I'm not exactly young, but apparently young enough to never have encountered how to measure threads by hand. All I've seen are spec dies to test fit. Machinist skills never fail to impress.
Thanks you, I saw 2Y method video and totally puzzled because the it can not be simply 2Y, it must be well rounded value. Thank you again for clarifying the authentic method.
Greetings Stuart de Haro. Nicely presented video. Allow me to address the content if I may. Lets start of with the thread crest burr subject. Whether you are checking a thread with 1 wire, 3 wires, a thread ring gage or a mating part, any machinist worth his salt will make sure the thread is in a presentable condition for a reliable measurement. This means clean and free of burrs. My suggested one wire method is no exception to this rule. So it doesn't go unstated, thread crest burrs will never effect a wire position since the wire sits in the thread form and is not influenced by crest burrs, but may influence an OD reading. But what kind of machinist would measure an OD with burrs on it?? Second, lets talk about variations in the major diameter of the stock effecting the PD reading. I have to conditionally and respectfully disagree at this variable as an attempt to discredit the value of the one wire method. True...the measurement over the wire will deviate as the stock diameter changes, but the determined/calculated pitch diameter will remain constant if you have done the math correctly. The thread form is a given distance from the centerline regardless of where the OD of the material is. To convey to your viewers that the material OD will give you a false PD reading is simply wrong. And in conclusion, although the 3 wire method is my standard and first choice to measure, only the one wire method can indicate an eccentricity between the pitch diameter and material diameters. Go back to your subject part and use the one wire to check it at different locations and rotations. The differences in pitch diameter readings you observed on your part, and presented at the end of your video, most likely indicate your thread was .002 eccentric to your material OD. This is an indisputable fact. The presence of a live center doesn't matter. My latest video goes into this subject in great detail. Feel free to drop by and leave a comment. I may edit this comment at a later date, but for now, I'll stand behind every point made and welcome replies.
Hi Joe. I know tone is difficult to convey in electronic communication, but I'm still picking up a contentious vibe from your comment. I feel I covered these points rather well in the video. I told people to remove burrs before measuring every time. I ran through the math several times while writing the script to make sure I wasn't talking out of my butt. I want to be very clear, I was not trying to disrespect you in any way. I think your videos are great. I just wanted to answer a question that my viewers were constantly asking. Take care, Stuart
@@StuartdeHaro Hi Stuart. I totally agree about electronic communication, however, I must be honest enough to say your observation does have a degree of merit. I see you are, or used to be a tech instructor, so I would expect you would be more analytical in a situation like this and exhaust all possible explanations to the difference in readings, as opposed to condemning a method you have recently been introduced to. We can both agree that metal doesn't compress like wood, and with your experience I can assume your mic pressure is consistent, so a difference in 2 measurements that should line up, doesn't automatically indicate one of the 2 is wrong. For sure, the 3 wire method will give you the actual PD, but it does nothing to assure the thread is concentric to the material OD. In a failure forensic theatre, the difference would point directly at your thread being .002 off center from the stock. The mechanics of the single wire method don't lie. I don't know if this part is still available for deeper inspection, but I'd bet, using the one wire method, you will discover different readings along the length of the thread. No disrespect perceived in your reply, and thanks for your support of my channel. I welcome a reply.
@@StuartdeHaro It would be interesting to also check a commercially available thread plug gage, both ways, if you have one of those. I'll do the same out of curiosity.
Thanks for showing this. I was expecting the 3 wires method to be correct, simply because the diameter is so subject to variability and is not the important dimension anyway. Perhaps it was you who had mentioned about using a dab of grease on the 2 wire side, making it easier to keep them there. I've tried a silicone holder for the wires and it was just as frustrating as not using any aid.
I would definitely trust the three wire method over the one. That probably was me saying to use grease to hold the wires on. I put out a video about it a couple of months ago. Who knows though. I certainly didn't invent that trick.
I was measuring a 2 3/4 -6 spindle thread on my lathe. The 3 wire method is difficult as the micrometer anvils barely catch the thread wires. The one wire was easier but seemed more less repeatable. I need a mic with bigger anvils. Spendy for a one off.
In those situations I have resorted to using a decent quality digital caliper and gotten repeatable/dependable measurements across the the 3 wires on coarse threads using the caliper jaws in line with the axis of the threaded component.
Thank you so much for this. I remember watching Joe's video on the one wire method and something nagged at me about it. I couldn't put my finger on it, but something did not feel right. I understand now that it works because of the relative sizes, but it would not scale without incurring comprehensive errors
Yeah, I would not trust this to any degree of accuracy. BTW, I picked you as a winner for one of those metal roses from last week but I never got a response from you. Do you want it?
@@StuartdeHaro oh that's very kind, thank you. It's also rather ironic, my wife has just recently decided to move out. I really appreciate the thought, please give your mother an extra one. And I will tell you my Valentine's story, just not on a public board
@@StuartdeHaro oh please don't feel bad. If anything I feel like a schmuck, the one video of yours that I miss and apparently I won something for the first time in my life! I feel bad, I can only imagine how it would feel being the gifter and the recipient doesn't have the manners to show up on time. Thank you very much for your videos, I always learn something new.
Those are the specifications given for that size of thread in Machinery’s Handbook. Just go to the threading section of the book and find the thread and class of fit you are looking to make in the chart and all the numbers will be there. If you don't own a copy of Machinery’s Handbook, you can find these with a quick search on the interwebs as well. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for watching!
Couldnt you just find an acceptable thread, (a bolt someone else made on a lathe for example) use any sized wire and measure the bolts diameter with the wire and make a comparitive measurement on the part youre making, and just use the difference between the two to set your depth of cut..?
A standard off the shelf bolt or threaded rod isn't a reliable gauge as the manufacturing process,tolerances and class of thread fit are unknown factors beyond your control. This is why thread charts and wires are very accurate or alternatively the use of precision ground thread gauges.
Hi Stewart, You have expounded on my fears exactly. Any variation on the major diameter, not taken into consideration, ensures a shitter of a result. Not satisfactory. And if you think that risk Is acceptable, I hope I never buy your stuff!!
I apologise to Stewart, who I do like! And yes, Joe, I do understand the old would be a hard number in the calc.. And I observed your veiled on bent shaft threads use of one wire checking, good. I worry about miss measurement on burs or large threads.without a panamicro..
I'm not exactly young, but apparently young enough to never have encountered how to measure threads by hand. All I've seen are spec dies to test fit. Machinist skills never fail to impress.
Stuart -- Nice clean well articulated video. I especially liked your caveat about different daimeters. Two thunbs Up.
Thanks you, I saw 2Y method video and totally puzzled because the it can not be simply 2Y, it must be well rounded value. Thank you again for clarifying the authentic method.
Very interesting. Thanks for posting
Thank you for watching. Take care!
Greetings Stuart de Haro. Nicely presented video. Allow me to address the content if I may. Lets start of with the thread crest burr subject. Whether you are checking a thread with 1 wire, 3 wires, a thread ring gage or a mating part, any machinist worth his salt will make sure the thread is in a presentable condition for a reliable measurement. This means clean and free of burrs. My suggested one wire method is no exception to this rule. So it doesn't go unstated, thread crest burrs will never effect a wire position since the wire sits in the thread form and is not influenced by crest burrs, but may influence an OD reading. But what kind of machinist would measure an OD with burrs on it?? Second, lets talk about variations in the major diameter of the stock effecting the PD reading. I have to conditionally and respectfully disagree at this variable as an attempt to discredit the value of the one wire method. True...the measurement over the wire will deviate as the stock diameter changes, but the determined/calculated pitch diameter will remain constant if you have done the math correctly. The thread form is a given distance from the centerline regardless of where the OD of the material is. To convey to your viewers that the material OD will give you a false PD reading is simply wrong. And in conclusion, although the 3 wire method is my standard and first choice to measure, only the one wire method can indicate an eccentricity between the pitch diameter and material diameters. Go back to your subject part and use the one wire to check it at different locations and rotations. The differences in pitch diameter readings you observed on your part, and presented at the end of your video, most likely indicate your thread was .002 eccentric to your material OD. This is an indisputable fact. The presence of a live center doesn't matter. My latest video goes into this subject in great detail. Feel free to drop by and leave a comment. I may edit this comment at a later date, but for now, I'll stand behind every point made and welcome replies.
Hi Joe. I know tone is difficult to convey in electronic communication, but I'm still picking up a contentious vibe from your comment. I feel I covered these points rather well in the video. I told people to remove burrs before measuring every time. I ran through the math several times while writing the script to make sure I wasn't talking out of my butt. I want to be very clear, I was not trying to disrespect you in any way. I think your videos are great. I just wanted to answer a question that my viewers were constantly asking. Take care, Stuart
@@StuartdeHaro Hi Stuart. I totally agree about electronic communication, however, I must be honest enough to say your observation does have a degree of merit. I see you are, or used to be a tech instructor, so I would expect you would be more analytical in a situation like this and exhaust all possible explanations to the difference in readings, as opposed to condemning a method you have recently been introduced to. We can both agree that metal doesn't compress like wood, and with your experience I can assume your mic pressure is consistent, so a difference in 2 measurements that should line up, doesn't automatically indicate one of the 2 is wrong. For sure, the 3 wire method will give you the actual PD, but it does nothing to assure the thread is concentric to the material OD. In a failure forensic theatre, the difference would point directly at your thread being .002 off center from the stock. The mechanics of the single wire method don't lie. I don't know if this part is still available for deeper inspection, but I'd bet, using the one wire method, you will discover different readings along the length of the thread. No disrespect perceived in your reply, and thanks for your support of my channel. I welcome a reply.
@@joepie221 I do still have it sitting around. It's one of the screws from my table stop build. I'm not sure which one, but I'll give them a check.
@@StuartdeHaro It would be interesting to also check a commercially available thread plug gage, both ways, if you have one of those. I'll do the same out of curiosity.
Thanks for showing this. I was expecting the 3 wires method to be correct, simply because the diameter is so subject to variability and is not the important dimension anyway.
Perhaps it was you who had mentioned about using a dab of grease on the 2 wire side, making it easier to keep them there. I've tried a silicone holder for the wires and it was just as frustrating as not using any aid.
I would definitely trust the three wire method over the one. That probably was me saying to use grease to hold the wires on. I put out a video about it a couple of months ago. Who knows though. I certainly didn't invent that trick.
I was measuring a 2 3/4 -6 spindle thread on my lathe. The 3 wire method is difficult as the micrometer anvils barely catch the thread wires. The one wire was easier but seemed more less repeatable.
I need a mic with bigger anvils. Spendy for a one off.
@@978sdcox Yeah, that's why I still don't own a disc micrometer. It's pretty hard to justify it.
In those situations I have resorted to using a decent quality digital caliper and gotten repeatable/dependable measurements across the the 3 wires on coarse threads using the caliper jaws in line with the axis of the threaded component.
Thank you so much for this. I remember watching Joe's video on the one wire method and something nagged at me about it. I couldn't put my finger on it, but something did not feel right. I understand now that it works because of the relative sizes, but it would not scale without incurring comprehensive errors
Yeah, I would not trust this to any degree of accuracy. BTW, I picked you as a winner for one of those metal roses from last week but I never got a response from you. Do you want it?
@@StuartdeHaro oh that's very kind, thank you. It's also rather ironic, my wife has just recently decided to move out. I really appreciate the thought, please give your mother an extra one. And I will tell you my Valentine's story, just not on a public board
@@jpsimon206 Sorry to hear that. I feel like a real ass now. More than usual anyway.
@@StuartdeHaro oh please don't feel bad. If anything I feel like a schmuck, the one video of yours that I miss and apparently I won something for the first time in my life! I feel bad, I can only imagine how it would feel being the gifter and the recipient doesn't have the manners to show up on time. Thank you very much for your videos, I always learn something new.
@@jpsimon206 At least you're a winner, right? Take care!
Can you please explain where did you get the major diameter and the pitch diameter min and max values measured without wires? Thanks
Those are the specifications given for that size of thread in Machinery’s Handbook. Just go to the threading section of the book and find the thread and class of fit you are looking to make in the chart and all the numbers will be there. If you don't own a copy of Machinery’s Handbook, you can find these with a quick search on the interwebs as well. Let me know if you have any other questions. Thanks for watching!
@@StuartdeHaro Thank you for your reply and explanation.
Ooooops excellent 👌👍
Couldnt you just find an acceptable thread, (a bolt someone else made on a lathe for example) use any sized wire and measure the bolts diameter with the wire and make a comparitive measurement on the part youre making, and just use the difference between the two to set your depth of cut..?
A standard off the shelf bolt or threaded rod isn't a reliable gauge as the manufacturing process,tolerances and class of thread fit are unknown factors beyond your control.
This is why thread charts and wires are very accurate or alternatively the use of precision ground thread gauges.
Hi Stewart,
You have expounded on my fears exactly.
Any variation on the major diameter, not taken into consideration, ensures a shitter of a result.
Not satisfactory.
And if you think that risk Is acceptable, I hope I never buy your stuff!!
Any variation in the major diameter will be used as a hard number in the formula. It has NO bearing on the PD measurement.
I apologise to Stewart, who I do like!
And yes, Joe, I do understand the old would be a hard number in the calc..
And I observed your veiled on bent shaft threads use of one wire checking, good.
I worry about miss measurement on burs or large threads.without a panamicro..
@@captcarlos Remove all burrs before checking a part...Machining 101