OldTools Archive
Recent | Bios | FAQ |
264194 | Don Schwartz <dks@t...> | 2017‑12‑11 | Thumb screw wanted |
I have a pr. of wing dividers made by Wm. Johnson Mfg. of Newark, New Jersey which is in need of a thumb screw to secure the setting. I tried all of my loose odds and found nothing that fit. The local Bolt Supply House agreed that an 8-32 almost fits, but jams up quite quickly, and suggested it may be an 8-28 which is not available here due to lack of demand. ;-( The sales person suggested that even though it is an American tool, that it may be a British standard threading. Can anyone shed light or point me to a supply house, or maybe spare an extra? It's a decent tool, with a fine adjustment screw, and I'd like to put it to use. Don -- "You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses" The Famous Pig Song, Clarke Van Ness |
|||
264196 | John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> | 2017‑12‑11 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Don, Another possibility is that this is a "Sellers Thread" - fractional sizes below 1/4" which are just not the same as the numbered sizes. Do you have the years in which Wm. Johnson operated in Newark? That would be a clue because WIlliam Sellers presented his threading system at the Franklin Institute on September 15, 1864. If your wing dividers are after that date, but before the adoption of the current threading system, then Sellers threads are likely. In addition to oddball diameters and threads per inch, the thread profile is somewhat different than the current standard with regard to the peaks and valleys, although the slopes are still 60 degrees. "Of threads, and threading systems, there is no end!" [ (tm) John Ruth ] Victor Machinery is a good source for odd threading dies and taps. John Ruth Who collects odd taps and dies. ________________________________ From: OldTools |
|||
264203 | Kirk Eppler <eppler.kirk@g...> | 2017‑12‑11 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
From DAT: Work From 1830 Work To 1957 Tools CARPENTER TOOLS,FARM TOOLS,LEVELS,MARKING GAUGES,SAW TOOLS,SAWS,SCREWDRIVERS,SHAVES Text Info The original William was succeeded by William Jr. ca. 1864; William Jr. ran it until ca. 1910. On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:51 PM, John Ruth |
|||
264204 | Don Schwartz <dks@t...> | 2017‑12‑11 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
It's always more complicated , isn't it? Googleing suggests the company was in business from 1830 until 1938 when it was sold to C.S. Osborne & Co., also of Newark. It was engaged in making masons' and carpenters' tools, as well as gardening and leather tools. Don On 2017-12-11 3:51 PM, John Ruth wrote: > > > Another possibility is that this is a "Sellers Thread" - fractional > sizes below 1/4" which are just not the same as the numbered sizes. > > > Do you have the years in which Wm. Johnson operated in Newark? That > would be a clue because WIlliam Sellers presented his threading system > at the Franklin Institute on September 15, 1864. If your wing > dividers are after that date, but before the adoption of the current > threading system, then Sellers threads are likely. > > > In addition to oddball diameters and threads per inch, the thread > profile is somewhat different than the current standard with regard to > the peaks and valleys, although the slopes are still 60 degrees. > > > "Of threads, and threading systems, there is no end!" [ (tm) John Ruth ] > > > Victor Machinery is a good source for odd threading dies and taps. > > > John Ruth > > Who collects odd taps and dies. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* OldTools |
|||
264205 | Erik Levin | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Don Schwartz wrote: > I tried all of my loose odds and found nothing that fit. The local > Bolt Supply House agreed that an 8-32 almost fits, but jams up quite > quickly, and suggested it may be an 8-28 which is not available here > due to lack of demand. ;-( I would suspect that imperial measure is a reasonable assumption given the origin, but the actual thread size, pitch, and form have a lot of options. A LOT. What I would do is run a soft, formable material into the hole and back out to get as much information as possible. Thread pitch is easy this way. George has suggested wood, and it has worked for me, but I have also used a variety of plastics. You need a material that will form, not break, and hold dimension. For the pitch, use a round slightly larger than the ID of the thread. Then you can check the pitch using a thread pitch gauge. If you don't have one (and can't borrow one), you can use a caliper and magnifier. Measure as many threads as possible and divide into the number of threads measured. If you measure five thread pitches (four untouched thread marks between the caliper points) and the measure is 0.180", then 5/0.180=27.8, giving 28 threads/inch as the most likely, with 27 a nut unheard of option, 26 and 30 being unlikely, but possible given the precision of the technique. The more threads in the measurement, the better. If you can't get a good measure directly, I have run a chunk of material into the hole, marked the end for alignment, measured how far it sticks out, and then backed out 10 turns and remeasured. Quite accurate, though awkward and it needs a reference surface. In some cases, you can actually get a good enough cast of the threads to get a true major diameter, and even see the thread form under a microscope. Don't count on it, though. Just for fun, also consider that even though sizes were standardized in the 1860's, many manufacturers didn't adopt the standard sizes (I mean you, Stanley, and Starrett, and Brown & Sharpe, and, well, most of them) across the board. 0.150" (just under #7) isn't uncommon (Again, I mean you Starrett), and, if in the 1860's to 1910 range, the numbered size could be old standard (0.01316*size+0.0578), which makes a #8 0.163" rther than 0.164". Not enough difference to matter for most purposes (#8 through #12 are nice this way, number 14 being a dead match), but it can be an issue with screws in old size holes especially if the thread forms are not close. That said, if it is a #8, 8-36 used to be fairly common as a fine thread. 8-28 would be a tad course and isn't in any of the tables I have, going back a long way. 8 40 is not unheard of, but I have only seen it a few times, typically on adjusters. *** This message was sent from a convenience email service, and the reply address(es) may not match the originating address |
|||
264206 | Kirk Eppler <eppler.kirk@g...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:04 PM, Erik Levin via OldTools < oldtools@s...> wrote: > . What I would do is run a soft, formable material into the hole and back > out to get as much information as possible. Thread pitch is easy this way. > George has suggested wood, and it has worked for me, but I have also used a > variety of plastics. You need a material that will form, not break, and > hold dimension. > > On larger holes I have used aluminum foil by itself. Soft wooden dowels, and high end round toothpicks for smaller ones. I imagine foil over a small toothpick might work if you didn't have plastic rod available. -- Kirk Eppler in HMB, CA |
|||
264211 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Erik Levin via OldTools wrote: > Then you can check the pitch using a thread pitch gauge. If you don't have one > (and can't borrow one), you can use a caliper and magnifier. Measure as many > threads as possible and divide into the number of threads measured. If you measure > five thread pitches (four untouched thread marks between the caliper points) and the > measure is 0.180", then 5/0.180=27.8, giving 28 threads/inch as the most likely, with 27 a nut > unheard of option, 26 and 30 being unlikely, but possible given the precision of > the technique. The more threads in the measurement, the better. It is possible to perform this kind of measurement rather accurately by taking a macro photograph of the item with a ruler (or other accurate scale) in shot. You ideally need a zoom macro lens, so that you can be far enough away to minimise parallax issues. Having done this, count the pixels on the largest possible convenient distance on the scale; this can be used to set the resolution of the image. From hereon, most image editing tools will allow you to measure directly in the units of your choice. If not, simple pixel distances can be converted using your reference measurement pro rata. This method allows half-threads and thread "tips" to be referenced very accurately, since the photograph (and image editor) allow in effect high magnification and easy manipulation. BugBear |
|||
264213 | "yorkshireman@y..." <yorkshireman@y...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Others have said - we(you that is) need to find out what the thread is, then its a case of consulting the manuals, looking for taps of the appropriate size, or calculating the change wheels for the lathe. No-one has mentioned the BA range of threads. I always liked BA. Mostly because it has ‘British’ in the name I suppose. Richard Wilson Northumbrian Galoot |
|||
264214 | Dave Caroline <dave.thearchivist@g...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
This "thread" reminds me, I like measuring tools and fleabay showed me a pitch measuring machine, not complete but that is half the fun http://www.archivist.info/cnc/screw_error/lamp_screw.php more pictures at http://www.collection.archivist.info/searchv13.php?searchstr=pd+pitch Another toy I use for smaller threads is a traveling microscope http://www.collection.archivist.info/searchv13.php?searchstr=pd+travelling Dave Caroline East midlands |
|||
264215 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
How about threading it into a nut til it is flush with the back, then count the turns til it protrudes an inch? Or take it to the hardware store and thread it into that rack-o-marked-nuts. Ed Minch |
|||
264216 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Please ignore - I just got up and did not correlate this morning’s discussion with the OP. Pass the spittoon and happy Tuesday Ed Minch |
|||
264219 | John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> | 2017‑12‑12 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
GG's To recap: The screw is about modern #8-32 but its too coarse to thread into an 8-32 wing nut. The bolt vendor suggested something like an 8-28. This rules out BA threads - BA #3 is very close to #8 at 0.161 diameter, but the BA 3 thread is far too fine at 34.79 threads per inch. Thury Threads? John Ruth Metuchen NJ "Of threads, and threading systems, there is no end!" [ (tm) John Ruth ] ________________________________ From: OldTools |
|||
264222 | Troy Livingston <horologist@w...> | 2017‑12‑13 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
John, Or something arbitrary. Like others I collect odd taps, dies, and screw plates. When repairing an antique clock it is bad form to make the clock fit the repair part. I once bought an early electromechanical clock that was missing the screws that secured the dial to the movement. Looked like all I had to do was make a few 2 x 56 screws and I would be all set..... Only they were too big. Sometime later I stumbled on a tap and die set which included the 1 1/2 x 56 threads needed. If you can post the photos or measurements described in earlier posts I suspect that someone on the list will have something suitable. Troy |
|||
264223 | Don Schwartz <dks@t...> | 2017‑12‑13 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
On 2017-12-12 7:13 PM, Troy Livingston wrote: > > If you can post the photos or measurements described in earlier posts > I suspect that someone on the list will have something suitable. > > Troy Thanks to everyone who has responded. I will try to find a suitable material to 'capture' the threads as most helpfully described by Erik Levin, and will post my results. The Christmas season is descending upon us shortly, and I doubt I will get to this very soon. When I made the original post, I was hoping for a quick solution. I see now that that will not happen, but I am a patient guy. And starting in January is another year! If you see me in the big box walking around with calipers measuring random suitable odds & sods, you will understand... Don -- "You can tell a man that boozes by the company he chooses" The Famous Pig Song, Clarke Van Ness |
|||
264224 | paul womack <pwomack@p...> | 2017‑12‑13 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Don Schwartz wrote: > When I made the original post, I was hoping for a quick solution. I see now that that will not happen, but I am a patient guy. > Don We set the bar pretty high for "patient" in these parts. Here's me finding an unusual ruler in 2007: http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/208109/thread/ Here I am finally identifying it, almost exactly 3 years later: http://swingleydev.com/ot/get/208109/thread/ BugBear |
|||
264225 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2017‑12‑13 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
BugBear you mention in yhe post that shrunk rules are metal. not in ‘Murica https://www.jimbodetools.com/products/two-foot-boxwood-stanley-no-30-1 -2c-shrink-rule-58106">https://www.jimbodetools.com/products/two-foot-boxwood- stanley-no-30-1-2c-shrink-rule-58106 <https://www.jimbodetools.com/products/two-foot-boxwood-stanley-no-30-1-2c- shrink-rule-58106">https://www.jimbodetools.com/products/two-foot-boxwood- stanley-no-30-1-2c-shrink-rule-58106> Ed Minch |
|||
264242 | Thomas Conroy | 2017‑12‑14 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Bugbear wrote: "We set the bar pretty high for "patient" in these parts. Here's me finding an unusual ruler in 2007.... Here I am finally identifying it, almost exactly 3 years later..." [links elided] Why, you old speed demon, you. I have books that I started to bind in 1986 and completed and exhibited in 2013. And others I started the same year that year and am still working on---worked on this very year, an fact. See: http://handbookbinders.org/exhibitions/ and scroll down to the 41st Annual Exhibition of 2013; bindings are alphabetical by binder's name. Some of my better work is in the 40th (2012) and the 43rd (2015) and 44th (2016) Exhibitions, in slightly unflattering photos. Tom ConroyBerkeley |
|||
264243 | Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> | 2017‑12‑14 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Some really lovely work in there, Tom. I could not find any names associated with the pieces. Ed Minch |
|||
264244 | Thomas Conroy | 2017‑12‑14 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Ed Minch wrote: "Some really lovely work in there, Tom. I could not find any names associated with the pieces." I've struggled for years to get proper bibliographical entries for the catalog entries. The problem is that the members who design the catalogs are usually interested in visual things, not texts. By the time I get one to understand the need, she has resigned and the next designer has to be educated from scratch. The 40th anniversary piece in scarlet is Donn Byrne's Destiny Bay (1928), stories set among the Anglo-Irish gentry before WWI; a favorite book of mine, though no longer well known. The two in the 41st show, that were sitting so long, are T.H.White's The Sword in the Stone and The Witch in the Wood. When White wrote The Once and Future King he cannibalized these; most of The Sword in the Stone was kept, except that he replaced a couple of funny episodes with dreary sententious preachy boring ones. Most of The Witch in the Wood was simply cut to get rid of the funny scenes. It TWITW is as good as TSITS, but I don't think its has ever been reprinted and it is (due to White's hatchet job) almost unknown. Strange, but common enough, that a writer should have such poor judgement of what his best work is. My delay in completing the two bindings was because I had done the covers but couldn't figure out what to do with the spines. Once I got the breakthrough it went fast. Thank you for the compliment. Tom |
|||
264245 | Dragon List <dragon01list@g...> | 2017‑12‑15 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
what was the breakthrough, tom? On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 2:04 PM, Thomas Conroy via OldTools < oldtools@s...> wrote [snipped per FAQ]: |
|||
264248 | Thomas Conroy | 2017‑12‑15 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Bill asked: "what was the breakthrough, tom?" I ran horizontal lines across the spines, ending them with small circles, level with the ends of the half-circles on the covers.The cover design is basically a traditional one, used in France for semi-opulent work, in the 16th through early 19th centuries. I simplified a bit, and followed my own sense of proportion. When I did the covers I didn't realize how common the design was, I had just seen one or two and liked it. My teacher's practice would have been to put just the title on the spine, but that seemed inadequate to me. I wanted something to tie the covers together. When I went back to historical examples, they had scads of parallel decorative rolls across the spines, or sometimes single big central panels. The idea on those old bindings was to give the maximum appearance of luxury when the book was shelved. But these seemed to me to be to busy for the covers, and in any case they didn't actually tie together the whole package--- in the 18th century and earlier, no one considered the covers and spine to be one subdivided unit that needed to be tied together. The superficially best idea would be to use one big lozenge (diamond) on the spine; but this causes problems with getting straight lines to look straight on a curved surface, and it left no-place good to put the title. The final idea hit everything right: simple, tied things together, left a good space for fitting in the title, good proportions possible. Tom Conroy Berkeley |
|||
264250 | Claudio DeLorenzi <claudio@d...> | 2017‑12‑15 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
I was about to say the same as Ed. I liked several of the designs, but couldn’t see the maker info anywhere. Do you have a gallery/ photos of your work online somewhere? I admit to my ignorance about the profession. I didn’t even know that the binder decided on the cover designs. Cheers Claudio |
|||
264251 | Thomas Conroy | 2017‑12‑15 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Claudio said: "I was about to say the same as Ed. I liked several of the designs, but couldn’t see the maker info anywhere." Sorry it took me two tries to get the question. I assumed that the pdfs on the Hand Bookbinders of California site were reproductions of the printed catalogues of the exhibitions, but my antiquated and inadequate computer won't open most of them. The 40th Exhibition does open for me, and that is indeed a facsimile of the print catalogue, with each photo captioned with the name of the binder, the name of the book, the size, and a cobbled-together description that does not (at least in my case) reproduce what was said on the entry form. The descriptions should, but do not, include the author, the date, the publisher, the illustrator, and the form of illustration. The slideshow for the 39th Exhibition doesn't have captions, but I hope and assume that there is more information in the pdf. The most recent couple of catalogues have not yet been put up on the website, I think so as not to interfere with catalog sales. The majority of the books in these shows are "design bindings," individual unique bindings responding artistically to the work itself but also to the particular edition in hand, both the illustrations and the typography. Not knowing the edition that was bound is horrible, especially in the case of a work like the Fleurs du Mal which has appeared in many fine editions as well as dozens of ordinary ones. Typically, design bindings are done in full leather (usually goatskin, under various names). Unfortunately, the only online photosI have of my work are in the HBBC Exhibitions. Recent exhibitions have contained growing numbers of fine edition bindings and "artist's books." Fine edition bindings would normally be on fine-press books, in small editions of typically a dozen to a couple of hundred copies; the edition binding will be identical on each copy, but will be of more artistic sensibility, better materials, and more careful technique than a trade edition binding---especially nowadays, with trade bookmaking right down the toilet. "Artist's books" may be unique or run in small editions, but the point is that one artist is the maker of the entire object, illustrating and printing as well as text (if any). Artist's books draw on the technique of traditional binding, printing, and calligraphy, sometimes on photography or painting, but they usually attempt to stretch the meaning of what a book is---sometimes to the point of having nothing at all like tet or intellectual content. You get the same sort of solipsism (nihilism?) on the lunatic fringe of artistic wood turning. Tom Conroy |
|||
264252 | Tim moore <blind.moore@g...> | 2017‑12‑15 | Re: Thumb screw wanted |
Some context. Even the bookbinder had trouble opening this site. Which is too bad, since i would like to see more. Don't they have a collection at the Reed library? Tim ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Conroy via OldTools |
|||
Recent | Bios | FAQ |