MEW 289

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

MEW 289

This topic has 15 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 February 2020 at 09:23 by Neil Wyatt.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)

Author

Posts
2 January 2020 at 07:00 #38550
Michael C
Participant
@michaelc17572
Advert

2 January 2020 at 07:00 #444258
Michael C
Participant
@michaelc17572
Hi,

When will MEW 289 be available to view for online subscribers? I only see issue 288 in there at the moment, and only partial 289 on the homepage.

Cheers,

Michael
2 January 2020 at 10:05 #444272
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
Michael, it can be viewed via Pocketmags which is actually the better viewer. You wll need to register if you have not already done so, requires your subscription number.

I suspect it won't be available on this site until early next week.
2 January 2020 at 20:01 #444376
Michael C
Participant
@michaelc17572
Thanks Jason. I just accessed it via Pocketmags as you suggested.

Cheers,

Michael
4 January 2020 at 12:40 #444612
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
It is on the system, but the people who can 'make it live' aren't back at work until Monday.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Neil
5 January 2020 at 11:44 #444748
Michael C
Participant
@michaelc17572
Thanks Neil
5 January 2020 at 12:40 #444762
Circlip
Participant
@circlip
Must be a really complex system Neil, I can compose a "letter" on my system, save it as a draft and any time in the future just press "Send". No rocket science needed. Perhaps consultation with "Pocketmags" is required?

Regards Ian.
5 January 2020 at 13:07 #444766
SillyOldDuffer
Moderator
@sillyoldduffer
Posted by Circlip on 05/01/2020 12:40:01:

Must be a really complex system Neil, I can compose a "letter" on my system, save it as a draft and any time in the future just press "Send". No rocket science needed. Perhaps consultation with "Pocketmags" is required?

Regards Ian.

Being able to write letters on my system doesn't mean I can do the same on Ian's. Nothing to do with rocket science, software or the operating system, it's about control. Ian has to trust me with his login name and password…
5 January 2020 at 13:45 #444772
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
Good to know you work 24-7 and for free Ian, others tend to work the hours they get paid for and take the odd holiday
13 February 2020 at 15:23 #452042
Jeff Dayman
Participant
@jeffdayman43397
Hi Neil, I got my copy of MEW 289 today, noticed a problem in the modular dividing head article. The "overall layout" drawings on two pages are completely illegible, the object lines in the views are really dim or missing. The parts detail views are fine. Did anyone else's copy have this problem? Will better drawings be published in a later issue if so?
13 February 2020 at 15:34 #452044
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
Jeff, there is a thread about this somewhere along the lines of the parts will all get shown at a larger size during the article so don't worry, at least that was what Neil said!
13 February 2020 at 16:08 #452049
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
These additional figures were supplied with the article and we thought we would try using them as a way to show all the parts together. Unfortunately they weren't as legible on paper as we expected (being very short sighted I can read them (just!) but they were more easily readable on the computer screen).

We did have some reservations so we put the wordings 'This figure is intended as a key to the figures for the basic dividing head/ which follow/worm module which will appear in the next issue' on each image in the expectation that this would make it clear that all the small images would also be printed at full size.

Neil
13 February 2020 at 19:58 #452085
Jeff Dayman
Participant
@jeffdayman43397
Thanks Neil and Jason, will watch for future issues with the full size images.

Even in full bright light, on my copy the object lines are extremely faint grey ink, and lots of areas are missing ink for object lines entirely. The dimension lines are sharp, and I can just make out some of the dimension text.
13 February 2020 at 20:12 #452089
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
Neil on the subject of the dividing head in 290 there are two "table 2" charts and "table 4" has exactly the same info ( including the error on the 18DP angle) as the second "table 2" just not laid out as well?

Also tables 5 & 6 look to be exactly the same, should one by for Southbend lathes?

Edited By JasonB on 13/02/2020 20:28:41
14 February 2020 at 08:38 #452126
Michael Gilligan
Participant
@michaelgilligan61133
Posted by Jeff Dayman on 13/02/2020 19:58:54:

Thanks Neil and Jason, will watch for future issues with the full size images.

Even in full bright light, on my copy the object lines are extremely faint grey ink, and lots of areas are missing ink for object lines entirely. The dimension lines are sharp, and I can just make out some of the dimension text.

.

I don’t think you are missing anything, Jeff …

They were, I believe, just diagrams to help the editor know where the author thought the figures should be placed in the text.

… If I am correct, then printing them at all was a waste of magazine space, and printing them bigger would just be a waste of more space.

MichaelG.

.

Pevious thread, for reference:

https://www.model-engineer.co.uk/forums/postings.asp?th=148229

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 14/02/2020 08:40:54
14 February 2020 at 09:23 #452133
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
Correct table 6 will appear in the last instalment. Other tables are as supplied.

Tables are a curse as it is so easy for even minor changes to cause issues, you end up looking forthings like figures in wrong columns and format errors which can distract you from th big picture! That said the duplication of 5 was a genuine error we shoudl have noticed.

Neil.
Author

Posts