Jump to content

Talk:Birmingham gauge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge to Stubs Iron Wire Gauge

[edit]

Hats off to User:RupertMillard for proposing the merge of Stubs Iron Wire Gauge and Birmingham wire gauge; excellent catch. I was not aware that the latter existed, much less that the two were synonymous. If we can find another solid source for that claim of synonymity besides this pdf, then I think the claim becomes verifiable and we should do the merge. Perhaps I'm biased coming from the medical angle, but I think that since the Stubs is still widely used, it should be the main article, and Birmingham should redirect to it. - Draeco 04:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All five of these [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] gauge tables were in the top ten Google results, and they all imply that Birmingham and Stubs are the same system. I've found nothing contradictory, so I'm going to make the move after we come to a consensus on which page is the main page; I vote for Stubs. - Draeco 05:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote for Stubs. (9.6m hits for Stubs gauge, 1.2m hits for Birmingham gauge on Google.) In a medical setting, I get the impression people talk about needle gauge without really knowing or caring what type of gauge it is although my own experience of needles and terminology surrounding them is negligible, as I'm a preclinical student. I came to this article wanting to find out more after reading this article. RupertMillard 09:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Have merged Birmingham wire gauge into Stubs Iron Wire Gauge. RupertMillard 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Birmingham wire gauge - content not yet worked in:

[edit]

"There was a separate Birmingham Wire Gauge for Silver & Gold."

IMO, if it does exist, is different and is sufficiently significant to warrant an article, it will have one written about it in the fullness of time. I don't think it can or should be worked into this article. RupertMillard 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Birmingham wire gauge ceased to be recognised by the US government in 1914."

I don't think this statement says enough about what it means to be "recognised" by the US government in order for it to be particularly meaningful. Clearly, Birmingham wire gauge lives on as the Stubs gauge and whether or not it is "recognised" by the US government, it is in use. RupertMillard 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Media:Gauge_Chart.pdf Chart comparing all known wire gauges to each other"

I don't like this document very much. It's too hard to edit compared to a wiki page, and has grammatical mistakes and points of view in it which need fixing. RupertMillard 14:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Common needles in medical use..."

[edit]

The article states that "Common needles in medical use use a system of 1/gauge in inches as the sizing." I know that ISO has a published standard governing needle tubing for medical devices (ISO 9626:1991, and ISO 9626:1991/Amd 1:2001), and although I don't own it or have access to it, I'm fairly certain it's not as simple as 1/gauge. Furthermore, 1/gauge does not give inner and outer diameters, nor tolerances - simply a zero-width circle.

I am modifying the article to reflect this. If anybody has any input, it would be appreciated. Isarl (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would like a size chart BUT...

[edit]

Searching TFW, I can find multiple inconsistent size charts. The most common goes as follows, which includes what appears to be an obvious error: the increments between gauge are not decreasing as the gauge increases. The discrepancies at gauges 21, 30 and 34 might be the result of rounding to the nearest 0.001", but the others just seem wrong. It's possible that this is correct regardless, but some definitive conformation would be nice.

Charts that *disagree* with the one below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_gauge&action=edit&section=4

Birmingham wire gauge chart (suspected erroneous)
Gauge Dia. Delta
5/0 0.500
0.046
4/0 0.454
0.029
3/0 0.425
0.045
2/0 0.380
0.040
0 0.340
0.040
1 0.300
0.016
2 0.284
0.025
3 0.259
0.021
4 0.238
0.018
5 0.220
0.017
6 0.203
0.023
7 0.180
0.015
8 0.165
0.018
9 0.148
0.014
10 0.134
0.014
11 0.120
0.011
12 0.109
0.014
13 0.095
0.012
14 0.083
0.011
15 0.072
0.007
16 0.065
0.007
17 0.058
0.009
18 0.049
0.007
19 0.042
0.007
20 0.035
0.003
21 0.032
0.004
22 0.028
0.003
23 0.025
0.003
24 0.022
0.002
25 0.020
0.002
26 0.018
0.002
27 0.016
0.002
28 0.014
0.001
29 0.013
0.001
30 0.012
0.002
31 0.010
0.001
32 0.009
0.001
33 0.008
0.001
34 0.007
0.002
35 0.005
0.001
36 0.004

But... WHICH Birmingham?

[edit]

Given the origin date and country, and a bit of local-pride bias - as well as the generally bodgey, uneven and uncertain nature of the scale itself - I suspect the Old Birmingham... but not ruling out it possibly being the newer one in Alabama... :) 193.63.174.254 (talk) 14:33, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Low gauge numbers - typo?

[edit]

Can anyone confirm / correct a probable typo in the article text?

The gage number mentioned in the first line of the System section is a typo - I think!

The line reads “The gauge starts at the lowest gauge number of 5Ø or 00000” - and I’m fairly sure that should be “ .. 5/0 or 00000”. I’ve not seen 5Ø anywhere else (with this meaning); and 5/0 is widespread. (Example: it’s used in the table in the article!)

Apart from anything else, 5Ø with this meaning would be potentially confusing. Ø is a widespread (standard?) abbreviation for diameter (especially on engineering drawings). So in (example) a stock order, a customer trying to clarify that s/he’s trying to specify gage-5 wire not sheet might reasonably write 5Ø . . and end up receiving 00000 wire! It wouldn’t happen often; it would happen.

I’ll change the text if nobody says it’s correct (or changes it!)

- SquisherDa (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Birmingham_gauge&oldid=1200066370"