Talk:Drill bit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Metalworking, an attempt to cleanup, categorize and expand Wikipedia articles related to metalworking. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page, where a list of open tasks is maintained.

This article is part of WikiProject Woodworking, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to Woodworking. For guidelines see the project page and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 Splitting things up 2 Forstner bits 3 Galleries? 4 Push-drill bits 5 sharpening 6 Alright time to get this article up to Featured List standards 7 Brad point drills

[edit] Splitting things up

I'd like to take this page and break out the individual types of drills. Maybe this should just become a disambiguation page for several different types of drills, perhaps containing pictures so that people could find out the name of something if they only know what it looks like?

My concern is really that this page is hugely long, and contains way more information than is really appropriate. I mean putting a cutting head for an oil drilling rig and a forstner bit on the same page is fairly ridiculous. They're not even remotely related. --Jburstein 00:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

So I've done some work on this, including organization. If someone would like to fix it further I'd appreciate it.--Jburstein 06:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what makes this article excellent is the breadth of the list, indiscriminately covering every drill bit type (the oil well one esp. interesting). This is a gem waiting for featured status. Breaking it up would take away from its comprehensiveness, though this is only my subjective opinion. Ksenon 19:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with covering so many types, but the article really is unwieldy. The types should be better organized, and it wouldn't hurt to give each type their own page, with only a little blurb and a link here.--Jburstein 14:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I think very few, if any, need their own page, but I think there should be pictures of every type so people can recognize them. I do a agree that they should be better organised. I believe Ksenon is right and he has been pushing to complete the article to bring it up to features status. Luigizanasi 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forstner bits

If I were to write something about Forstener Drill, would I put it under 'drill' or 'drill bit'?

- too late, I put it here!Emrys2 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

... and I changed it from "drill" to "bit". Also added name of inventor, Benjamin Forstner. His obituary mentions that he was the inventor of the "Forstner flange bit" or Webfoot augur. --Quicksilver 01:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm working on a disambiguation project. I stumbled on this page that was linking to the Spring disambiguation page. I think I fixed the links right, but I'm not an expert on spring steel vs. hardened steel. I'd appreciate it if somebody would come along behind me, keep me honest, and fix anything I screwed up. Joe 17:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose some changes to this page, which I'll make if nobody stops me.

• Make this a page about drill bit types (which it mostly is already)
• Concentrate on the cutter end of the drill bit
• Move the morse taper stuff to a separate article about drill bit shanks done
• Add stuff on metals used for drill bits
• Add more drill types - spoon bit, gimlet, masonry etc
• Make a new page about drill sizes (letter, number etc)
• Make a new page about the geometry and parameters of the twist drill (needs good drawing)
• Split up the "domestic" paragraph on this existing page into twist, masonry, spade etc bits done

Now, I'm really beginning to worry. I'm obsessing about drill bits. And their shanks. And what sizes they come in. I really ought to see a counsellor... :-) Emrys2 14:45, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You might also consider:

• Coating mateirals, such as titanium nitride
• Bits for use with a brace: similar to Forstener, but without the ring-shaped blade and with a screw replacing the center point. This could probably go with either spoon or spade bits.

Good work so far!--Joel 21:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, coatings and brace bits are good topics. Thanks. --Emrys2 28 June 2005 08:16 (UTC)

This article is getting really long and it's only half done yet. I'll just keep editing it on a single page and we can split it up when we've worked out how. --Emrys2 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)

I just added a bunch more bit types, started the bit materials section, and a few other changes... I'll take some photos of some of the bit types I added as soon as I get a chance, probably tonight. Bushytails 22:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Very nice new pictures! We ought to work out how to break this page up, it's getting unusually long. I still intend to create a separate page on the geometry of the twist drill bit(when I've learnt enough about it!). Should the drill bit materials section go to a separate page? Emrys2 11:50, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I have a bunch more photos on my camera waiting for me to upload (installer bit, left-hand bit, damaged screw removers, drill-saw bit), but they're not as good... Not sure, however, how to organize the page. A page on drill bit materials seems a little small; maybe move the entire rest of the page into Drill bit types or something? Hell, if we keep making the page longer and longer, we might have to submit it to featured article canidates. :) Bushytails 17:21, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Galleries?

I'm a bit concerned the usage of galleries for some sections and not others, as it seems to make the page very inconsistent, and interrupts the flow of the page... With the assumption that there will be two images for every section (gah! I'll get around to photographing some drill saw bits as soon as I can find mine... I only have about 6... must not be enough, as with a half hour of looking, I found zero!), it would be nice if every section followed the same layout... do you think it would be best to standardize with all images on the right, like they were before, or all images in galleries? I personally prefer having the images on the right (doesn't interrupt the text, allows quick scrolling through them, etc), but am of course open to other ideas. It's also likely some/all sections will get a bit longer, when people with knowledge of the history or other information about the bits updates the page (assuming we're not the only people who care about drill bits, that is. :) Whadda ya think? Bushytails 17:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC) (your friendly neighborhood power tool weilding wolf)

I'm in two minds about gallery versus thumbs, thus my hmm? comment. If there are going to be multiple images per section then galleries may be okay but the images may need to be reworked to look their best (the PCB images come to mind, the first looks lousy as a gallery shot). On the other hand the same argument could be applied to the thumb version of the PCB's - the images appear to dominate the text, but how much text should there be, besides just enough? ;-)

• If two or more images are going to be shown for a section then galleries are effective, especially if the images are of different dimensions.
• The page is getting a tad long (lots of different bits, so that's inevitable) and galleries compact it slightly
• Yes, it's probable one or the other, unless single images are left aligned? That may fix the flow problem

Graibeard 22:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Push-drill bits

Push-drills, looking somewhat like a screwdriver, use interchangeable straight-flute bits instead of twisted-flute bits. You may remember the Stanley "Yankee" drill. They seem to have disappeared from the market since the introduction of cheap cordless hand drills, much to my disappointment. (They didn't need cranky NiCd batteries or extension cords, and were always at-the-ready.) I don't know if that style of bit has a particular name. Could a section about them be added to this article? --Quicksilver^{T @} 00:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Go for it. You might also want to describe them in the Drill article. Coming to think of it, I don't think Yankee screwdrivers are mentioned in the screwdriver article & they should be. Luigizanasi 06:41, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The Screwdriver article makes a one-sentence mention of them: "Manual screw drivers with a spiral ratchet mechanism to turn pressure into rotational motion also exist, and predate electric screwdrivers." It could be amplified a bit.
I was recently looking for replacement bits for my old push drill on the Web, and I ran across a tool that was a cross between a push drill and a push screwdriver. It had the exposed spiral slots typical of the screwdrivers, but was equipped with a hex chuck, allowing it to accept all the hex bits on the market today, including twist drill bits mounted in hex shanks. It could be used as either a screwdriver or drill. --Quicksilver^{T @} 01:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] sharpening

More information about sharpening.--Gbleem 17:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alright time to get this article up to Featured List standards

It's really close, just needs a copyedit and a few more lines in the empty sections. Ksenon 03:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates fair better with footnotes. It is a good article and footnotes would be a plus.--Dakota ~ ε ° 21:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brad point drills

These are NOT suitable for plastics or sheetmetal, and the general consensus I have heard from others is they're a gimmick at best (and I agree from personal experience). These bits have a gigantic lip clearance, which provides no support to the cutting face. The end result is the bit punches straight through thin or soft material, leaving a mucked up hole in the rough cross-sectional shape of the drill. I would be glad to see a situation where a brad point is more desireable over either a spade bit or a 118 degree twist drill. A spade bit combines the best parts of the brad drill without the downfalls while drilling in wood or other materials, and a 118 degree twist drill supplies the proper amount of lip clearance to support the drill in a thin, mallable material. Additionally, ALL drillbits will mar the edges of plastics if the hole angle is not maintained - even brad point drills. And if you are really interested in drilling through plastics, invest in a squirt bottle and some cold tap water. If you're going to be doing a lot of it, man up and use a 90 degree twist drill like you're supposed to. If no one has strong objections, I'm going to edit the brad point drill section to reflect some of this. - Toastydeath 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

IME, they are great in wood (including plywood), polycarbonate & acrylic (plexiglas) with a much cleaner exit than spade bits which are only useful in really rough work. In sheet metal I've always used regular drill bits & reamed out the scarf. But then, I don't do precision metal work. You might want to also bring up your points at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Metalworking. Luigizanasi 03:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I notice some weirdness in the step drill catagory. I would arge both of these drills are, to a large extent, fad drills for the wide array of materials they proportedly cut through, when in both my experience and observation they are sorely lacking compared to other drill options of equal or lesser price. Step drills have a firm place in professional construction work, as they can cut through laminate countertops and drywall very quickly and to a variety of hole sizes without changing drills. But putting them under metalworking saying they'll do sheetmetal? If we accept "aluminum foil" as standard sheetmetal, then yes, these bits will cut sheetmetal. A holesaw is far more appropriate, faster, and requires less cleanup. What is the reasoning for having step drills in metalworking rather than the woodworking section? - Toastydeath 02:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)