All of Those Scrap Drill Bits!

[rgsparber]

Do you have a tub full of unmarked and dull drill bits? Besides adding to the pile, what do you do with them?

Here is an answer.

If you are interested, please see

http://rick.sparber.org/DBSS.pdf


Your comments are welcome. All of us are smarter than any one of us.

Thanks,

Rick

[mklotz]

Two remarks...

Many drills are slightly tapered so the shank is slightly smaller in diameter than the tip. You may want to keep that in mind when measuring.

The DRILL program on my site has an option ('D' in the menu) to find a drill "name" given the diameter. As an example, I entered a measured diameter of 0.281" and the program output looks like this...

**************************************************************

number of drills read from data file = 371

D find Drill designation given hole size
S find hole Size given drill designation
T find Tapdrill for any tap and dot
F find tapdrill for thread-Forming tap
X step drilling calculations
H display this Help/Menu
M display this Help/Menu
Q Quit (Esc also)
(D,S,T,F,X,H,M,Q) ? D

{[d].dd or [d-]d/d (e.g. 1.5 or 1-1/2)} Hole Size ? 0.281

(7.00 mm) with size 0.2756 (-0.0054)
(J) with size 0.2770 (-0.0040)
(7.10 mm) with size 0.2795 (-0.0015)
***** (K) with size 0.2810 (+0.0000) *****
(9/32) with size 0.2812 (+0.0002)
(7.20 mm) with size 0.2835 (+0.0025)
(7.25 mm) with size 0.2854 (+0.0044)

**************************************************************

As you can see, it correctly identified it as a 'K' drill and also shows the three closest larger and smaller drills. If the user has other "named" drills than those in the data file delivered with the program, he can easily add them to that ASCII file.

Folks sorting drills at their desks may find this easier to use than a chart.

I can't resist my urge to point out that, if we used the metric system (or at least a rational nomenclature in the inferial system), none of this screwing around would be necessary. When I'm king, naming a drill anything but its size will be a capital offense. (Same for wire and sheet.)

[volodar]

"I can't resist my urge to point out that, if we used the metric system (or at least a rational nomenclature in the inferial system), none of this screwing around would be necessary. When I'm king, naming a drill anything but its size will be a capital offense. (Same for wire and sheet.)"

I couldn't agree more.

[pfredX1]

If you made sheet or wire then you'd understand what the gage systems are for. Elves do not just magically produce those goods after all. So mortals are compelled to work within the practical physical limits of materials. Each gage graduation is based on the draw strength of materials. Thinner wire and sheet is made from thicker wire and sheet. The gages are the steps between each drawing. Or in other words you get what we can make. I'm sorry if the numbers do not align with what you consider to be proper either. But that's just how it all breaks down.

[mklotz]

If you made sheet or wire then you'd understand what the gage systems are for. Elves do not just magically produce those goods after all. So mortals are compelled to work within the practical physical limits of materials. Each gage graduation is based on the draw strength of materials. Thinner wire and sheet is made from thicker wire and sheet. The gages are the steps between each drawing. Or in other words you get what we can make. I'm sorry if the numbers do not align with what you consider to be proper either. But that's just how it all breaks down.

There's nothing wrong with using specialized nomenclatures of convenience DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESS. Labeling sheet by the number of times it's been through the rolling mill may make work easier in the factory that makes sheet.

But that's no reason at all for allowing that internal nomenclature to escape into the customer's world. He's interested in how thick it is, not how many times it's been through the rollers. Label it for sale with its thickness expressed in the measurement system used in the country of sale.

[Ed Weldon]

Marv-I usually agree with you; but when it comes to labeling products sold into a global market both the maker and the user are facing a legal swamp. And when it comes to large sheets of material labeling can be a real nuisance for the shop in the middle between the final customer and the material manufacturer.
About drill bits. I work with a lot of small drill bits and it is getting ever more difficult for me to see the markings on the shanks. Metric drills are seriously quarantined in my shop because I have no drill gauges in those sizes and if they are available from the EU are likely very expensive. I'm glad I can still read the vernier scale on my micrometers and control my aging fingers.
About the metric system. It was created by scientists and approved by logical lawyers. These are people who couldn't manufacture a ham sandwich if their life depended on it. And as far as logic is concerned; well, that is a one dimensional string of "it-then" statements. Useless in making stuff up to the point where we adopted computer controlled manufacturing processes.
So they gave us the meter and based it on a dimension extremely important to all of us: The varying distance between two imaginary entities, the Equator and the North Pole. That standard is on its second iteration (wavelength of a specific light emission); but that was before we observed the existence of gravity waves. This will all be very important when there is nothing left except me and ye and a box of chocolate bars. (so before we decide how to divide up the contents of the box we must measure the wavelength of Krypton light)
Then these great minds decided that physical measurements should have a numerical base of 10. This is a serendipitous and arguably near useless choice as it has only two integer factors. A base of 8, which would be a better choice, has 3 integer factors that form a natural binary progression. By far the most efficient choice for a number system and that which evolved in the English/American measurement system with its easy to visualize fractional divisions.
Lastly I want to comment on the evolution of the words "mils" and "tenths". These two are very relevant to measures most important to our conversations about what we do as machinists. They are just plain easier to deal with than "tenths of a millimeter", "hundredths of a millimeter" or "microns", which are well below the realm of most of our work.

[pfredX1]

Your measuring system is arbitrary.

[Burner]

I was thinking your charts looked difficult, then I worked out that your starting point is imperial. Having grown up here in a metric Australia I start with metric sizes and "fit" the imperial sizes between. I have several sets of drills in different measuring systems and material, metric 0.5 rises and 0.1mm rises from 1-10mm, imp fractional and number and letter but I always think of the sizes in metric terms as that is my native language for want of a better term.
I am just trying to come up with a better storage method for my Morse Taper drills above 13mm and 1/2" and am considering large boards and using a scale making larger sizes further from the start of the board and in different rows. Metric full mm first row then metric 0.5mm rises second row then fractional rises then anything else in another row. I would label all the positions and that might also act as a rough size chart for general drilling for tapping or reaming. Anyone have other ideas?

[rgsparber]

I was thinking your charts looked difficult, then I worked out that your starting point is imperial. Having grown up here in a metric Australia I start with metric sizes and "fit" the imperial sizes between. I have several sets of drills in different measuring systems and material, metric 0.5 rises and 0.1mm rises from 1-10mm, imp fractional and number and letter but I always think of the sizes in metric terms as that is my native language for want of a better term.

I wish my world was predominantly metric but that is not reality. Having to deal with letter, number, and fractional is nuts.

Rick

[KickStart]

I was cleaning out various tool chests and boxes and found quite a load of drill bits. I was really surprised by how many can accumulate over years. I was a toolmaker & machinist at different times, but I had fewer in those boxes than my mechanics boxes.
Many drill bits are imprinted with the size near the clamping end. With a magnifying glass and light, those were identified and sorted. There were several new or good ones, so they were put in a different place to refill my indexes. What couldn't be read, I used a micrometer to read just back from the tip and across the cutting edges. I had available a simple drill chart card that gave the decimal size of all drill bits, metric and imperial. I believe on larger (>0.5") sizes, I used digital calipers that read metric and imperial at the push of a button.
What I don't have yet is a Drill Doctor. I have intentions of getting one. I've looked at the various models before, but have forgotten which was right for me. I have left and right twist, and a few larger than 1".
Besides a somewhat similar method, my end result looked just like yours, Rick. I taped the size to the bits, then bundled like sizes together.