Definitely no models in MEW, that is why I buy ME, that's where I expect models to be, I only ever want to see workshop related articles in MEW, tooling, techniques, the odd article on someone elses worksho setup (that just encourages me to go have a clearout and tidy LOL ).

Articles on models of workshop equipment are ok, such as those built by the likes of Barry Jordan.

CB

Well as the magazine is titled Model Engineers' Workshop rather than Model Engineers' Toolkit, I don't see anything that would make me think I wouldn't see some model related articles in there. Where has this 'no models rule' come from?

I don't buy Model Engineer magazine because it seems to be aimed at the steam & ic engine enthusiast and that's not my main interest, but I doubt I'd bother putting pen to paper if a steam related article were to appear in MEW, after all, it is engineering.

Do we also take from this debate that no tooling submissions should ever be printed in ME – even the mundane like how to sharpen a drill bit?

Martin.

As I commented elsewhere some time ago, the position of the apostrophe suggests a workshop shared by several model engineers. It would be more logical to call it Model Engineer's Workshop, or perhaps Model Engineers' Workshops.

Good mag though, one of my two favourites of all the (too many) magazines I have bought regularly over the years.

David

My point is that Model Engineers make Models in their Workshops, so if you want a magazine with no mention at all of models, – and that must include models of lathes etc – why have have that word in the title?

Engineers Home Workshop sounds more appropriate to me, but that's just going over old ground.

Martin

Things change [and of course they should], but it's worth reading the Editorial in Issue_1 of MEW.

… The scope of the new magazine was specified there.

Personally, I would much prefer MEW to concentrate upon more demanding projects for the Workshop. The current "StepperHead" series is a superb example and [assuming there are no problems with Copyright], I would suggest a reprint of some Geo. H. Thomas articles.

If there is a need for change then it would be better to "spin off" the simpler articles into a supplement [maybe published quarterly] which is a "give-away" with MEW: After a quick read, this could be passed-on to youngsters and newcomers; who would doubtless be encouraged to subscribe to MEW in due course.

Striking the right balance in a "Technical Hobbyist" magazine like MEW must be an Editorial nightmare [keep up the good work, David]; but if you allow the core content to be diluted too much then you will lose the more experienced readers.

MichaelG.

Calling it 'Model Engineer's Workshop' has always sounded a bit like a veiled threat to me, considering what the coverage is stated as being. It's almost like saying, "well we could put something about a model in it, but if you behave yourselves, we won't"….

I'd vote for the coverage remaining as it is, and a more appropriate, less threatening, title!

As it is, it works fine, because I have MEW on subscription, and assuming that somebody hasn't thoughtlessly wrapped ME in a plastic bag, I can have a look at it in Smiths, and purchase it if there's something of interest in it. I think I've done that at least four times, now – in the last 20 years.

Should also say though that if somebody wants to illustrate a technique or whatever using a model build in progress, I have no objection to that, even though it isn't ideal.

Edited By Steve Garnett on 05/07/2012 09:38:01

What if you've never made a model of anything…?

Martin.

I would agree whole heartedly with the idea of a Quarterly "special" devoted to the absolute newbie, the plethora of how to cut a piece of metal and choose this or that tool is becoming counterproductive (Sorry Mick).

Articles like the Stepperhead are thought provoking even if in some instances you disagree with a principle or practice or two.

The suggestion in Scribe a Line, that Authors should (or even a hint of must), provide a line by line, hole by hole, cut by cut explanation of how to do it, ignores the number of hours necessary to write such an article. If you do not agree with this, just try writing an article or three and you will find out for yourself. What ever I am making, I tend to photograph everything on the basis that one day I might just write another article, but I do not think it will be that simple to make.

There has to be a balance in all of this. If it is a simple project, likely to be undertaken by a reader with lesser skills then OK, but once the skill level of the project is higher such as "Build your Own Lathe" then surely this is not one that would be attempted by a newbie and such detailing is totally unnecessary.

Edited By KWIL on 05/07/2012 11:12:50

Well said KWIL.

I have to strike a balance.

I learnt my engineering by reading Model Engineer in the school library (and other hobby type books).

I taught myself by reading relevant books and magazines. I had no one to teach me but I learnt.

Today, I don't think people know how to learn. They want everything handed to them on a plate and if it is not instant gratification, they simply move on to something else.

When finally let loose in a factory, I learnt by trial and error. This appears to be the main missing step nowadays, no one has access to industrial machines.

And yes, I still have all 8 fingers and two thumbs.

regards David

Hi Michael

Sometimes learning by doing is the best way. It is a shame that there is no more common sense available.

Perhaps someone could sell it on Ebay. They would make a fortune.

I am glad you like the CNC articles. I get a lot of complaints about them but it is the way forward. We have a wooden CNC mill in the next issue of model engineer. Wood is not ideal but it is a low cost introcuction to CNC.

regards David

Hi Mike

Yes, a series.

regards David