Discussion on the Future Direction of Model Engineer and Workshop

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Please acept my sympathies for your loss.

……..

.

You are never going to please everyone all the time.

The reader building clocks or model gas-turbines is not very likely to read Part XXXVI of detailing the nether regions of a 5″ g. locomotive; while both parties may or may not particularly enjoy serials like Butterside Down whose only practical contribution was the writer’s description of his trailer and model-loading arrangements.

Club News at least advances the contributing societies’ names even if the “News” itself is naturally parochial; but it is noticeable that Geoff Theasby often has to pad much of his area with his own comments.

I value An Engineers’ Day Out. Most of these engineering museums are run by trusts needing all the support they can find in ever hardening times, amidst the major national museums etc. making themselves ever shallower and valueless. From the model-engineering aspect they can also be valuable sources of information. I have used this feature, though so far only once, to visit a museum otherwise unknown to me. The early editions of ME&E sometimes ran slightly similar features, but more often about working places of manufacture, not their fossils.

I am interested in the historical series such as that on the development of the stationary steam engine, but feel the present one so long it would be better produced as a book, with a brief summary series in ME. Indeed, once it has concluded perhaps Mortons or TEE might take such book publication in hand. Being somewhat niche, it could use the “Print On Demand” system I have seen work elsewhere.

.

Some of my fellow club members stopped buying ME long ago, or never did, because they felt it was becoming almost only interminable serials on building particular models, and those restricted to steam-locomotives. And these critics themselves have built or at least own, live-steam locomotives. I think they have a point.

Such “words and music” should help the newcomer building a relatively simple machine designed with him or her in mind, but those able to construct fine-scale replicas of main-line locomotives should not need extensive “how to” column-acres. Anyway the author bases the series on his own facilities and personal experience, so the information is always a bit subjective. The experienced builder should need only the proper, separately-published drawings; with a few notes and photographs on specific details and tips. It may even be feasible to publish the more useful photographs with the drawings set, instead.

His basic skills are all covered in books such as the TEE “Workshop Practice Series”; but there is a place in the magazine for articles on techniques, both at advanced and novice level.  Not just “traditional” or just CAD/CAM methods: the balance needs be struck. Besides, all the calls for much more of the latter appear predicated on attracting the “younger” entrants, and based on assumptions rather than asking them. Perhaps some of those spending their working days tap-tap-tapping a computer may even prefer to handle a real file and lathe and model a real Edwardian-style machine, in their precious leisure!

 

That said, by all means cover CAD/CAM – including building the equipment, bench-up and as additions to conventional machine-tools.  (Though the field is not for me, I might still read the articles to understand others’ activities.)

.

Regarding layout; please put the advertisements back where they belong, in the end-papers, and as others say, stop wasting space on blank margins.

(The latter reminds me of that daft Management Report fad for random pages left empty for no known reason, bearing,  “This page is intentionally blank”, which of course they aren’t because they contain that claim!)

.

I wish the new “old” Model Engineer – sort of reprising its earlier career – well; but it will only succeed if it carries a good variety of quality articles, and for that to happen it needs contributions! It is not a news publication with roving staff journalists doing all the work, but relies on its readers being the reporters and not mere denigrators on this forum. And that means us all, from letters to series-writers.

……..

And while we’re at it. let’s have the “Log In” part of this forum sorted so it does not take two or three attempts to log in!

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

On Graham Meek Said:

 

I do however wonder if the comment above “use the forum and don’t subscribe”, is the way the Forum is heading in the future, ie subscription only access.

Regards

Gray,

Interestingly when website first started along with the forum there was quite a bit of “subscriber only” content now there is nothing.

Hi Jason,

I tried to submit a reply last night but got some error code.

Your knowledge of this Forum predates my own, I did not join until 2004-5. I just thought the requirement to give the above information was a little odd.

Regards

Gray,

[David SeniorParticipant @davidsenior29320]

I subscribe to both mags – ME for maybe 40 years, and MEW right from the start, and I enjoy both.

I will normally read everything, but I have limited interest in the loco efficiency competition write-ups and the club news. I see both of those as being aimed at the people involved, with little interest for others.

As it seems to be attracting comment, I will say I do enjoy reading Butterside Down (though the early ones were better and I don’t particularly like the writing style).

I probably enjoy the general articles like the Stationary Steam Engine, visits to industrial heritage sites, etc in preference to long build threads as I am unlikely to be building the same thing (and I would find it incredibly frustrating if I was and had to wait for the next issue). As I recall MEW started with the intention of keeping build projects to 1 issue, which is good. The main interest for me in the construction articles is how the writer chose to do the job, which I do find interesting.

If the writer of a constructional article chose not to show in detail how to make the parts I would still enjoy a good explanation of the strategy and choice of components (I am probably thinking of machine conversions – CNC, ELS etc). People taking on those kinds of projects would normally be quite capable of making the bits but they would benefit from the experience from others of what worked.

I do not expect to be specifically interested in all articles, but I will have a general interest in them all.

For me, commercial adverts are not something I would follow up. If I were to buy a magazine that is new to me, I will look at them all, but after a couple of issues they are all the same, and I would expect most people to use the internet to source their purchases. I do appreciate that they contribute to the financial side of the magazine however. Reports on visits to suppliers however would be very interesting.

I expect to continue my subscription.

Dave

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Dear Neil, I’m sorry to hear of your personal loss.

That one can seldom please all of the people all of the time will be true. Having just browsed the first 3 years of Model Engineer & Amateur Electrician I can confirm this (at the time ) was it’s original title, thought it did have other titles but always based on Model Engineer.

The dilemma as I see it is how to write a magazine to please the person who works in an office and owns a hammer and a screwdriver as opposed to the one who has worked in engineering or electronics all their life and has a fully equipped workshop.

The price ? Half the number of issues, double the content and double the price = that won’t work ! Let us NOT have anymore of 5 pages of Butterside Down, smacks of dropping the anchor just as the vessel is about to hit the rocks.

The editors page, Club news, Readers letters is vital, Engineering in general,not just model, Electronics of a basic and useful type, Some steam, the odd clock, The Stationary Steam engine series, optics, An occasional book review, A report on a visit to a place of general interest, Repair or modification of machine tools, making of gadgets, Etc

I have written for you before and will do so again – How about something on Hydraulics ? It’s a bit like Ohms law, once you understand the basics it is easy to design a machine to suit your job.

Happy Christmas to you all and a good New Year !   Noel.

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

I am a subscriber to MEW and a former subscriber to ME.  I started reading ME in the local library, on my way home from school back in the 1950s.  I didn’t have any workshop facilities but, nevertheless, I found it fascinating.  Much later, after building up a bit of a metal workshop to assist in the restoration and running of vintage cars I built the beam engine “Mary” shown in my avatar.  That was done following Tubal Cain’s book.  A book is, for me, much better than a lengthy series in a magazine as you can progress at your own speed.

Perhaps some of the long running build series could be reduced to a shorter ‘taster’ and the full series published in book form or online, thus freeing up space for more varied content aiming, in particular, to encourage the younger readers.  (I’m in my eightieth year but would still be interested in that)

As for articles on CAD, CAM, CNC, FEM etc., I have no objection to those but they shouldn’t be restricted to a particular vendor’s product. Perhaps some reviews comparing different vendors products, being hardware or software based, would be of general interest?  Real engineers should not be Luddites but embrace all modern tools.

Russell

 

 

 

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

I pay for both ME and MEW;  of the two MEW is a better match to my interests. (Experimental, not making small replicas.)

Broadly, I’m pleased to hear Neil is to be the editor and to find his initial thoughts are in line with my mind-set.   It’s about achieving balance, which will be tricky.

I have a small collection of ME mags with examples from each decade starting just after WW1.   They are all different, suggesting there is no such thing as traditional “Model Engineering”, rather this is a hobby that continually shifts focus.

Change is often painful, and ME magazine had a particularly torrid crisis in the mid-sixties.  The golden age of ME was the 1950s, I think because many writers had trained before “fitting” was largely abandoned by industry; because industry was booming;  and because there were few other distractions – no TV!  ME had an enormous editorial staff, perhaps because labour was cheap.  The sun shone of Model Engineering!

By 1965 though, the mag was in serious trouble.  One example: LBSC had become a grump, intolerant of criticism, and well past his prime.  Worse, readers were changing too.  Industry had moved on, and machining was no longer an obvious career for youngsters.  The editorial team had become unaffordable, and a few were set in their ways.   Readers drifted away, partly because Boats, Aircraft, Model Railways, Tethered Cars and other “Model Engineering” interests all had their own magazines, whilst electronics soaked up technical talent that might otherwise have joined up.

Reading between the lines, I suspect the crisis ended in a rancorous blood bath, after which a much slimmer editorial team kept relevant old content whilst trying to attracting new readers with new content.   One sign of this is 10 years of Traction Engines, which wouldn’t work today!

Now the ever changing world has yet again undermined “Model Engineering” as we knew it and another break point has arrived.  The magazine survived in the last century by adapting, and Neil will have to do the same.   I think he faces the most difficult challenge yet.  It isn’t about keeping us old chaps happy, this is about the future.

If you care about the future of Model Engineering, please buy the magazines, even if they don’t press all your buttons.   And if you happen to believe the hobby can be saved by reverting to old ways, please be aware it’s impossible to recreate the past.  Positive suggestions that solve today’s problem are needed, not negative opinions.  Look after the pros and the cons will look after themselves.  Defeatism never fixed anything!

Finally, this is everyone’s problem: the cosy expectation that “they” have to fix it is misplaced.   For instance, when calling for better quality articles remember that they are written by Model Engineers working for love not money!   If you want to see better articles, please write some.   GOYA!

Dave

 

 

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

A few have mentioned publishing or putting on the website drawings, extra photos, etc and Graham brought up the subject of a paywall.

I did briefly talk of having content on the website when Neil phoned me about the changes but a great deal will depend on the authors.

From my own experience of submitting articles there is a lot of work that goes into producing a set of 2D drawings that can be used buy others. I design in 3D but what I take out to the workshop is far removed from what I have to produce to submit with an article.

Neil has a set budget for mag content each month, he does not have anymore so any content that is placed on the website would either need a paywall so that the author gets paid for their effort more so if the drawings need to be redrawn as they sometimes are now to make them good enough to publish. Or if it is to be made freely available then the author will have to give it for free, unlikely to happen for a far number of contributors.

If free then people may as well just visit the site and download the drawings so no mag sales. Possible solution to that may be putting the first few drawings in the mag and the remainer on the site. Similar has ben done in the past where authors don’t submit quite a full set of drawing sso you have to buy the remainder from them.

[Howard LewisParticipant @howardlewis46836]

I think that SW O D is right.

M E was a passing interest (very much passing since don’t have the patience to spend years making any engine), but contained items of interest, if only of technique.

So, a subscriber to MEW from about issue 100.  Again, not everything excites me, but that’s me not a fault of the magazine.

I stand in awe of those who who make repairs, or complicated but useful additions to, or accessories for, their machines. Their abilities and skills, and courage, far exceed mine, but reading of their exploits is interesting and educational.

CNC or 3D printing do not light my fire, but is of avid interest and use for others.  So, we need articles on such subjects. Maybe, one day, I shall find a use for one, or both?

Tethered cars or flash steam hydroplanes may not be everyone’s interest, but of readers have those interests, lets read about them.

Some are abstainers, others are connoisseurs of beers or wines.

If you want articles on your favourite subject; don’t complain about their absence; write about it!

In this way, experience can be passed on to newbie and “old timer” alike.

As Noel says, you won’t please all the people all of the time.

Neil now has the task of keeping several balls in the air whilst standing on a rotating table.

He needs our good wishes and support

Howard

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Thanks for the thoughts and good wishes so far.

I think it’s probably fair to those expressing condolences to explain that my dad passed away very recently. It was mercifully quick (abdominal aneurism). He was 91 and not long before spent an hour and a half chewing the fat with one of his long-standing model boat friends. Not a bad way to go. The irony is I will now have more time to spend on traditional model engineering as a result.

 

There are some clear threads emerging.

While the overlap between magazines was about 25%, MEW did have a significantly greater readership. We think cost was part of the reason as much as anything else. But reading the comments, I think the MEW style of avoiding very long series seems to appeal to more people.

It’s clear that both MEW and ME have aspects that some people don’t like, but also much that people do like. I have the opportunity, with more space, more potential articles and more contributors, the opportunity to present more of what readers appreciate. But this will also disappoint more people, as some content that may have appeared before ends up ‘on the cutting room floor’.

The good news is that by combining the magazines there is plenty of content to use, although there are still some topics that are poorly covered. Someone mentioned welding, joining in general and sheet metal work… I’d add finishing techniques (painting, anodising etc.), hand tool techniques and good, short beginner’s projects to that list. I’d love to see a simple clock that can be built without special tools (e.g. by using involute gears).

One thing I hope is to have more constructional content; the number of contributions of this kind to MEW has declined over recent years, although quality remains high. The challenge is going to be keeping the maximum length of construction series down.

I wrote a series on a simple 3 1/2″ gauge electric shunter for Model Engineer that took twelve parts, it took twice as long to publish as to build the thing! So a full description of a steam engine build is naturally a very long series. I honestly don’t know where to go with this, and thoughts are welcome.

More discursive content: reminiscences, visits etc. appeal to some readers, but not all. Perhaps such things are better as occasional features, rather than ongoing series in each issue.

The comment about ‘The New Model Engineer’ in the last half of 1955 is interesting. The cover promised ‘Covering every subject of mechanical and scientific interest past present and future’. In practice, this meant a few pages on spaceflight or atomic energy at sea, presumably in an attempt to widen the readership. The contents of most issues looked no different from the usual, here’s the contents of a random ‘New’ Model Engineer:

 

The lesson from this is probably ‘don’t promise what you can’t deliver’…

Anyway, keep your thoughts coming. I am 90% sure that an online survey will be possible.

Neil

[Rod RenshawParticipant @rodrenshaw28584]

Interesting and slightly worrying thread!

I am not sure I can contribute anything more on the general issues than has already been contributed by others, but from a purely personal point of view:

I only pretend to make models and tend to tinker with tools and make smaller add-ons and jigs etc.,  as well as do repairs and generally play around. I subscribe to MEW and have all the issues from day one and I re-read many of them and find them mostly useful and interesting.  I also subscribe to ME and, through a lucky purchase some years ago, I have all the back issues. I tend to re-read older issues of ME rather than current ones.

Being of advancing years and too lazy to learn new languages I generally ignore articles about CNC and 3-D printers, and also articles about the use of micro- computers to do things which I suspect could be done with a few transistors or even a few relays.

I am not really interested in loco-build articles, though iI do skim through some to check for new (to me) ways to approach the making of individual parts, I like articles on model stationery engine builds which I can imagine trying to make. I don’t like the very long running articles in ME, especially the one on the history of stationery engines which is running in ME and which seems to be more about buildings and the history of individuals than about the engines themselves. There is never any attempt to describe an engine in the detail that anyone would need to inspire the interest to build a model. The articles seem to be well-researched but would, in my view, be better as a history book, rather than as articles in a magazine aimed at readers who make things. Buttership Down seems to be mostly an excuse for bragging rather than useful or interesting content. I do wonder if the decisions to include such things are about editorial laziness or partisanship rather than any attempt to reflect the imagined interests of readers. I don’t read about clubs or trips out etc. I don’t read archive articles ( I have the back issues) Perhaps it’s a selfish thing but I concentrate on content about making things.

I will let my subscriptions run and see how the new title develops, at least for a year or two. I would have preferred the new title to be ME ( for historical reasons) but I hope that having “Workshop” in the title will result in there being more of MEW in the new product than the current ME.

Having been rather critical, I am happy that the magazines still exist, so many print titles have vanished, and I wish Neil well in his new endeavor.

Rod

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

Forgive me – I digress, but Neils mention of Nuclear energy at sea, I have very fond memories of being in Copenhagen in 1964 and seeing the NS Savannah in the harbour. Noel.

[Arthur Jones 2Participant @arthurjones2]

Hi again Neil, Jason and all,

As promised, here are a few thoughts on present and future content.  I hope they will be taken constructively even though I have a few grumbles.

Overall content at present: Some of it (in both magazines) is really good but it does feel as if the good material is padded out somewhat by less relevant and less interesting material, or just by being rather wordy.

For example, the recent, useful ME series on un-seizing a cast iron piston/cylinder seemed to a largely verbatim transcript of what was clearly a fascinating presentation but I wonder if it could have been edited down to a single article without loss of substance.  Others have commented on other primarily non-technical series – personally that’s not what I am interested in (other than the practical advice sometimes buried in them) though perhaps others enjoy a good read largely for its own sake.  There does seem to have been very close overlap between ME and MEW e.g. on motors and on MMEX reports, so hopefully that duplication can be avoided via the amalgamation.

I don’t have a problem with the club visit reports and club news as I think it is really important for ME/ME&W to engage with the  model engineering community (frankly it’s missing the point if it doesn’t do that), though again perhaps some space could be saved.

Some of the MEW content has also seemed rather bland, as others have commented on this forum in the past.  Some of the refurbishment articles have felt a little specific to particular, possibly infrequently-encountered machines.  However there seems to have been significant improvement in the past five or six issues and that is welcome.

I had in fact been hanging onto my MEW subscription in the hope of a good “introduction to CNC” series appearing, as it just has done, as I’m starting on a very similar journey myself and have had mixed experiences which have acted as a reality check.  It is a little frustrating that the present series focuses on a machine which is no longer available, but hopefully the  experiences will be transferrable to other models, and I’m looking forward to future instalments assuming they will continue in ME&W.  Additionally, perhaps the MMEX speaker on CNC for loco construction (Brian Neale) could provide a complementary perspective of the same area?

Future content and interests:

There needs to be a balance of traditional and modern i.e. something for all relevant interests – locos, steam road vehicles, stationary engines, IC engines/vehicles in all forms, gas and steam turbines, clockmaking, novel approaches on conventional machines, CNC, legislative changes affecting model engineers etc. I fully appreciate though that one cannot please all the people all the time, and there is no point in competing on loosely-related interests (e.g. aeromodelling) which are amply covered by other magazines.  Articles on CAD and 3D design modelling can fall into the trap of being a bit too package-specific to be fully transferrable, in my view, and I feel these interests are better served by watching relevant online instructional videos.

By background I’m a largely-retired engineering academic belatedly picking up on model engineering interests dating back to my school days of driving and maintaining a 7 1/4″ steam loco, and am (very slowly) building a Martin Evans “William” 3.5″ 2-6-2T.  So the existing loco content is fine by me, and I am enjoying reading about the techniques used (even if some are familiar to old hands).  I am impressed that a new series takes on a new 3.5″ design based largely on existing castings – this sounds like the way forward as I suspect the days of suppliers speculatively making patterns for totally new designs have finished.  Indeed, once the William is finished I had already planned to do a broadly similar re-purposing of the innards of an existing 5″ design, and have collected some of the information to do that, but whether it will ever get to implementation or article stage is another matter.  I am also interested in stationary engines, mainly large steam (mill and beam), so those articles are also of interest (but a possible build is far too distant for me to contemplate seriously) and CNC (as noted above).

But there needs to be far less “padding”!  I recently briefed my few remaining students on presenting their results, and finished the presentation with the advice to word things tightly and informatively, saying “no shaggy dog stories” (along with a public domain picture of a very hairy dog!).  Perhaps that tongue-in-cheek advice has some relevance here, in terms of cutting to the chase and avoiding filling space for its own sake.

A general question

Sorry if this has been covered and I’ve missed it – although I guess hard numbers are probably commercially sensitive, how do the overall circulations of ME and MEW compare?  Are they about the same or is one significantly bigger than the other?  To what extent do the joint subscribers account for the readership of one magazine or the other?  I appreciate there is limited overlap but it would be interesting to know the relative sizes of ME-only, MEW-only and joint subscribers.

Closing comments:

I’ve disregarded my own advice to be brief quite enough, so all I can say to Neil is best wishes in his extended role (and of course in juggling this with his personal commitments – heartfelt condolences on those), many thanks to Martin and Diane for their efforts in recent years, and good luck with ME&W.

Best wishes to all, not least for Christmas and the New Year

Arthur

[Charles LamontParticipant @charleslamont71117]

Perhaps the rather clunky ‘Model Engineer and Workshop’ is an interim title, with the intent to phase out the Workshop part of the title sometime later?

[Bob Worsley]

On Bob Worsley Said:

 

Model engineering seems to me to now be a Men’s Sheds type of thing, change the magazine to reflect that?

 

I visited the SMEE last week. They spoke of how they had started some co-operative ventures with a nearby Makerspace.

This LOCAL, although South London, Makerspace has 3,500 members. How does that compare with most Model engineering societies?

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Probably my final comment until Monday, more of a digression than an observation:

One article I would like to have seen in Model Engineer, but I don’t think I have, is a good article on designing and making your own safety valves for small boilers. With the emphasis on up-to-date design, not just repeating those of the past. Something that has repeatable and settable blow-off pressure, a pop (quick on/off) character, resists priming and that makes use of ‘modern’ materials such as O-rings where these are of benefit.

Maybe a modern update on LBSC’s boiler pump too!

 

Please feel free to include specific suggestions for articles/topics in your responses. It all helps me get a feel for what will engage readers.

Neil

[MacolmParticipant @macolm]

A passing thought before I forget all about it. Regarding long series, is there any mileage in extending the website (yes I know – disaster!) to provide not only a home for such content of limited appeal, but also perhaps for downloadable files of all types? I realise this raises thorny issues of payment and administration.

The author of a series would also provide a short article in the magazine, being a summary of the extended content.

[Charles Lamont]

On Charles Lamont Said:

Perhaps the rather clunky ‘Model Engineer and Workshop’ is an interim title, with the intent to phase out the Workshop part of the title sometime later?

Although I don’t subscribe to MEW from the posts here and in other recent threads I think the “workshop” side of things seems the more encompassing of what people are doing and will also cover any future subscibers as no matter what they may be making it is most likely to be in a workshop and probably not a model.

[mike robinson 2Participant @mikerobinson2]

I have subscribed to both ME and MEW for more years than I like to think about. I read the forum daily as I munch on a sandwich at work.

For Model Engineer, I agree with Jasons comments and the relevance to the subject of the publication. When I first started to read it I thought it should have been renamed to Model Steam Trains. For me at least, model engineering is building a functioning model of anything, stationary steam, loco’s, cars or parts thereof like Mike Sayers Bentley. I am not adverse to clock building, it sets an aspirational standard for precision and finish.

I dislike topics like Engineers Day Out, it’s not model engineering while 90% of Butter side up was also not model engineering and enough is enough, please stop it. Club news is often quite bizarre and if continued needs a total revamp.

For the most part I like the longer-term builds, like the current compound engine. It’s good to see something complex progress from start to finish. But not more than 2 concurrently even in a monthly publication. A good photo speaks a thousand words, but many are printed too small to see the feature or process being commented on, please zoom in and crop it to suit.

I am sorry to say I am not very keen on MEW. It’s one of those love hate things I suppose. Each month I think of cancelling my subscription, but I don’t in the hope the next one has content as per it’s name. I interpret Model Engineers Workshop, as workshop tools and tooling, techniques, machines and their improvements or add-ons and materials and processes for model engineering. I do not consider topics like how to glue a plastic model together, or making a chain saw grinding jig and definitely not just scrubbing off rust from a surface plate. If that had continued with how to scrape it flat, it would have been of real value to some.

Supply chains are essential to businesses and collaboration between different on-topic magazines, where appropriate, could add value to existing subscribers and attract new ones.

I understand from Neil’s comment he has a plethora of articles to publish. I wish him well in his new role and sincerely hope he drops items that do not fit the magazine title and focuses on model engineering and workshop content for which subscribers expect and pay for.

[Arthur Jones 2]

On Arthur Jones 2 Said:

…
I’ve disregarded my own advice to be brief quite enough…

Not at all!  I found the post well-balanced and read it twice.  (Was that my fault or Arthur’s?)

Brevity in Technical Writing is always a problem.   Practitioners want the simplest possible answer and are liable to consider any explanation to be an attack.   At the same time, academic friends want to grip the theory, ideally with lots of maths.  Despite Maths being the briefest way to express technical facts, many Model Engineers would rather maths didn’t exist.

In between pure hands-on and academic interest, individuals want the level of detail that suits them personally and this varies over time.   First read might be a scan to see if the item described is relevant, whilst the second might demand build details and references.  With such a diverse audience,  the poor author has no hope of pleasing everyone.  And the article has to be interesting too, for which a  shaggy dog might help.

I get plenty of flak due to making long posts.  Don’t care: no-one has to read them! I’m fulsome because there is always interest in ‘why’, and because I improve every time my exposed workings-out enable others to report errors.

Example of technical terseness:  in the UNIX operating operating system, the command “false” is defined as “do nothing, unsuccessfully“.   Why this command is useful isn’t explained, the reader has to suss it out himself.  That level of brevity has no place in a hobby magazine.   On the other hand “do nothing, unsuccessfully”, describes all too accurately what I do in my workshop…

🙁

Dave

 

[Author]

Posts