[AT] OT: the inch is somewhat metric Cast iron work on a replica cannon

[Stephen Offiler]

You bet, Ken.  I agree with you - I found it fascinating as well.  There
are a few other videos on that same Youtube channel that are well worth
checking out!

SO


On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 10:53 AM Ken Knierim <ken.knierim at gmail.com> wrote:

> Fascinating video.
> Thanks for sharing, Steve!
>
> On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 3:57 AM Stephen Offiler <soffiler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> There is a fairly complex history leading to the definition of 1 inch =
>> 25.4mm exactly.  There were some troubles with parts interchangeability in
>> WW2 because different definitions were used in different countries.  But
>> the man who invented extreme precision, Carl Johannson - inventory of the
>> gage block - arrived upon this definition while working with Ford Motor Co.
>> in the 1920's.  It took a while for this definition to become universal.
>> If you find this subject of interest, I suggest:
>>
>> https://youtu.be/gNRnrn5DE58
>>
>> The very earliest numerical-control (NC) machines had no computer, but
>> rather read instructions from a punched paper tape, and these were in the
>> research stage in the 1940's and began to appear in practice in the
>> 1950's.  It was not until the 1970's that computers and digital displays
>> began to appear on the shop floor.   Conversion from metric to inch in the
>> displays was not an issue.  Even if it was, the conversion could have been
>> accomplished regardless of the definition, because even prior to the
>> universal adoption of 1" = 25.4mm exactly, the errors were on the order of
>> 25.39993 to 25.40005 which is well beyond the precision of the machines in
>> those days.
>>
>> And finally, it is a rare engineering course anywhere in the USA that
>> does not present problems to students using both metric and inch systems.
>>
>> SO
>>
>>
>> On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 9:42 PM James Peck <jamesgpeck at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Early in WW2, the US, UK, and Canada all had a different length inch. To
>>> ensure parts made in the US fit into machines made in the UK, etc., they
>>> needed a common inch. They solved it by defining the inch as 25.4 MM. I bet
>>> one heck of a lot of calipers and micrometers had to be recalibrated.
>>>
>>> This made it possible for CNC machines to switch from inch to metric on
>>> the displays.
>>>
>>> Some university courses would have test problems using either system or
>>> both. That is the real world.
>>>
>>> [Rena Glover Goss] It has been too long since I did this, Stephen.  I
>>> used to teach this material to engineering and engineering technology
>>> students, but have been retired for 18 years, and gave all my metric taps,
>>> dies, drills, and wrenches to one of my grandsons when I downsized.
>>>
>>> I used to get criticized by faculty colleagues because I taught my
>>> drafting and graphics courses only in metric units.  I told them the
>>> students really didn't know how to use any of the four systems of
>>> measurement, and that they would develop a decent sense of at least one of
>>> them if they didn't have to be confused by dealing with the others.  I
>>> don't think my colleagues necessarily "bought" my argument, but I did find
>>> that things were much simpler when students only had to deal with a single
>>> measurement device.  I think I still have metric, architectural, mechanical
>>> engineering, and civil engineering scales laying around--but not nearly as
>>> many of them as I used to.
>>>
>>> So tell me-- How long is a surveyor's chain, and what are the units in
>>> it?  This is not an esoteric question.  Our family is currently dealing
>>> with a real estate transfer that dates to the original survey for the
>>> Wabash-Erie canal.  The concepts of Range and Township were still
>>> reasonably new at that time, and the units of measure corresponded to the
>>> most current technology.
>>>
>>>
>>> [ Stephen Offiler] Larry:  yes, with metric threads, you find the tap
>>> drill simply by  subtracting the pitch from the major diameter.  M15 x 1.0
>>> gives a 14mm  tap drill.  Using this formula, you always end up with 77%
>>> thread  engagement for any thread, any pitch.  I'm not quite following
>>> your  comment about the reduction you use.
>>>
>>> [Rena Glover Goss]   THAT'S NO FAIR, SPENCER.  You were not supposed to
>>> figure out how   simple those relationships are in the metric system when
>>> compared to   any other system of threading.  I used a reduction by 1.5
>>>  millimeters so the thread engagement came closer to 75%, as is used   in
>>> the SAE system.  There are no charts for pilot drills in the metric
>>> system--they simply aren't needed.
>>> .
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AT mailing list
>>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AT mailing list
>> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
>> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AT mailing list
> AT at lists.antique-tractor.com
> http://lists.antique-tractor.com/listinfo.cgi/at-antique-tractor.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.antique-tractor.com/pipermail/at-antique-tractor.com/attachments/20190505/3f6bf925/attachment.htm>