Ray

Have you contacted Jim Batson and asked him about his book? You can contact him at (256) 971-6860.

Thanks, Dan...will do.

Ray, larger capacity does not equate to higher efficiency.

A sloppily built large tonnage press that moves and wastes energy all over the place can easily be out-done by a smaller press with tight tolerances that delivers all of it's energy to the press dies.

The more rigid the frame design, so that energy can be directed to the press dies rather than be lost from flex, the more efficient the machine.

Tonnage is secondary to design.

Thanks, Karl....I gathered that from your video about the prototype you built that demonstrated no flex on that small scale

I've got one of the first, if not THE first, press that Jim Built. I haven't had any problems mashing anything I put in it. If it's hot enough, it will mash it.

Dale

I actually called him this past weekend...he was forging, as you'd expect...but took time to listen patiently while I explained what I was wondering..and he shared some thoughts and in the end, I'm building it as designed. He pretty much said the same as you, Dale...it's the stiffness, not the tonnage that you need to worry about...and that's good enough for me.

Will probably do a build- along...just to try out my new camera and if it turns out decent, I'll put it up...as we go along...and maybe you guys can catch me if I'm making any mistakes along the way.

Thanks

Ray

One other thing to consider, Higher tonnage means you can use larger surface area dies and still move the material. The square inches of contact dictate the needed tonnage (all things being equal) to move the material, so if you plan on working larger than average billets you might need a larger than average press. that said 20-30 ton seems to suit most just fine , our press is 26 ton and I don't think I have ever needed more power.

FYI. I am in the process of building the press and found several areas with the wrong information, mostly sizing. Check and recheck the sizes of material. I made the mistake of assuming that everything was checked. There are foot marks where they should have been inch marks. I ended up with 7 feet of one size not 7 inches. The weights for cost where correct until I sent in the cut list. Sorry I am slow, I still have to purchase the hoses to complete the project.

Contact the manufacture about the valves. The one I received has two ports returning to the tank and is a pain to plumb, there just is not enough room. I had to get extensions to raise the fittings one above the other in order to tighten them.

I have been going to write Dr. Batson but have not made the time.

I have also made quick change tooling which slides in place over the ones in the instructions.

DT Heiner