Am I a singular Luddite or not?

Bloody hell, Nick, is your English Comprehension that poor? I bet you never even visited those sites.. Go back to molesting RCM.

Tom

Yea, but it still is.

I am aware of. I am also ware of that "DIN ISO 272" is a 1:1 copy of an ISO-standard. No changes made, just replaces the old (and national) DIN. "DIN ISO $number" _is_ _clearly_ international standard with just _maybe_ another number.

If Tom decides to look for "DIN 272" or "ISO 272" it is not what I wrote and he doesn't have to wonder when he gets results that make him laugh. But even more funny, it is "ISO 272" and once was "ISO/R 272". So ISO took over the DIN number.

EOD for me. Nick

You can pick out the english link of the list. And I bet that if I would have given you this as the only one, you would have complained that it isn't international.

Nick

In the area that I know about (programming languages) it works like this. Each country has an organisation (DIN in Germany, BSI in the UK, ANSI in the USA, SNZ in New Zealand and so on).

When a new standard is created, or an existing one is modified then that organisation takes representations from interested parties, then that organisation submits its representation to ISO.

I assume that other fields work in a similar manner.

You can pick out the english link of the list. And I bet that if I would have given you this as the only one, you would have complained that it isn't international.

But I guess even this won't convince you:

Now how about molesting?

Nick

Yep...works that way in many areas. Once ISO has created a standard, the National Bodies (such as DIN and BSI) often adopt them as National Standards verbatim and slap a National Standard number (different from the ISO number) on them just to confise the uninitiated.

Regards, Tony

The old Morris cars I used to own all used metric threads with Whit hex sizes. They must have been made specially for you!

Russell.

LOL! Does DIN ISO 272 turn up? Nooo...

"Document#: ISO 272:1982 Title: Fasteners - Hexagon products - Widths across flats Abstract:

Specifies the widths to be used in the respective product standards; it sets out a logical ratio between underhead (or nut) bearing area and the tensile stress area of the screw thread. Normative References: No normative references available File Size: 208 kB Price: $35.00"

However if we search for Nick's beloved "DIN ISO 272" on this, his nominated site, one gets this:

"A search of our eStandards Store was unable to find an electronic standard with the term 'din iso 272' within the document number or document title. Please retry your search using the document number without the prefix. (For example, type '9001' for ISO 9001; type 'X3.135' for ANSI X3.135.) For further assistance while searching, please contact customer service at snipped-for-privacy@ansi.org or use a live chat:"

So Nick, next time you wish to ram a some "Germanized" ISO standard down someone's throat, just remember it a standard primarily for your peoples' adherence, no great significance in the free world.

Further Germanic blithering on the subject will be ignored..

Tom

I already explained about that. But you didn't answer there, 'cause you would have lost your face.

It ain't a national standard, it is international. It also isn't Germanized. It is exactly the same. But I repeat myself

Yea, you seem to ignore more. But then you shouldn't complain about your ignorance.

Nick

howel

-- gwinh

----------------------------------------------------------------------- gwinhh's Profile:

Not at all. :)

"Whitworth" plus "thread" gives 142,000 hits. "UNC" and "thread" gives gives 2,920,000, UNF 360,000. "BA" plus "thread" gives 10,800,000 - BA by itself gives 300m plus, but will have other ref's in there. "Cycle" plus "thread" gives 22,000,000 (!) "BSF" plus "thread" gives 839,000 "BSW" plus "thread" gives 170,000

"DIN ISO 272" gives a mere 46 hits - that's nothing much real or important.

Google "DIN ISO 272" and "thread", and you get 13 hits, all except one (which is reporting this thread) in foreign. Like these:

That's Greek to me - really!!

And that's ... Turkish?

not bothering with .pdf's, especially those that strain the senses, today ...

and that one doesn't reply anything at all.

So who cares if some Greeks and Turks have adopted "DIN ISO 272" (if it even exists)?

- and knowing G+T's it will be an adoption in name only, and they will actually make stuff to their customer's requirements and pretty much ignore any imposed "standard".

My good friend Markus Kuhn runs the newsgroup - perhaps you might have more luck there? At least there are more people there who will sympathise with your complaints about people not "adopting metric".

:)

(which I thot was french but ..

UNC plus toothpick has 36500 hits. It is the same unrelated and ... proves nothing about relevance. :-)

Nick

I'm not as fussy as this. But there is a pedantic, perfectionist part of me that would like to be. I've wondered about using Whitworth fasteners for new projects - they have a certain appeal - but then I looked at machines and realised than a lot of more sophisticated machines are built using several fastener types anyway. Sometimes you'll even find an imperial engine (like a Briggs and Stratton) on a machine which is otherwise designed around metric measurements. And I can't buy imperial steel. Even if I use Whitworth fasteners I'll have to use metric steel. So I design my projects using metric fasteners as the most sensible compromise.

Best wishes,

Chris