Talk:Tap and die

Second quoted tap size means what?

Taps are normally listed with two dimensions, I can't see any explanation of this e.g. Hilka do a set with: "Sizes included: M3 x 0.5, M3 x 0.6, M4 x 0.7, M4 x 0.75....." what is the difference between M3 x 0.5 & M3 x 0.6? I think all the taps are tapered. Sorry for being blind if it is explained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris J Evans (talk • contribs) 09:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further research tells me the second figure relates to pitch. I know there are many threads metric, USC, USF, BSW etc. but thought each one specified a consistent pitch for each diameter especially metric! It would useful if someone who fully understands this adds a section explaining this even if it is brief and refer to the entry on screw threads for more information. Chris J Evans (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Naming (2005)

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words for the official Wikipedia policy on capitalisation of article names. Andrewa 20:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion (2005)

Metric table needs expansion. I would but I don't know how to do tables. mores izes can be found here: http://www.engineersedge.com/tap_drill_chart.htm If someone sends me a link to how to do tables I will be glad to expand it. --Jkoether 15:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Display problems (2005)

This article does not line up properly on the monitor. Why? Peter Horn 18:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
OK, I found the "problem" Peter Horn 18:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Help Identify a Huge, Tapped, Wooden Block

I was watching a woodworking show on PBS when I saw the host of the show pick up a large wooden block measuring a foot on a side - it may have been a whole cubic foot - and placing it into a vise, he drilled a 4 or 5 inch hole straight through it. He was talking all the time he was doing this, but being a little hard of hearing, I missed out on what he was saying. He then got out a very large tap to cut threads into the inner surface of the hole he drilled.

That done, he cut the block in half. And he might have done the same thing to another block, but without a tap, and using something else for reference. Then, when it was done, he put the two halves of the wooden block together, to make something (that for all practical purposes) was a big wooden nut. What made this unusual, was the number of times the threading revolved around hole. The helical cut was only once or twice around the block. The block (essentially a huge nut) would fit on a wooden bolt, and turn once or twice as it was rotated to the point of seating the head of the bolt. Since the wooden bolt had no head, it could continue all the way through the nut, simply by rotating it.

What is the name for that kind of a wooden block? It has a big hole running through its middle, about 4 or 5 inches wide if the block itself was a foot to a side.

I think the wooden block was intended for use as a mold in casting huge metal bolts at a uniform pitch, and at a constant angle, and having a continuous thread. Just pour the metal in, let it cool, and then undo the two halves of the block. If there are any straggling pieces of metal, just file or sand them off. (Unsigned comment by 198.177.27.29, 02:26, 30 July 2006)

Sounds a bit like Roy Underhill making a wood die.

The wooden block couldn't have been used for metal casting: It would burn away too quickly. However, it could have been used as a wax mold. The wax could be coated with ceramic (sand). The wax could then be melted out, metal poured in, and the sand broken off the metal threads.

However, I don't have a clue what the block is called. BitterGrey (talk) 05:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Or I could have checked the user an found out that he hasn't made an edit since March 2009... BitterGrey (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaft Sizes for Dies

Can someone also add a table for shaft diameters that should be used for specific dies to get optimum threads depths (like %75). I searched little but couldn't find that information.

Something like this:

|Die Size | Shaft Diameter |

———————————————————————————

| 0-80 | xx.yy' |

| 2-56 | zz.ww' |

| ...... | ...... |

Die Size | Shaft Diameter |

———————————————————————————

| M2 | cc.bb mm |

| M3 | aa.dd mm |

| ...... | ...... |

You're vague here - can you be more specific? I've never heard of an "optimum thread depth." Unless you are referring to the thread 'standard' that says your engaged thread depth should be 1.5 times the major diameter. - Toastydeath 15:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This refers to percentage of thread (60%, 75%, etc.). In other words the threadform is intentionally truncated by, for example, drilling the minor diameter a bit large with the larger of two possible tap drills. For example, using a 27/64 (.421) as tap drill for ½-13 yields 75% threads (or thereabouts). Using a 7/16 (.437) as tap drill for ½-13 yields 60% threads (or thereabouts). Irwin-Hanson says that 60% threads are recommended generally because they give about 90% of the potential holding power of the threadform. They say 75% is good for shallow threads (less than 1.5 times the hole diameter) in soft metals. In general it's not desirable to cut fuller-percentage threads than are practically necessary for the application, because they aren't as forgiving in tolerance of dirt and buggering, and also it is more expensive to make them, because taps have to work harder, handle bigger chips, break more often, last shorter lifetimes, etc. Of course, the stickler in me prefers to cut 75% even when 60% is "good enough". But if I were an engineer designing for mass production I would have to stifle that urge.

I have a chart by Irwin-Hanson showing which tap drill yields 60% and which 75% for any given thread size. They do have some free charts in pdf format on their website, but sadly this is not one of them. As for an equivalent chart for rods and dies instead of holes and taps, never seen one. Hope someone calculates one and posts it here someday. — ¾-10 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The shaft size for dies for class 3A threads is always the nominal diameter. 3/8 - 16 needs a 3/8 shaft, 10mm- 1.5 needs a 10mm shaft. Simple, (for class 2A subtract a tiny percentage ~.003% .375x.003=.0011, .375-.0011= .3739 shaft size). Also the asme standard has forbidden the use of thread percentages because of the rats nest of wrong calculations it has produced, it has little meaning.=Motorhead (talk) 06:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts

Its common to use a standard hex nut to clean up a damaged thread. This could do with inclusion. The article mentions something that sounds related, but not the same. Since the standard nut is the same hardness as the thread its clenaing up, 2 or 3 nuts are used when its necessary to reform the thread properly. One nut alone is usually enough to make it possible to get another nut on, but it will be very stiff due to remaining damage. Tabby (talk) 11:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm...sounds like a how-to, which Wikipedia policy doesn't allow. However, if you could word it in a non-how-to manner, then a reliable source would be required. If you can overcome these hurdles I would recommend the addition to threading (manufacturing), not this article. Wizard191 (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roll tap

Roll tap redirects to this page but nowhere on this page does the term "roll tap" show up. Is roll tap the same as some other term? There's no point in redirecting to this page if it leaves the reader hanging. --Michael Daly (talk) 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the redirect to Threading (manufacturing), which discusses roll taps. Thanks for the note. Wizard191 (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is "chip"?

This term is used quite a bit but is never defined. I'm assuming it is the scrap that is being chewed out of the material during the tapping? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.1.35 (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you are correct. Another name for chips is "swarf" (you can click through to its article). I will go link the first mention of "chip" in this article. Thanks for your help in improving Wikipedia's quality. Regards, — ¾-10 23:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taper, Plug, Bottoming taps. Serial taps.

More detailed drawings here: http://www.kanabco.com/vms/cutting_tools_tap/cutting_tools_tap_06.html

Kender (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thürmer Paragraph

Given that the Thürmer paragraph appears in at least five places (http://uk.thurmer.dk/regado.jsp?type=page&id=116, http://chamber.com/eric-thrmer, http://www.linkedin.com/company/clou-th-rmer-a-s, http://dk.linkedin.com/company/clou-th-rmer-a-s?trk=ppro_cprof, http://br.linkedin.com/company/clou-th-rmer-a-s) it might have been released without copyright. In that case, it would be OK, but we need to make sure that is the case first.

Also, it reads like a section from their resume because it literally is. Their product might be a great deal better than all others, but the article needs to detail how it is different, not just that it is better. BitterGrey (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the IP adding the material resolves to Denmark, I'll include a link to our Conflict of Interest Policy and wikipedia:Best_practices_for_editors_with_conflicts_of_interest just in case. BitterGrey (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screw Threads

Should it not refer to nut and BOLT threads? Screw threads are not cut like this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.166.37 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out exactly where the errors are, because I'm not seeing them based on the above info. Wizard191 (talk) 13:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ambit and omissions

Taps and dies are cutting tools etc.

Some of them are, form taps create threads by deformation. Form taps are discussed in the article "Threading". Perhaps that information should be moved here or the article title changed.

The article does not cover collapsing taps, machine taps with inserts or taps which have non helical paths (Emuge punch tap).AnnaComnemna (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right about not only cutting types but also forming types. I changed the lede to reflect both. I don't think any article title changes are needed either at tap and die or at threading (manufacturing). Feel free to explain further about that point if I am missing something. As for your third paragraph: good points—things to be added when anyone gets time. — ¾-10 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Kennametal Trademark

I have been asked by Kennametal to contact the WikiProject page in order to remove the use of their federally registered GUN trademark from the Tap section of the “Tap and Die” Article. Kennametal is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 0344065 for the GUN trademark, and has a duty to monitor the use of its trademarks to prevent them from becoming “generic” terms.

To correct this article, in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style/Trademarks, the current language should be changed from: “The most common type of power driven tap is the "spiral point" plug tap (also referred to as a "gun tap")” to “The most common type of power driven tap is the "spiral point" plug tap”. The parenthetical phrase “(also referred to as a “gun tap”)” would thus be removed.

As you may know, both USCTI and ASME refer to these types of taps as “spiral point” taps, and not GUN taps.

I assume this change can be made by a member of the Wikipedia user community, if not I am willing to make this change myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalworker1 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Form of sale

The section on dies says "Each tool is used independently, but are usually sold in paired sets of both types, one die and three taps." I have never seen such sets here in the midwestern US. In my experience buying the occasional tap or die, they are sold individually, or for smaller sizes, sometimes taps come in twos or threes. The tap-and-die sets I see sold are almost always plastic boxes holding 5 or 6 different sizes of inferior quality dies plus matching taps.Douglas W. Jones (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a variety of tap-and-die sets being sold, some that extend from the small machine screw sizes to larger fractional sizes. My own collection of taps and dies is in a set whose box is made of wood and was available from Sears for many years (mine was purchased in 1970). McMaster-Carr sells a number of tap-and-die sets, such as their stock number 26055a74 (http://www.mcmaster.com/#26055a74/=19nmv23), which has taps and dies made of high speed steel, in sizes up to 3/4 inch, plus some NPT taps and dies.

That said, many industrial suppliers large numbers of sell taps and dies piecemeal. In fact, piecemeal is the only way some sizes, such as 15/32"-32 (the thread size found on many toggle switch barrels) can be obtained.

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting screws

The writeup on dies makes it appear that dies with adjusting screws are the norm. Looking through my box of taps and dies, which includes dies I bought, dies my father bought, and dies my grandfather bought, not a single one of them has an adjusting screw. All are made from a solid blank of tool steel, and all but one are intended for thread cutting, not chasing old threads to remove dings and rust.Douglas W. Jones (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed the same thing and have edited that section accordingly  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodgesoc (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rod size chart

The article contains a list of drill sizes to be used with particular taps.

It would be appropriate and useful to also include a chart showing the nominal rod sizes to be used with particular dies. (E.g., a 0.125" or 1/8" rod for use with a 5-40 die; etc.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

identity entails satisfaction of the same predicates

"When a wooden part broke, it usually snapped, ripped, or tore. With the splinters having been sanded off, the remaining parts were reassembled, encased in a makeshift mold of clay, and molten metal poured into the mold, so that an identical replacement could be made on the spot."

An identical replacement of a wooden part would necessarily itself be wooden. Someone else can tighten this sloppy language if they wish. Lewis Goudy (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustable Die Classes Undefined

In the Die section adjustable dies are discussed, with reference to Class A, B and C. Unfortunately these classes are not explained. My quick search came up with 'ISO Metric Thread Tolerance Tables'^[1] and 'ANSI Internal Screw Threads Size and Tolerances Table Chart'^[2]. Neither of these references seems to relate to the Classes as mentioned in the section. --UrBobUK (talk)

References

Die Section General Issues Discussion

Firstly, the paragraph beginning 'Solid dies cut a nominal...' discusses fixed dies in the first sentence then goes on to adjustable dies for the rest of the paragraph. I found this confusing and think the first sentence should be in a paragraph in it's own right.

Secondly, after mentioning different classes of thread fit, the paragraph goes on to discuss Adjustable Taps, which should probably be discussed in the Taps section (possibly with a note referring the reader to that section). --UrBobUK (talk)

[1] ttps://www.accu.co.uk/p/134-iso-metric-thread-tolerances

[2] ttps://www.engineersedge.com/thread_strength/internal_screw_threads_chart.htm

[1]

[2]