Ratchet spanners

It used to be said of a genuine "Allen Key" that it would twist a complete turn (360 deg) before breaking.

...Which could, of course, mean that they were too soft :-)

Neither have I ever broken a spanner, even with a length of scaffold pipe as 'assistance'. The worst has been rounding off of already worn nuts/bolt heads. I have seen one or two broken spanners, usually where crude percussion has been involved... :-)

I have, but I think it was safe to describe them as s*it. Cheap though, and survived light use for quite a few years - I've got nicer spanners for when it matters.

Is that actually 6 sizes, with the heads fitting two sizes each and hence anything in between as well?

Clues silently snipped. Dennis on a sticky wicket again and lying as usual.

Oh goody. At last Dennis has come up with something specific for me to get my teeth into and what a tasty load of garbage it is. A locking nut is thin because its purpose is to prevent the main nut from rattling loose, not to provide clamping force. It doesn't need to be as tight as the main nut and, indeed, if it was torqued up as tight as main nuts usually are the chances are the thread would strip rendering the locknut useless.

Oh goody he is answering his own question and agreeing with what I said but isn't clever enough to work out that putting the thin nut on the bottom does that and putting it on top does the opposite. Well done for actually deciding I was correct.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "dennis@home" saying something like:

No, it's not.

Bollocks. Use of a thin (or normal) locknut on top is the correct way, as it's only clamped against the main nut and plays no part in the main securing.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember Bruce saying something like:

And no-quibble repair or replacement. I've had S-O tools for over 30 years and a few have been horrendously abused. One or two have been replaced FOC by a total stranger of a S-O bloke I stopped by when I saw his van. That's the test - if he hadn't played ball, I'd not have bought more gear from him.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the drugs began to take hold. I remember "Dave Plowman (News)" saying something like:

Of course. Why else buy S-O? It's nothing to do with quality (sarcasm).

Let us be clear above this. I do not agree with what Dennis has previously said and the paragraph of mine that he has quoted above doesn't support him in any way.

Look again at the garbage he spouts:

"if you put the thin nut on the end and tighten it against the thick nut in the middle all the force pulling the nuts off the bolt is on the thin nut only with the thick nut taking none of the load."

The only thick nut here is Dennis the Menace who seems determined to destroy any credibility he has left after he so ably demonstrated his numerical ineptitude and lack of knowledge about statistics in the discussions about average temperatures. Now he has turned his attention to Engineering with equally dire results.

You've been very fortunate, then. If you look at their terms it isn't an unconditional warranty like Halfords.

From

Or

I'm sure there are others.

MBQ

I'd agree for small screwdrivers, but I've snapped more Wiha than I ever have Snap-on. If I kill Snap-on, it's by bending, not snapping.

Bollocks. They're good kit, at a (usually) sensible price. My sockets and square-drive is Snap-on, but most of the "pliers and grockle clamps" are Blue point. Ratchets and some metric socket rails are Facom, which seem the best of the lot.

Yes it is.

If you put it on top it takes the load and pushes the thick nut away from the load bearing surfaces. Just think about which way it pushes and you will see.

There are, but it is obvious if you just look at which way the forces operate.

Big drivers, Facom are in the modern age with ground tips, SO pattern looks like only improvement is they changed from bakelite handles in

Hugely variable really, they look ,er, low cost compared against Snap On branded tools in same pamphlet but without the warranty.

Have some good Bluepoint circlip pliers, second hand , mate got a set of Bluepoint screwdrivers , bargain at =A325, until he actually used them, shoddy mouldings on the handles, brittle tips, he didn`t buy anything more from that Snap On van.

Bahco Ergo pliers are the nicest I have, Bahco and Sandvic are now owned by Snap On , Facom and Britool belong to the same group, Britool best torque wrench but their sockets are mince, Irwin now owns most of the UK brands like Record, Eclipse and Gilbow. Knipex for cutters , along with Elora and Gedore now part of Draper Professional, but think amognst us old sods brand loyalty is a hard thig to kill off.

Cheers Adam

snip

Oh dear I feel another apology coming on. There was an element of justification to be found within Dennis the Menace's rantings after all. But I shall resist. There was too much associated garbage and garbled language in his presentation.

So what can I say in my defence. (Quite a lot actually). :-)

Well firstly and most obviously it is in my memory that putting locknuts on top was common practice in the UK before they were mostly supplanted by Nyloc and like types of locking nut.

Secondly the two dictionaries I have since consulted both agree with me.

Concise Oxford - a nut screwed down on another to keep it tight.

Collins - a supplementary nut screwed down upon a primary nut to prevent it from shaking loose.

I consulted my Mechanical Engineer's Reference Book (Parrish, 11th edition 1973) but while that will give me dimensions for locknuts it is silent on their use. Not surprising if the use was not contentious at the time.

Of the two references cited the 2nd is a Merkin site and the 1st would appear to want to be one. The terminology, jam nut, is Merkin as well which might explain why I couldn't ever remember hearing the term before (other than in the rock climbing sense). Curiously I can't find any reference on either site to the other old fashioned approach to locking nuts - the tab washer.

Google as usual throws up a huge number of references, overwhelmingly Merkin, which generally follow the jam nut idea but at least one hedges its bet by defining use without naming the order.

There is another Merkin site:

The extract below is taken from there and the 'French' editions referred to in the text are given at the end. My comments are interspersed:

"The jam nut, a locking device for nuts, is illustrated on p. 164, Fig.

There you have it. The leading text of the day (see below) says put the locknut on top.

"The idea of a jam nut is to cause the two nuts to press on the threads in opposite directions, so that the thread is stretched between them, and this stretch is not relieved if the nuts should turn slightly on the bolt, so that unscrewing is discouraged. If this condition does not exist, and it usually will not be if the thinner nut is on top and tightened second, then the top nut and after it the lower nut can loosen without restraint, and there will be no locking action. Two nuts in this case are not much better than one. The proper connection is made by tightening the jam nut snugly first, then tightening the upper nut so tightly that the stress on the jam nut is reversed as the bolt strains. The two nuts could be the same thickness, but it saves space if the lower one is thinner. The thinner nut must counter only part of the compressive force of the regular nut, which does double duty. It is surprisingly difficult to find illustrations of a jam nut used properly, or torque specifications. This is also a matter that is of no interest to the academic engineer, who only talks about locknuts and does not actually use them."

This author is so confident that he is right but is he? Academic engineers would surely be precisely the people who would put the theory to the test. And the conclusion that two nuts are not much better than one if the top one is the locknut is false. It could well be that putting the lock nut underneath could provide a better lock but putting the lock nut on top undoubtedly provides an effective lock and neither will provide the certainty that a castellated nut and spit pin will.

"This matter caused me to consult the two editions of French that I had on hand. This classic text is, in my opinion, perhaps the best engineering drawing text ever written. It is interesting to compare the two editions. The fifth edition had 433 pages, while the eleventh was expanded to 787 pages. The later edition had more and larger illustrations, and added, among other things, a good chapter on manufacturing methods, and a chapter on engineering design. The mention of design was necessary at the time, when it was hoped that following some procedural framework could compensate for a lack of good sense. Pictorial drawing and sketching were actually de-emphasized, and line shading was eliminated. The distinction between third-angle and first-angle projection also was not mentioned in the later edition, so that European drawings will appear strange to the American student. It would not have been too much to say that the views were the same, only placed in different positions. In general, everything mentioned in the later edition was also present in the earlier one, so that the earlier text would be just as useful and complete as the later."

That final paragraph is really only included so I could comment on the use of first angle projection. Do the Merkins really use first angle projection or is it our neighbours on the Continent who do so?

References

T. E. French, A Manual of Engineering Drawing for Students and Draftsmen, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935). T. E. French and C. J. Vierck, Engineering Drawing and Graphic Technology, 11th ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1972).

What a surprise.

So there are a lot of people as stupid as you.

You learn all you engineering from dictionaries, what a surprise.

Just goes to show you can't trust what you read, you should try thinking instead.

Even now you continue to try and prove you were not in error. You were. Even now you can't understand that putting the thin nut on top makes the whole thing less than half as strong.

No its 12 sizes, 1 spanner does 8,9,10, and 11mm

1 spanner does 16,17,18 and 19mm

They spanners have 2 sizes on each head, just turn it over for the other size, and there is a little rachet switch on each side. I keep them in my works toolbag, very handy, beats going out to the van for a socket set sometimes.

snip

Sneer away but as usual you are wide of the mark. Locknuts on top was the received wisdom back in the 1960s and even the reference I cited points out it is logical to put the lock nut on top.

Another one of you non sequiturs. I generally consult dictionaries to make sure the meaning I use is correct. I learnt the theoretical aspects of engineering at college. (I wonder where Dennis learnt his) but I don't have any text books left that cover that aspect. The Parrish referred to below was acquired later.

Typically ambiguous but I take your point. I don't trust anything you write.

No I wasn't. Putting the locknut on top is a perfectly valid way of using it. You OTOH were absolutely wrong to claim I was also wrong when I said "If you want to be sure the nut doesn't come loose you use something like a castellated nut and split pin or a tab washer."

Are you sure? The purpose of the locknut is to lock, not to clamp. Remember what happened when you averaged -14 and 5 and came up with -9.