[Dave Plowman (News)]

Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature sensor
for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per thingie
metric 13.8mm 1.5
imperial 0.54in 16 tpi

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Baker]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature sensor
for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per thingie
metric 13.8mm 1.5
imperial 0.54in 16 tpi

Your measurements are probably not quite accurate enough to rely on (i.e. 16
tpi not quite being 1.5mm) but it may be a 14mm x 1.5mm metric fine. It's
apparently not a BSP or NPT thread.
--
Dave Baker

[BigWallop[_2_]]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature sensor
for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per thingie
metric 13.8mm 1.5
imperial 0.54in 16 tpi


This any good to you http://mdmetric.com/tech/tic1e.htm

[BigWallop[_2_]]

BigWallop wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature sensor
for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per thingie
metric 13.8mm 1.5
imperial 0.54in 16 tpi


This any good to you http://mdmetric.com/tech/tic1e.htm


Or even this http://www.roton.com/identify_threads.aspx

[Dave]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature sensor
for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per thingie
metric 13.8mm 1.5
imperial 0.54in 16 tpi

At first glance, I would say 14 mm with a 1.5 mm pitch.

Dave

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature
sensor for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per
thingie metric 13.8mm 1.5 imperial
0.54in 16 tpi

Your measurements are probably not quite accurate enough to rely on
(i.e. 16 tpi not quite being 1.5mm) but it may be a 14mm x 1.5mm metric
fine. It's apparently not a BSP or NPT thread.

My guess is also 14mm x 1.5 - but wasn't sure of some of the odd threads.
Sorry my measurements weren't up to scratch. ;-) My thread gauges only do
basic ones.

--
*Time is what keeps everything from happening at once.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave Baker]

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
Need to find out what this thread is - it's on an air temperature
sensor for a car.

Its dimensions (male) a- Thread outside diameter Threads per
thingie metric 13.8mm 1.5 imperial
0.54in 16 tpi

Your measurements are probably not quite accurate enough to rely on
(i.e. 16 tpi not quite being 1.5mm) but it may be a 14mm x 1.5mm metric
fine. It's apparently not a BSP or NPT thread.

My guess is also 14mm x 1.5 - but wasn't sure of some of the odd threads.
Sorry my measurements weren't up to scratch. ;-) My thread gauges only do
basic ones.

After 30 years of engineering and accumulating hundreds of tools, thread
gauges are something I've never felt a pressing need for. Provided you have
an accurate steel rule or preferably a digital vernier and know a few basic
facts it's pretty easy to identify most threads. Even if diameter and pitch
are similar you always have thread angle to help distinguish types. Occam's
Razor says that most threads you'll come across in anything modern are
metric so it's best to check for those first.

O/d will always be a tad under nominal so the bolt doesn't bind in the nut
or female thread. For pitch I measure crest to crest over 10 threads and
divide by 10. Hopefully it'll be a nice round number of mm or at worst a
half mm. You can use a digital vernier by eye across thread crests to at
least 0.25mm (10 thou) or better so you can work to an accuracy of 1 thou
per thread which is ample. Easiest way is to preset the vernier to the
expected measurement i.e. 15mm if you think it's a 1.5mm pitch rather than
trying to adjust it manually to line up with the crests. It's actually even
quicker with a steel rule marked in 0.5mm increments. If that lines up cock
on over 10 pitches and the o/d is just under an integral number of mm then
usually you're done.

A very useful set of things to have handy is one each of nice new non-rusty
bolts in 6mm, 8mm, 10mm and 12mm sizes. The thread pitches on these will be
1mm, 1.25mm, 1.5mm and 1.75mm respectively. That covers most of the normal
pitches you'll ever encounter in metric threads apart from the very small
sizes of 5mm and under and the big stuff. If you can mesh the appropriate
bolt with the teeth of the one you're trying to identify and you can't see
any gaps against a good light then job's a good un. The o/d of the bolt is
immaterial - for a given pitch the thread form will be exactly the same on
any bolt.

While I'm on the subject of metric thread pitches I guess I could cover how
these really work. The standard pitch for any size metric bolt is always a
coarse thread. In fact the coarse pitches were taken pretty much from
similar sized UNC bolts which were designed for threads in coarse grained
weak brittle materials like cast iron and cast aluminium. Finer pitches like
UNF are used in finer grained stronger, or more ductile, materials like
steel, forged aluminium, brass, bronze etc and there are metric fine pitches
for similar use. However you never see anything coarser than the standard
coarse metric pitch even though there may be many finer variants for each
size. You'd only need an even coarser pitch for even weaker materials like
wood and then either you'd actually use a wood screw or drill right through
and use a bolt and nut.

Finer pitches create a stronger bolt because the core diameter of the bolt
is larger i.e. the pitch depth of the thread is smaller in exact proportion
to its length. Bolts that take very high loads such as conrod big end bolts,
flywheel bolts etc will always be fine pitch with as big a core as possible.
Common sizes for these are 8mm, 9mm and 10mm all of which use a 1mm pitch.

The 60 degree tooth angle on metric (and also UNC and UNF) bolts was very
cunningly designed for easy use. The top and bottom of the threads are
rounded to avoid stress raisers and in such a way that if you deduct the
thread pitch from the nominal o/d you always get the tapping drill size
which therefore, near as dammit, will also be the core diameter of the bolt.
For example the tapping drill for an 8mm x 1.25mm standard coarse bolt is
8-1.25 = 6.75mm so it's an easy calculation to do in your head and no need
to carry a Zeus book around in your pocket all the time. This applies
equally to UNC and UNF except that you have to do more calculations because
the pitch is shown in tpi not length.

For fine pitches there can be many variants but the smallest fine pitch
you're ever likely to see is 1mm. There are in fact fine pitch variants even
for bolts of 5mm and smaller but you'll never come across them except in
very specialised equipment.

Your 14mm bolt is quite a good example. The standard coarse pitch is 2mm but
by far the most common thread in that size is actually 1.25mm which is the
standard spark plug size fitted to nearly every petrol car engine ever made.
Only the 18mm x 1.5mm Ford Pinto engine plug and the more recent 12mm, 10mm
and even 8mm plugs fitted to motorbike engines and the like will be
different. There are also 1.5mm and to a lesser extent 1mm pitches in common
use on the 14mm diameter.

Now here's a thing and to be honest I've only just thought of it. I said
above that coarse pitches are best used in coarse grained and weak materials
but all spark plugs are fine pitch and yet they screw straight into the cast
iron or cast aluminium of the cylinder head. However when they seize they
strip the threads right out of the head which probably wouldn't happen if
they were standard coarse pitch better suited to the material they screw
into. Of course it's far too late to change that now because it's an
industry standard but probably not a very clever one. I digress.

Once you've ruled out metric then the job gets easier. Imperial threads
don't generally have variants. UNC is the standard imperial coarse and UNF
the standard imperial fine. On old machinery you might come across Whitworth
which is an early coarse or its fine equivalent BSF. Both of these have 55
degree thread angles not 60 degree ones. BA can also be found on electrical
gear but it's easy to spot because of the very pointy 47.5 degree thread
angle. It won't come close to matching a 60 degree metric bolt even though
the diameter and pitch can be quite similar. You can actually screw many BA
bolts into metric female threads but not vice versa.

For hydraulic fittings it's usually NPT or BSP. These are quite distinctive
and often tapered.
--
Dave Baker

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
After 30 years of engineering and accumulating hundreds of tools, thread
gauges are something I've never felt a pressing need for. Provided you
have an accurate steel rule or preferably a digital vernier and know a
few basic facts it's pretty easy to identify most threads. Even if
diameter and pitch are similar you always have thread angle to help
distinguish types. Occam's Razor says that most threads you'll come
across in anything modern are metric so it's best to check for those
first.

[snip]

Thanks for a very useful article, Dave - I've learnt quite a bit from it.
One for the FAQ?

--
*Nothing is foolproof to a sufficiently talented fool*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Phil Addison]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:58:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
After 30 years of engineering and accumulating hundreds of tools, thread
gauges are something I've never felt a pressing need for. Provided you
have an accurate steel rule or preferably a digital vernier and know a
few basic facts it's pretty easy to identify most threads. Even if
diameter and pitch are similar you always have thread angle to help
distinguish types. Occam's Razor says that most threads you'll come
across in anything modern are metric so it's best to check for those
first.

[snip]

Thanks for a very useful article, Dave - I've learnt quite a bit from it.
One for the FAQ?

Seconded

Phil

[Roger Chapman]

John Rumm wrote:
Phil Addison wrote:
On Sat, 22 Aug 2009 08:58:44 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
Dave Baker wrote:
After 30 years of engineering and accumulating hundreds of tools,
thread
gauges are something I've never felt a pressing need for. Provided you
have an accurate steel rule or preferably a digital vernier and know a
few basic facts it's pretty easy to identify most threads. Even if
diameter and pitch are similar you always have thread angle to help
distinguish types. Occam's Razor says that most threads you'll come
across in anything modern are metric so it's best to check for those
first.
[snip]

Thanks for a very useful article, Dave - I've learnt quite a bit from
it.
One for the FAQ?

Seconded

Sorted:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...fying_a_thread


I must have missed the original thread or I would have spoken up at the
time as I think the quote below is more than a little misleading

"Once you've ruled out metric then the job gets easier. Imperial threads
don't generally have variants. UNC is the standard imperial coarse and
UNF the standard imperial fine. On old machinery you might come across
Whitworth which is an early coarse or its fine equivalent BSF."

I wouldn't class UN threads as Imperial. While I don't care a toss about
upsetting the Merkins I think they had a bigger hand in that
introduction that the Brits.

On old British machinery Whitworth was the norm. My first socket set
bought in 1964 was both AF and Whitworth and I think Whitworth could
still be found on some cars actually manufactured in the 1960s although
my car at the time was a 1952 Riley 2.5 and memory fades (or at least my
does) as to what was or was not current after such a long time.

Oh yes and BSP is of course a Whitworth thread.

I won't attempt to edit the FAQ. Someone is bound to object to my
intervention on principle so I leave it to others to correct should they
think it important enough.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Roger Chapman wrote:
On old British machinery Whitworth was the norm. My first socket set
bought in 1964 was both AF and Whitworth and I think Whitworth could
still be found on some cars actually manufactured in the 1960s although
my car at the time was a 1952 Riley 2.5 and memory fades (or at least my
does) as to what was or was not current after such a long time.

Some BMC cars post war continued to use what were essentially pre-war
major components although perhaps somewhat improved over the originals.
Examples were the Riley twin cam units and the MG XP series of engines. By
about the mid '50s all these engines were dropped and the post war
designed A, B and C series units were the norm. And they used unified
threads.

Some of the smaller makers may well have continued to use the pre-war
threads until much later. Rolls Royce certainly did for some things.

Although most of the UK motor industry did adopt the unified threads I'm
not so sure this applied to the US. People there still talk about AC and
AF. Of course these are often interchangeable and may just be convention.
But I did buy at an autojumble a new (cheap) set of AC and AF taps and
dies so I'd guess they're still more in common use than BSF and BSW are
here.

Personally I miss the unified threads. I think them more suitable for car
stuff than 'standard' metric.

--
*How many roads must a man travel down before he admits he is lost?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Dave]

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Some of the smaller makers may well have continued to use the pre-war
threads until much later. Rolls Royce certainly did for some things.

Were they the manufacturers that introduce the 12 point nuts and bolts?

They were still being used ten years ago on their aero engines.

Although most of the UK motor industry did adopt the unified threads I'm
not so sure this applied to the US. People there still talk about AC and
AF.

That has prompted me to get my old apprentice books out to check :-)


Dave

[Roger Chapman]

John Rumm wrote:
Roger Chapman wrote:

http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?...fying_a_thread


I must have missed the original thread or I would have spoken up at
the time as I think the quote below is more than a little misleading

"Once you've ruled out metric then the job gets easier. Imperial
threads don't generally have variants. UNC is the standard imperial
coarse and UNF the standard imperial fine. On old machinery you might
come across Whitworth which is an early coarse or its fine equivalent
BSF."

I wouldn't class UN threads as Imperial. While I don't care a toss
about upsetting the Merkins I think they had a bigger hand in that
introduction that the Brits.

On old British machinery Whitworth was the norm. My first socket set
bought in 1964 was both AF and Whitworth and I think Whitworth could
still be found on some cars actually manufactured in the 1960s
although my car at the time was a 1952 Riley 2.5 and memory fades (or
at least my does) as to what was or was not current after such a long
time.

Oh yes and BSP is of course a Whitworth thread.

I won't attempt to edit the FAQ. Someone is bound to object to my
intervention on principle so I leave it to others to correct should
they think it important enough.

That is what the wiki is there for - so please *do* edit it. Since I
have posted it as transcript of Dave's original post, it would be unfair
to change his words, however adding another section to the bottom as a
commentary seems entirely reasonable. I have added an "Additional
Comments" section so that you can ;-)

That would require me to find evidence that my memory wasn't playing
tricks on me. (So far I seem in the clear). It is amazing what you can
find on the web if you really try. :-) I searched for Whitworth for
starters and didn't really get much joy other than the year it was
introduced - 1841. Then 'ISO Inch' and eventually came upon:

http://www.sizes.com/tools/thread_american.htm

Of which the paragraph below is an extract.

"The differences between American and British thread forms became a
painful problem during the Second World War, especially in manufacturing
and repairing airplane engines. In 1948 representatives of Britain,
Canada and the United States agreed on a Unified Standard."

Seems ironic to me that as late as 1948 (see link) the Merkins were
still in favour of flat bottomed screw threads and all that associated
nastiness with stress raisers.

I have generally steered clear of the wiki so not sure of what is
acceptable but ISTM that the link above is all that is really needed for
unified threads.

I have yet to search out BSP but I have a reference book that states;

"British Standard pipe threads are recognised by ISO and are maintained
in the inch system with fractional designations for pipe joints."
Nevertheless when it comes to the detail apart from threads per inch and
nominal bore all dimensions are given in mm.

The other important point about BSP is that it can be found in both
taper and parallel form.

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article ,
Dave wrote:
Some of the smaller makers may well have continued to use the pre-war
threads until much later. Rolls Royce certainly did for some things.

Were they the manufacturers that introduce the 12 point nuts and bolts?

Dunno. I did once own a Bentley, and didn't see any there. One oddity it
did have was left hand thread fixings to the nearside wheels. Just
ordinary studs and nuts - not centre lock.

They were still being used ten years ago on their aero engines.

Right.

Although most of the UK motor industry did adopt the unified threads
I'm not so sure this applied to the US. People there still talk about
AC and AF.

That has prompted me to get my old apprentice books out to check :-)

--
*If you lived in your car, you'd be home by now *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)"
saying something like:

Although most of the UK motor industry did adopt the unified threads I'm
not so sure this applied to the US. People there still talk about AC and
AF. Of course these are often interchangeable and may just be convention.

Not always interchangeable, even if they fit.
http://www.enginehistory.org/british_fasteners.htm