Need some advice on measuring inside diameters



In Milwaukee, it's Lake Michigan, specifically from an area called "Jones Island". It's much less desirable as a parking location now that the sewage plant has been enlarged, though. That and the bridge above it seems to have structural problems: http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec00/1hoan121300.asp
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

    "And I distinctly heard her say 'up periscope!'..."
--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Someone makes inside diameter "micrometers" that have three hardened, convex surfaces and can measure down to the levels you need. However, most, if not all I've ever owned or seen are metric and quite expensive. You can check eBay for used ones, but you get what you pay for sometimes...
A cheaper fix might be to have someone make you a "go / no go" guage. It's basically a hardened steel rod ground to .001 unsersize at one end and your necessary size at the other with a taper of .001 or less over a 3" length, etc. Honing companies love it when I send these to them as we have a lot of 3", 5" and 10" tubes that are hard chrome coated honed out by them and need them to within .0005" I think we had ours made for about the price of the used device I describe above... And at least it won't break if I drop it and could be somehwat repaired manualy if it got a burr / gouge and if it wasn't too hard.
Regards, Joe Agro, Jr. http://www.autodrill.com http://www.multi-drill.com
V8013
My eBay: http://tinyurl.com/3n8gj
Know a good travel agent? I need one. Really.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Stewart wrote:

I once used a cheap attachment for a bestest indicator... it was bought to check an internal ring groove
It mounts to a bestest type indicator and you adjust it to the bore size.
I'm sorry I don't recall the name or brand
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Using T and dial gauges has been covered in another post. There's a cracking good cheap way to measure bores if you have a bit of spare time. Get a chunk of scrap metal and turn up a top hat bung on the lathe. The larger (top) part should be bigger than the bore by half an inch or more so it can sit on the bore. The smaller lower diameter should be a couple of thou smaller than the bore you are trying to gauge. Sit the bung in/on the bore and mount a DTI perpendicularly against it. Push it back and forth across the bore and read the movement on the DTI. With an accurate measurement of the plug part of the bung plus the movement on the DTI you can gauge the bore very closely. Of course you can only measure the top of the bore this way and you need a good undercut between the small and large part of the bung so it doesn't foul the bore on the chamfer between the two.
There's another method which no one ever thinks of but engine builders come across all the time without necessarily realising what it tells them. If you insert a piston ring into a bore the gap will be a function of bore size. If you can measure the gap with feeler gauges to within a thou then you are measuring the bore diameter to within a thou/pi (about a third of a thou). You need to ensure the ring is square in the bore and a close fitting plug to push it level with is handy. It's no substitute for a dial bore comparator but it works.
Go/no go gauges are probably the most accurate but it takes time to make them and they still won't tell you about ovality. -- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines (www.pumaracing.co.uk)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

snip----
If you're talking about cylindrical plug type gages, I'm afraid I'd have to disagree where it comes to accuracy. Unless you have them in tenth increments, such as the Deltronic pins that are readily available here in the States, they are a fast gage, but often tell you nothing about the size of a bore, only that you are too small, on size with the given range, or beyond. It's often desirable to know the exact size, and that's a function the typical go/no-go gages don't provide. They are more a gage of production than anything.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Baker wrote:

There's a variation of this technique in Guy Lautard's Machinist's Bedside Reader #1, using a gage rod inside the bore that's just a few thou shorter than the bore. The side-to-side movement of the rod is measured with a ruler, in sixteenths (!) right at the bore's edge--to calculate the difference between the actual bore, and the gage rod's length in thousandths. That sixteenths measurement can be done to the nearest 64th, just expressed as decimal--i.e., 15/64ths = 3.75 sixteenths.
Instead of a rod, I'd use a flat plate cut to that same top hat shape, whose edges are milled parallel and beveled to almost a point. Place it in the bore snug to one side and scribe a thin line with a knife on the outside face, then tilt the plate over to the other side of the bore and scribe another line. Get the measurement in sixteenths, and plug it into this formula:
C= A squared, divided by 2B
where A = number of 16ths of an inch of the plate's side movement at one end (to the nearest 64th, but expressed as a decimal sixteenth)
B = width of the plate, in inches, measured as accurately as possible
C = the diff in thousandths of an inch between the actual bore and the plate's width
You're supposed to get to a half thou accuracy with this, assuming the plate's edges are parallel to that tolerance as is your measurement of it's width.
Ken Grunke
--
take da "ma" offa dot com fer eemayl

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I suggest investing in a Subito type guage set, and setting bar.
http://www.oskar-schwenk.de/en/messgeraete/subito/subito.html http://www.oskar-schwenk.de/en/messgeraete/subito/subito_esu.html
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You may already realize this but be sure to take all measurements with the part at "room" temperature. Randy
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There are cheap dial bore gages available, and sometimes by changing the cheap indicator in them, you can get reasonably accurate results with them. However:
Brown and Sharpe sells the inside micrometers, they measure on three points. No good, they will NOT show whether the bore is round like an O or shaped like a goose egg. Federal made some dial bores with a quite wide range, but three points, also not what you want and fantasitically expensive. The inside micrometers, the "adjustable end measureing rods" made by Starrett, B&S and others can do it, but require practice and a good feel with them. Standard probably makes the best dial bores available, but unless you have need for them, damned expensive, in that size range $500 plus. The Sunnen honing gage is probably the best available, but let's get down to earth again, more than $3000 for the one I had.
Plugs won't show out of round condition, three point won't show out of round, you need two point, and there are some out of round conditions that even two point won't show. (Your chances of seeing that are somewhere between slim and none.) For a quick and dirty, "one off", if you can find an old used good quality dial bore, Standard, older Federal, even Boise, it will probably do the job nicely if the indicator is good. A cheaper dial bore can be made to work, but they are all dependent on what you use to set them. IF you can find a setting ring that's within a couple thou of the size, that would be the best, just adjust your zero to compensate. Dial bores are comparators, they compare what you make to a known standard.
Buy a cheapie, see if you can get any repeatability against known settings, it'll probably work well enough. CHeck it against your standard before and after each measurement and you can be reasonably sure that the result will be good.
Greybeard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<SNIP>

<SNIP>
It is actually pretty common to turn thin walled parts in a three jaw that will show round when the part is actually triangular. A plug gauge and a two point gauge will show this. If it gauges larger with the two point gauge than it does with a plug gauge then there's a good chance it's a three sided bore. These shapes are called REULEAUX traingles. You can draw one by first drawing an equilateral triangle. Then draw three intersecting arcs using as the radius the length of one side. This will give you a a rounded triangle with a constant width. ERS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

We always just called it trilobe runout. And yes, it can be pretty common from chucking.
Greybeard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    And this condition, at least, would show up with one of the three-legged tri-mikes or similar. If it measures differently when you rotate the mic from pointing to where the chuck jaws contacted to half-way between them, you can be pretty sure that this is what you have. (Mark where the chuck jaws contact before removing it, so you know what orientations to try. And this would *not* be caught by the telescoping gauge or the inside micrometer with extension tubes.
    But if you are working something this thin, that is an argument for a 6-jaw chuck to minimize the springing. Or even better, turn a ring with about a 1" radial thickness and a slit to put between the jaws and the OD of the workpiece, so the force of the jaws is better spread. Make the ring at least as thick as the length of jaw engagement, and ideally somewhat longer.
    I did not consider ellipticality from wear in my suggestions before, simply because he was apparently making this *new*. The spring from thin walls, however, is another matter.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

When running a centerless grinder the same thing can occur when running on center. It's important to be above, or below, at all times, which eliminates the condition. A part so ground will mic perfectly round, yet be three sided.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Greetings Jim, You may be able to get a good reading with your telescoping gauges. I hate 'em but sometimes use 'em for speed. It's longer to set up a bore gauge than it takes to measure 1 bore with a telescoping gauge. Here's how I do it: Like everyone says, put it into the bore at an angle and then tighten the thing. Not too tight. Just enough to keep it wherever it ends up after rocking it through the bore. After rocking through the bore by holding the very end of the handle grasp it in the middle of the telescoping part and rock it back through the bore. You will have to rock the gauge side to side to get it to go back through the bore. Don't force it. It should go through one spot with just a tiny bit of drag. If it goes through easy then it wasn't centered the first time. You will have to try a few times to get the feel of it. Then, mike the gauge and rock the gauge through the mike with the same amount of drag you got in the bore. Finally, after measuring the gauge by rocking it through the mike measure it by screwing the mike down onto it several times until you find the largest reading. Compare this reading to the one you got rocking it through the mike. It should be just a couple tenths larger. As a test, turn two slugs to the different diameters. The one measured by rocking the gauge should just fit. The one that is turned to the diameter measured by just bringing the mike to touch the gauge should not. Most important is to use always a light touch. Nothing should be forced. ERS
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

The Enco gages are too sticky for repeatable precision. Get a Starrett in the size you need. Then practice with it.
I once knew an old machinist who could do .0002 repeatedly with a simple spring-leg inside caliper and a mike. I asked him how he did that. He said, "feel", thus exhausting his conversational quota for the month.
Guy Lautard describes a "rocking" technique in one of his Bedside Readers that works pretty well without relying so much on feel.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As simple as his reply was, it spoke volumes. It's something one learns------and for those that have the capability to apply it, it's no big deal. From reading these comments, I'm beginning to wonder if it's something that many may never master.

Dunno, Don. The rocking technique, to me, is a part of the "feel" that makes it work. What Eric had to say about applying telescoping gages is pretty much right on. It's a matter of doing it enough times until you understand what you are "feeling".
Harold

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It was mentioned earlier that it is rather difficult to use an inside mic with the extension handle in deep bores for one can't reach the adjuster. I've always set the inside mic to an outside mic, maybe a thou undersize, then see if it slides in. If it's loose, I'll open it a half thou, and try again. If it's too tight, dial down half the original adjustment. Repeat the process until you get the desired feel. I always thought of using this process as turning the mic into a go/no go gauge, and for a half thou tolerance, this is certainly accurate enough. With practice, a couple of tenths is possible, for those bearing fits. Ron
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right on! That's exactly how to use them. If you measure over the inside mics, you can do work within .0002" and know you're there. Because the inside mics have a tendency to not repeat exactly (because of removable members) it's a good idea to not trust the direct readings, although mine seem to be pretty reliable.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Another reason to measure over the ID mikes is as a sanity check on the reading. I've always found the starrett ones read right on, but because the thimbles read the other way around, it's easy to get a number that is 25 thou off. Putting them inside an OD micrometer does a nice job of catching that mistake. Most folks can read the OD mike much more reliably than the ID one.
Jim
--
==================================================
please reply to:
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.