Mistakes in Van Rennes article

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

Mistakes in Van Rennes article

This topic has 25 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 9 November 2010 at 05:34 by John Olsen.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 26 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
31 October 2010 at 09:58 #57873
Eric Cox
Participant
@ericcox50497
The need for a sub-editor has never been more apparent than the publication of James G Rizzo’s article in ME4389. This is not intended as a criticism of the author but was there any reason to publish an article full of so many mistakes.

The text referred to the hole in the base plate as being positioned on the centre line ie. 50mm from the edge but the diagram shows it at 60mm.

The thread in the column is referred to in the text as 3/8 x 26 tpi (10 x 1mm) instead of M10 x 1 and subsequent references as 3/8 ins or 8mm. The components were described as Fig 5 thro Fig 10 but these reference numbers were not attached to the drawings and the descriptions of the components in the text flowed from one to another without being separated by a sub heading.

The sooner we have a sub-editor the better and hopefully we shall have error free articles
Advert

31 October 2010 at 09:58 #21745
Eric Cox
Participant
@ericcox50497
31 October 2010 at 10:37 #57877
ady
Participant
@ady
I get the impression ME isn’t exactly making everyone concerned with it into a millionaire, but involves a huge amount of absolutely critical details not normally associated with a hobbyists publication.

There needs to be an easy way people can pool the errors found, where an error can be recorded as easily as a complaint, but the writing effort results in a positive input instead of a negative output.

So the heading of this thread is MEW 1234 and the problems found are recorded forever and easy to search by all concerned.

A new topic list on the main forum board “MEW errors/ommissions” would be the fastest way of achieving this.

IMO Something as complex as MEW is only ever really going to be complete with the participation of its subscribers.

kinda thing…so to speak…2 cents

Edited By ady on 31/10/2010 10:43:06
31 October 2010 at 10:53 #57879
Sub Mandrel
Participant
@submandrel
There is already a topic called “Drawing Errors and Corrections” in which you can start a thread for any project in ME or MEW. Apparently once the errors are corrected your thread will become ‘sticky’

Neil
31 October 2010 at 10:57 #57881
Ian S C
Participant
@iansc
Maybe I’m lucky, Even if I build such a motor , the plans are just a guide, and when it comes to threads I use what I’v got. A motor like that would be OK with anything from 5mm/3/16″ up for the collumn, 3/16: unf is the basic thread that I use on my hot air engines(just got the latest one going about 1/2 an hour ago).1/8″ whit is another thread I use a lot of. I tend not to complain about things like a few wrong dimentions, we are lucky to get some of these articals, and I don’t think English is James G. Rizzos’ first language, but he knows his subject. Ian S C
31 October 2010 at 11:31 #57882
blowlamp
Participant
@blowlamp
It’s also a good reason to use a CAD system to generate your drawings that are preferably auto-dimensioned as well.

Perhaps the original DXF files could then be made available on this site, which would allow easy corrections and modifications to be made and distributed.

It might also be possible to take original, but basic 2D drawings and let them be updated to 3D solid models by members here and resubmitted for the benefit of us all.

Martin.
31 October 2010 at 11:41 #57885
Anonymous
Unfortunately supplying dxfs with articles doesn’t completely eliminate errors, as they are re-drawn to a certain extent.

Regards,

Andrew

Edited By Andrew Johnston on 31/10/2010 11:41:27
31 October 2010 at 11:52 #57887
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
Posted by Eric Cox on 31/10/2010 09:58:38:

The sooner we have a sub-editor the better and hopefully we shall have error free articles

I got the impression that it was an assistant editor they were looking for, not a sub. There’s a considerable difference in the roles, but I think that what you are describing might be something that was undertaken in this instance by a Technical Editor, if one was available. But Ady’s obviously correct – there simply aren’t millions to be made by either ME or MEW, so by that route, I don’t think that this level of employment is going to happen.

There is an alternative though – one that a lot of other publications containing a lot of detail regularly employ, and it’s invariably cheaper. It’s sort-of what is happening in this thread, only organised slightly differently. What it amounts to is that from a technical point of view, both magazines use a peer-review process before publication. You assemble a team of peer reviewers (or ask for specialists if necessary), and give them the job of doing a technical vet of articles. I think that with the number of retired and experienced readers that both publications have, this might not be too difficult to organise, one way or another.

Apart from getting hopefully less errors into articles, it has other advantages too. The first, and most obvious one is that it takes some of the weight off the Editor’s shoulders. The second is that with a little goodwill (like not giving any one individual a ridiculous amount to do), it’s pretty cheap to run. Yes, there is one downside, but I think that this could be got around to an extent; and that is the process could potentially dissuade contributors from submitting. But if it was made clear that the process was more like sub-editing than peer reviewing actually is (in other words, the Ed has already made the decision to publish) then I wouldn’t have thought that this would be too much of an issue.

Thoughts?
31 October 2010 at 12:32 #57892
KWIL
Participant
@kwil
OK, the criticisms are valid and provided any ME who wants to use an article to actually make the item checks out the whole, before starting, maybe little harm is done by the “errors”. There is the real problem of the newbie and all other levels after that where the lack of experience can cause difficulties, however even if “we” create a “list of errors” in a place you can look up, unless the originals are corrected as well, the problem still remains. Personally I make a copy of all relevant drawings and figures by scanning and “mark them up” in the same way as I would let others know the errors, I then work from these revised details.

The process/problems of Authoring is already enough that potential contributors have to be cajoled by our Editor from time to time to produce the goods. Lets us not be too critical of the amateurs who are the lifeblood of both magazines.

I would have no problem with receiving constructive comment and any observations/corrections/ideas about anything I chose to write about, in fact if that happened, surely any Author would be only too pleased to coordinate the “changes” with a view to making available an overall listing to those who expressed an interest.
31 October 2010 at 13:23 #57899
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
I should perhaps have mentioned that one of the snags with any form of error correction after the published event is that it disadvantages the people who published it in good faith, and also who don’t have access to on-line corrections. And I’m afraid to say that in the current age range of potential readership, that number is likely to be higher than it would be in perhaps a younger readership. Also, on line corrections can easily get lost in the mists of time, so anybody coming to a design several years or even decades later may not find the information at all. Especially if they have to search for it, it would seem…

So I would say that the case for resolving as many of these issues as possible before publication was overwhelming. As for being critical – well, that’s a perception issue. There are ways of presenting this as a means of support, rather than criticism, and I think that would be quite important.

It would be interesting to hear David’s perspective on this.
31 October 2010 at 13:32 #57901
Jeff Dayman
Participant
@jeffdayman43397
I have seen many of Mr. Rizzo’s articles over the years. He makes unique engines, but his drawings are abysmal. I skip the articles now, because I know there’s not a hope I could work to his drawings.

He’s not the only one. In the latest ME there is a gas engine article called Rina. The carburetor drawings are some of the most unclear I’ve ever seen. A section through the body vertically would help immensely. I think there will be a lot of scrap carbs and stopped projects because of those awful drawings. On the carb valve spring, no hints at all are given about appropriate dia, wire dia, or pitch. The text just says “light spring”.

In addition the ignition lever drawing in the same article is pretty much unintelligible and has at least one line that should not be there. I could make the assy from the photo but certainly not from the drawing.

Very disappointing.

JD
4 November 2010 at 01:12 #58104
Billy Mills
Participant
@billymills
I cannot see how David can produce as many pages every month without the odd problem. There is the dilemma of people- who are not natural writers- describing their ideas. Do you edit the article back into “house style” or let the writer ramble? What do you do with drawings that miss out important details, have missing views or are inconsistent? How do you cope with howling errors without upsetting the writer? How do you do it all seamlessly, be all things to all men ( and women) , put it to bed every time without fail and keep smiling while readers love to spot and spotlight the errors and omissions.

David, you win my admiration for being able to do this and more on a long term basis. Steve does have a very good point however, a peer review panel is a feature of nearly all technical and scientific journals. To have several different people looking at new material might just cost a few subs but would be a way of ensuring that the error count could be reduced. With email the whole process of review and correction could be quick and painless. There are a lot of talented specialists on this forum, they are just waiting for the call to arms.

Regards,

Alan.

Edited By Kelvin Barber on 04/11/2010 08:34:37
4 November 2010 at 01:26 #58105
ady
Participant
@ady
–a peer review panel is a feature of nearly all technical and scientific journals.–

Sounds like a good idea.

Lots of talent available, just needs an organiser.
4 November 2010 at 02:38 #58113
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
When I said “…it disadvantages the people who published it in good faith…” above, of course I really meant purchased in good faith.

Posted by Alan Gray 1 on 04/11/2010 01:12:53:

There is the dillema of people- who are not natural writers- describing their ideas. Do you edit the article back into “house style” or let the writer ramble? What do you do with drawings that miss out important details, have missing views or are inconsistant? How do you cope with howling errors without upsetting the writer? How do you do it all seamlessly, be all things to all men ( and women) , put it to bed every time without fail and keep smiling while readers love to spot and spotlight the errors and omissions.

My personal take on this is that what a sub or peer reviewer is supposed to do in this context is as much to do with liaison and guidance as anything, and it’s not really about trying to edit an article back into a house style as such, at all. Fixing the spelling and the odd grammatical slip is okay, but what seems to be most important is encouraging clarity, both in writing and drawing. And often that extra pair of detached but sympathetic eyes is just what’s needed. Howling errors? I don’t know how many of those actually occur, but of course the editor is still there, and he is also available as a go-between if necessary.

I think it’s important that the process is perceived as being beneficial, and the only way that will happen is if it’s carried out sympathetically. Often it doesn’t need somebody who is expert in whatever’s being written about – in fact it’s often better to have an article that makes sense to a non-expert in the field, because then most people will be able to understand it if the non-expert can. But I think that in this context, the one thing that is an absolute requirement for all participants is a good understanding of how machine drawings work, and possibly the ability to ‘build something in your mind’ from them, if that’s not too fanciful an idea.

Ady, I don’t think that it’s really a ‘peer review panel’ issue in this context – the editor can make the publish/don’t publish decision, but there again, it’s not quite a sub job either. I see it as more like an editorial assistant job, only from the contributor’s side.
4 November 2010 at 10:00 #58124
blowlamp
Participant
@blowlamp
I am of the opinion that updated, downloadable drawings, should be made available on this site, even if it means making corrections ourselves and re-uploading.

Corrections published sometime later in the magazine are wasteful of valuable space as well as being unlikely to be found in time before construction has begun – putting them here, along with a link in the publication helps to keep things tidy and once the principle is established will become second nature.

The web is a heaven sent gift for people to collaborate and deserves to be used by us to full advantage.

As more and more people become involved with CNC machining, I see a real need for a File Download area that we can place these drawings and believe attachments should also be enabled when posting to threads such as this.

Martin.

Edited By Kelvin Barber on 04/11/2010 10:06:07
4 November 2010 at 10:04 #58125
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi There

We would need authors permission to add drawings to this website because of copyright. Also there is no budget to pay them for it especially CNC listings which could only be paid for if published in the magazine.

regards david
4 November 2010 at 13:56 #58149
blowlamp
Participant
@blowlamp
Kelvin.

Can you tell me why you’ve edited my post please?

Martin.
4 November 2010 at 16:01 #58156
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi Blowlamp

I expect the text

With the recent appointment of a new Deputy Editor these problems should be greatly reduced.

Was the cause of the edit?

I don’t see what difference a new deputy editor would make?

Kelvin is moving to another magazine in the group, a promotion in fact.

We are not gaining an extra editor, just a replacement for Kelvin.

We always strive to make a good magazine.

Inevitably there will be errors.

We are on a production line, 3 magazines every 4 weeks.

There are no facilities for a file download area built into the site.

Administrators can upload files but the general public cannot.

That is the way the site was written.

As all of our magazine sites interact with the template and each other it is unlikely to change.

regards david
4 November 2010 at 18:42 #58159
blowlamp
Participant
@blowlamp
Hi David.

Oh, I see. I wasn’t having a go at anyone with that comment, as I thought the magazine was employing an extra person to lighten the workload.

I took it from the general drift of the thread, that you had to do it all yourself.

It’s a shame about the lack file upload/download facilities – it could be so useful.

Thanks for the clarification.

Martin.
4 November 2010 at 19:09 #58160
John Olsen
Participant
@johnolsen79199
Well, there would be nothing new about a series having a few paragraphs added at the end, or even an addtional article later to cover things that have been found out along the way. No lesser person than Professor Chaddock had to provide a list of errata in one of the articles on the Quorn, and that series was followed later by an article by another writer strongly criticising the whole design, followed of course later by another article defending the concept. (Which seems to have stood the test of time, there are competing designs now but there are still Quorns being built and used.)

David I think overall you are doing an excellent job. The magazine looks good and there is a good variety of articles. I certainly look forward to it arriving in my mailbox each fortnight.

As you say, some mistakes and ommissions are inevitable. I know as a writer myself, having only so far written up relatively simple projects, that it is very hard to make sure that you have covered every single item. What seems obvious to me may not be so obvious to a third party trying to build it, and will most likely not be apparent to a second party like an editor trying to check it. A good set of photos will cover some of the uncertainties but there are still likely to be questions arising.

We can certainly overcome some of the problems that occur with discussion on this site, especially where we can get communication going with the original writer/designer. It would not be a bad thing if some of the outcome of those discussions could be published the magazine to round out the series. We have enough extra information on Rina now to make a page or so, and this would help make the design more accessable to first time builders.

I don’t know that it is necessarily too much of a problem if only administrators can upload files. This at least makes sure they have been vetted before going online, which will help keep undesirable material off the site.

regards

John
4 November 2010 at 19:53 #58165
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
Yes it’s absolutely true that David is doing an excellent job. It’s also almost certainly true that he’s having to do a heck of a lot of work in the background to achieve this. The whole purpose of suggesting an additional approach is to try to save him and the new deputy editor from perhaps having to do quite so much in terms of quality control, and concentrate more on the magazines themselves.

I don’t think that there’s anything particularly radical about this; it’s been going on with other technical magazines, and certainly technical books, for years. With the best will in the world, the editor shouldn’t have to be going through every single article, checking every single drawing and trying to second-guess what all the comments will be – this sort of stuff really ought to be subbed out.

I think that all it would take in the first place would be a few people who indicated that they’d be prepared to help with this on an ad hoc basis, perhaps when the editor has looked at a submission and determined that it might help if somebody else went through it. From all the comments about issues of later correction, it seems almost inevitable that getting as much of it right in the first place is the way to go, doesn’t it?
4 November 2010 at 20:20 #58168
The Merry Miller
Participant
@themerrymiller
I wonder if any of the authors, prior to submitting an article for publication are able to get an engineering colleague to cast a professional eye over it.

This could no doubt pick up many of the basic errors that occur thus enabling corrections to be made prior to issue. I’m not saying that they would all be spotted but it would be a worthwhile exercise.

Len. P.
4 November 2010 at 23:46 #58183
Steve Garnett
Participant
@stevegarnett62550
I’m sure that is all it would take really – the Ed saying ‘do you have a colleague to check it?’ and if a contributor doesn’t, then he suggests somebody suitable…
5 November 2010 at 02:29 #58186
John Olsen
Participant
@johnolsen79199
One thing I do with the words is get my wife to read it all with a blue pencil in hand. She will not necessarily pick up technical errors, although she often does, but can tell if it all seems to be making sense or not. Another trick is to write it all, then put it aside for a while and get on with something else, the drawings or the photos for instance. You will not always pick things up when you read it immediately after writing, but once it is no longer so fresh in your mind they will stick out more.

Checking drawings is I think a little harder. You know what was intended, so it is harder to come at it fresh and see that you have left out some detail or other. A check list is good so that you can count up the bits and make sure that you have put all the important ones in.

Photos need to be taken at the time of construction, so it helps if you are thinking about publication right from the start. Then it is a case of being selective, choosing the ones that show some important detail of the construction or machining, and of course coming up with suitable captions.

Getting a model engineering colleague to take a look (or for that matter anyone else with the right sort of knowledge) does seem like quite a good step to add in. I can see where it would not necessarily be the easiest thing for the magazine to arrange, since there could be issues of premature exposure. One thing for the writer to show it to his mate, and another again for David to send a copy to some third party. Probably the reviewers would need to sign some sort of non-disclosure.

regards

John

Edited By John Olsen on 05/11/2010 02:30:12
5 November 2010 at 09:38 #58195
David Clark 13
Participant
@davidclark13
Hi Eric
Finally had chance to look at errors in Van Rennes.
The plate drawing is incorrect, the illustrator got it wrong, the text was correct.
Yes, we missed the figure numbers off. It happens occasionally. Fortunately the drawings were named so no problem.

Throughout the text the reader had the option of a 10mm or 3/8in. thread.

A 3/8 or 8mm hole to take a retaining bolt was mentioned but not a thread.
As no thread was mentioned, it was easy to miss that the 8mm should be 10mm.

So, apart from the 8mm hole, James got it right.
(And 8mm may well be right anyway, you can fit what bolt you want.)

I have checked the text and drawings in the current article (4391) and found no errors in James article.
The only errors were from us, not James.
regards David

Edited By David Clark 1 on 05/11/2010 09:46:54
Author

Posts