Hi all -

In a brief period of boredom we wrote a small application to convert
decimal values to fractions.

(If anybody wants a copy, email me at carla dot fong at verizon dot net.
The 'reply to' on this message is spam-trapped) Runs on Windows.

It also calculates the next larger 1/64th inch drill for a decimal value
- handy if you read the size with a caliper and want a fractional drill
bit to match.

This brings up my question: Is there a way to calculate the decimal inch
sizes of letter- and number- denominated drill bits, or are they ad hoc?

Thanks

Carla

In article ,
"Michael Koblic" wrote:

"Carla Fong" wrote in message
...
Hi all -

In a brief period of boredom we wrote a small application to convert
decimal values to fractions.

(If anybody wants a copy, email me at carla dot fong at verizon dot net.
The 'reply to' on this message is spam-trapped) Runs on Windows.

It also calculates the next larger 1/64th inch drill for a decimal value -
handy if you read the size with a caliper and want a fractional drill bit
to match.

This brings up my question: Is there a way to calculate the decimal inch
sizes of letter- and number- denominated drill bits, or are they ad hoc?


I do not know about calculating. I have this chart stuck to the wall next to
the drill press :-)

http://www.gearhob.com/eng/design/drill_eng.htm

There probably is a simple mathematical rule used to generate the drill
diameter tables. I don't know the rule, but I would guess that it is
documented in the standard ANSI/ASME B94.11M-1993 (or earlier issue,
which may be free), which is cited in Machinery's Handbook as the source
of the tables.

Joe Gwinn

On Nov 25, 9:04*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
*"Michael Koblic" wrote:
"Carla Fong" wrote in message
...
This brings up my question: Is there a way to calculate the decimal inch
sizes of letter- and number- denominated drill bits, or are they ad hoc?

There probably is a simple mathematical rule used to generate the drill
diameter tables. *I don't know the rule, but I would guess that it is
documented in the standard ANSI/ASME B94.11M-1993 (or earlier issue,
which may be free), which is cited in Machinery's Handbook as the source
of the tables.
Joe Gwinn

The wobbly metric conversion graph here suggests that the sizes were
chosen arbitrarily to fill in the gaps in a fractional set:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill_bit_sizes
It didn't mention who decided on the number sizes. Stephen A. Morse
invented the twist drill and Morse tapers.

jsw

In article
,
Jim Wilkins wrote:

On Nov 25, 9:04*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
*"Michael Koblic" wrote:
"Carla Fong" wrote in message
...
This brings up my question: Is there a way to calculate the decimal inch
sizes of letter- and number- denominated drill bits, or are they ad hoc?

There probably is a simple mathematical rule used to generate the drill
diameter tables. *I don't know the rule, but I would guess that it is
documented in the standard ANSI/ASME B94.11M-1993 (or earlier issue,
which may be free), which is cited in Machinery's Handbook as the source
of the tables.
Joe Gwinn

The wobbly metric conversion graph here suggests that the sizes were
chosen arbitrarily to fill in the gaps in a fractional set:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drill_bit_sizes
It didn't mention who decided on the number sizes. Stephen A. Morse
invented the twist drill and Morse tapers.

I see a five-segment piecewise-linear function, slightly smeared by
roundoff errors.

The sizes will not be arbitrarily chosen, as there is money at stake.
The problem being solved is how to choose diameters such that the fewest
number of sizes will cover the needed range. Drill gauges were modeled
on wire gauges, and wire gauges most definitely follow a rule.

From the look of the wiki plot, I would guess that if one plots log of
diameter against drill size (number or letter), one will get a roughly
straight line, although the segments will remain visible.

Anyway, I imagine that ANSI/ASME B94.11M has the story, or at least
cites the story.

Joe Gwinn

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:56:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

I think it's optimistic to assume that number drills follow a rational
sequence. The drill gauge is more or less equivalent to the Stubs'
Steel Wire Gauge which, according to Wikipedia, was derived by
averaging the diameters of samples from a large collection of wires
belonging to a Mr Stubs in the 18th century.

This reminds me of a case of "standardization" I ran across when doing
some design work for GE's steam turbine division about 20 years ago.
One of the things I worked on was adapting punch press tooling that
was made in Lynn MA to fit a different machine in Bangor ME. The punch
mounting plate had a hole pattern for the fasteners that was almost
symmetrical, but not quite. The difference was small enough that it
was not apparent when looking at the part or a drawing, and I was
constantly checking to make sure that the mounting holes in the parts
I was designing were offset in the proper direction. I finally had to
go to Lynn to get some information from the old toolmaker who
maintained the die sets and asked what the reason was for the odd hole
spacing. I expected to hear something about avoiding interferences
with their press or the like. What he told me was that the guy he was
apprenticed to made the first prototype die set back in the 20s or so
and, since it was only supposed to be a prototype, simply eyballed the
holes. All I could think of was how many man-hours had been wasted
over 60 years keeping track of those odd locations and reworking the
resulting screw-ups.

--
Ned Simmons

On Nov 25, 11:20*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:56:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn

This reminds me of a case of "standardization" I ran across when doing
some design work for GE's steam turbine division about 20 years ago.
....
Ned Simmons

Standards? Of course we have standards. We have LOTS of standards.

I sometimes flat-braid prototype wiring harnesses instead of twisting
them, for fun or to fit slots better, and a few have made it into mass
production. Somewhere in China an assembly girl must hate me.

jsw

In article ,
Ned Simmons wrote:

On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:56:40 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:

I think it's optimistic to assume that number drills follow a rational
sequence. The drill gauge is more or less equivalent to the Stubs'
Steel Wire Gauge which, according to Wikipedia, was derived by
averaging the diameters of samples from a large collection of wires
belonging to a Mr Stubs in the 18th century.

The averaging could well be to overcome run-of-manufacturing variations
in what wire diameters they could easily make. Mr Stubbs had to be
important if they rummaged around in his shop to set the standard.
Perhaps he was a leading maker of hard or hardenable steel wire in the
day.

Whatever the article in question, all the manufacturers had their own
gauge or number series, usually generated by some rule, no two exactly
the same. The standard was written after one or a few of these
manufacturers had won in the marketplace.


This reminds me of a case of "standardization" I ran across when doing
some design work for GE's steam turbine division about 20 years ago.
One of the things I worked on was adapting punch press tooling that
was made in Lynn MA to fit a different machine in Bangor ME. The punch
mounting plate had a hole pattern for the fasteners that was almost
symmetrical, but not quite. The difference was small enough that it
was not apparent when looking at the part or a drawing, and I was
constantly checking to make sure that the mounting holes in the parts
I was designing were offset in the proper direction. I finally had to
go to Lynn to get some information from the old toolmaker who
maintained the die sets and asked what the reason was for the odd hole
spacing. I expected to hear something about avoiding interferences
with their press or the like. What he told me was that the guy he was
apprenticed to made the first prototype die set back in the 20s or so
and, since it was only supposed to be a prototype, simply eyballed the
holes. All I could think of was how many man-hours had been wasted
over 60 years keeping track of those odd locations and reworking the
resulting screw-ups.

Sounds like the story of rail gauges in the age of steam.

We all get burned by that only-a-prototype scam, once.

In the programming world, the standard defense was to do the hack work
in a language forbidden for the delivered system, so some desperate
manager couldn't declare the hackwork to be "good enough - we need only
a chevy, not a caddilac, ...". We all know this song.

Joe Gwinn

On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:33:54 -0500, Joseph Gwinn
wrote:



We all get burned by that only-a-prototype scam, once.

In the programming world, the standard defense was to do the hack work
in a language forbidden for the delivered system, so some desperate
manager couldn't declare the hackwork to be "good enough - we need only
a chevy, not a caddilac, ...". We all know this song.

I like it. Now we need an analogous dodge for hardware. I delivered a
"prototype" machine a few weeks ago that I fear is slipping into
permanent status. Twenty years from now the new guy will be wondering
what the hell I was thinking when some of the design decisions were
made. What I was thinking was how to deliver in six weeks a prototype
of a machine where I originally estimated a 4 month design and build.

--
Ned Simmons

On Nov 28, 12:08*am, Ned Simmons wrote:

I like it. Now we need an analogous dodge for hardware....
--
Ned Simmons

You could build all the framework out of randomly spray-painted 80/20
that you cut with a hacksaw.

jsw

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 28, 12:08*am, Ned Simmons wrote:

I like it. Now we need an analogous dodge for hardware....
--
Ned Simmons

You could build all the framework out of randomly spray-painted 80/20
that you cut with a hacksaw.

jsw

Or strapping, OSB, and drywall screws. g

But neither aluminum nor wood would have lasted long enough to qualify
even as a prototype in the case I was whining about -- lifting moly
ingots out of a furnace at 2600F.

--
Ned Simmons

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:59:21 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 28, 12:08*am, Ned Simmons wrote:

I like it. Now we need an analogous dodge for hardware....
--
Ned Simmons

You could build all the framework out of randomly spray-painted 80/20
that you cut with a hacksaw.

jsw

Or strapping, OSB, and drywall screws. g

But neither aluminum nor wood would have lasted long enough to qualify
even as a prototype in the case I was whining about -- lifting moly
ingots out of a furnace at 2600F.

So go in one saturday, take a MIG Welder, and in big letters on the
main structural member stitch "Prototype #1 - 2009, Ned S." Someplace
where it's impossible to miss, especially when the CEO comes out for
his annual inspection tour.

Perhaps in 20 years when they get ready to grumble, they will see
that label and realize it wasn't built to last - and the "permanent"
machine is about 19 years overdue.

Give it a year. And once it has been broken and patched and rethought
and improved a few times (and it stops breaking and/or slipping and
dropping the stock) the PHB's will realize they have just completed
most of the design work for the permanent one.

-- Bruce --

On Nov 28, 10:59*pm, Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
....

But neither aluminum nor wood would have lasted long enough to qualify
even as a prototype in the case I was whining about -- lifting moly
ingots out of a furnace at 2600F.

--
Ned Simmons

Can't help you with that one.

Stunt people sometimes wear large funny hats when testing so the
footage can't be used in the final cut.

jsw

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 23:11:12 -0800, the infamous Bruce L. Bergman
scrawled the following:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:59:21 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 06:01:10 -0800 (PST), Jim Wilkins
wrote:

On Nov 28, 12:08*am, Ned Simmons wrote:

I like it. Now we need an analogous dodge for hardware....
--
Ned Simmons

You could build all the framework out of randomly spray-painted 80/20
that you cut with a hacksaw.

jsw

Or strapping, OSB, and drywall screws. g

But neither aluminum nor wood would have lasted long enough to qualify
even as a prototype in the case I was whining about -- lifting moly
ingots out of a furnace at 2600F.

So go in one saturday, take a MIG Welder, and in big letters on the
main structural member stitch "Prototype #1 - 2009, Ned S." Someplace
where it's impossible to miss, especially when the CEO comes out for
his annual inspection tour.

Perhaps in 20 years when they get ready to grumble, they will see
that label and realize it wasn't built to last - and the "permanent"
machine is about 19 years overdue.

Give it a year. And once it has been broken and patched and rethought
and improved a few times (and it stops breaking and/or slipping and
dropping the stock) the PHB's will realize they have just completed
most of the design work for the permanent one.

PHB's? Prick Honcho Bastids? I use PTBs, or Powers That Be.

--
Some days, it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

On Nov 25, 12:56*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

The sizes will not be arbitrarily chosen, as there is money at stake. *

Correct.

The problem being solved is how to choose diameters such that the fewest
number of sizes will cover the needed range.

Maybe not; the original of the drill gage is a wire gage, and the
wire-drawing process is more likely the driving technology, not
the drill requirement.

From the look of the wiki plot, I would guess that if one plots log of
diameter against drill size (number or letter), one will get a roughly
straight line, although the segments will remain visible.

Drawing wire is done by pulling through a succession of dies, each
a little smaller than the one before. If you can narrow the diameter
by 20% on each pull, without unacceptable breakage or die wear,
that fraction will remain the same regardless of what the die
diameter is.

So, a wire-drawing plant starts with a few pounds of hot-rolled rod,
and after the first sizing die, calls the product 'zero gage'. Two
pulls
later, it's #2 gage, etc. Straight line on a semilog plot is exactly
what one expects.

In article
,
whit3rd wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:56*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

The sizes will not be arbitrarily chosen, as there is money at stake. *

Correct.

The problem being solved is how to choose diameters such that the fewest
number of sizes will cover the needed range.

Maybe not; the original of the drill gage is a wire gage, and the
wire-drawing process is more likely the driving technology, not
the drill requirement.

Maybe yes. It may be that the rule for number drills was driven by the
rule for drawing wire, but there nonetheless is a rule.


From the look of the wiki plot, I would guess that if one plots log of
diameter against drill size (number or letter), one will get a roughly
straight line, although the segments will remain visible.

Drawing wire is done by pulling through a succession of dies, each
a little smaller than the one before. If you can narrow the diameter
by 20% on each pull, without unacceptable breakage or die wear,
that fraction will remain the same regardless of what the die
diameter is.

So, a wire-drawing plant starts with a few pounds of hot-rolled rod,
and after the first sizing die, calls the product 'zero gage'. Two
pulls later, it's #2 gage, etc. Straight line on a semilog plot is exactly
what one expects.

Yep. My point exactly. Thanks for the details.


Joe Gwinn

Hi all -

We updated the decimal to fraction converter to include Letter/Number
and Metric drill sizes. Just did a brute-force lookup table with
appropriate sizes, after reviewing the information in this thread.

Not yet a graphical user interface, but maybe later.

The executable is compressed in "Fractions.zip" and downloadable from
http://www.carlafongphotography.com/utilities/

Still Windows only... comments appreciated.

Help yourselves!

Carla

There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you
make up ~ Rex Stout




Carla Fong wrote:

Hi all -

In a brief period of boredom we wrote a small application to convert
decimal values to fractions.

(If anybody wants a copy, email me at carla dot fong at verizon dot net.
The 'reply to' on this message is spam-trapped) Runs on Windows.

It also calculates the next larger 1/64th inch drill for a decimal value
- handy if you read the size with a caliper and want a fractional drill
bit to match.

This brings up my question: Is there a way to calculate the decimal inch
sizes of letter- and number- denominated drill bits, or are they ad hoc?

Thanks

Carla

Carla Fong wrote:
Hi all -

We updated the decimal to fraction converter to include Letter/Number
and Metric drill sizes. Just did a brute-force lookup table with
appropriate sizes, after reviewing the information in this thread.

Not yet a graphical user interface, but maybe later.

The executable is compressed in "Fractions.zip" and downloadable from
http://www.carlafongphotography.com/utilities/

Cool!

Thanks Carla!

--Winston

--

Congratulations Robert Piccinini and Steven A. Burd, WalMart Publicists of the Year!

On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:30:00 -0800, Carla Fong wrote:

There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you
make up ~ Rex Stout


93.7% of all statistics are made up out of thin air. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Rich Grise wrote:
On Tue, 01 Dec 2009 11:30:00 -0800, Carla Fong wrote:
There are two kinds of statistics: the kind you look up and the kind you
make up ~ Rex Stout


93.7% of all statistics are made up out of thin air. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Sorry, it's only 43%...

David

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
whit3rd wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:56*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

The sizes will not be arbitrarily chosen, as there is money at stake. *

Correct.

The problem being solved is how to choose diameters such that the fewest
number of sizes will cover the needed range.

Maybe not; the original of the drill gage is a wire gage, and the
wire-drawing process is more likely the driving technology, not
the drill requirement.

Maybe yes. It may be that the rule for number drills was driven by the
rule for drawing wire, but there nonetheless is a rule.

But the number sizes were tweaked a bit to avoid duplicating
fractional sizes, so there are more fine steps available for a complete
set of drill bits. (The letter sizes have an exception -- isn't it 'F'
which is precisely 1/4"?) For even more fine steps, get a set of metric
bits in 0.1mm steps to keep with your fractional/number/letter set.

BTW -- How many of you have one of the 115 bit HUOT indexes which hold
fractional, letter, and number sizes? How many of you have
wondered what the little bent-up hook is for in the letter size
section?

Well ... it is just right to hold a HUOT index for #61-#80 wire
sized bits, so I have just exactly that in mine. Presumably
somewhere it is documented that this is what it is for, but if
so, I haven't seen it yet. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
whit3rd wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:56*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

The sizes will not be arbitrarily chosen, as there is money at stake. *

Correct.

The problem being solved is how to choose diameters such that the fewest
number of sizes will cover the needed range.

Maybe not; the original of the drill gage is a wire gage, and the
wire-drawing process is more likely the driving technology, not
the drill requirement.

Maybe yes. It may be that the rule for number drills was driven by the
rule for drawing wire, but there nonetheless is a rule.

But the number sizes were tweaked a bit to avoid duplicating
fractional sizes, so there are more fine steps available for a complete
set of drill bits. (The letter sizes have an exception -- isn't it 'F'
which is precisely 1/4"?) For even more fine steps, get a set of metric
bits in 0.1mm steps to keep with your fractional/number/letter set.

BTW -- How many of you have one of the 115 bit HUOT indexes which hold
fractional, letter, and number sizes? How many of you have
wondered what the little bent-up hook is for in the letter size
section?

Well ... it is just right to hold a HUOT index for #61-#80 wire
sized bits, so I have just exactly that in mine. Presumably
somewhere it is documented that this is what it is for, but if
so, I haven't seen it yet. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2009-12-01, Carla Fong wrote:
Hi all -

We updated the decimal to fraction converter to include Letter/Number
and Metric drill sizes. Just did a brute-force lookup table with
appropriate sizes, after reviewing the information in this thread.

Not yet a graphical user interface, but maybe later.

The executable is compressed in "Fractions.zip" and downloadable from
http://www.carlafongphotography.com/utilities/

Still Windows only... comments appreciated.

Well ... since it is Windows only, I won't be testing it.

Out of curiosity -- what language is it in? If not in something
Windows specific (like Visual Basic), and as a command-line program, it
should be quite easy to port to other systems. I've donated a couple of
programs in 'C' in source form (e.g. one for use while cutting threads),
and someone else modified it for Windows -- even using a GUI wrapper
around it.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2009-12-01, Carla Fong wrote:
Hi all -

We updated the decimal to fraction converter to include Letter/Number
and Metric drill sizes. Just did a brute-force lookup table with
appropriate sizes, after reviewing the information in this thread.

Not yet a graphical user interface, but maybe later.

The executable is compressed in "Fractions.zip" and downloadable from
http://www.carlafongphotography.com/utilities/

Still Windows only... comments appreciated.

Well ... since it is Windows only, I won't be testing it.

Out of curiosity -- what language is it in? If not in something
Windows specific (like Visual Basic), and as a command-line program, it
should be quite easy to port to other systems. I've donated a couple of
programs in 'C' in source form (e.g. one for use while cutting threads),
and someone else modified it for Windows -- even using a GUI wrapper
around it.

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,
whit3rd wrote:

On Nov 25, 12:56*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

The sizes will not be arbitrarily chosen, as there is money at stake. *

Correct.

The problem being solved is how to choose diameters such that the fewest
number of sizes will cover the needed range.

Maybe not; the original of the drill gage is a wire gage, and the
wire-drawing process is more likely the driving technology, not
the drill requirement.

Maybe yes. It may be that the rule for number drills was driven by the
rule for drawing wire, but there nonetheless is a rule.

But the number sizes were tweaked a bit to avoid duplicating
fractional sizes, so there are more fine steps available for a complete
set of drill bits. (The letter sizes have an exception -- isn't it 'F'
which is precisely 1/4"?) For even more fine steps, get a set of metric
bits in 0.1mm steps to keep with your fractional/number/letter set.

Good point. They probably did intentionally avoid fractional sizes.

It's the E that's exactly 0.250", not the F. I just looked.


BTW -- How many of you have one of the 115 bit HUOT indexes which hold
fractional, letter, and number sizes? How many of you have
wondered what the little bent-up hook is for in the letter size
section?

Well ... it is just right to hold a HUOT index for #61-#80 wire
sized bits, so I have just exactly that in mine. Presumably
somewhere it is documented that this is what it is for, but if
so, I haven't seen it yet. :-)

I don't have that index, but I do have a collection of individual Huot
indexes. I don't like the new Huot indexes near as well as the old
ones. Are there any better brands than Huot?

Joe Gwinn

On 2009-12-02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

Maybe yes. It may be that the rule for number drills was driven by the
rule for drawing wire, but there nonetheless is a rule.

But the number sizes were tweaked a bit to avoid duplicating
fractional sizes, so there are more fine steps available for a complete
set of drill bits. (The letter sizes have an exception -- isn't it 'F'
which is precisely 1/4"?) For even more fine steps, get a set of metric
bits in 0.1mm steps to keep with your fractional/number/letter set.

Good point. They probably did intentionally avoid fractional sizes.

It makes sense for them to have done so.

It's the E that's exactly 0.250", not the F. I just looked.

O.K. I don't have to use the letter sizes often enough to
remember, and with my (heavy) 115 bit index downstairs, and me upstairs
typing, I wasn't going to bother checking it. That's why the '?' in my
statement. :-)


BTW -- How many of you have one of the 115 bit HUOT indexes which hold
fractional, letter, and number sizes? How many of you have
wondered what the little bent-up hook is for in the letter size
section?

Well ... it is just right to hold a HUOT index for #61-#80 wire
sized bits, so I have just exactly that in mine. Presumably
somewhere it is documented that this is what it is for, but if
so, I haven't seen it yet. :-)

I don't have that index, but I do have a collection of individual Huot
indexes. I don't like the new Huot indexes near as well as the old
ones. Are there any better brands than Huot?

Hmm ... I've not seen better ones, but I have seen much worse
ones -- the ones with links to pull each layer up as the one above it
moves past a certain point -- but made of the cheapest tin can material
you can imagine, and distorting (and the hole sizes not very accurate).

My 115 bit Huot is as good as the earlier ones for individual
sets -- other than being heavy with all of those bits in there. I guess
that I got it about ten years ago from MSC -- filled with good "Made in
USA" bits. About that time the cheaper sets were in similar looking
boxes, but which they warn were not genuine HUOT. Is it possible that
you've encountered some of these?

The only HUOT index which I find awkward to use is the really
old one for 3/4" to 1" bits with MT-3 shanks (a nice fit for the lathe,
but *really* heavy. :-)

Of course, I also have a zinc die-cast index (stand) from GTD
(Greenfield Tap and Die) for fractional bits near the tailstock of my
lathe. That is pretty convenient for most things, with a small
number-size index of screw machine length drills of cobalt steel with
split points which are so nice that I use them whenever possible. (They
are also in a HUOT index, a bit newer, and it works well too.)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]
[snip]

BTW -- How many of you have one of the 115 bit HUOT indexes which hold
fractional, letter, and number sizes? How many of you have
wondered what the little bent-up hook is for in the letter size
section?

Well ... it is just right to hold a HUOT index for #61-#80 wire
sized bits, so I have just exactly that in mine. Presumably
somewhere it is documented that this is what it is for, but if
so, I haven't seen it yet. :-)

I don't have that index, but I do have a collection of individual Huot
indexes. I don't like the new Huot indexes near as well as the old
ones. Are there any better brands than Huot?

Hmm ... I've not seen better ones, but I have seen much worse
ones -- the ones with links to pull each layer up as the one above it
moves past a certain point -- but made of the cheapest tin can material
you can imagine, and distorting (and the hole sizes not very accurate).

Drat. That's my experience too.


My 115 bit Huot is as good as the earlier ones for individual
sets -- other than being heavy with all of those bits in there. I guess
that I got it about ten years ago from MSC -- filled with good "Made in
USA" bits. About that time the cheaper sets were in similar looking
boxes, but which they warn were not genuine HUOT. Is it possible that
you've encountered some of these?

No, I quickly learned to order Huot, and they came with Huot embossed
into the metal. But new is not near as good as old.

The difference is that the old indexes had a solid rectangular bar at
the top (with precise size holes all in a row) spotwelded to the
swinging sheetmetal layers, while in the new boxes the solid metal bar
is gone, replaced by a punched and bent over end on the sheetmetal
layer. For one thing, there is no easy way to catch a layer and pull it
up, and of course the holes are not nearly as accurate. And the hinges
upon which the layers swing don't work as well either.


The only HUOT index which I find awkward to use is the really
old one for 3/4" to 1" bits with MT-3 shanks (a nice fit for the lathe,
but *really* heavy. :-)

Never met an index for MT drills, but never needed one either.


Of course, I also have a zinc die-cast index (stand) from GTD
(Greenfield Tap and Die) for fractional bits near the tailstock of my
lathe. That is pretty convenient for most things, with a small
number-size index of screw machine length drills of cobalt steel with
split points which are so nice that I use them whenever possible. (They
are also in a HUOT index, a bit newer, and it works well too.)

What year were these bought?



Joe Gwinn

On Nov 23, 9:25*pm, Carla Fong wrote:
Hi all -

In a brief period of boredom we wrote a small application to convert
decimal values to fractions.

(If anybody wants a copy, email me at carla dot fong at verizon dot net.
The 'reply to' on this message is spam-trapped) Runs on Windows.

It also calculates the next larger 1/64th inch drill for a decimal value
- handy if you read the size with a caliper and want a fractional drill
bit to match.

This brings up my question: Is there a way to calculate the decimal inch
sizes of letter- and number- denominated drill bits, or are they ad hoc?

Thanks

Carla

Hi Carla
I appreciate your efforts. That's a good program to have.
Another way to convert decimals to fractions is contained
w/ in a program in the HP 32s II pocket calculator & iirc it rounds up
to the nearest
fraction also. It's a somewhat complicated operation that was very
useful in my work
before I retired. I have since forgotten to use it. But I love my HP
32s II. Possibly
the best true pocket calculator made by any company. I'm not counting
the bigger 'pocket'
calculators as such as the HP 40 series as a pocket calculator.
The funny thing is that I think I paid ~$40 bucks for mine in the mid
90s, & in about
'97 I was standing in a store looking @ close out display of them for ~
$25, trying to decide
to buy another as a backup. Economy & lack of foresight won out & I
kept my $$$
in my pocket. To day they are going for over $250 on eBay. If I had
had the foresight,
I'd have bought everyone I could get my hands on & made a tidy profit
@ 10 to 1.

Thanks, JD

On 2009-12-03, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]
[snip]

BTW -- How many of you have one of the 115 bit HUOT indexes which hold
fractional, letter, and number sizes? How many of you have
wondered what the little bent-up hook is for in the letter size
section?

Well ... it is just right to hold a HUOT index for #61-#80 wire
sized bits, so I have just exactly that in mine. Presumably
somewhere it is documented that this is what it is for, but if
so, I haven't seen it yet. :-)

I don't have that index, but I do have a collection of individual Huot
indexes. I don't like the new Huot indexes near as well as the old
ones. Are there any better brands than Huot?

Hmm ... I've not seen better ones, but I have seen much worse
ones -- the ones with links to pull each layer up as the one above it
moves past a certain point -- but made of the cheapest tin can material
you can imagine, and distorting (and the hole sizes not very accurate).

Drat. That's my experience too.

Yes -- there can be *really* bad ones -- usually with Chinese
sets.


My 115 bit Huot is as good as the earlier ones for individual
sets -- other than being heavy with all of those bits in there. I guess
that I got it about ten years ago from MSC -- filled with good "Made in
USA" bits. About that time the cheaper sets were in similar looking
boxes, but which they warn were not genuine HUOT. Is it possible that
you've encountered some of these?

No, I quickly learned to order Huot, and they came with Huot embossed
into the metal. But new is not near as good as old.

O.K.

The difference is that the old indexes had a solid rectangular bar at
the top (with precise size holes all in a row) spotwelded to the
swinging sheetmetal layers, while in the new boxes the solid metal bar
is gone, replaced by a punched and bent over end on the sheetmetal
layer. For one thing, there is no easy way to catch a layer and pull it
up, and of course the holes are not nearly as accurate. And the hinges
upon which the layers swing don't work as well either.

Hmm ... none of mine (with the possible exception of the MT-3
set) has that. The earlier ones have the top end folded twice to make a
plate for the holes and a reinforcing ridge, and a bit down the hinged
plated is another 'L' spot welded on to make the second set of holes.
The newer ones have the second set folded out of the hinged piece, but
still pretty well punched and aligned. Some of those later ones have a
black plastic overlay with the sizes and numbers (and the metric ones
have decimal inch sizes in addition to the mm diameter). The index for
the screw machine length has another tab folded out to support the
shorter bits.

The only HUOT index which I find awkward to use is the really
old one for 3/4" to 1" bits with MT-3 shanks (a nice fit for the lathe,
but *really* heavy. :-)

Never met an index for MT drills, but never needed one either.

Obviously, the point end goes in first, and the MT shanks stay
at the outside end. But the weight of the plates loaded with bits
(especially the ones from 1" down to perhaps 7/8") is great enough so a
bump will pop one end or the other of the hinge pin out of the dimpled
hole which serves as a bearing. And this is probably the oldest one
that I have, painted OD. So every once in a while, I have to tilt
things until the hinge pin pops back in. (And sometimes I first have to
drive out and straighten the hinge pins. :-)

Of course, I also have a zinc die-cast index (stand) from GTD
(Greenfield Tap and Die) for fractional bits near the tailstock of my
lathe. That is pretty convenient for most things, with a small
number-size index of screw machine length drills of cobalt steel with
split points which are so nice that I use them whenever possible. (They
are also in a HUOT index, a bit newer, and it works well too.)

What year were these bought?

When did *I* buy which -- the GT&D stand or the number-sized
index of screw machine length bits?

*I* bought both perhaps ten years ago now, but the GT&D stand
was from eBay, and at a guess it is at least from the mid 1950s if not
later. It is shaped like the GT&D logo, which looks like the profile of
a tap much magnified, putting the drill bits in a zig-zag pattern which
makes them easier to reach -- especially the most common fractional
sizes, which tend to be at the crests of the threads. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-03, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-02, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2009-12-01, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[snip snip]

The difference is that the old indexes had a solid rectangular bar at
the top (with precise size holes all in a row) spotwelded to the
swinging sheetmetal layers, while in the new boxes the solid metal bar
is gone, replaced by a punched and bent over end on the sheetmetal
layer. For one thing, there is no easy way to catch a layer and pull it
up, and of course the holes are not nearly as accurate. And the hinges
upon which the layers swing don't work as well either.

Hmm ... none of mine (with the possible exception of the MT-3
set) has that. The earlier ones have the top end folded twice to make a
plate for the holes and a reinforcing ridge, and a bit down the hinged
plated is another 'L' spot welded on to make the second set of holes.
The newer ones have the second set folded out of the hinged piece, but
still pretty well punched and aligned. Some of those later ones have a
black plastic overlay with the sizes and numbers (and the metric ones
have decimal inch sizes in addition to the mm diameter). The index for
the screw machine length has another tab folded out to support the
shorter bits.

I've seen these variations as well. I really don't want any plastic in
a drill index - the plastic soon crumbles away.


The only HUOT index which I find awkward to use is the really
old one for 3/4" to 1" bits with MT-3 shanks (a nice fit for the lathe,
but *really* heavy. :-)

Never met an index for MT drills, but never needed one either.

Obviously, the point end goes in first, and the MT shanks stay
at the outside end. But the weight of the plates loaded with bits
(especially the ones from 1" down to perhaps 7/8") is great enough so a
bump will pop one end or the other of the hinge pin out of the dimpled
hole which serves as a bearing. And this is probably the oldest one
that I have, painted OD. So every once in a while, I have to tilt
things until the hinge pin pops back in. (And sometimes I first have to
drive out and straighten the hinge pins. :-)

I've had pop-outs as well, but without the excuse of great weight.
Perhaps the hinge pin needs to be made of sterner stuff?


Of course, I also have a zinc die-cast index (stand) from GTD
(Greenfield Tap and Die) for fractional bits near the tailstock of my
lathe. That is pretty convenient for most things, with a small
number-size index of screw machine length drills of cobalt steel with
split points which are so nice that I use them whenever possible. (They
are also in a HUOT index, a bit newer, and it works well too.)

What year were these bought?

When did *I* buy which -- the GT&D stand or the number-sized
index of screw machine length bits?

*I* bought both perhaps ten years ago now, but the GT&D stand
was from eBay, and at a guess it is at least from the mid 1950s if not
later. It is shaped like the GT&D logo, which looks like the profile of
a tap much magnified, putting the drill bits in a zig-zag pattern which
makes them easier to reach -- especially the most common fractional
sizes, which tend to be at the crests of the threads. :-)

So, these are all from the good old days. Drat again.


Joe Gwinn

Carla Fong wrote:
Hi all -

Thanks to feedback from a couple of newsgroup users (especially thanks
to Len Turnbow) we updated the decimal to fraction converter again to
make the display a bit more intuitive and useful in the shop.

It now shows the next larger fractional, letter/number and metric size
drill bits corresponding to a decimal value input, plus the next two
larger and smaller drills - and the clearance.

The executable is compressed in "Fractions.zip" and downloadable from
http://www.carlafongphotography.com/utilities/


Thanks for the great tool, Carla!

I have it pinned to my Start menu and I'm sure it will be very useful!

--Winston

--

Congratulations Robert Piccinini and Steven A. Burd, WalMart Publicists of the Year!

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

(...)

Thanks, but I was looking for drill indexes with closing cover.

Oops. My mistake.

--Winston

--

Congratulations Robert Piccinini and Steven A. Burd, WalMart Publicists of the Year!