Taking it up a step---

[Charles Lamont]

Using Stilsons and extension tube to remove stubborn nuts should be a no no for any real engineer. Long handled large spanners are used at every heritage railwayworkshop and I'm sure they would have loaned you one, with a bit of foresight.

The heritage railway workshop where I volunteer has flogging (or slogging, if you prefer) wrenches - a very short single ended ring spanner terminating in a rectangular block, to be used in conjunction with a sledge or other heavy hammer.

 

[MRA]

We had to make one of those spanners to get that big nut tightened up adequately - and the conrod forging which stars in one of the videos above like something employed by a medieval army to knock down a castle, was a great help in getting the wedges / cotters in at the rim.

We made some progress on the Crossley injector pump yesterday, and someone found the injector (or 'sprayer', as they sometimes called it this long ago) so that'll be a big lot of cleaning up / orange bogies

 

[Jasonb]

There are some photos of one of those type spanner on Anson's FB page and it's been flogged a lot

 

[DavidBC]

When I started machining things about 13 years ago, I rushed out and bought digital measuring instruments, and they worked fine.---But--Many times I went to use them, and the batteries had gone dead. It wasn't the price of the batteries that drove me crazy---it was the time I had to spend driving across town to buy the battery. Eventually, I have changed to measuring instruments that are purely mechanical in nature. Maybe not quite so Hi-Tech, but for me they work great, and the batteries never go dead.---Brian

I have been machining for 62 years and have never owned any digital measuring devices for that very reason. I can still remember when a sales rep first showed us Mitutoyo measuring instuments.

 

[terryd]

I understand, it was the concept that I was doing. 9-10 apparently is how Mssr. Vernier did it. I believe, any system could work such as 17-18 or 29-30, in which the larger the numbers, the more accuracy achieved, however, it would also be a very inconvenient system if not close to 10, 50 or 100, i mean, how would you like to try to add parts of fraction using a 17/18ths system to a decimal system--NAUGHT.

BTW, if you actually COUNT the marks, it depends how you do your counting. In the real number system (and for instance making gears with a dividing head), how many numbers between 0 and 10? Include the ends when counting. This will give you 11 numbers. If you count NOT including the ends, it gives you 9 numbers. So with the Vernier scale, if you start at the first mark or "zero", and count to the last mark, "10", you have 11 marks altogether. ON the other side of the slide, that will be 10 marks. I understand what you'all mean and you are correct, it's just that I am MORE correct in the way I count the marks. You get different results if you count the SPACES between marks.

Sorry Richard your counting method is incorrect. In the,decimal system the number 10 is the beginning of the next iteration of the decimal cycle i.e. 10 - 19. You only count 1 to 9, then 10 to 19, 20 - 29 etc there are 10 numbers in each repeating cycle, there are no'ends'. Hence the 10/9 in the Vernier method.

Regards
TerryD

 

[Richard Hed]

Sorry Richard your counting method is incorrect. In the,decimal system the number 10 is the beginning of the next iteration of the decimal cycle i.e. 10 - 19. You only count 1 to 9, then 10 to 19, 20 - 29 etc there are 10 numbers in each repeating cycle, there are no'ends'. Hence the 10/9 in the Vernier method.

Regards
TerryD

What you say is true but that has nothing to do with counting "fence posts" as someone else puts it very aptly. Also thimpfk of it this way: If for some reason (say you lived on planet Reptar, and you have 17 digits on each of your six hands and you have an arithmetical system with a base 17). Your measuring devices would most likely have 17 marks from 0 to 16, then the next mark would be "10". The vernier on Reptar would have 18 fence posts on one side, that is one mark for each of the 0 to16 (which are 17 marks), and one for "10" which makes 18. ON the other side of the slide it would take either one more fence post or one less. Counting the spaces is another matter.

 

[terryd]

What you say is true but that has nothing to do with counting "fence posts" as someone else puts it very aptly. Also thimpfk of it this way: If for some reason (say you lived on planet Reptar, and you have 17 digits on each of your six hands and you have an arithmetical system with a base 17). Your measuring devices would most likely have 17 marks from 0 to 16, then the next mark would be "10". The vernier on Reptar would have 18 fence posts on one side, that is one mark for each of the 0 to16 (which are 17 marks), and one for "10" which makes 18. ON the other side of the slide it would take either one more fence post or one less. Counting the spaces is another matter.

Hi Richard,
I'm not counting spaces, the decimal number system begins at zero, not one - just look at what number any measuring instrument begins. And to be quite honest I couldn't give a damn what happens on a hypothetical planet, I'm more concerned with this one. Having said that, as you must know, on this planet we have the hexadecimal system which use a base 16 and letters to represent the numbers above 9 (A,B,C,D,E,F) until we do of course reach 10 (16 decimal) we don't generally use it as we are most familiar with the decimal system neither system is absolute.

Best regards
TerryD

 

[Jasonb]

Richard you will end up counting the same fence post twice if you count it once in the 0-10 and again in the 10-20 etc. If you can't understand that I'll put it on paper for you

 

[Richard Hed]

Richard you will end up counting the same fence post twice if you count it once in the 0-10 and again in the 10-20 etc. If you can't understand that I'll put it on paper for you

If you count from zero to 10, how many numbers do you have?

 

[ajoeiam]

There has been much discussion here re: the 9 in the space of 10 to get get the scale and it wasn't what I remembered - - - which was 24 in the space of 25 to get 0.001" (rather than the 9 vs 10 which is used in measure mm).

Did a wee bit of digging trying to find which was the original and find that the vernier system was first used for angular measurement. I'd bet for gun barrel elevations or perhaps for survey tools - - - argh - - - never thought of for sextants (navigation tool for sea travel) so I was wrong again.

Oh well - - - - also interesting to find that his finding was dedicated to the 'Spanish Habsburgs' - - - - now that title is fascinating!

 

[Jasonb]

If you count from zero to 10, how many numbers do you have?

But how many between 10 and 20 when you have already included the 10 in the count for the previous set

 

[Mike Ginn]

Guys
This thread seems to have gone is all directions! Let me try to nail down the vernier/caliper issues which has caused debate especially re batteries.

It doesn't matter how you measure - some never measure. There is no right or wrong way, only choice.

For me the choice is to save time. I find using a digital mic or digital vernier a very fast way to measure and yes there are battery issues which vary. I buy a box of good quality (Energizer) batteries which solves the problem.

Modellers often choose to spend their time differently and have varying aims. I like to make all my own nuts and studs - many think that is daft but it doesn't matter - we all work differently and enjoy the challenges!

Mike.

 

[Richard Hed]

But how many between 10 and 20 when you have already included the 10 in the count for the previous set

I don't mix up sets in my count. If you are counting from zero to 20 that is one set but if you are counting from zero to 10 that is another set. Don't ;mix sets.

 

[RetNM]

Up until this point in my engine building career, I have depended entirely on a 1" micrometer, a 2" micrometer, and two analog Verniers of questionable quality to measure everything that I machine. I've decided to take my game up a notch, and have ordered a micrometer depth gauge and an internal micrometer that measures inside diameter from 1" up to 2". They are both in shipment to me, and I must say I'm a bit excited about it.----Brian

Congratulations Brian! It's great to be excited about getting something that you have yearned for.

 

[HMEL]

Guys
This thread seems to have gone is all directions! Let me try to nail down the vernier/caliper issues which has caused debate especially re batteries.

It doesn't matter how you measure - some never measure. There is no right or wrong way, only choice.

For me the choice is to save time. I find using a digital mic or digital vernier a very fast way to measure and yes there are battery issues which vary. I buy a box of good quality (Energizer) batteries which solves the problem.

Modellers often choose to spend their time differently and have varying aims. I like to make all my own nuts and studs - many think that is daft but it doesn't matter - we all work differently and enjoy the challenges!

Mike.

I think it is important to understand what a vernier is and what it is not. It was originally set to help estimate the distance on a scale when the measured mark fell between two marks. The vernier is dependent on the pitch of the major scale and there is a specific mathematical formula to calculate the vernier scale. Calipers often have vernier scales on them but some do not. The technique is used on all types of measuring instruments to improve accuracy. When measuring distance you measure from zero point. If you are counting points the number is different, because zero can be a point. It vernier scale was developed between 1750 and 1800.

We use base 10 with the concept of 0. The units are different depending on where you live. The Babylonians used base 6 with no concept of zero. Computers use base 2 and the numbers are coded in base 2, octal, and hexadecimal. The whole point of measuring this is accuracy and repeatability. I like both my original mikes and digital caliper because with a push of button I can go from metric to inches. Cant do that with my Browning Mikes.

Any way my two cents worth.
HMEL

 

[Brian Rupnow]

And today I have reached part #2 of "Taking it up a step". This is an inside micrometer which will measure from 1" to 2" inside diameter. They were even kind enough to send me a "set-up" ring for truing the micrometer if it gets out of adjustment. It would be very unusual for me to make a hole that is greater than 2" diameter. I have reamers that will get me very precise holes from 1/16" up to 1". This is the extent of my tool buying for this season. Will it make me a better machinist?--Probably not, but it may be a bit better than measuring holes with snap gauges and an outside micrometer.----Brian

 

[ajoeiam]

And today I have reached part #2 of "Taking it up a step". This is an inside micrometer which will measure from 1" to 2" inside diameter. They were even kind enough to send me a "set-up" ring for truing the micrometer if it gets out of adjustment. It would be very unusual for me to make a hole that is greater than 2" diameter. I have reamers that will get me very precise holes from 1/16" up to 1". This is the extent of my tool buying for this season. Will it make me a better machinist?--Probably not, but it may be a bit better than measuring holes with snap gauges and an outside micrometer.----Brian

Your inside mic is great for shallow bores but not so useful for deeper ones!

I would suggest not quite mothballing those telescopic gauges yet - - - - grin!

 

[Richard Hed]

And today I have reached part #2 of "Taking it up a step". This is an inside micrometer which will measure from 1" to 2" inside diameter. They were even kind enough to send me a "set-up" ring for truing the micrometer if it gets out of adjustment. It would be very unusual for me to make a hole that is greater than 2" diameter. I have reamers that will get me very precise holes from 1/16" up to 1". This is the extent of my tool buying for this season. Will it make me a better machinist?--Probably not, but it may be a bit better than measuring holes with snap gauges and an outside micrometer.----Brian

I have had one of these for many years. I don't use it that often, two or three times a year, but when I need it, (As Joeiam says in post above, for ends only, not the middle of a long hole), it has much greater accuracy in a few seconds than using a telescoping guage or similar methods which you then measure with a mic and also without the problem of bumping the guage . I'm glad to have it. A larger one, 2" to 3" would be nice, but I would most likely only use it once or twice in 5 years, so not really worth the expense.

I can take 3-5 measurements in less than a minute with one of these inside mics, while if I tried that with transfer guages it would take 5-10 minutes.

BTW, the tools you buy do not make you a better machinist--knowing how or learning how to use them properly DOES make you a better machinist. And knowing how to use transfer guages with a mic, certainly makes one a better machinist, however, a better machinist would also prefer to use any method that is speedier and more accurate at the same time. Thumbs up on your new toy. Bet you are out there in hyour shop measuring everything you can get your hands on! (I would be.)

 

[Zeb]

1-2" is nice considering pin gauges get a little heavy at that size...depending on how you prefer to measure. Having some control on cylindricity is nice. I've used the 3 way trigger ferrari and inside caliper type. Your set looks like a happy in-between.

 

[Ghosty]

For measuring the bore of small cylinders, only got on weekend.
Cheers
Andrew