On 12/1/2013 1:18 AM, Paul Saccani wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 02:20:31 -0800 (PST), Pie-eater
> <
vbb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, November 30, 2013 8:22:38 PM UTC+11, Paul Saccani wrote:
>>> On Sat, 30 Nov 2013 00:41:20 -0800 (PST), Pie-eater
>>>> Heaps of them are *exact* futs too. :-) Check Equivalent Charts - they are available - I have a chart. Huppy now?
>>>
>>> 3 out of the 9 most commonly used BSW spanner sizes (1/8" to 5/8" BSW)
>>> have metric or A/F equivalents that are within 0.2mm of being
>>> identical.
>>>
>> Narrowing da field huh! The below chart shows 5
>
> The below chart shows three within 0.2mm. You need to read more
> carefully. The 9/16 BSW to 1" A/F incorrectly shows it as being a two
> way swap, not one way. You can't expect to use a 25.4 mm jaw on a
> 25.654mm nut. But if we accept that, we still only get four.
>
> Not sure where you get five from - none of the columns on the chart
> show five equivalents, whether metric, A/F or BSW.
>
> I would suggest that you are being sloppy, which is exactly what I was
> cautioning against.
>
>> - but then.. lets split hairs over the 0.20mm as well. Your a plickly plick huh. Many friends? ;-) Dit eye dot every "t" and cross every "i" .... thatell do.
>
> It is quite simple - what you are saying is not correct, whilst what I
> am telling you and have already told you is correct. The "many"
> sloppy equivalents that you claim to exist actually result in damage
> to fasteners and it is a poor practice to use anything outside the
> range shown on the chart that you provided. I will grant you,
> however, that if a particular 1" A/F is sloppy enough to fit over
> 9/16" BSW, it is fine to use it, and if it isn't, no harm done.
>
> I'm not sure why you think not commenting on mistaken notions to keep
> people happy is more important than giving them accurate information
> that will save them from heartache.
>
> I am further puzzled as to how you could bother to look up a table to
> dispute what I told you and then fail to realise that it told you
> exactly what I told you, "3 out of the 9 most commonly used BSW
> spanner sizes (1/8" to 5/8" BSW) have metric or A/F equivalents that
> are within 0.2mm of being identical.".
>
>>> None are actually identical, but three out of nine are near enough -
>>> that is not heaps.
>>>
>>
http://classicmechanic.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/mm-af-bsw-bsf-spanner-conversion-chart.html
>>>
>>> And I hope that your name is not about taking the piss out of Jonz.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think he/she is, but is making a shitful job of it!!.....
>>>
>> Hoo?
>
> I'll take that as a no, which is good. He is another fellow in this
> forum.
>
--
�Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea- massive,
difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it�