and ability, would you think about putting the anvil straps back on and laying your machine on it's side? There is something going on with your stuck anvil that really doesn't seem right. My reasoning is, part of the DuPont/Fairbanks ingenuity was the separate anvil... beats on the anvil only, not on an adjunct to the frame... doesn't require a base +% of the hammer foot print. I suppose it might be the "other patents pending" on your front plate was a totally free anvil at a later date than your hammer's manufacture... I couldn't bring myself to bet it that way. At a best guess, I figure your hammer had owner problems at one time... maybe a combination of insufficient base plus maybe hold downs, loosening anvil staps, out of square anvil bottom,and/or "who-knows". I guess I'd probe with a pointed wire first and see if I found different levels (different pieces) in the areas you can reach but even if it all feels the same, I'd tip it if I could.

If any one still has a question unanswered, ask again (could point them out by post number if they are biggish) so it can get covered up... Robert, I asked about your belt material and connector and it got lost in the thread volume and the pictures.

Mike
 
Last edited:
So here's one of the "other patents pending" things...

Robert's and Roger Smith's hammers... front and front/side views... pg.4, post #75 & #79. Compare face plates there with last pic, pg. 3, post # 53. Bruce and I have "as built" adjustable brass/bronze hammer guide as part of the face plate. Dan's hammer with it's owner built face plate is adjustable, too (no pic in this thread).
----------------------------------------

Robert,

When you pulled your face plate, did you find shims to adjust hammer/hammer guide clearance (like I think is done on LG's)?

Sid sent me face plate adjusting directions... Change shims/adjustable guide so hammer (alone, no arms, not attached) has no hang ups in full travel. Set shims/adjustable guide where hammer just barely does not hang up.

Also asked Sid at the time if he would oil/grease hammer guides. He said he oils/greases everything. Even greases all mating surfaces, bolts, nuts, whatever when assembling... 100 years from now, it will come apart, rust free, and at the same tolerances. Now that is a man with a mission... =]

Mike
 
Mike, I will try to answer all of the questions, and I will ask a few.

Guides and face plate: I have shims between my faceplate and the frame. There was one on each side. How do you have adjustable guides? So Sid is saying to adjust the faceplate shim thickness so the ram barely does not hang up? In other words, the ram is just barely free to move? As to greasing or oiling the guides, doesn't your ram have oil holes on the top by each protrusion that rides in each guide?

Anvil: I am thinking it is possible someone welded my anvil to the frame. I will investigate a little more. Is it possible that the frame has to be lifted off the anvil?

Belt: My belt is old leather and connected with some old-style connector with a wire pin through sort of a hinge. I will need a new belt in any case.

Manufacturing date. If your hammers say United on them, that would make them newer than 1917, which was when the Fairbanks hammer line was sold to United (1902 plus 15 years). Do your hammers say Fairbanks on them anywhere or just United? The material in Freund's book is a sales brochure from United dated June 15, 1917, and United was selling the hammers as Fairbanks hammers, so we know United continued to keep the Fairbanks name for some period of time. Without knowing what name Barbour-Stockwell manufactured them under, it is possible United or maybe even Fairbanks hammers were made up into the 1950s.

Bruce, the flange I am talking about is the most rearward part of the hammer frame/yoke that the drive pulley rides against. On my hammer, if I want to change to a drive pulley mounted outside the yokes, that part is a little doughnut-looking flange on the outside of the rear yoke. I am concerned that it is too small in diameter to give any support to the drive pulley, since the flanges that meet my drive pulley on each side now are quite a bit bigger in diameter. If you look at my pictures posted 11/12 and the one called "Stripped frame from the back" you will see a shiny doughnut that the shaft would stick out in the middle of. That is the flange I am talking about.
 
Mike, here is a picture of the hole in the side of my anvil. There is a matching one on the other side.
IMG_0376loresanvilhole.jpg
[/IMG]

The copy of the Barbour-Stockwell material Bruce sent me is at the shop. There may be some info in there to help further narrow the manufacturing date. If, as you thought in an earlier post, they never referred to the hammers as Fairbanks or United, that would help narrow the date all of ours were manufactured to prior to the sale to them during the Great Depression, and would place yours between 1917 and the Great Depression.
 
I checked the tag on mine and it read "United Hammer Co" and underneath "Fairbanks" then the number 1691.
One thing I got outta Wallace was that my machine was made 1930-1950.
After diggin out my Freund book(BOG) I found that "An adjustable, tapered bronze gib and redesigned faceplate were offered on new hammers and were also available as a retrofit for earlier machines"
"During the depression, the hammer was sold to the Barbour -Stockwell Co. of cambridge Mass. who also acquired the Beaudry Hammer line. Both of these lines were dropped in the mid-1950's"
I wonder where the newer machines are??
I don't think you would want to remove that "dfonut" Robert. Can you get a good view on yours to see how far the bushing extends into that area?
 
Last edited:
Bruce, what page in the Freund book was that quote on about the adjustable bronze gib, and is that part of the face plate and guide assembly that Mike was talking about? Also, does your hammer have a casting on the body of the hammer on the side that says Fairbanks like mine or are the United and Fairbanks names just on a tag? It is possible that some tag just fell off mine, if that is the only place where United is placed on the hammer.

I believe that my bronze bushing in the back yoke comes all the way to the very outside edge of the yoke. The oil galley cut into the bronze bushing comes almost to the back edge of the yoke, so the bushing must also. I am concerned that the doughnut casting on the outside of my back yoke around my shaft is too small for the drive pulley to ride against, if I move the pulley to the outside. That doughnut is also not machined flat but has a little dome shape to it. The two sides of the yoke that my drive pulley now meets are both machined flat and are machined flat in a much larger diameter than that little doughnut on the back of my hammer. The drive pulley shouldn't really even touch them in a perfect world, but as the bushings wear, the drive pulley begins to touch those flanges. I can see that on my hammer.
 
Pg 152 Robert, and yes that is the setup Mike spoke of.
There was a brass plate on the top anvil strap that I've set somewher eand can't find. It was boogered up a bit so I didn't put it back on.
Facing the hammer, on the left side is cast as follows. A (hammer weight) Below it is the Fairbanks tag I described above with a serial number. Below that is a shield with
Made in USA inside. Below that is

United
Hammer Co.
Boston Mass.
USA

On hte right side there are no castings, only 2 plates . One is the Fairbanks Power Hammer instructions/adjustments and a smaller plate saying
Fairbanks Co. Trademark with worldwide locations on it.

I really can't tell much on mine due to the thickness of the paint(concerning the back yoke)
 
farmer12888 said:
Mike, I will try to answer all of the questions, and I will ask a few.

Guides and face plate: I have shims between my faceplate and the frame. There was one on each side. How do you have adjustable guides? So Sid is saying to adjust the faceplate shim thickness so the ram barely does not hang up? In other words, the ram is just barely free to move? As to greasing or oiling the guides, doesn't your ram have oil holes on the top by each protrusion that rides in each guide?

Anvil: I am thinking it is possible someone welded my anvil to the frame. I will investigate a little more. Is it possible that the frame has to be lifted off the anvil?

Belt: My belt is old leather and connected with some old-style connector with a wire pin through sort of a hinge. I will need a new belt in any case.

Manufacturing date. If your hammers say United on them, that would make them newer than 1917, which was when the Fairbanks hammer line was sold to United (1902 plus 15 years). Do your hammers say Fairbanks on them anywhere or just United? The material in Freund's book is a sales brochure from United dated June 15, 1917, and United was selling the hammers as Fairbanks hammers, so we know United continued to keep the Fairbanks name for some period of time. Without knowing what name Barbour-Stockwell manufactured them under, it is possible United or maybe even Fairbanks hammers were made up into the 1950s.

Bruce, the flange I am talking about is the most rearward part of the hammer frame/yoke that the drive pulley rides against. On my hammer, if I want to change to a drive pulley mounted outside the yokes, that part is a little doughnut-looking flange on the outside of the rear yoke. I am concerned that it is too small in diameter to give any support to the drive pulley, since the flanges that meet my drive pulley on each side now are quite a bit bigger in diameter. If you look at my pictures posted 11/12 and the one called "Stripped frame from the back" you will see a shiny doughnut that the shaft would stick out in the middle of. That is the flange I am talking about.
Click to expand...

I sent you a picture of our adjustable face plate. If you can make time to put it up here, feel free. There are pictures in the catalog that roughly represent it... parts number 22 & 33.

Nope, no oil holes at top of face plate, gib, or plunger/ram/hammer... unless they are hiding in "history". When the hammer is at rest and down, I apply bar chain oil to the female sliding surfaces.

I described the guide tightness poorly... it's at the opposite side of the way I led you to see it now... hammer loosened in guides (via shims or adjustable gib) to where there is just total free movement without any feel of hang-up. Sid will know about +/- shim thicknesses for minor adjustment.

I guess it is possible the anvil on older machines goes in from the bottom. Given the foundation description in the catalog (from a time in developement later than your machine manufacture date), it seems unlikely. It would require a fit of frame base to anvil flange that was tight... like two machined surfaces. Of all the things in the world available in those years, time was most plentiful. So, anything is possible but I still don't believe the anvils had any configuration but "free" (I ran out of fingers and toes counting the number of times I've been wrong a long, long time ago... ).

Flat belts evolved technologically. Went from leather to "transmission belting"... a multi-ply rubberized canvas. The various ply amounts and will have a minimum pulley diameter they can be used with. An outfit in Denver (Western Belting) I've talked to carries 3-ply and 4-ply. The 4-ply was recommended and has a 3" pulley minimum. In an ideal world, your motor pulley should be 5" (whether jackshaft or direct). From catalog "motor-driven", 900rpm, 13" drive pulley, 350bpm... 350 is 0.3889 of 900... 5.0556" is 0.3889 of 13". "Bear" tried "V" belts on his Fairbanks and went back to transmission belting, which he calls "mill belting" (northwest lumber mills, I think). Problem with transmission belting is it stretches 4-5%. That is 4 3/4" to 6" on our 120" belt. Some info here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3726/is_200406/ai_n9444587/
http://www.pyramidbelts.com/calc_beltlength.php
http://www.engineersedge.com/belt_design/belt_length_pulley_center_dist.htm

Thanks for helping me with my give-to's and take-aways, Robert... =]
Ours only has "Fairbanks" on the United Hammer Co. brass plate and on the setting description brass plate you see on the upper frame in the posted pictures (don't know about Bruce's). As I mentioned, Barbour-Stockwell called them "DuPont Power Hammers"... no "Fairbanks" anywhere in the catalog. So it at least looks like, somewhere in the variable era called "The Depression" (early as 1925 by some accounts) until no later than end 1959 or 1960, the ownership was Barbour-Stockwell and they sold as "DuPont". A thing I've never asked Sid is when in time he became owner of Fairbanks, LG, Beaudry, Bradley, etc.

Mike
 
farmer12888 said:
I believe that my bronze bushing in the back yoke comes all the way to the very outside edge of the yoke. The oil galley cut into the bronze bushing comes almost to the back edge of the yoke, so the bushing must also. I am concerned that the doughnut casting on the outside of my back yoke around my shaft is too small for the drive pulley to ride against, if I move the pulley to the outside. That doughnut is also not machined flat but has a little dome shape to it. The two sides of the yoke that my drive pulley now meets are both machined flat and are machined flat in a much larger diameter than that little doughnut on the back of my hammer. The drive pulley shouldn't really even touch them in a perfect world, but as the bushings wear, the drive pulley begins to touch those flanges. I can see that on my hammer.
Click to expand...

The description of the 5/8", non-turning recessed area at rear of rear yoke, I posted, is "the donut"... yes? Here's another way to look at this. On our rear mount drive pulley, it could be the "sleeve" between the yokes controls shaft movement. On your machine and Bruce's, the mid-mount drive pulley would serve the same function. In other words, it's the drive disc that needs to be positioned on axis with the plunger/ram/hammer in the guides when the pitman bushing, etc. is drawn down hard and fast on the disc drive front.

Mike
 
Bruce, my Freund book on page 152 has stuff about Nazel hammers. My book is "A Blacksmith's & Hammerman's Emporium." Is yours a different title? I think he has a couple of books. Under the chapter about Fairbanks, which is actually entitled "The United Hammer Company," there is nothing about the adjustable guides.

Our hammers definitely are from different eras, with the casting differences with the names. However, the machines must be constructed nearly the same. I will take a picture of the oil holes in the ram and post it for you guys.

Mike, I didn't get the explanation about the drive pulley and the axis and yoke sleeve at all. My machine has a raised casting on the back of the rear yoke that the shaft pokes out through. My pictures show it. You are indicating that your hammer has a recessed area there, which would be the part of the hammer that your drive pulley rides against?
I didn't get a picture attached to your email. I sent you back an email.
Thanks for the belt info. I will need it.
 
Pounding Out the Profits by Douglas Freund , fourth chapter entitled Vertically Guided-ram hammers /"The Helper with No Bad Habits"
Yep, different books. From what I've seen in all the pictures plus all the printed info, the frames all seem to be the same configuration or real close to it. Just different sizes.
 
farmer12888 said:
Mike, I didn't get the explanation about the drive pulley and the axis and yoke sleeve at all. My machine has a raised casting on the back of the rear yoke that the shaft pokes out through. My pictures show it. You are indicating that your hammer has a recessed area there, which would be the part of the hammer that your drive pulley rides against?
I didn't get a picture attached to your email. I sent you back an email.
Thanks for the belt info. I will need it.
Click to expand...

Perspective...

The "non-turning recessed" on our hammer is the same as your "raised casting on the back..." of yours. My hammer is together with the drive pulley on the rear. I look in from the side and see rear of rear yoke, then "recessed", with drive pulley against.

What I tried to say is I don't think the drive pulley (as ours... behind rear yoke) has anything to do with shaft position... doesn't bear or need to bear on the "raised casting". I think shaft postition of our configuration is controlled by "sleeve" between yokes (with double set screws) clamped to shaft. And yours and Bruce's does the same with the set screws of the drive pulley.

Standing at front, looking to rear... shaft "X" left-right, "Y" up/down, "Z" is shaft center. For the plunger/ram/hammer to not bind in the guides, "X" and "Z" have to be 90deg. to the hammer mounted in guides when shimmed to correct tolerance. If all parts between hammer-in-guides and drive disc are x,y,z correct, to not have the pitman bushing/wrist pin/pitman arm/tightening nut put the hammer w/ linkage & shaft in a bind the "Y axis of both have to be coincident. My "theory" is the "sleeve" on our hammer and the drive pulley on center mount hammers is clamped in a position on the shaft that defines the in/out shaft movement (tolerance +/- of shaft "Y" to hammer-in guides "y")... that, what happens behind the rear yoke is irrelevant, whether there is a drive pulley there or not. At least, that is the way I see it... I don't have to be right... not being wouldn't surprize me.

Just thought... on the brake shoe side of your drive pulley, is there an appoximate 45deg. chamfer of the shaft hole corner? On the "raised casting", how much of a flat is there that a rear mounted drive pulley could bear on?

Mike
 
Last edited:
Bruce, it is interesting that Freund put that info in the other book and not in the book title that I have. I think quite a bit of the United/Fairbanks info from the brochure in Freund's book that I have is identical to the Barbour-Stockwell material. I think Barbour-Stockwell just took much of the same brochure and substituted the name Dupont for Fairbanks. One of these days I will compare them directly.

Mike, thanks for the further explanation. I think I understand now. I agree that hanging the pulley off the back should not change alignment, although it may in fact help against wear of the bushings, since hanging the drive pulley off the back may help balance what must now be front-heavy loading with the crank/flywheel out in front of the yokes and the drive pulley inside the two yokes . However, you raised an interesting point about your sleeve. Does your sleeve over the shaft rotate with the shaft? Is it actually connected to the shaft with those set screws? If it does rotate, what does it rub against on each yoke? Is there a groove machined in each yoke? That is something else I would have to add.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top