Looking for Fairbanks hammer operating manual...

Here is a picture of Mike's hammer that he emailed to me. It shows the ram/plunger guide adjustment on the front.
FB10lowresmike.jpg
[/IMG]
 
farmer12888 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You really do need to talk with Doug Freund, Robert... =] As you end up being able to make time to do that, you will become famous in my eyes... I'd love to hear about it.

Our hammer has only been apart as far as it had to be. The sleeve cannot be in a groove in the yokes. The length of the sleeve will not allow a hacksaw blade between it and the yokes at either end so it, relatively precisely positions the drive disc. The two set screws do bear on the shaft so they all turn with the shaft and the 11/16" sleeve wall ends would bear on the ends of the yoke/shaft bushing... if they actually bear at all... and now we are back to my previous... that the sleeve (or mid drive pulley) positions the shaft y-axis coincident with the the hammer/hammer guides, etc. y-axis.

Little by little while rebuilding our Fairbanks, I've come to understand they are constructed as a precision machine. Many of the tolerances are measured in mid to low single digit thousanths... a shaft being out by 0.025" is point of no return for rebushing. This ain't no big rock, little rock forging system... =]

A side question, Robert... what are the viable alternatives you see to moving the drive pulley to the rear position?

Mike
 
Mike, you certainly must be right about the thick sleeve acting essentially as a large spacer to maintain the shaft position. (You have determined that it is 11/16" thick walls?) It would seem that the drive pulley and the crank/flywheel being screwed to the shaft on opposite ends of the yokes would accomplish that spacing, but the sleeve must be further insurance. I am learning more with each communication.

The alternative to moving the drive pulley out to the rear is to simply leave it inside the yokes and mount the motor on the side either low or high. At this point, I do not believe that a hammer could be well-balanced with the weight of the motor and all of the support table and brackets mounted up high on the side. That must be the reason the previous owners of mine welded a brace to a wall to operate it. Therefore, the motor would have to be mounted low down on the side, with a jack shaft mounted up high on the side. That would require 2 belts and two lesser mounting brackets on the side. Since most of the weight would be in the motor and its mount down low, the hammer could probably operate that way. I do not have the option of mounting a motor in the rafters like Bruce and some others have done.

I need to make a list of the requirements to move the drive pulley to outside the rear yoke. 1) New shaft long enough to mount the pulley and place a gib key in the end and machined for a gib key and a larger key for the drive pulley 2) Gib key made and shaft machined to accept it 3) Spacer/sleeve with 11/16" thick walls machined to fit precisely between yokes and tapped for set screws to contact the shaft and tapped for grease fittings on the ends where sleeve may contact yokes 4) Bushing made for the drive pulley to make up for the difference in shaft thickness on the smaller end versus thicker part of shaft 5) Machine flat the "doughnut" casting on the rear outside part of the rear yoke 6) Fabricate motor mount 7) Turn drive pulley around backwards? 8) Fabricate new treadle linkage.

What am I leaving out?
 
I compared the information in the Barbour Stockwell Company "Dupont Power Hammers" brochure to the information in Freund's book, "A Blacksmith's and Hammerman's Emporium." The material in Freund's book is a reprint of the United Hammer Company "Fairbanks Hammers" brochure from June 15, 1917. The short answer is that if you have the Barbour Stockwell brochure on their Dupont hammers, you have everything and actually more than the material in Freund's book. The Barbour Stockwell brochure is not dated.

Nearly all of the material is identical, with some very small differences and a couple of helpful additions. The Barbour Stockwell brochure is obviously a minimally rewritten copy of the United Hammer Company brochure with "Dupont" substituted over and over for "Fairbanks." The biggest difference and best portion of the Barbour Stockwell brochure is page 10. There are 4 adjustments (stroke, spring, treadle and brake) discussed that are very good information and which are not included in the earlier United Hammer Company brochure about the Fairbanks hammers. On page 8 of the Barbour Stockwell brochure, a specific recommendation is given for locating the hammer under a line shaft, and the belt adjustment is discussed. Again, neither of these was contained in the earlier United Hammer Company brochure on the Fairbanks hammers.

Interestingly, Barbour Stockwell added a line on page 2 stating "Working Parts Guarded." It seems that Dupont hammers must have come from the factory with guards of some type. Additionally, on page 3, they state "The Bronze taper gib provided for taking up wear in ram guides makes possible a very accurate ram adjustment and insures a perfectly true square blow at all times." This line was not in the earlier Fairbanks brochure. At some point in time, this modification was made and did not exist on the earlier Fairbanks hammers, as evidenced by the fact that my earlier Fairbanks does not have this modification.
 
I just noticed another difference in the material as it pertains to the adjustable guide. Barbour Stockwell slightly altered the drawings of the machines to put the adjustable guide in their pictures. They neglected to alter the picture on page 6 of the machine with the tire-welding attachment, but all of the others are altered. The exploded drawing/parts illustration appears to have an altered face plate, but it does not appear that they offer the parts for the adjustable guide. It seems they altered the face plate in the drawing but forgot to list the parts.

We know from the fact that Mike's and Bruce's machines have the adjustable guide and are co-branded with Fairbanks and United tags that United must have created the adjustable guide during their ownership of the line of hammers between 1917 and sometime during the Great Depression when United sold to Barbour Stockwell. The adjustable guide must not have existed in 1917, because the drawings in the 1917 United brochure clearly do not show any adjustable guide. All Dupont hammers apparently have the adjustable guide.
 
I just did an internet search for Dupont hammers. I found a picture of a restored 1894 Dupont hammer. It is on a site under "Rough and Tumble Engineers Historical Association." The anvil and frame are a one-piece casting, like a little giant. The drive pulley, crank/flywheel, idler pulley and face plate are definitely the predecessors to the later Fairbanks hammer parts. This shows that Dupont not only "participated" in the manufacture of the hammers, as Freund stated, but Dupont actually made a hammer under their name at least as far back as 1894. This is the hammer line/technology that they eventually sold to Fairbanks in 1902.

Barbour Stcokwell just revived the Dupont hammer name during the Great Depression when they bought the line from United and changed the name from Fairbanks back to Dupont. My earlier statement that all Dupont hammers must have had adjustable guides is true only for the second generation of Dupont hammers.
 
farmer12888 said:
Mike, you certainly must be right about the thick sleeve acting essentially as a large spacer to maintain the shaft position. (You have determined that it is 11/16" thick walls?) It would seem that the drive pulley and the crank/flywheel being screwed to the shaft on opposite ends of the yokes would accomplish that spacing, but the sleeve must be further insurance. I am learning more with each communication.

The alternative to moving the drive pulley out to the rear is to simply leave it inside the yokes and mount the motor on the side either low or high. At this point, I do not believe that a hammer could be well-balanced with the weight of the motor and all of the support table and brackets mounted up high on the side. That must be the reason the previous owners of mine welded a brace to a wall to operate it. Therefore, the motor would have to be mounted low down on the side, with a jack shaft mounted up high on the side. That would require 2 belts and two lesser mounting brackets on the side. Since most of the weight would be in the motor and its mount down low, the hammer could probably operate that way. I do not have the option of mounting a motor in the rafters like Bruce and some others have done.

I need to make a list of the requirements to move the drive pulley to outside the rear yoke. 1) New shaft long enough to mount the pulley and place a gib key in the end and machined for a gib key and a larger key for the drive pulley 2) Gib key made and shaft machined to accept it 3) Spacer/sleeve with 11/16" thick walls machined to fit precisely between yokes and tapped for set screws to contact the shaft and tapped for grease fittings on the ends where sleeve may contact yokes 4) Bushing made for the drive pulley to make up for the difference in shaft thickness on the smaller end versus thicker part of shaft 5) Machine flat the "doughnut" casting on the rear outside part of the rear yoke 6) Fabricate motor mount 7) Turn drive pulley around backwards? 8) Fabricate new treadle linkage.

What am I leaving out?
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to work on this in pieces, Robert... too late tonight.

I need to correct... set screws in sleeve are 1/2"NC but they are cup-ends, as in set screw type end. I measured the sleeve wall using depth end of caliper, down a set screw hole into the burr. Got near enough the same measurement 3x's and it's near enough to 11/16". I don't know how thick the hacksaw blade that wouldn't enter either sleeve/yoke crack is... not over 0.020", for sure. If you want, I'll find out exactly how much crack there is or isn't... got feeler gages to 0.0010" (1 thou.)

Again, I don't have to be right about the sleeve being the primary positioner... I just think it is. Not to pick, but one of the advantages of having a machine that is together (or is, mostly) is a person can study it. Always mindful of other owners ideas and solutions... =]

It's really too bad you can't do a ceiling mount. The Roger Smith picture of his flat belt ceiling doesn't look like it requires much... couple of 2 x 4's and some 2x plank. I understand the problem of mounting the motor to the machine. It's one thing to do it on an LG with a set of two or three matched "V" belts but getting it to coordinate with the idler pulley/clutch mechanism is tough. Sid might have ideas other than the mess you got your hammer with. It would be possible to build a frame, hard to the floor and structural to carry the motor over the hammer without encumbering the machine. Could be made to look elegant and extra space could be used for "this and that" but its a lot of work. If between now and drop dead date you don't come up with an overhead solution, try to mount the jackshaft (unless you've got a 900rpm motor) up higher than you see our motor mounted... less belt works and is better shorter than longer. A short stand with the jackshaft on top and the motor on the floor or short base below. Should be able to run jackshaft "V" belt pulley over back end of stand and drop directly to the motor pointing backwards and hiding underneath the stand.

One mental picture I picked up when setting the treadle height and linkage (you do have a treadle eccentric, don't you?) is... as the motor (or jackshaft) pulley moves closer to the idler, though the belt gets slightly longer, the idler has more clutching movement for the same amount of treadle height and linkage setting... that's side movement, not up/down or front/back. I've said, but... the problem with low mount motor or jackshaft is belt length AND lack of idler travel... the frame gets in the way. One of the pictures Dan put up for me showing hammer from the rear, also show a notch cut out of the frame near the idler. The notch gains more idler movement. I don't figure the manufacturer did this, but they might have. If it was the manufacturer, the low mount has inherent design faults.

Does your hammer have threaded holes on the back for motor/jackshaft mount and idler mount?

Your two bushings have different I.D. Are the bushing O.D's the same? If you have to build a new shaft, can the bushings be line bored in place? Could the front bushing just be cleaned up in place with new shaft to fit? Can you put the shaft in place and measure the "outness" (up/down and left/right), regardless of apparent wear (modern greases can do amazing things). If the shaft holes are still relatively round, are they both within a tolerance that a new shaft would fit the round-ish holes and give you reasonable running tolerance? The nature of bronze bushings is, if there is grit, it embeds in the softer material and wears the harder material... of course, the grease holds grit and wears both. Obviously, some of these ideas are based on center mount drive pulley.

Measure the distance between yokes in a number of places and measure the width of the drive pulley where it would bear on the yokes and just off of that point. Should give you numbers to work with for a sleeve... IF the drive pulley was as tight as our sleeve is.

My brain has quit me... good night...

Mike

Edit: Just noticed #5 in "things to do". There is going to be a clearance needed to align idler pulley and drive pulley. You may need the rear yoke protrusion to not get into a goat screw somewhere else.

Edit: One more thing... hammer has to be bolted down with something underneath. 35" to top of dies is a good working height, +/-. Just about nothing will anchor bolts better than molten sulfur... once it sets, that is the end of the story. If possible, anchor nuts on base hole pattern and run down to them with bolts through base holes... don't have to build holes in concrete through the base holes or fit hammer down over pour-in, protruding bolts.
 
Last edited:
farmer12888 said:
I compared the information in the Barbour Stockwell Company "Dupont Power Hammers" brochure to the information in Freund's book, "A Blacksmith's and Hammerman's Emporium." The material in Freund's book is a reprint of the United Hammer Company "Fairbanks Hammers" brochure from June 15, 1917. The short answer is that if you have the Barbour Stockwell brochure on their Dupont hammers, you have everything and actually more than the material in Freund's book. The Barbour Stockwell brochure is not dated.

Nearly all of the material is identical, with some very small differences and a couple of helpful additions. The Barbour Stockwell brochure is obviously a minimally rewritten copy of the United Hammer Company brochure with "Dupont" substituted over and over for "Fairbanks." The biggest difference and best portion of the Barbour Stockwell brochure is page 10. There are 4 adjustments (stroke, spring, treadle and brake) discussed that are very good information and which are not included in the earlier United Hammer Company brochure about the Fairbanks hammers. On page 8 of the Barbour Stockwell brochure, a specific recommendation is given for locating the hammer under a line shaft, and the belt adjustment is discussed. Again, neither of these was contained in the earlier United Hammer Company brochure on the Fairbanks hammers.

Interestingly, Barbour Stockwell added a line on page 2 stating "Working Parts Guarded." It seems that Dupont hammers must have come from the factory with guards of some type. Additionally, on page 3, they state "The Bronze taper gib provided for taking up wear in ram guides makes possible a very accurate ram adjustment and insures a perfectly true square blow at all times." This line was not in the earlier Fairbanks brochure. At some point in time, this modification was made and did not exist on the earlier Fairbanks hammers, as evidenced by the fact that my earlier Fairbanks does not have this modification.
Click to expand...

All that together is good information... makes a nice picture. The info differences and the fact the Barbour-Stockwell catalog doesn't have what a person would call complete setting and operating descriptions is what has me looking for the operating manual.

Bruce, have you had a chance to talk to the old Navy guy?

Mike
 
farmer12888 said:
I just noticed another difference in the material as it pertains to the adjustable guide. Barbour Stockwell slightly altered the drawings of the machines to put the adjustable guide in their pictures. They neglected to alter the picture on page 6 of the machine with the tire-welding attachment, but all of the others are altered. The exploded drawing/parts illustration appears to have an altered face plate, but it does not appear that they offer the parts for the adjustable guide. It seems they altered the face plate in the drawing but forgot to list the parts.

We know from the fact that Mike's and Bruce's machines have the adjustable guide and are co-branded with Fairbanks and United tags that United must have created the adjustable guide during their ownership of the line of hammers between 1917 and sometime during the Great Depression when United sold to Barbour Stockwell. The adjustable guide must not have existed in 1917, because the drawings in the 1917 United brochure clearly do not show any adjustable guide. All Dupont hammers apparently have the adjustable guide.
Click to expand...

How come I don't have page 6? =] Bruce, did you get more pages than I sent you and send them to Robert but not me... =[ ???
 
farmer12888 said:
I just did an internet search for Dupont hammers. I found a picture of a restored 1894 Dupont hammer. It is on a site under "Rough and Tumble Engineers Historical Association." The anvil and frame are a one-piece casting, like a little giant. The drive pulley, crank/flywheel, idler pulley and face plate are definitely the predecessors to the later Fairbanks hammer parts. This shows that Dupont not only "participated" in the manufacture of the hammers, as Freund stated, but Dupont actually made a hammer under their name at least as far back as 1894. This is the hammer line/technology that they eventually sold to Fairbanks in 1902.

Barbour Stcokwell just revived the Dupont hammer name during the Great Depression when they bought the line from United and changed the name from Fairbanks back to Dupont. My earlier statement that all Dupont hammers must have had adjustable guides is true only for the second generation of Dupont hammers.
Click to expand...

That's a great picture... there are a lot of design changes between then and not-so-then. I wonder how far into the changes you and we see on our hammers it was before the other hammer companies started in (LG, Meyer, and others of the type)? Seems like most of the other hammers are a lot more like the old DuPont in the searced picture.

Mike

Now I really need to get in my jammies... : /
 
I'll look and see what page 6 is Mike.
No I haven't run into ol Bill yet. he's a pretty active ol fart. he's aretired Master Chief and doesn't let much grass grow between his feet.
 
Hey Guys.
Here is a picture from the top of the oil holes in my ram.
IMG_0410loresoilholesramtop.jpg
[/IMG]

Following is a picture of the ram oil exit hole.
IMG_0412loresramoiloutlets.jpg
[/IMG]

The following is a piece of wire showing that the exit holes are connected on the ram.
IMG_0411oiloutletswire.jpg
[/IMG]

The following is a picture of the shims from my front plate.
IMG_0413loresshims.jpg
[/IMG]

If I turn the drive pulley around and mount it outside the frame, here is the flange on the drive pulley that would ride against the flange on the outside of the rear yoke.
IMG_0409lorespulleyflange.jpg
[/IMG]

The following is a picture of the flange on the outside of the rear yoke. It is actually pretty flat. I thought it was domed, but it is smaller than the pulley flange.
IMG_0406loresreardonuttape.jpg
[/IMG]
 
Other way around, Robert... brake shoe side of drive pulley to the yoke. How thick is your drive pulley if measured through the shaft hole and how wide is it at outside of where the belt runs?

Nope, no hammer guide oiler holes in ours. I wonder why not, they would be handy. Sid's theory of hammers is absolutely everything needs oil or grease. He recommended me to oil/grease all bolts, nuts, and joining surfaces when putting back together... I said that already, didn't I... =\

How thick are the shims, Robert, and did you notice before take down how the hammer ran in the guides?

Mike
 
Last edited:
That is the brake side Mike. It is my smaller flange side of the drive pulley which matches up with the front flange of my rear yoke. The front side flange of my drive pulley is even larger in diameter to match up with the larger front bushing housing.

I will have to measure the shim thickness. I have given some though to having the cover machined down and adding shims to provide for additional adjustment when I reassemble the hammer. There was some play in the guides when I took the hammer apart, but there was so much impacted old grease and crud everywhere that it was impossible to tell how everything would actually work on a well-maintained machine. I knew that I needed to just start over from scratch. Once I sprayed degreaser all over it numerous times and cleaned everything with a putty knife and wire brush, there was a large amount of play everywhere that was not there before degreasing. In addition, one of the side arm to cross head pins was actually broken into and nobody even knew it. They were running it that way.

The pictures that I have posted of the machine before I took it apart were actually taken after I had spent two days degreasing the machine. I didn't take any before degreasing.

I will measure the drive pulley thickness, but why are you asking?
 
I got lost in the close up view... still don't see the brake shoe recess, but that is pretty irrelevant.

It should be pretty easy to figure if you need to machine the front plate or not... bolting the front plate on (little by little, switching from one bolt to another is what I was told) with the hammer in and without the shims would make the decision. Figuring amount of necessary removal would be a Sid question for me.

The shaft hole length and drive pulley width at belt area is me trying to understand if the drive pulley for a mid-mount and the drive pulley for a rear-mount are one in the same part, or not.

Are there brass/bronze bushings in both yokes? Do any brass/bronze bushings end or not end at yoke surface? How thick are the bushing walls?

Mike
 
Last edited:
Their are bronze bushings in both yokes. Somewhere in the Barbour Stockwell or United material they are described as being bronze. The bushings both appear to end at the yoke surfaces, so they appear full length. I will measure them.

I will measure the pulley hub area and belt area. One thing that is clear. There are a number of parts with "B" cast in them. That is my model number for a 75# hammer. The drive pulley and the flywheel/crank have the "B" cast in it, so they must be specific for just the 75# hammer. A comparison would have to be made between motor-driven and line-driven on a 75# hammer.

Mike, I tried to post your latest picture, but for some reason, I couldn't copy its code on Photobucket to get it posted. I will try again. The more pictures we can get on here of various sizes and ages of hammers, the more it will help people.

Bruce has been quiet lately. Are you still with us Buddy?
 
Still here. Been closing in my forge shop for the winter.
You guys are doing a good job! (BOG) Next trip past the hammer I want to check for those oil holes you pointed out.
Robert, you're gonna have a prit near brand new machine when you're done! Mikes 's nearly so. Mine is........ green :-)
 
Bruce, you have such a soothing color green machine, also. I wouldn't need coffee in the morning, if I stood in front of that baby for awhile! Did you look in the Barbour Stockwell material about the exact positioning of the drive pulley underneath the line shaft?

Mike, I have some of the measurements. The drive pulley is 4" thick through the main shaft hole. The width of the surface of the drive pulley that the belt rides on is 2 and 7/8". The front shaft bushing is 5 and 3/8" long and 3" in diameter with a 1 and 7/8" hole for the shaft. The rear bushing is 5 and 1/4" long and 1 and 7/8" in diameter with a 1 and 3/8" hole for the shaft. The rear one is pretty thin. I haven't used a micrometer in years, but I believe the shim thickness is .045".

I am building a base for the hammer. I need to isolate it some, even though the floor in this shop seems really thick. I am planning on 3/4 plywood on bottom, 4x4 in the middle, 3/4 plywood on top and a layer of 5/8" rubber either on the floor or directly under the hammer. What do you guys think? Might be a little thick, but I am 6' tall, and wouldn't mind the hammer to be a little higher. How do you make the treadle work when you jack up the hammer?
 
Didja check out the pinstriping?? :-)
We dug a 40" hole, 4'x4',set 3 layers of bridge ties, crisscrossed. Those ties are a bit larger than regular RR ties. On top of that we set a layer of 8"x8" white ash timbers tied together with mine bolts. Then I drilled down thru the top 2 layers and set 4 18" pins to keep everything together.It was all pretty level but I still put down a piece of 1/2" mine belting.
My shop was open air and last winter the ground froze to the point the whole ball of wax heaved. Thats prolly about 5000 lbs. moved by ice, mebbe 3". Can ya imagine??!!
After the hammer was set, I started on the jackshaft setup in the rafters overhead. The pillow block is adjustable and I squared everything to the machine. Just took some patience .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top