Starrett telescoping gauge diffrence
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Illinois
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default Starrett telescoping gauge diffrence

    I'm looking to upgrade from a set of almost useless Chinese gauges. Can anyone tell me the diffrence between the Starrett 229 series and the 579 series telescoping gauges? Thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Cerritos, CA
    Posts
    161
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default

    579 is a longer reach

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Cerritos, CA
    Posts
    161
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default

    My previous post seems to be incorrect - making your question a very good one - I so far can’t see a difference

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Cerritos, CA
    Posts
    161
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    45
    Likes (Received)
    61

    Default

    I found the answer: the 579 has two telescoping contacts.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Illinois
    Posts
    14
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Default

    I believe your correct after looking at them again on the web. Any preference or opinions on them. Is one style more user friendly?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    British Columbia
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    240
    Likes (Received)
    328

    Default

    I prefer the single sided contacts, the less moving the better IMO. In reality I like having a fixed point to apply pressure to because it find it easier to find the high spot.

    That said, I own a set of mitutoyo doubled sided and don't feel like I do any worse work with them.

  7. Likes Matt_Maguire, ManualEd liked this post
  8. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Geilenkirchen, Germany
    Posts
    1,666
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1060
    Likes (Received)
    793

    Default

    I use these things a lot and I own many different brands. Starret though, is the worst and most inconsistent. My Mitutoyo snap gauges are superior in every way. Since feel is what accuracy is all about with these and my Mits are really smooth, my readings are consistent and that gives me confidence when using them.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Hillsboro, New Hampshire
    Posts
    3,919
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    798
    Likes (Received)
    2557

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by steve-l View Post
    I use these things a lot and I own many different brands. Starret though, is the worst and most inconsistent. My Mitutoyo snap gauges are superior in every way. Since feel is what accuracy is all about with these and my Mits are really smooth, my readings are consistent and that gives me confidence when using them.
    I'll second the Mitutoyos over the Starretts. Much smoother, more repeatable readings.

  10. Likes AlexO liked this post
  11. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    17,227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3365
    Likes (Received)
    5315

    Default

    I've often wondered why the non movable part isn't cylindrical at the end instead of rounded. Would eliminate almost all the need for "wiggle".

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    RSA
    Posts
    934
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    219
    Likes (Received)
    148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I've often wondered why the non movable part isn't cylindrical at the end instead of rounded. Would eliminate almost all the need for "wiggle".
    I don't think it would. It would replace one variable with another. There are bore gages with cylindrical ends - they don't work any better.

  13. #11
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    FINLAND
    Posts
    821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    194
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I've often wondered why the non movable part isn't cylindrical at the end instead of rounded. Would eliminate almost all the need for "wiggle".
    How would you use that?

  14. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattiJ View Post
    How would you use that?
    With a full set of micrometers that have rounded anvils of different radii

    Or you could trig it out. That'd be convenient ....

  15. #13
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    FINLAND
    Posts
    821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    194
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SeaMoss View Post
    With a full set of micrometers that have rounded anvils of different radii

    Or you could trig it out. That'd be convenient ....
    I can see some problems already before you get the telescope out of the hole..

  16. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MattiJ View Post
    I can see some problems already before you get the telescope out of the hole..
    Yeah, I don't think Gordon is going to sell very many of his new invention.

    Gotta admit it's innovative tho

  17. Likes tdmidget liked this post
  18. #15
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    17,227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3365
    Likes (Received)
    5315

    Default

    When I thought of and patented my thread pitch diameter inserts/system some still don't believe it does what it does. They don't look like this but here's the principle:

    http://www.f-m-s.dk/6D3%20FMS%20Thre...0Principle.htm

    The range of pitch one pair of inserts covers (fx 2 - 4 mm / 13 - 6 TPI) plus the variation in flank angle (50º - 80º) is pretty damn amazing.
    Even measuring an internal M6 or 1/4" is no problem.

    As to what I meant re telescope gauges then:

    tg.jpg

    Going by "It's always been done like that" kinda brakes innovation. I'm not saying my idea re telescopic gauges would work but maybe worth a try?

  19. #16
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    175
    Likes (Received)
    709

    Default

    To the OP: The difference lies in the minimum range; with two telescoping sections, the smallest gage can measure down to 5/16" in the 579 set, vs. 1/2". Also, with two telescoping arms, you can move the handle sideways in both directions; if the need arises in some situation where you need to measure an offset bore down inside another bore, it's an additional element of convenience.

    I have a set of Yuasa telescoping bore gages that I really like, probably late 70's-early 80's made in Japan, pretty smooth, and longer handles than most of the other standard telescoping gages. Nice satin chrome finish as well. EBay find a few years back.


    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I've often wondered why the non movable part isn't cylindrical at the end instead of rounded. Would eliminate almost all the need for "wiggle".
    I can't imagine how this would work; if I understand the concept, you would have a cylindrical end face as a contact for the inside of a cylindrical bore instead of a point contact of the standard spherical end? You'd get proportionally different results for every different size bore within the range of a given gage. Am I missing something here?

  20. Likes tdmidget liked this post
  21. #17
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    17,227
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    3365
    Likes (Received)
    5315

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specfab View Post
    To the OP: The difference lies in the minimum range; with two telescoping sections, the smallest gage can measure down to 5/16" in the 579 set, vs. 1/2". Also, with two telescoping arms, you can move the handle sideways in both directions; if the need arises in some situation where you need to measure an offset bore down inside another bore, it's an additional element of convenience.

    I have a set of Yuasa telescoping bore gages that I really like, probably late 70's-early 80's made in Japan, pretty smooth, and longer handles than most of the other standard telescoping gages. Nice satin chrome finish as well. EBay find a few years back.

    I can't imagine how this would work; if I understand the concept, you would have a cylindrical end face as a contact for the inside of a cylindrical bore instead of a point contact of the standard spherical end? You'd get proportionally different results for every different size bore within the range of a given gage. Am I missing something here?
    I don't know if you're missing something or not. Forget the word "cylidrical" and think of a small radius running the length of one contact surface instead of two rounded contact surfaces.

    With two rounded contact surfaces wiggle is needed to get the "smallest reading". If one contact point is as I showed in the sketch then this would IMO stabilize the gauge and need as good as no wiggle.

    I've done this with inserts I had made and it worked really well. If necessary I can take pictures of the inserts I used. They can't though be used for a internal diameters/recesses less than 35mm/1.375".

    With a telescoping gauge I can imagine much smaller diameters possible.

    If it helps try thinking about how the internal measurement jaws of a caliper works. Not much wiggle needed. They can't measure deep though.

  22. #18
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Country
    FINLAND
    Posts
    821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    194
    Likes (Received)
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    I don't know if you're missing something or not. Forget the word "cylidrical" and think of a small radius running the length of one contact surface instead of two rounded contact surfaces.

    With two rounded contact surfaces wiggle is needed to get the "smallest reading". If one contact point is as I showed in the sketch then this would IMO stabilize the gauge and need as good as no wiggle.

    I've done this with inserts I had made and it worked really well. If necessary I can take pictures of the inserts I used. They can't though be used for a internal diameters/recesses less than 35mm/1.375".

    With a telescoping gauge I can imagine much smaller diameters possible.

    If it helps try thinking about how the internal measurement jaws of a caliper works. Not much wiggle needed. They can't measure deep though.
    I think I'm getting what you are after. One end of the telescope stick would have flat (with line contact) on the bore and it would set the stick perpendicular to the bore axis automaqically. First problem that I see with that is slipping the stick out of the hole without disturbing the setting. If one end has non-point contact you can't tilt the stick at all but you have to pull it out exactly perpendicular like it was locked.


    You mention "wiggling around" the telescopic stick for minimum but that's not how these things are normally used in US?

  23. #19
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    2,125
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    175
    Likes (Received)
    709

    Default

    OK, now I have the picture. That would likely require a fixed arm (only) for the line contact side, to maintain the axis alignment of the line contact to the handle, and it would be sensitive to both axes of in-plane tilt. The line contact section would likely need to have a bit of length to make it worthwhile, IMO. As MattiJ notes, getting it out without disturbing the result would be a challenge; probably an opportunity for making an accessory to hold the gage centered and square during measurement and retraction.

  24. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Country
    CHINA
    Posts
    1,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    734

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by specfab View Post
    OK, now I have the picture. That would likely require a fixed arm (only) for the line contact side, to maintain the axis alignment of the line contact to the handle, and it would be sensitive to both axes of in-plane tilt. The line contact section would likely need to have a bit of length to make it worthwhile, IMO. As MattiJ notes, getting it out without disturbing the result would be a challenge; probably an opportunity for making an accessory to hold the gage centered and square during measurement and retraction.
    The way he drew it is not possible. It's got to roll in the other axis, too. If you made the high spot on the leg into a point it could work, but that's basically what they are now. And a point would dig in to softer materials, where a section of a sphere (what they are now) slides across the surface. No advantage, lots of disadvantage.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •