Talk:Micrometer (device)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Metalworking, an attempt to cleanup, categorize and expand Wikipedia articles related to metalworking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where a list of open tasks is maintained.


Contents

[edit] Snotty anon (2002) thought he'd proven that WP was useless. (Where is he now?)

Amazing stuff. How come neither maveric149 nor eclecticology (seemingly busy, high profile editors here) managed not to notice that a micrometer = micrometre = 1/1 000 000 metres, not 1/1000, and that the symbol isn't µ it's µm? Especially since the page micrometre gives the correct info, making it trivial to check the data.

Some reference work this is. --Anon

Yes, it was caught by you - such is the wiki way. There is a million things to do around here and you can't expect any one person to catch them all. --maveric149

But I might reasonably expect the editor of a page to do even the most trival fact-checking while doing that one edit ot that one page, mightn't I? But then you seem to think its a good idea to duplicate the definition of micrometre. Duplication of data encourages errors. Why not just leave the link to micrometre?

In Wikipedia, there are no editors for a page - everybody is an editor. And since there's so many page, not everybody will read everything. And so there are a lot of errors. But, given enough editors, all of these errors will be found - you just found one, so good job. The reason why there's two different pages is probably because of the measuring device, which is never called a micrometre. Because many Americans may type micrometre when looking for it, there should at least be a reference on this page. And since the article which is to be referred to is so short, it's convenient to included that information here as well. But it is prone to errors, yes. jheijmans

I use "editor" here to mean the person editing a given page at any given time. The history shows that the two users I name above between them created and edited the page into the state it was in when first I saw it. While those acts of editing were going on, the errors were introduced. Since there was a link to the page with the correct info provided, I can only conclude that no effort was put into checking what had been placed on the page, even while knowing that it duplicated info carried on another page. Those users can't claim that this page is one of thousands that they haven't got round to yet, they wrote it in the first place. maveric149 also seems to have taken ownership of the page, undoing the changes to it I made.

While it is a fine idea to expect this resourse to increase in quality through collaborative review, it seems negligent, and an insult to the actual users of a reference work (those who turn to it for information, not the writers of it) to use the expectation of that review as a reason to not bother doing even the simplest, quickest check on new content. As clearly didn't happen in this case.

I jumped in on this one because I happened to notice that both articles exist, then made the effort to see which was the older so as to apply the generally accepted rule on American vs. British spellings. It's not unusual, Anon, for someone fixing one problem to completely fail to see another. When I do see an obvious error of the type you indicate I find it far more satisfying to fix it than to whine about it. I'm confident that Maveric149 does the same. Try it sometime! -- Eclecticology, Friday, June 7, 2002
So then, what's your problem. Some editors made a mistake. And the mistake may have easily been prevented. But everybody makes mistakes - you too. And all the other reference works you are using. Maybe not with micrometer, but probably with other entries. And those reference works usually have been read by several editors to check for errors - so does this one. Only, everything is directly available to the public, so errors may remain until they are correct. As a user of Wikipedia, you have to know that. If you can't live with it, don't use Wikipedia. But if you want to use it and if you find such an error, point it out or - even beter - correct it. That's what this project is about. And if the error made seems to be made on purpose, you can point that out, and discuss it with the editors. But a simple error such as this doesn't deserve this much talking. It just happens. jheijmans

[edit] Article structure (fixed since)

  • is it me or does this article just seem to be structured like a block? I think it could do with some thinning out to make it less of a mountain to find what you're after.. I struggled to skim read the article I was merely looking for 1 cross reference.

[edit] Figure 3?

Which figure is Figure 3? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeblas (talk • contribs) .

Thanks for the heads up, the images had been deleted according to policy. I've uploaded replacements and adjusted the text to suit, hopefully no errors crept in. — Graibeard 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix! I linked to vernier scale, and clarified about inch-metric. -- Mikeblas 17:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requests

Larger outside micrometers don't close the whole way, and are supplied with calibration sticks. How are the calibration sticks used? The article also doesn't describe the ratcheting thimble found on many micrometers. (In fact, it doesn't define "thimble" and "barrel" before using the terms.). -- Mikeblas 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: The "sticks" you are referring to are called micrometer standards. They are calibrated to a specific length and are used to ensure that micrometers are accurate. They are used by measuring them with the micrometer, and then setting the micrometer. For instance, if you are using a 6" standard to check a 6"-7" micrometer, you would tighten the micrometer on the ends of the standard to where you can just feel a little dra, then adjust the micrometer so it reads 6.00" [(user: dad7892]) 15:25 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calibration

How is a micrometer calibrated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.193.73.194 (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Using "standards", like these: [1]. --Splarka (rant) 08:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is the principle of micrometer's measuring and reading techinques

when we read the measured value, normally we have to check the value on thimble which coincides with the axial line on the sleeve which will be added to the value gotten from the sleeve to deduce final result. Why do we do that, what is the principle associated? hope some one can clarify it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panda cool (talk • contribs) 13:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

I hope my creation tonight of the "Operating principles" section helps out. The answer to your question is easy to understand once understood, just difficult to describe in words! Imagine the following example: You are using a typical "regular" micrometer (outside micrometer caliper, 0"-1" range). You are going to start from zero and "unscrew" the micrometer to something a bit less than 1/8"—Let's say .123 instead of perfect 1/8 (.125). Now, starting from zero, it takes four turns of the thimble to cover the first hundred thousandths (.100). That reveals the first 4 hash marks on the barrel, which you duly note. The final 23 thousandths (.023) is less than one turn of the thimble. You read the marks on the thimble to see how much of that final (5th) turn you get before getting to your "destination". It is 23 out of 25. This thought experiment shows why when you read a micrometer, you start by reading the linear scale on the barrel, then you finish by read that final, partial turn of the thimble. Hope that helps! — ¾-10 00:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages

The opening paragraph states that a micrometer has "several advantages" over other measuring devices like calipers, but this is never discussed in the article. What are the advantages? Julesd 13:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. A mic is less annoying to read than a vernier caliper, and *may* be more accurate than a dial caliper. But if you're comparing a good, high-quality, name-brand version of each (mic and dial caliper), they are both spot-on and can be trusted to inside of one thou. One advantage of the mic is that it may have a vernier scale to read that last ten-thousandth, which the dial caliper doesn't have. But you know, for practical purposes, given high-quality specimens that have been calibrated not too long ago, I think the mic may not have anything on the dial caliper as far as shop-floor pros and cons go. But psychologically the mic is the one that conventional wisdom trusts to be "superior". — ¾-10 00:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parts and Functions

What are they ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.62.62 (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I just filled in this info under a new section, "Parts", with a labeled image. — ¾-10 22:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions vs Description

The sections on reading a micrometer are all fairly similar, but only the last one has the {{howto}} tag. I'm adjusting the phrasing of the content a bit to make it more descriptive of how the system of graduations work and less of an instruction manual.

Pstemari (talk) 16:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tube Micrometers

Please add diagrams and text detailing Tube Micrometers. -69.87.204.208 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Large Outside micrometers

Larger Outside micrometers do not close to zero. This is quite an important detail. Please add a picture and text highlighting this aspect, and informing about the terms used to distinguish micrometers that do or do not close to zero. -69.87.204.208 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History

Please add pictures, diagrams, and more details to the history section. -69.87.204.208 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)