1/4" threaded inserts in UK

Mark wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Microphone stands use the same size thread - so that gives you another
source.


I heard that many lamps that have the screw-on lampshades also will work
- have not been able to verify it
That is correct. Many fennels are 1/4-20 UNC.

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:29:17 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

It's actually UNC rather than Whitworth

Do you have a reference for this? My 1969 edition
Focal Encylopedia says Whitworth. I suppose
that the standard could have changed since then,
but it would be nice to have a reference.

The ANSI Unified thread wasn't a standard until 1949. Lots of cameras
before then had 1/4" tripod bushes so they must've been BSW...

--
Frank Erskine

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:44:57 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:29:17 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

It's actually UNC rather than Whitworth

Do you have a reference for this? My 1969 edition
Focal Encylopedia says Whitworth. I suppose
that the standard could have changed since then,
but it would be nice to have a reference.

The ANSI Unified thread wasn't a standard until 1949. Lots of cameras
before then had 1/4" tripod bushes so they must've been BSW...

Don't let facts get in the way of a good pedantic argument
Frank. As I said earlier I have lots of camera-related items
that demonstrably have BSW threads, others that have UNC,
and I've yet to have any problems of any sort interchanging
the two.

This application is hardly heavy engineering, the thead
differences are completely insignificant for photographic
purposes.

--
John Bean

"John Bean" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 10:44:57 +0100, Frank Erskine
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:29:17 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

It's actually UNC rather than Whitworth

Do you have a reference for this? My 1969 edition
Focal Encylopedia says Whitworth. I suppose
that the standard could have changed since then,
but it would be nice to have a reference.

The ANSI Unified thread wasn't a standard until 1949. Lots of cameras
before then had 1/4" tripod bushes so they must've been BSW...

Don't let facts get in the way of a good pedantic argument
Frank. As I said earlier I have lots of camera-related items
that demonstrably have BSW threads, others that have UNC,
and I've yet to have any problems of any sort interchanging
the two.

They both have the same pitch its just a minor difference in the shape of
the thread.
I think UNC bolts fit into BSW holes OK but I am not so sure the reverse is
true.
As the cameras are BSW it works fine.

This application is hardly heavy engineering, the thead
differences are completely insignificant for photographic
purposes.

As you say you aren't going to over tighten a 1/4" bolt using you fingers so
its pretty much academic for a tripod on a normal camera.
(That's not to say you can't damage a plastic tripod bush or even a metal
one by putting in a bolt that too long.)

On Sun, 7 Oct 2007 12:35:26 +0100, "dennis@home"
wrote:


"John Bean" wrote in message
.. .
As I said earlier I have lots of camera-related items
that demonstrably have BSW threads, others that have UNC,
and I've yet to have any problems of any sort interchanging
the two.

They both have the same pitch its just a minor difference in the shape of
the thread.
I think UNC bolts fit into BSW holes OK but I am not so sure the reverse is
true.

It is true.

As the cameras are BSW it works fine.

I very much doubt that. Old cameras certainly are if they
were made before UNC existed, but I'd be surprised if modern
ones are BSW. Surely the camera thread and tripod thread are
intended to be the same?

This application is hardly heavy engineering, the thead
differences are completely insignificant for photographic
purposes.

As you say you aren't going to over tighten a 1/4" bolt using you fingers so
its pretty much academic for a tripod on a normal camera.

Exactly my point.

(That's not to say you can't damage a plastic tripod bush or even a metal
one by putting in a bolt that too long.)

Of course length matters, but that's another topic
altogether :-)

--
John Bean

In article ,
Frank Erskine wrote:
On Tue, 2 Oct 2007 02:29:17 +0000 (UTC), Peter Irwin
wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:

It's actually UNC rather than Whitworth

Do you have a reference for this? My 1969 edition
Focal Encylopedia says Whitworth. I suppose
that the standard could have changed since then,
but it would be nice to have a reference.

The ANSI Unified thread wasn't a standard until 1949. Lots of cameras
before then had 1/4" tripod bushes so they must've been BSW...

Unified is based on American threads - so UNC basically American Coarse.
Although there are differences explained earlier.

But why do you think older camera accessories would use a UK thread? The
UK wasn't the major maker of cameras, etc.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 14:25:56 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
But why do you think older camera accessories would use a UK thread? The
UK wasn't the major maker of cameras, etc.

Because your assumtion is wrong, leading to:

1. Because the Whitworth thread was the first standard
thread in the world[1].

2. Because English camera makers started to use it almost
immediately[2] and other European makers followed.

Notes:
[1] First proposed as a standard by Joseph Whitworth in
1841.

[2] Example: P. Meagher, London had 3/8W tripod mounts on
their "Tailboard" cameras certainly by 1874, perhaps
earlier.


--
John Bean