Jerry Moos and others have commented on the difference between these. I can help a little bit with the question of whether it is safe to use the TA on early Stronglight cranks:
JM: The thread diameter on Stronglight is 23.35 mm while the TA is 23.0 mm. HS: My measurements were a bit different, but same difference between them; gotta get that dial(or my eyes) calibrated. I got 23.2 and 22.8, respectively. Key is a 0.4 mm difference in diameter. JM: Both have the same pitch, I believe. HS: According to Sutherland's 2nd, essentially everything used a 1 mm pitch -- except early Lambert at 24 TPI (1 mm = 25.4 TPI). JM: The TA extractor will thread into the Stronglight arm, but will not completely engage the threads. HS: Beloved Spouse reminded me which trig function to use. Given 60 degree included angle (except 55 for Italian?) and 1 mm pitch, the depth of the thread would seem to be 0.866 mm [depth = (0.5*pitch)/(tan 30deg)]. In fact, there is a flat valley at the bottom, and the ridge is chopped off, so the depth is somewhat less. Let's call it 0.8 mm. Now double that, since we have only one side (radius) and have to think about whole diameter: 1.6 mm. This is 4 times the 0.4 mm differrence in diameter. So, the good news is that the TA covers 75% of the thread depth of the Stronglight. But, the bad news is that it is the "thin" 75%, not the thick root of the pitch. The worse news is that the puller is strong steel and the arm is weaker aluminum. Guess which set of threads would pull out.
So, I'm heartened that Tony Theilmeier has had good luck: "Jerry Moos kindly warned the group not to use TA extractor tools on Stronglight cranks. Maybe I have just been very lucky, but I have disassembled many a 49D equipped b/b, and I have always used a TA tool. It has always worked."
As for me, I'll use a TA in a stronglight in an emergency (since I have spare arms), but won't do it when I can avoid it.
harvey sachs mcLean va - and pleased I remembered that it was a trig problem!