Indeed. I prefer using ‘form taps’ when I run mass production CNC cycles on ‘female threads’. The taps last longer, the threads are stronger, etc.
Exactly 
I was tryna find some work I did on similar textures, but this might be close:
Oh that’s right I think the key word is ‘displacement’ …
Yes I took a jab, cause you have about 3 or 4 permutations of threads asking about threads, and there’s now a major brain storm on this matter, which is fine. But it’s extremely silly to repeatedly say things like “been sent none” or “there’s none” etc. when there’s plenty.
The best way to learn anything is to ‘research it for 10,000 hrs’. It’s a well known testament for the tuition required to learn something. If your strategy is to tap into it here with multiple threads asking about threads and saying there’s no videos explicating threads using the data and charts that’s already at everyone’s fingertips, then sure let’s relentlessly reflect on it all and see where it goes. Maybe we’re only at 1,000 hrs so far in the last month.
If that specific thing pays their bills and puts bread and butter on their table, then you might luck out. I recommend making anew thread with all the specifics. I could probably compile them for you, since I’m finally seeing some signs of said specs.
Where’s the compilation of all your specs? “there are none” 
Which thread? There’s many permutations now.
There’s literally a link of ‘how it’s made nuts n bolts’ a few posts upwards, in this thread and probably the others too. There’s lots of vids on how to make threads on youtube. All these things help learn how to make threads in 3D CAD’s.
Maybe even a physical science video that explains the mechanical advantage of an ‘inclined plane wrapped around a cylinder’? Hence, ‘helix’.
Yes he did an eloquent job reiterated what others have already mention time n’ time again.
lol 10,000 hrs of trying first, and then let me know if you still find nothing? If I find more time for compiling it all for you or doing a revisionary video etc., I’ll let you know.
Cause you’re clearly not absorbing the data that’s already out there and that members here have been reiterating on this matter for about a month now. And it’s hardly a “tirade”. But let’s just exaggerate that’s okay too.
For someone who clearly doesn’t study the (however sparse) data that exists, let’s act like there’s no data on how to make “genuine thread” and expect members to spoon feed your specific scenario to you on a silver platter in a 10 minute professionally edited video on youtube or now vimeo is it?
“formed”, “cut” or “rolled” thread? I suppose you want them texture displacement manufacturing anomalies too right? That would be sweet 
Just calling you out for apparent lazyness and lack of absorbing the data that’s already been disseminated to you over and over, and your lack of appreciation for what’s already out there.
I am curious where this will lead though. Maybe you’re the ultimate critic who is ok to exaggerate and have discontent for the time and energy that’s been repeated for you on this matter.
Maybe it’s all going somewhere, where you’ll finally be content with how to use the helix and sweep and chamfer tools in Rhino to make threads.
I mean how many ways can a thread be made? “whammo”
Yes, GD&T’s are essential to manufacture things. Most people don’t comprehend this. They think things are supposed to be flawlessly perfect, and they don’t realize the expense, and disregard for reality of such impossibilities and expectations.
Sending data to a machinist, shouldn’t mean ignore the GD&T’s. Forcing the machinist to figure out your design intent, is probably not a good idea.
Yeah, usually the threads are just explicated via the GD&T specifications, and followed up with some terrible sketch or layout of thread imagery. They’re used to bad drawings and bad thread depiction.
That’s why all they care about is the GD&T’s of your thread. They reall really really don’t care how well you draw the imagery and texture of said “threads”. They just want the parameters and tolerances etc.
Yes and this has been iterated many times in multiple threads in the last several weeks. It is possible, because we’ve seen it time and time again.
That’s fine. There’s no harm. But also not necessary to say:
Unless using ‘boolean’? I suspect it can be done without ‘solid’ but I could be wrong.
It’s all a matter of workflow, and technique, etc…
If a member here recommends a solution to your inquiry and you don’t like it, that’s fine. But I don’t think that means it’s “anti Rhino” or “bad”.
I guess that depends deterministically on the quantum of the 4-dimensional waveline of spacetime.
Booleans are nice, when they’re setup correctly and used with projection into the future – with perspective of what will happen down the line, later in the workflow. Otherwise they can make a mess just like anything else can. Booleans merely have a way of ‘compounding’ a mess into a bigger mess.
It can work, and it’s been demonstrated several times already.
Everything is relative. And for any given phenomena there are infinitely many interpretations.
Don’t be upset. Just try harder to absorb the information that is already there.
I could be imagining it. Relentless reflection and iteration is fine. Except when the information is there. Why say it’s not?