I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut traps in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards more standard? (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you prefer ISO or DIN standards?

I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might not matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing more cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's useful. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut traps > in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut > thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many > cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. > > For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but > according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according > to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr > seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it > desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards > more standard? > > (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 > species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a > wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) > > If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you prefer > ISO or DIN standards? > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org > -- - Jon Gilbert jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com

I think you have the wrong figure for M8 nut thickness. They are about 6.5mm thick, not 8.4mm. On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 00:14, Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org> wrote: > I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might not > matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) > (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) > > If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing more > cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's useful. > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > >> I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut traps >> in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut >> thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many >> cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. >> >> For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but >> according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according >> to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr >> seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it >> desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards >> more standard? >> >> (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 >> species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a >> wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) >> >> If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you >> prefer ISO or DIN standards? >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > > > -- > - Jon Gilbert > jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

My suggestion: Provide a thickness parameter, and default it to whichever standard you choose (make the same default choice for all of the models you create). You could also provide a "standards" calling variable. If no standard is specified, use the height variable. If a standard is specified, make the height = the standard. This would allow non standard thicknesses to be modeled. And yes, nuts come in various "thicknesses" and it can often be important to get the right one. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > I think you have the wrong figure for M8 nut thickness. They are about > 6.5mm thick, not 8.4mm. > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 00:14, Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org> wrote: > >> I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might not >> matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) >> (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) >> >> If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing more >> cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's useful. >> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >> >>> I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut >>> traps in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut >>> thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many >>> cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. >>> >>> For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but >>> according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according >>> to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr >>> seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it >>> desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards >>> more standard? >>> >>> (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 >>> species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a >>> wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) >>> >>> If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you >>> prefer ISO or DIN standards? >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> >> >> -- >> - Jon Gilbert >> jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

First of all, nop head is right. My second set of numbers was for M10. I think for M8 the two standards overlap so it didn't make my point. Sometimes they overlap...sometimes they do not. I also couldn't find an ISO standard for square nuts, only for rectangular. Second, I think for nut traps it's nice if the nut fits snugly so it doesn't fall out after you stick it in, and also doesn't have the freedom to rotate off-axis so that it's hard to get the screw to start. I suppose if the side walls are snug you should be able to force the nut down flat and then it should engage OK, so maybe extra thickness isn't terrible? That would argue for taking the larger thickness numbers (from ISO instead of DIN), since having your nut not fit at all is pretty annoying. It's not a huge task to compile one list of numbers off the standard, but it's more work to figure out a user interface to provide access to both standards, and it means a more complex interface, with users faced by the mysterious question of whether they need DIN or ISO. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 7:14 PM Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org> wrote: > I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might not > matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) > (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) > > If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing more > cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's useful. > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > >> I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut traps >> in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut >> thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many >> cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. >> >> For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but >> according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according >> to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr >> seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it >> desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards >> more standard? >> >> (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 >> species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a >> wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) >> >> If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you >> prefer ISO or DIN standards? >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > > > -- > - Jon Gilbert > jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

The way it works right now for Imperial hardware is that you specify thickness as either an actual numerical thickness value, or you specify one of "thin", "thick" or "normal" and it looks up the thickness based on your requested screw size (e.g. "#8") and ASME B18.2.2, which lists values for regular nuts, "high" nuts (the thick ones) and "jam" nuts (the thin ones). The default is "normal" thickness, so you can just specify a nut trap (or nut) by writing "#8" and the code will fill in everything else for you. So I was planning the same approach for metric nuts, using the same terminology which corresponds to ISO 4032 (regular nuts), ISO 4033 (thick nuts) and ISO 4035 (thin nuts). But the use of DIN as a conflicting standard (set of standards) makes it more complicated. I haven't tried to figure out if DIN has jam nut and high nut standards as well. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM FF Systems <joeh@rollanet.org> wrote: > My suggestion: Provide a thickness parameter, and default it to whichever > standard you choose (make the same default choice for all of the models you > create). You could also provide a "standards" calling variable. If no > standard is specified, use the height variable. If a standard is > specified, make the height = the standard. This would allow non standard > thicknesses to be modeled. > > And yes, nuts come in various "thicknesses" and it can often be important > to get the right one. > > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think you have the wrong figure for M8 nut thickness. They are about >> 6.5mm thick, not 8.4mm. >> >> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 00:14, Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org> wrote: >> >>> I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might >>> not matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) >>> (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) >>> >>> If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing >>> more cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's >>> useful. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>> >>>> I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut >>>> traps in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut >>>> thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many >>>> cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. >>>> >>>> For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick >>>> but according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm >>>> according to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, >>>> McMaster-Carr seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that >>>> normal? Is it desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of >>>> the standards more standard? >>>> >>>> (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 >>>> species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a >>>> wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) >>>> >>>> If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you >>>> prefer ISO or DIN standards? >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Jon Gilbert >>> jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

I suspect ISO should take precedence over DIN as it’s a broader organization. In any case I think there should be a thickness parameter that overrides the standard as FF Systems suggested. You don’t want to have to reverse engineer from a thickness to a standard designation to get a thickness you need. -Bob Tucson AZ On Oct 5, 2022, at 16:51, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: The way it works right now for Imperial hardware is that you specify thickness as either an actual numerical thickness value, or you specify one of "thin", "thick" or "normal" and it looks up the thickness based on your requested screw size (e.g. "#8") and ASME B18.2.2, which lists values for regular nuts, "high" nuts (the thick ones) and "jam" nuts (the thin ones). The default is "normal" thickness, so you can just specify a nut trap (or nut) by writing "#8" and the code will fill in everything else for you. So I was planning the same approach for metric nuts, using the same terminology which corresponds to ISO 4032 (regular nuts), ISO 4033 (thick nuts) and ISO 4035 (thin nuts). But the use of DIN as a conflicting standard (set of standards) makes it more complicated. I haven't tried to figure out if DIN has jam nut and high nut standards as well. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM FF Systems <joeh@rollanet.org <mailto:joeh@rollanet.org>> wrote: My suggestion: Provide a thickness parameter, and default it to whichever standard you choose (make the same default choice for all of the models you create). You could also provide a "standards" calling variable. If no standard is specified, use the height variable. If a standard is specified, make the height = the standard. This would allow non standard thicknesses to be modeled. And yes, nuts come in various "thicknesses" and it can often be important to get the right one. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com <mailto:nop.head@gmail.com>> wrote: I think you have the wrong figure for M8 nut thickness. They are about 6.5mm thick, not 8.4mm. On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 00:14, Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org <mailto:jong@jong.org>> wrote: I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might not matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing more cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's useful. On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu <mailto:avm4@cornell.edu>> wrote: I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut traps in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards more standard? (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you prefer ISO or DIN standards? _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org> -- - Jon Gilbert jong@jong.org <mailto:jong@jong.org> / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com <mailto:jgilbertsjc@gmail.com>_______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org> _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org> _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org <mailto:discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org> _______________________________________________ OpenSCAD mailing list To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org

On 10/5/22 19:08, Adrian Mariano wrote: > I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut traps > in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut > thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many > cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. > > For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick but > according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm according > to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, McMaster-Carr > seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that normal? Is it > desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of the standards > more standard? > > (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 > species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a > wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) > > If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you prefer > ISO or DIN standards? I would prefer more publicity as to their availability in BOSL2. I've been hand carving them with $fn=6 to a cylinder. And often forgetting to add most of the nozzle to the d= argument. Cheers, Gene Heskett. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/>

Bob, as I said in my response to FF Systems, the current framework allows for a user specified thickness. That's easy. The hard part is trying to supply standard values. gene, I am not sure what exactly you're asking for. BOSL2 does a lot of different things. It's well documented. How can it be better? The screw support is a couple years old, but support for standard nut dimensions and nut traps is new. On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 12:23 PM Bob Carlson <bob@rjcarlson.com> wrote: > I suspect ISO should take precedence over DIN as it’s a broader > organization. In any case I think there should be a thickness parameter > that overrides the standard as FF Systems suggested. You don’t want to have > to reverse engineer from a thickness to a standard designation to get a > thickness you need. > > -Bob > Tucson AZ > > > > On Oct 5, 2022, at 16:51, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: > > The way it works right now for Imperial hardware is that you specify > thickness as either an actual numerical thickness value, or you specify one > of "thin", "thick" or "normal" and it looks up the thickness based on your > requested screw size (e.g. "#8") and ASME B18.2.2, which lists values for > regular nuts, "high" nuts (the thick ones) and "jam" nuts (the thin > ones). The default is "normal" thickness, so you can just specify a nut > trap (or nut) by writing "#8" and the code will fill in everything else for > you. So I was planning the same approach for metric nuts, using the same > terminology which corresponds to ISO 4032 (regular nuts), ISO 4033 (thick > nuts) and ISO 4035 (thin nuts). But the use of DIN as a conflicting > standard (set of standards) makes it more complicated. I haven't tried to > figure out if DIN has jam nut and high nut standards as well. > > On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM FF Systems <joeh@rollanet.org> wrote: > >> My suggestion: Provide a thickness parameter, and default it to whichever >> standard you choose (make the same default choice for all of the models you >> create). You could also provide a "standards" calling variable. If no >> standard is specified, use the height variable. If a standard is >> specified, make the height = the standard. This would allow non standard >> thicknesses to be modeled. >> >> And yes, nuts come in various "thicknesses" and it can often be important >> to get the right one. >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I think you have the wrong figure for M8 nut thickness. They are about >>> 6.5mm thick, not 8.4mm. >>> >>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 00:14, Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might >>>> not matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) >>>> (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) >>>> >>>> If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing >>>> more cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's >>>> useful. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut >>>>> traps in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut >>>>> thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many >>>>> cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. >>>>> >>>>> For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick >>>>> but according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm >>>>> according to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, >>>>> McMaster-Carr seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that >>>>> normal? Is it desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of >>>>> the standards more standard? >>>>> >>>>> (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 >>>>> species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a >>>>> wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) >>>>> >>>>> If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you >>>>> prefer ISO or DIN standards? >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> - Jon Gilbert >>>> jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >

On 10/6/22 16:40, Adrian Mariano wrote: > Bob, as I said in my response to FF Systems, the current framework allows > for a user specified thickness. That's easy. The hard part is trying to > supply standard values. > > gene, I am not sure what exactly you're asking for. BOSL2 does a lot of > different things. It's well documented. How can it be better? The screw > support is a couple years old, but support for standard nut dimensions and > nut traps is new. I think some of my problem is the age of my wet ram.  I know I've read the docs, but the short term memory is fading. I turned 88 a couple days ago. So I just measure the nut, and use $fn=6; as part of the cylinder recipe 99% of the time. For my onesies and fourzies that's "close enough for the girls I go with". Take care & stay well. > On Thu, Oct 6, 2022 at 12:23 PM Bob Carlson <bob@rjcarlson.com> wrote: > >> I suspect ISO should take precedence over DIN as it’s a broader >> organization. In any case I think there should be a thickness parameter >> that overrides the standard as FF Systems suggested. You don’t want to have >> to reverse engineer from a thickness to a standard designation to get a >> thickness you need. >> >> -Bob >> Tucson AZ >> >> >> >> On Oct 5, 2022, at 16:51, Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >> >> The way it works right now for Imperial hardware is that you specify >> thickness as either an actual numerical thickness value, or you specify one >> of "thin", "thick" or "normal" and it looks up the thickness based on your >> requested screw size (e.g. "#8") and ASME B18.2.2, which lists values for >> regular nuts, "high" nuts (the thick ones) and "jam" nuts (the thin >> ones). The default is "normal" thickness, so you can just specify a nut >> trap (or nut) by writing "#8" and the code will fill in everything else for >> you. So I was planning the same approach for metric nuts, using the same >> terminology which corresponds to ISO 4032 (regular nuts), ISO 4033 (thick >> nuts) and ISO 4035 (thin nuts). But the use of DIN as a conflicting >> standard (set of standards) makes it more complicated. I haven't tried to >> figure out if DIN has jam nut and high nut standards as well. >> >> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 7:39 PM FF Systems <joeh@rollanet.org> wrote: >> >>> My suggestion: Provide a thickness parameter, and default it to whichever >>> standard you choose (make the same default choice for all of the models you >>> create). You could also provide a "standards" calling variable. If no >>> standard is specified, use the height variable. If a standard is >>> specified, make the height = the standard. This would allow non standard >>> thicknesses to be modeled. >>> >>> And yes, nuts come in various "thicknesses" and it can often be important >>> to get the right one. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 6:20 PM nop head <nop.head@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> I think you have the wrong figure for M8 nut thickness. They are about >>>> 6.5mm thick, not 8.4mm. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 6 Oct 2022 at 00:14, Jonathan Gilbert <jong@jong.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd suggest both - I imagine for the majority of models done it might >>>>> not matter, but when it does matter, it could matter quite a lot. :) >>>>> (Admittedly, I only have one reference to a nut in my use of BOSL2 today.) >>>>> >>>>> If you're looking at the task of compiling both standards as needing >>>>> more cycles than you have, I'm happy to pitch in and help out, if that's >>>>> useful. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 4:07 PM Adrian Mariano <avm4@cornell.edu> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I was trying to make a table of nut thickness for generation of nut >>>>>> traps in BOSL2, but I ran into a complication. It seems that metric nut >>>>>> thicknesses are specified by both ISO and DIN in such a way that in many >>>>>> cases, a nut cannot simultaneously comply with both standards. >>>>>> >>>>>> For example, an M5 nut according to ISO 4032 is 4.4mm to 4.7mm thick >>>>>> but according to DIN 934 3.7mm to 4mm. An M8 nut is 8.04mm - 8.40mm >>>>>> according to ISO 4032 but 7.64 mm - 8mm. The common USA supplier, >>>>>> McMaster-Carr seems to sell DIN compliant nuts rather than ISO. Is that >>>>>> normal? Is it desirable to have both standards as an option, or is one of >>>>>> the standards more standard? >>>>>> >>>>>> (Note that ISO 4033 specifies "high" nuts that are thicker. ISO 4035 >>>>>> species thin nuts. ISO 4034 specifies "grade C" nuts that seem to have a >>>>>> wider thickness tolerance, but they still don't overlap DIN.) >>>>>> >>>>>> If you have nuts and might use the BOSL2 nut trap modules would you >>>>>> prefer ISO or DIN standards? >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> - Jon Gilbert >>>>> jong@jong.org / jgilbertsjc@gmail.com >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> OpenSCAD mailing list >>> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OpenSCAD mailing list >> To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org >> > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > To unsubscribe send an email to discuss-leave@lists.openscad.org Cheers, Gene Heskett. -- "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) If we desire respect for the law, we must first make the law respectable. - Louis D. Brandeis Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/>