Hello all. In this film I revisit my PCD Calculation from Harrison Mill Resto 9A. Specifically I address a point made by subscriber Mark about measurement error affecting the result. It has to be said though that the error was very small, probably less than you would get from drill runout. I also go through the derivation of the PCD Calculation, which quite a few of you asked me to do. I hope I do it justice and I don't put you all to sleep! Certainly Joe Pie has nothing to worry about. Thank you to all the existing and new subscribers, I really do appreciate your support. If you aren't subscribed please consider doing so. Please give me a like and click the notifications bell to hear about new content from me. Thank you all.
Thanks! I agree completely. There would be more runout in the drill than I had in that calculation. But I have at least proved that the method can give accurate results with accurate measurements. Thanks and love to all of you.
@@bostedtap8399 Thanks my friend. I concur too and you are right re clearance holes. I just wanted to show a more accurate way to measure and answer the point Mark brought up.
Great real world to theory example, bit more than just grabbing my Zeus book, excellent work. Utilising a pair of thread tops improves the intrinsic accuracy, but since there are for clearance holes, checking for thread perpendicularity was a key in reducing height length error. Trigonometry was my favourite subject in maths, to be I could relate to physical entity's, samecwith vector diagrams. Nicely done, thanks for sharing. Regards John from the Black Country
Thanks John, I agree with all your points wholeheartedly. I was more than happy with the accuracy achieved first time out, I just wanted to show a more accurate way and answer the point Mark made. There are lots of examples of using trig to solve engineering problems like this, they are detailed in Machinery Handbook and Machinery and Metal Trade handbook for example. A good knowledge of mathematics is a great advantage I think. The irony is that most engineers tend to be people who are told they are poor at maths in school. We need the physical real world application of it for it to make sense. Trig was my favourite to! Thanks so much for your support and encouraging comments, they mean a lot.
Well corrected Carl. Many ways to skin the cat. I would have probably just measured from the main bore to the inside edge of 1 hole, added on half the bore I/D, and half the threaded hole I/D, and multiplied the whole lot by 2. I know that's rough ar$e by the way lol. Cheers, Jon
Yes lots of ways as you say. The original result was more than good enough, however I wanted to address the point made. Hopefully I've added a bit of interest and answered people's questions along the way. Thank you very much for watching, I do appreciate it.
Thoroughly enjoyable video..Carl, this type of video in my opinion would be invaluable in a classroom environment where young school children sometimes lose interest in the way a teacher presents a subject. From viewing a very real situation where this type of calculation is required a much more interesting environment exists.The old excuse of “why do I need to know this stuff” is quickly eroded and real education takes place Well done 👍👍
I am really glad you enjoyed it Paul. Thank you for your highly complimentary feedback. I struggled with maths in school. It did not make sense to me until I began my engineering training and education in the Royal Air Force. I was taught by people who not only knew their subjects, but also, and in my view this is key, knew how to present them. Maths made sense to me when I could use it as a tool to solve various engineering problems. Thank you again for your support. I do appreciate it!
Terrific and easy explanation Carl. I never thought of using taps either. As you said information sharing is so valuable. Great stuff again.....I not only enjoyed the video, but learned something as well.
Very interesting Carl, I like your whiteboard sessions, they're very good. The only thing I would have included would be an explanation of why you deduct the diameter of the tap shank (D) - I know you need to deduct 2 x half the diameter to get the distance between centres thus 2 x r = D. Maybe I'm just a pedant :-) Cheers
No, let's not. Really no need to measure all three holes. The initial result was more than accurate enough given that we are talking about clearance holes. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
Hello all. In this film I revisit my PCD Calculation from Harrison Mill Resto 9A. Specifically I address a point made by subscriber Mark about measurement error affecting the result. It has to be said though that the error was very small, probably less than you would get from drill runout. I also go through the derivation of the PCD Calculation, which quite a few of you asked me to do. I hope I do it justice and I don't put you all to sleep! Certainly Joe Pie has nothing to worry about.
Thank you to all the existing and new subscribers, I really do appreciate your support. If you aren't subscribed please consider doing so. Please give me a like and click the notifications bell to hear about new content from me. Thank you all.
Maths works! I'm sure your initial calculation would have proved more than accurate enough but you've proved the theory perfectly.
Best wishes, Dean.
Thanks! I agree completely. There would be more runout in the drill than I had in that calculation. But I have at least proved that the method can give accurate results with accurate measurements. Thanks and love to all of you.
I concur, just twiddling the SHCS when measuring would average the readings for sufficient accuracy for clearance holes.
@@bostedtap8399 Thanks my friend. I concur too and you are right re clearance holes. I just wanted to show a more accurate way to measure and answer the point Mark brought up.
Great real world to theory example, bit more than just grabbing my Zeus book, excellent work.
Utilising a pair of thread tops improves the intrinsic accuracy, but since there are for clearance holes, checking for thread perpendicularity was a key in reducing height length error.
Trigonometry was my favourite subject in maths, to be I could relate to physical entity's, samecwith vector diagrams.
Nicely done, thanks for sharing.
Regards John from the Black Country
Thanks John, I agree with all your points wholeheartedly. I was more than happy with the accuracy achieved first time out, I just wanted to show a more accurate way and answer the point Mark made. There are lots of examples of using trig to solve engineering problems like this, they are detailed in Machinery Handbook and Machinery and Metal Trade handbook for example. A good knowledge of mathematics is a great advantage I think. The irony is that most engineers tend to be people who are told they are poor at maths in school. We need the physical real world application of it for it to make sense. Trig was my favourite to! Thanks so much for your support and encouraging comments, they mean a lot.
Well corrected Carl. Many ways to skin the cat. I would have probably just measured from the main bore to the inside edge of 1 hole, added on half the bore I/D, and half the threaded hole I/D, and multiplied the whole lot by 2. I know that's rough ar$e by the way lol. Cheers, Jon
Yes lots of ways as you say. The original result was more than good enough, however I wanted to address the point made. Hopefully I've added a bit of interest and answered people's questions along the way. Thank you very much for watching, I do appreciate it.
Thoroughly enjoyable video..Carl, this type of video in my opinion would be invaluable in a classroom environment where young school children sometimes lose interest in the way a teacher presents a subject. From viewing a very real situation where this type of calculation is required a much more interesting environment exists.The old excuse of “why do I need to know this stuff” is quickly eroded and real education takes place Well done 👍👍
I am really glad you enjoyed it Paul. Thank you for your highly complimentary feedback. I struggled with maths in school. It did not make sense to me until I began my engineering training and education in the Royal Air Force. I was taught by people who not only knew their subjects, but also, and in my view this is key, knew how to present them. Maths made sense to me when I could use it as a tool to solve various engineering problems. Thank you again for your support. I do appreciate it!
Hello Carl,
Nicely explained, thank you... enjoyable viewing.
Take care.
Paul,,
Hello Paul! I'm very glad you enjoyed it. Thank you very much for your support!
Terrific and easy explanation Carl. I never thought of using taps either. As you said information sharing is so valuable. Great stuff again.....I not only enjoyed the video, but learned something as well.
Thanks Tony, I really appreciate your support. I'm glad you enjoyed the video too.
Very interesting Carl, I like your whiteboard sessions, they're very good. The only thing I would have included would be an explanation of why you deduct the diameter of the tap shank (D) - I know you need to deduct 2 x half the diameter to get the distance between centres thus 2 x r = D. Maybe I'm just a pedant :-) Cheers
Thank you Jason, yes I should have said that. I really appreciate your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for watching.
a very eloquent explanation, great video mate.
Thank you Richard! Massively appreciated. Thanks as always for your ongoing support and friendship.
@@carlwilson1772 absolutely no problem
Hi
Glad it worked. For completeness you could measure all 3 pairs of holes. BTW my name is Mick, but let's not make a fuss.
No, let's not. Really no need to measure all three holes. The initial result was more than accurate enough given that we are talking about clearance holes. I'm glad you enjoyed the video.
I should have watched the next video before commenting on the last one... Or at least read all the comments on it! :)
Hey brother
Greetings Cain.