[[email protected]]

I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V

[hank alrich]

wrote:

I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V

There's a variety he

http://www.metcaseusa.com/enclosures...enclosures.htm

And one he

https://www.hammfg.com/dci/products/accessories/rm

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[geoff]

On 22/05/2015 12:59 p.m., wrote:
I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V



Just curious - do you actually have contents that actually requires that
last few millimetres ?

Can you reduce the height of something by substitution - transformer,
electrolytic caps, PCB stand-offs ?

geoff

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/21/2015 8:59 PM, wrote:

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

I don't understand your problem. Your terminology isn't clear to me. Do
you want an enclosure that has a smaller external vertical dimension? Is
there something at the rear that prevents mounting a chassis that's as
deep as you want? Or can you not put a 1 rack space panel in the
enclosure? Or what?

Do you have a model number or link to a catalog page? Or could you post
a photograph (somewhere else, with a link here) that illustrates your
problem?


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Scott Dorsey]

wrote:
I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

When you're trying to jam stuff into a very tightly packed rack, you will
be very glad to have that extra space.

But if you're really trying to get stuff tight in the box, consider the
boxes from Sescom. They are more expensive but they have some taller
ones. Vero also has some even more expensive ones.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 8:59:32 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V

http://www.circuitspecialists.com/rackmount-enclosures

[JackA]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 8:59:32 PM UTC-4, wrote:
I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V

I didn't even think Bud was still around.

Remember Hoffman used to make DIN rack enclosures.

If things get too warm/hot, put a small axial fan on the back!! Ball bearings ones, not sleeve bearings!

Jack

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:43:01 AM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/21/2015 8:59 PM, wrote:

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

I don't understand your problem. Your terminology isn't clear to me. Do
you want an enclosure that has a smaller external vertical dimension? Is
there something at the rear that prevents mounting a chassis that's as
deep as you want? Or can you not put a 1 rack space panel in the
enclosure? Or what?

Do you have a model number or link to a catalog page? Or could you post
a photograph (somewhere else, with a link here) that illustrates your
problem?


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

The Bud enclosure I bought is model CH-14400. Here is the Mouser
page:

http://www.mouser.com/ProductDetail/...rRPVIaXA%3D%3D

The problem is the rear enclosure total height is 1 3/8". I was hoping
to find an enclosure which has more vertical space closer to the
actual 1 3/4" height of the front panel.


Gary V

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 11:21:23 PM UTC-7, geoff wrote:
On 22/05/2015 12:59 p.m., wrote:
I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V



Just curious - do you actually have contents that actually requires that
last few millimetres ?

Can you reduce the height of something by substitution - transformer,
electrolytic caps, PCB stand-offs ?

geoff

It's actually about ergonomics. I am putting pots and switches into this
enclosure and I want more vertical space to separate them.

Gary V

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, May 21, 2015 at 8:02:16 PM UTC-7, hank alrich wrote:
wrote:

I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

So I'm wondering if anyone has a suggestion on where I might look
for enclosures which attempt to maximize the 1 U rack space.

Gary V

There's a variety he

http://www.metcaseusa.com/enclosures...enclosures.htm

And one he

https://www.hammfg.com/dci/products/accessories/rm

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

The Hammond product I found: RM1U1908SBK, appears to be
the best candidate so far. If I'm reading their engineering drawing
correctly this enclosure has 1.578" total vertical space. They also
do factory modifications which might be a consideration. But I'm
sure for a one-off it's probably cost prohibitive. Thanks for the
tip Hank.

Gary V

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/22/2015 10:45 AM, wrote:

The Bud enclosure I bought is model CH-14400.

Oh, I get it now. What you have is a rack mount chassis, not a rack
mount cabinet. When most people see a five-dollar word like "enclosure"
we think of the the cabinet that a rack-mountable device is mounted in.
What you're talking about is the height of the chassis attached to the
1U rack panel.

About 50 years ago I had a copy of the RETMA (now EIA) standard for rack
units but I can't find it, or a copy of it on line now, probably because
it's been revised a couple of times since then and nobody pays attention
to the standard any more anyway. That standard had the maximum chassis
height for each number of rack unit spaces, and it was always slightly
smaller than the panel height to allow for things like feet on the
bottom or a little air space. That's why your chassis is only 1.5" high
even though the panel is 1.75" (actually 1/32" less to allow for
tolerance build-up so you can actually fit 10 1U panels in a 10U rack.

If you're building something to put in that chassis, just don't build it
any higher than the top lip of the chassis. If you're using it to
rack-mount something that claims to be 1 rack space high (and obviously
less than 4 inches deep, for this chassis), you'd probably be better off
using a rack mount shelf than a chassis with a panel in front.

So, yeah, if you shop around and can find good drawings of what's being
sold, you might find one that's a little taller, but it probably won't
be the full 1.75".




--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/22/2015 8:32 AM, JackA wrote:

http://www.circuitspecialists.com/rackmount-enclosures

At least you're looking at the right thing, which I wasn't sure of,
initially. If you look at the dimensions of that 1-space unit, you'll
see that the "inside dimension" for the chassis height is 1.37" which is
actually slightly less than the Bud chassis that Gary has.

The pictures on that page, while not dimensioned, clearly show that the
chassis behind the panel isn't as tall as the panel.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[None]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
About 50 years ago I had a copy of the RETMA (now EIA) standard for
rack units but I can't find it, or a copy of it on line now,
probably because it's been revised a couple of times since then and
nobody pays attention to the standard any more anyway.

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/22/2015 5:25 PM, Mike Rivers (that's me!) wrote:
On 5/22/2015 10:45 AM, wrote:

The Bud enclosure I bought is model CH-14400.

Here's a link to the drawing of that series of chassis:
http://www.budind.com/pdf/hb14400.pdf

I believe it's the D dimension (1.437" = 1-7/16") that you're talking
about. At least that's what I was talking about.

--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[Mike Rivers[_2_]]

On 5/22/2015 5:47 PM, None wrote:

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

Oh, yeah. I have a few racks with 10-24 threads and a box full of screws
to go with them. I think that 10-32 threaded rails came along when you
could buy racks at music stores and they wanted to be sure that you
didn't have to buy a "custom" screw to go with it if you didn't want to.

You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)


--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

[geoff]

On 23/05/2015 9:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 5:47 PM, None wrote:

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

Oh, yeah. I have a few racks with 10-24 threads and a box full of screws
to go with them. I think that 10-32 threaded rails came along when you
could buy racks at music stores and they wanted to be sure that you
didn't have to buy a "custom" screw to go with it if you didn't want to.

You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)




Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in "most of
the world") you then have an option to use metric nuts/screws, or not.


geoff

[JackA]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 5:32:52 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 8:32 AM, JackA wrote:

http://www.circuitspecialists.com/rackmount-enclosures

At least you're looking at the right thing, which I wasn't sure of,
initially. If you look at the dimensions of that 1-space unit, you'll
see that the "inside dimension" for the chassis height is 1.37" which is
actually slightly less than the Bud chassis that Gary has.

The pictures on that page, while not dimensioned, clearly show that the
chassis behind the panel isn't as tall as the panel.



--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Mike, I was just amazed at the low (I feel) prices!!

I just may buy a box there for one of my own projects! :-)

Jack

[geoff]

On 22/05/2015 10:59 p.m., Scott Dorsey wrote:
wrote:
I just recently purchased a Bud Industries 1 U rack mount enclosure
and while it's probably OK for what I want to use it for, I wonder if
there isn't another company that makes products which fully utilize
vertical space.

The Bud product loses almost 1/4 inch of vertical space with the
rear attachment enclosure to the the front 1 3/4" panel. I know
space will be lost just because of the thickness of the metal but
the Bud enclosure is less.

When you're trying to jam stuff into a very tightly packed rack, you will
be very glad to have that extra space.

But if you're really trying to get stuff tight in the box, consider the
boxes from Sescom. They are more expensive but they have some taller
ones. Vero also has some even more expensive ones.
--scott


..... or consider 2U for better-still ergos .

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 5:47 PM, None wrote:

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

Oh, yeah. I have a few racks with 10-24 threads and a box full of screws
to go with them. I think that 10-32 threaded rails came along when you
could buy racks at music stores and they wanted to be sure that you
didn't have to buy a "custom" screw to go with it if you didn't want to.

I've never seen a 10-32 threaded rail. 10-24 is very common, although you
see M6 now and then unfortunately.

I think all of my film dubbers are in original WE relay racks, too.

You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)

I still have a few of those. You can get clip nuts that take 10-24 screws
or ones that take a tapered screw like a sheet metal screw. The ones that
take machine screws are more solid.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[JackA]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 7:36:58 PM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 5:47 PM, None wrote:

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

Oh, yeah. I have a few racks with 10-24 threads and a box full of screws
to go with them. I think that 10-32 threaded rails came along when you
could buy racks at music stores and they wanted to be sure that you
didn't have to buy a "custom" screw to go with it if you didn't want to.

I've never seen a 10-32 threaded rail. 10-24 is very common, although you
see M6 now and then unfortunately.

M6 is about 1/4" dia. That seems more correct size, though I know little of rack mounts. But, as I now know, there's a thread pitch, too. I had to supply an M8 screw for a customer, but they failed to mention pitch, there was .75, 1.0, 1.25 to select from. Even worse than SAE stuff!!

Feel 10-32 is more popular than 10-24, in general.

I'm guessing what Geoff was referring to is like a blind fastener. Thing I remember about those sheet-metal only and sometimes with spot-welded nut, you had to have the correct reach (and thickness). Too much might interfere with whatever you're mounting, while too little you never reach the hole. There are also press-in nuts, such as PEM Fastener, just requires a round hole, or Tinnerman, if they are still around, known as captive nuts (sheet metal surround), but requires a square mounting hole.

Jack



I think all of my film dubbers are in original WE relay racks, too.

You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)

I still have a few of those. You can get clip nuts that take 10-24 screws
or ones that take a tapered screw like a sheet metal screw. The ones that
take machine screws are more solid.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[geoff]

On 23/05/2015 10:59 a.m., JackA wrote:


Mike, I was just amazed at the low (I feel) prices!!

I just may buy a box there for one of my own projects! :-)


You can put crapping all over USENET and ****ing people off IN A BOX ???!!!

geoff

[PStamler]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 3:55:56 PM UTC-6, Mike Rivers wrote:

You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)



Oh, you did that too!

Peace,
Paul

[Trevor]

On 23/05/2015 8:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2015 9:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)




Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in "most of
the world") you then have an option to use metric nuts/screws, or not.

Yes, nearly all my racks are like that, in fact the only one I have that
isn't is from the 60's or 70's.

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 23/05/2015 8:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2015 9:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)




Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in "most of
the world") you then have an option to use metric nuts/screws, or not.

Yes, nearly all my racks are like that, in fact the only one I have that
isn't is from the 60's or 70's.

Ancient, like their owner. Ha!

Jack

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 12:26:49 AM UTC-4, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2015 10:59 a.m., JackA wrote:


Mike, I was just amazed at the low (I feel) prices!!

I just may buy a box there for one of my own projects! :-)


You can put crapping all over USENET and ****ing people off IN A BOX ???!!!

Yeah, a 6ft long box!!!

Jack


geoff

[Mike Rivers]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:

Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in "most of
the world") you then have an option to use metric nuts/screws, or not.

Yes, nearly all my racks are like that, in fact the only one I have that
isn't is from the 60's or 70's.

ALL of my racks are from the '60s or '70s.

I have nothing to back this up other than a hunch, but that's that racks intended for communication and electronics are predominantly one thread and those intended for computers have a different thread (and often are deeper than electronics racks).

In a related note, back around the turn of the century when DB-25 connectors began to be used as multi-channel audio connectors, it was typical for audio companies to use metric jackscrews while the computer industry used American standard threads. I guess that was to deter people from using a cable wired for RS-232 modems and terminals (sometimes there are unused pins) to connect a console to a multitrack recorder.

[geoff]

On 23/05/2015 10:28 p.m., Mike Rivers wrote:
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 1:14:05 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:

Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in
"most of the world") you then have an option to use metric
nuts/screws, or not.

Yes, nearly all my racks are like that, in fact the only one I have
that isn't is from the 60's or 70's.

ALL of my racks are from the '60s or '70s.

I have nothing to back this up other than a hunch, but that's that
racks intended for communication and electronics are predominantly
one thread and those intended for computers have a different thread
(and often are deeper than electronics racks).

In a related note, back around the turn of the century when DB-25
connectors began to be used as multi-channel audio connectors, it was
typical for audio companies to use metric jackscrews

Yeah, like internationally accepted measurements , instead of
antiquated colonial remnants ....

Jeeze, even all the other colonies have all got over that **** .

geoff

[Scott Dorsey]

In article , Trevor wrote:
On 23/05/2015 8:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2015 9:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:


Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in "most of
the world") you then have an option to use metric nuts/screws, or not.

Yes, nearly all my racks are like that, in fact the only one I have that
isn't is from the 60's or 70's.

The square cage nut thing seems more of an IT thing, and a fairly recent
one at that. I never saw that at all until the late nineties. The round
hole with the clip that slides on is a much older design and more prone to
the clips getting lost but also gives you that same advantage.

If it _is_ an advantage. The original standard is 10-24 and I don't see
why people are inclined to fool around with that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[None]

"geoff" wrote in message
...
You can put crapping all over USENET and ****ing people off IN A BOX
???!!!

Why are you inviting the turd into the punchbowl?

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 22, 2015 at 2:25:43 PM UTC-7, Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 10:45 AM, wrote:

The Bud enclosure I bought is model CH-14400.

Oh, I get it now. What you have is a rack mount chassis, not a rack
mount cabinet. When most people see a five-dollar word like "enclosure"
we think of the the cabinet that a rack-mountable device is mounted in.
What you're talking about is the height of the chassis attached to the
1U rack panel.

About 50 years ago I had a copy of the RETMA (now EIA) standard for rack
units but I can't find it, or a copy of it on line now, probably because
it's been revised a couple of times since then and nobody pays attention
to the standard any more anyway. That standard had the maximum chassis
height for each number of rack unit spaces, and it was always slightly
smaller than the panel height to allow for things like feet on the
bottom or a little air space. That's why your chassis is only 1.5" high
even though the panel is 1.75" (actually 1/32" less to allow for
tolerance build-up so you can actually fit 10 1U panels in a 10U rack.

If you're building something to put in that chassis, just don't build it
any higher than the top lip of the chassis. If you're using it to
rack-mount something that claims to be 1 rack space high (and obviously
less than 4 inches deep, for this chassis), you'd probably be better off
using a rack mount shelf than a chassis with a panel in front.

So, yeah, if you shop around and can find good drawings of what's being
sold, you might find one that's a little taller, but it probably won't
be the full 1.75".




--
For a good time, visit http://mikeriversaudio.wordpress.com

Thanks for that bit of history. It's what I've always enjoyed about
you and Scott, particularly your articles in Recording magazine
which often times begin with a historical background.

Gary V

[Roy W. Rising[_2_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

If it *is* an advantage. The original standard is 10-24 and I don't see
why people are inclined to fool around with that.
--scott

In about 1982, ABC-TV Hollywood engaged outside contractors to install some
new Audio Control Rooms. The rack rails were the standard 10-24 but they
were given 10-32 screws. When it was found they could run them in but they
wouldn't "grab", they elected to put 10-32 nuts behind the rails! Ouch!

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 2:19:08 PM UTC-4, Roy W. Rising wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:

If it *is* an advantage. The original standard is 10-24 and I don't see
why people are inclined to fool around with that.
--scott

In about 1982, ABC-TV Hollywood engaged outside contractors to install some
new Audio Control Rooms. The rack rails were the standard 10-24 but they
were given 10-32 screws. When it was found they could run them in but they
wouldn't "grab", they elected to put 10-32 nuts behind the rails! Ouch!

Believe the root diameter is the same for both thread pitches. I'm surprised they didn't force them in. But, hey, that's Hollywood! Actually, one manufacturer I know, used both 10-24 steel and 10-32 brass screws, but they stocked 10-24 steel nuts and 10-32 brass nuts to ensure the same material was used.

Jack

--
~ Roy
"If you notice the sound, it's wrong!"

[JackA]

On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 9:42:56 AM UTC-4, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Trevor wrote:
On 23/05/2015 8:59 AM, geoff wrote:
On 23/05/2015 9:55 a.m., Mike Rivers wrote:


Clip-in cage nuts are the way to go, IMO, as elsewhere (as in "most of
the world") you then have an option to use metric nuts/screws, or not.

Yes, nearly all my racks are like that, in fact the only one I have that
isn't is from the 60's or 70's.

The square cage nut thing seems more of an IT thing, and a fairly recent
one at that.

Used to use them in large enclosures where tapping sheet metal was prone to being stripped, 1/4-20 and 3/8-16. Allowed for some misalignment.


Someone mention DB-25? You could, at one time, purchase the DB-25 Male Parallel - Centronics Male Parallel - 3ft [printer] cable, at a dollar store! :-)

Jack

I never saw that at all until the late nineties. The round
hole with the clip that slides on is a much older design and more prone to
the clips getting lost but also gives you that same advantage.

If it _is_ an advantage. The original standard is 10-24 and I don't see
why people are inclined to fool around with that.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 5/22/2015 7:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 5:47 PM, None wrote:

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

Oh, yeah. I have a few racks with 10-24 threads and a box full of screws
to go with them. I think that 10-32 threaded rails came along when you
could buy racks at music stores and they wanted to be sure that you
didn't have to buy a "custom" screw to go with it if you didn't want to.

I've never seen a 10-32 threaded rail. 10-24 is very common, although you
see M6 now and then unfortunately.

I think all of my film dubbers are in original WE relay racks, too.

You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)

I still have a few of those. You can get clip nuts that take 10-24 screws
or ones that take a tapered screw like a sheet metal screw. The ones that
take machine screws are more solid.
--scott


I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

http://www.middleatlantic.com/produc.../brk20-28.aspx

Standard rack screws are 10-32:

http://www.amazon.com/Gator-Cases-4-.../dp/B001ECQQ8I

[JackA]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:52:07 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:
On 5/22/2015 7:36 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
In article , Mike Rivers wrote:
On 5/22/2015 5:47 PM, None wrote:

Did anyone ever use #10-24 threads, as per the EIA spec? I don't think
I've ever seen threaded rails that weren't #10-32.

Oh, yeah. I have a few racks with 10-24 threads and a box full of screws
to go with them. I think that 10-32 threaded rails came along when you
could buy racks at music stores and they wanted to be sure that you
didn't have to buy a "custom" screw to go with it if you didn't want to.

I've never seen a 10-32 threaded rail. 10-24 is very common, although you
see M6 now and then unfortunately.

I think all of my film dubbers are in original WE relay racks, too.

You don't see it much any more, but stuff that I worked with in the '60s
had unthreaded holes and you slipped a clip nut on the rail where you
needed it. The expensive clip nuts were stamped steel with an actual
threaded nut welded to it, the cheap ones were just a single stamped
piece with, in essence, a little more than half of a nut with one
thread. You could put a wood screw in there if you had to. (don't ask
why I know that)

I still have a few of those. You can get clip nuts that take 10-24 screws
or ones that take a tapered screw like a sheet metal screw. The ones that
take machine screws are more solid.
--scott


I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

http://www.middleatlantic.com/produc.../brk20-28.aspx

Standard rack screws are 10-32:

http://www.amazon.com/Gator-Cases-4-.../dp/B001ECQQ8I

Interesting! Maybe they meant 12-24? I see them available for racks!!!

Doing a search for rack mount 10-24 brings up most nothing but 10-32.

Jack

[Trevor]

On 25/05/2015 12:52 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.
http://www.middleatlantic.com/produc.../brk20-28.aspx
Standard rack screws are 10-32:

As usual there is more than one "standard".

Trevor.

[JackA]

On Monday, May 25, 2015 at 2:34:57 AM UTC-4, Trevor wrote:
On 25/05/2015 12:52 PM, mcp6453 wrote:
I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.
http://www.middleatlantic.com/produc.../brk20-28.aspx
Standard rack screws are 10-32:

As usual there is more than one "standard".

Why would someone settle on inferiority?...

"generally fine threads are superior - stronger, lower helix angle, less wall thickness required".

Jack


Trevor.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:26:41 PM UTC-4, JackA wrote:

Someone mention DB-25? You could, at one time, purchase the DB-25 Male Parallel - Centronics Male Parallel - 3ft [printer] cable, at a dollar store! :-)

Now you can buy them at a thrift store or watch your local Freecycle forum. The real bargain was the Chinese DB25-DB25 cables for connecting analog 8-channel audio gear. The twisted pairs didn't match up with the TASCAM pin numbering system (a twisted pair for tip and ring) but at line levels, it didn't matter much. You could buy cables wired with pairs matchin the de facto analog audio and a couple of digital standards for a lot more money.

And if you're curious, there's a table of DB25 wiring conventions for several applications on my web site.

[Mike Rivers]

On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:52:07 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:

I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

Middle Atlantic is a relative newcomer. There were racks for 50 years before they came along. The MAP racks that you know are sold through channels that sell to musicians and recording studios, not telephone or telecommunications companies. It makes sense to use the more common thread because you don't need to go to a specialty hardware store or music store to find them.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 5:42:03 PM UTC-4, Mike Rivers wrote:
On Sunday, May 24, 2015 at 10:52:07 PM UTC-4, mcp6453 wrote:

I'm confused. Every rack I've ever had has been 10-32. I just bought several pieces of rack-mounted gear, and the screws
that came with them were 10-32. The Middle Atlantic rack has rails with 10-32 threads.

Middle Atlantic is a relative newcomer. There were racks for 50 years before they came along. The MAP racks that you know are sold through channels that sell to musicians and recording studios, not telephone or telecommunications companies. It makes sense to use the more common thread because you don't need to go to a specialty hardware store or music store to find them.

But, Mike, I did a quick internet check and what was popular yesterday is no longer. Even I stated 10-32 is more popular than 10-24.

And if Made In The USA, I would THINK 10-32 would be preferred.

Ah, well.

Jack