Hi Ron,
If I understand what your saying is you would prefer if the published table was just reorganized in ascending order?
In Bob's example he was looking to cut a 27 TPI thread which is not published for his lathe. Based on his description of wanting the raw data represented in decimal form was to be able to find the decimal equivalent or near equivalent that could be used, 1.e. 27/1 = .03707. As far as I know the only way to find if that exists within the available gears/settings is to calculate all the available combinations.
Maybe I've misunderstood?
Hi Jay
I have had a look at your latest table and it is quite impressive. You must have put an enormous amount of work to produce it. It will clearly be very useful to some members.
From my point of view it is really overkill. There would only be a very few times if any in my lifetime where it would be used. I really only use a limited # of feed rates and thread pitches. These are actually presented in the tables attached to the headstock of my lathe- but in a form that is not so easy to use.
How do we actually use thread and lead lathe tables?
Take a typical scenario trying to cut a std pitch thread.
We first decide on the thread pitch required then,
Choose the appropriate change gears
Then set each to the Gearbox levers /dials in logical sequence to achieve the desired result.
From my point of view this is the complete reverse of what is presented on the headstock tables.
When I looked at your spreadsheet with its myriad of options I was immediately confused by how I would find the option that was closest to the pitch /lead that I required. (There are many many options presented on many rows)
For my needs I am merely going to translate what is on my headstock into two tables sorted initially on increasing pitch and lead then listing in logical order as to how it would be achieved. Clearly this is not what everyone wants but I think the logic behind the suggestion would improve the presentation in your table. Perhaps just eliminating options that are not the closest option would improve the usability.
Cheers
Ron