What's new
What's new

Anyone recognize these gauges?

VSAncona

Plastic
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Location
Des Moines, IA
I acquired this set of gage blocks along with some other machinist tools. I'm not sure what they are used for, but they seem to be for some specialized purpose. They are 2" long and the following diameters: 1.000", .500", .320", .200", .160", .100", and .050". The three largest gauges look like they have centerholes in the ends (second photo).

Vince



 
With the relieved and (maybe) ground ends, I would think that those are some sort of length standard, purpose unknown.
 
How close are they to the dimensions you posted? Within katrillionths, On the plus side or the minus side? Consistently? Possibly a gage for quick floor verification of flatness, parallelism, roundness, cylindricity, concentricity, lots of things. But you have to qualify those things about those items to determine what. As for the center holes they could be used to verify between centerlines of work holding. Again you have to know how concentric they are, how round they are, the cylinder of the OD.

Robert
 
I acquired this set of gage blocks along with some other machinist tools. I'm not sure what they are used for, but they seem to be for some specialized purpose. They are 2" long and the following diameters: 1.000", .500", .320", .200", .160", .100", and .050". The three largest gauges look like they have centerholes in the ends (second photo).

Vince


Use two to measure the angle of a V
 
By the cloth roll-up they're in (if that's an OEM pouch) I'd guess that they're part of what a field service tech travels with for checking fitment/repair on a specific machine. Some of the diameters are off nominal as though they are a targeted size and too long to be just a "standard" for micrometer calibration. Then again, they could have been made by an OD grinder hand for checking various bores in his motorcycle. They look like they should be checked and marked to 5 decimal places.
 
The roll-up pouch and the unusual diameters are what made me think they were a set that was for some specific tool or purpose. The largest one could be used as a small cylindrical square, assuming the ends are accurately ground. I may just keep it for that. Thanks for the comments.
 
The roll-up pouch and the unusual diameters are what made me think they were a set that was for some specific tool or purpose. The largest one could be used as a small cylindrical square, assuming the ends are accurately ground. I may just keep it for that. Thanks for the comments.

I thought I had explained what they were for in post #4.
 
Gordon, your explanation is the most plausible of those offered so far, but do you recognize this set as intended specifically for that purpose, or are you just offering one possible explanation?
 
Gordon, your explanation is the most plausible of those offered so far, but do you recognize this set as intended specifically for that purpose, or are you just offering one possible explanation?

Given imagination almost anything is possible. As far as that particular set goes I haven't as yet read anything else that comes close to being plausible.

I've both seen and done Vs measured with 2 cylinders and would have much appreciated that set back in the day as knowing those diameters in advance would have made just about all calculations much easier than they were.

The most accurate result would of course come from using the smallest and largest diameter possible. Measuring internal V angles with steel balls is just as common.

Re the "set" in question then from the special "pouch" it doesn't look like a 1 off.

Given how easy calculations are nowadays maybe there would be a market for cylinders and balls if accompanied with a programme where the 2 diameters and height difference were just put in the programme and ENTER pressed?

Hmmmm I think I'll give that some more thought. :)
 
I wonder if they were intended for setting certain angles on a particular machine.
The odd sequence of sizes makes this explanation seem reasonable.

For example, you have a factor of 2 progression from 1.000 to 0.500, but no 0.250 (other than 0.200 + 0.050), and no 0.125.

Going the other way you have 0.050, 0.100, and 0.200, but no 0.400 or 0.800.

Also, 0.320 and 0.160 don't fit any other sequence.

- Leigh
 
The odd sequence of sizes makes this explanation seem reasonable.

For example, you have a factor of 2 progression from 1.000 to 0.500, but no 0.250 (other than 0.200 + 0.050), and no 0.125.

Going the other way you have 0.050, 0.100, and 0.200, but no 0.400 or 0.800.

Also, 0.320 and 0.160 don't fit any other sequence.

- Leigh

Without having done any calculations (I'm going to do that when I get more time) then I think if I was measuring a specific angle (i.e. 30º, 45º, 60º) I'd want a uniform progression but if measuring varying angles then probably I'd want more in line with what the set has.

OTOH .320" is twice that of .160" so a factor 2 can be applied to all "pairs".

I'm just thinking aloud.
 
Given how easy calculations are nowadays maybe there would be a market for cylinders and balls if accompanied with a programme where the 2 diameters and height difference were just put in the programme and ENTER pressed?

Hmmmm I think I'll give that some more thought. :)


I'm doing my best to learn the math that goes along with this from google, because I'm bored and you piqued my curiosity. Assuming it's fairly simple calculations (aren't they all, up until calculus? :D), I could write an app or computer program that would do that for you in an hour or two (most of that re-learning all the coding I've forgotten in the last ten years). Hell, it could be done in excel quicker than anything else. Just saying, if it's a real consideration for ya.
 
I'm doing my best to learn the math that goes along with this from google, because I'm bored and you piqued my curiosity. Assuming it's fairly simple calculations (aren't they all, up until calculus? :D), I could write an app or computer program that would do that for you in an hour or two (most of that re-learning all the coding I've forgotten in the last ten years). Hell, it could be done in excel quicker than anything else. Just saying, if it's a real consideration for ya.

It got me curious too so I might just take you up on that offer. What I'm thinking about is two cylinders or balls and the one being twice the diameter of the other and then finding the height difference depending on the angle.

Going back to the set shown in the OP then small diameters would be used for small angles and larger diameters for large angles. IOW getting the max distance between the two cylinders/balls the V allows would give the most accurate result.
 
I guess if I was going to use those gauges to measure the angle of a v, I would put 2 of them in the v and mic over them or between them whichever would be more accessible. Then draw the 2 diameters in cad the measured distance apart and then draw tangent lines on each side and cad would give me the angle. Would take about 5 minutes.
 








 
Back
Top