Forum and now MEW Going downhill pointless article in MEW 335

[JasonB]

On JasonB Said:

Well I’ve just sent Neil the first part of a short Series and another engine build is about ready to go off to Martin. Also something on the back burner about making use of modern methods so I’ve done my bit to get content that interests me, what about the rest of you?

 

I also wonder if even Neil will read this topic!

According to his profile page Neil has not logged in, no visited, not posted, not replied or not started a new topic for 12 days.

I have no idea whether time indicated on a participants profile actually means anything, I looked at my own profile and the time did not tally with any event related to the session.

Maybe Neil is on holiday

Ian P

[Rod RenshawParticipant @rodrenshaw28584]

A very sad thread, but much of it sadly true.

I have given up on EIM as it had too much loco series content in recent years for my taste and interests. I may give up on ME unless it improves. ME also has too many loco series and also some long series “The History of Stationery Engines”  in 99 exhaustive bi-weekly parts indeed! I think we are only up to Part 53 so far but the author is only at Richard Trevithick in around 1790 so there may be a long way to go. Through a lucky purchase some years ago I have all the issues of ME back to 1898 and I am hanging on to my subscription more through nostalgia than real interest in recent issues, though there has been some background workshop material recently.

I hope MEW continues, though it needs more active contributors, Neil can only include what he is sent, what he writes himself and what he trawls through the archive for and reprints. It cannot help that Mortons have reduced the amount they pay contributors, it’s not so much the money as the apparent lack of respect for the people that keep the magazine alive.

I also hope the forum survives, but it has some of the same problems as MEW and some additional ones caused by the recent changes and the apparent difficulties in getting the new format to work well.

I suppose at least part of the problem is that there is so much choice nowadays. There is this forum, other forums and other magazines, youTube and other internet sources of information about machining processes both traditional and modern, and many of the younger potential magazine readers are more inclined to use the internet than any print material. Also I suspect that at least some machinists who might have been magazine contributors in the past have now set themselves up as youTube exhibitors or have their own websites instead.

So, as said in some posts above, if we want MEW to survive, we all need to consider if we can send Neil a contribution for MEW. Neil can edit text, he has someone who can redraw sketch drawings and rethink photographs, it’s the general shape of an article he needs. So no one should be concerned about submitting something because it may not be perfect- though I am sure Neil would prefer copy needing little amendment.

Rod

 

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

I agree with Rob Renshaw (post number 699152 above), I have not quoted his whole text but the salient point to me is…..

It cannot help that Mortons have reduced the amount they pay contributors, it’s not so much the money as the apparent lack of respect for the people that keep the magazine alive.

‘the people’, in particular the editor and moderators.

Ian P

[Graham Meek]

On Graham Meek Said:

…

One thing I miss, is the basic electronic projects which used to appear. The type of article that used simple components, no etched circuit boards or bought in gismos. The current articles I have seen might make sense to someone in that field, but they are talking a whole different language to my limited electrical/electronics knowledge.

Regards

Gray,

 

 

Whilst I admit this does nothing to help the MEW situation, Gray … may I suggest you have a look at a site I happened-across last night:

 

https://www.friendlywire.com/tutorials/

 

MichaelG.

 

[Iain DownsParticipant @iaindowns78295]

I’d just like to pose a counter-view.

I would agree that not everything in MEW is to my taste or interest.  But some is – quite a lot actually.  What is invaluable is the back catalogue which has some very tasty nuggets buried in it!

But I will say straight away that the most valuable (for me) component from Morton’s is this forum.  Yes, there is a ton of stuff on You tube and much of it very informative (though you do have to use some common sense).  But this is a place where I can ask for help about specific and get reliable and informed support (though admittedly by no means consistent in view!).

I would not have got as far as I have in my destruction of perfectly good bights of metal without the forum and would be devastated if it was retired.

Commercially, I think Morton’s would lose a lot if the forum went. No one would be coming to see the ads without it.

I agree that the transition from old tired forum to new sluggish forum has been terrible.  It’s just about usable now, but still needs a lot of work.  Frankly, without the forum I would be less likely to continue my subscription to MEW.  ME subscription went last year – there was little of interest to me.

That’s my five penn’orth.

 

Iain

[Iain Downs]

On Iain Downs Said:

… But I will say straight away that the most valuable (for me) component from Morton’s is this forum.  …

I agree that the transition from old tired forum to new sluggish forum has been terrible.  It’s just about usable now, but still needs a lot of work.  Frankly, without the forum I would be less likely to continue my subscription to MEW.  …

Well-said, Iain

MichaelG.

.

P.S. __ I wouldn’t like to be the one at Mortons trying to determine ‘Value for Money’ on this exercise.

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

Hi all,

I have written some articles in the past and have a few ideas I would perhaps submit to the editor. However I am now re-thinking an article I could submit as I do not know which dimension system to apply, whether metric or imperial.

I have no problem with either, after spending many years dealing with both at the same time.  But I get the impression that metric is the trendy young system and  imperial is the old fogies yesteryear system which is deemed to be a relic of a bygone age, virtually indecypherable by the new age model engineer who prefer CNCing stuff and printed modelling methods and in general anything that is not too hard to do.  So I am redesigning a submission from imperial to metric to suit but of course this all takes much more time. Am I wrong here?

Alan

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

Alan, I vote Metric every time

Ian P

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Alan, you could be opening up a whole old can of worms with that question.

Myself I’m OK working in both but do prefer metric given the choice. What the item is my have some bearing on what is used as it would be better to us eimperial if it is an attachment for say a Myford where as I’ve just done a small modification for the SIEG SX2.7 which being a metric machine it seemed logical to use metric when designing it.

In the case of the models I have submitted articles for then as they were aimed towards the new commer to the hobby I thought they are likely to be under 60 so would have been schooled and spent there working life using metric (leaving US readers out of it). They are probably also more likely to have far eastern hobby machines than old iron so again metric suits the handwheel graduations and the majority of tooling and cutters these days is metric unless you want to pay a premium for imperial or hunt out NOS.

I mentioned it in another thread somewhere that I have just “re-engineered” a casting missing from an engine of approx 1890 from photos (from mainland Europe) of a similar item of another engine which includes a rule or digi calliper in the photos. Once I had converted the sizes back to imperial it was quite easy to see how the part had been designed as with a bit of rounding up or down the sizes fitted common fractions of an inch. Though it did get the modern CAD drawing treatment and the new patterns have been 3D printed.

As I said above the forum will now allow PDFs to be put into an album so the option is to include a link at the end of an article to the imperial version if you only include the metric one in the article

[Iain Downs]

On Iain Downs Said:

I’d just like to pose a counter-view.

I would agree that not everything in MEW is to my taste or interest.  But some is – quite a lot actually.  What is invaluable is the back catalogue which has some very tasty nuggets buried in it!

But I will say straight away that the most valuable (for me) component from Morton’s is this forum.  Yes, there is a ton of stuff on You tube and much of it very informative (though you do have to use some common sense).  But this is a place where I can ask for help about specific and get reliable and informed support (though admittedly by no means consistent in view!).

I would not have got as far as I have in my destruction of perfectly good bights of metal without the forum and would be devastated if it was retired.

Commercially, I think Morton’s would lose a lot if the forum went. No one would be coming to see the ads without it.

I agree that the transition from old tired forum to new sluggish forum has been terrible.  It’s just about usable now, but still needs a lot of work.  Frankly, without the forum I would be less likely to continue my subscription to MEW.  ME subscription went last year – there was little of interest to me.

That’s my five penn’orth.

 

Iain

I agree with everything Iain says.

Since I started this thread I have been leafing through my old copies of MEW and my observation is that articles in the earlier issues were generally much more detailed and technical and whilst many included lots of photographs, rarely did they take up the bulk of page space.

There are definitely many articles in older issues that are worth repeating, I spotted one on the subject of stainless steels, its a reference document with a mine of information that does not go out of date that I had forgotten the about but now will keep issue 25 to hand.

Ian P

[Another JohnSParticipant @anotherjohns]

Hey Luker;

Just a note to say that I really enjoy your articles in ME. You bring a wealth of knowledge, the status-quo, and the not-status-quo, all of which combine into articles that most all can read and glean information from.

Thanks!

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Metric or imperial for publication depends what the item was designed in. If it was in inches use inches. Nothing worse than a drawing with 12.7mm, 3.175 mm etc. Don’t get me started on CAD conversions and calculated dimensions quoted to a excessive number of decimal places…..

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

First let me say how I admire Jasons skill in being able almost at the drop of a hat to come up with a beautiful dimensioned drawing ! As to the issue of metric or imperial I grew up with imperial but had to work with both, even commiting the cardinal sin of using both at the same time ! Since we are talking about the modern age and electronic measuring, the press of a button converts 1 to the other and drawings can be in both if it matters. CNC or 3D printing it’s only numbers. I have drawings for 2 different scales with both sizes on,and that was in the 50s, it can be done.  Most materials are now metric, this may cause a problem and as jason has mentioned myford or seig, it’s usually easy to tell which system is right but wether it is 1/4″ or 6.35mm it’s only a measurement !  I fail to see a significant insurmountable problem ? Noel.

[Another JohnS]

On Another JohnS Said:

Hey Luker;

Just a note to say that I really enjoy your articles in ME. You bring a wealth of knowledge, the status-quo, and the not-status-quo, all of which combine into articles that most all can read and glean information from.

Thanks!

Thanks JohnS, for any contributor feedback like this is very much appreciated!

[simondavies3Participant @simondavies3]

Hi Luker, I will second JohnS’s comments – I really enjoy your articles, not because I have any interest in steam locomotives, rather because of your all encompasing use of old and new technologies and your discussions and reasons behind each use. I especially enjoyed the discussions regarding the use of TiG in boilers from the point of view of a self-taught TiG welder (not, I hasten to add, one who intends welding any pressure vessels with it!).

Regarding content, I usually find something of interest in MEW, especially when one of my own articles has been published.

ME I find more difficult since there are generally one or two articles per issue but far too many long running series (especially the apparently never-ending “History of Stationery Engines”) that I skip past. When renewal comes up next year, it may be a difficult decision, we shall see.

On a ‘wish-list’ of articles, some time back there was an excellent one on adhesives as applied to industry and our scales – I no longer know where that article is, but I am sure that it woulod be an interesting topic to be re-addressed and updated.

Simon

[Alan Jackson]

On Alan Jackson Said:

…I do not know which dimension system to apply, whether metric or imperial.

Whatever unit system you use to describe your gadget, an experienced person will have no difficulty making sensible engineering decisions when converting it to the other one.

The problem will come when an inexperienced person skips over it as they are not familiar with the units and do not have the pragmatism that leads to a sensible conversion.

So include a paragraph or two giving the benefits of your own experience, saying “if I had to build this in metric/imperial (delete as applicable), these are the thread choices and material sizes I would substitute, based on ease of availability from suppliers”.

Not only will that guide the newcomer, it will make an extra half page and couple of photos from the article, increasing your income. It also helps Phil Space as it postpones the need for another page from the dwindling stack of Geometer tips, inserted only to reach the minimum page count for an issue.

[LukerParticipant @luker]

Thanks Simon, I really appreciate the feedback. Writing long construction series is difficult. A very small handful of builders will end up building a published model, especially something like the Fire Queen. The best you can do with a construction series like this, is to make the information applicable to any build, for example the trick with the masking tape when cylinder boring to check for deflection etc.

[Andrew TinsleyParticipant @andrewtinsley63637]

My apologies for not knowing that contributors are paid. The quoted rates per page would work out at a fraction of the minimum wage per hour. Therefore my comments are still valid.

Andrew.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

It does not take me 4 1/2 hours to write a page and even allowing for the time it took me to do what the recent article is about would still be at least three times the mimimum wage. The following ones in the series will be much the same. Now if you also allow for the tooling that is unlikely to be going back then I’m quids in.

The way I look at writing up a model build is that I would and do write them up on the various forums anyway so apart from a bit more care and producing a set of 2D drawings from my CAD models there is not a lot extra and I get paid for 20-25pages. I would have built the models anyway so might as well get a bit of pocket money for my trouble.

[Alan Jackson]

On Alan Jackson Said:

Hi all,

I have written some articles in the past and have a few ideas I would perhaps submit to the editor. However I am now re-thinking an article I could submit as I do not know which dimension system to apply, whether metric or imperial.

I have no problem with either, after spending many years dealing with both at the same time.  But I get the impression that metric is the trendy young system and  imperial is the old fogies yesteryear system which is deemed to be a relic of a bygone age, virtually indecypherable by the new age model engineer who prefer CNCing stuff and printed modelling methods and in general anything that is not too hard to do.  So I am redesigning a submission from imperial to metric to suit but of course this all takes much more time. Am I wrong here?

Alan

My advice, if an author doesn’t know already whether metric or Imperial should be used. then the answer is metric.

I wouldn’t go so far as to condemn Imperial as a bygone relic, but it’s definitely fading away.  Metric makes solid sense for anything new, and Metric is international.   Only the USA, Liberia and Myanmar aren’t Metric.

Still plenty of Imperial about in the UK, but any Brit aged under 45 will likely need to have Imperial measure explained to them.   Not good if it can be avoided because running two systems of measure in parallel causes endless mistakes and compatibility problems.

Supply is an issue too.  It’s gradually becoming harder to source Imperial components, and they are often more expensive than metric equivalents.   Metric fasteners in all shapes and sizes are common as muck, but Whitworth and BA are getting hard to find.  Not so much the threads, but anything out of the ordinary like countersunk, cap, acorn, cheese, or round heads tend to be difficult or pricey.   In the heyday of BSW and BSF, the full range was plentiful: not now.

There are good exceptions to going Metric in hobby space though.  Such as living in the USA.  Or restoring old British machinery, building models from old British plans, and projects aimed at folk with workshops full of imperial tools. Perhaps to celebrate traditional methods.  Otherwise new design and anything involving CAD/CAM, 3D-printing, or repairing modern equipment is best done in Metric.

As most reasons for using Imperial are essentially backward looking, that might put newcomers off.   For the same reason an older chap might balk at having to learn Metric, an youngster might run away from a weird hobby that seemed to need him to learn Imperial!  To a newcomer, Imperial is an incoherent mess, full of magic numbers and illogical relationships.   If an Imperial person can’t cope with 100 centimetres in a metre, imagine what a novice makes of 12 inches to the foot, and 3 feet to the yard.  And that’s just the start…

Dave

 

 

[File HandleParticipant @filehandle]

Dave or do I the odd write up recently has done and used both. I guess that many of my age will use which ever is the most convenient or whatever size fasteners they have to hand. It is just a measurement, a comparison with something else.
As an ex teacher and examiner, it always amazed me how many got to GCSE age and couldn’t manipulate factors of 10, 1000 etc. sad really.

[vic neweyParticipant @vicnewey60017]

I don’t subscribe myself as my interest is more in vintage lathes, tooling and machinery, I bought a job lot of ME from the 1930/40’s and found them really interesting, such a wide variety of fascinating articles covering all sorts of things.

Last year ME offered 3 forthcoming mags for £5 and I went for it. The first one came and it left me bored to tears by comparison as did the other 2 so no more for me.

[martin haysomParticipant @martinhaysom48469]

i work in both imperial and metric its just a number the part is the same size whether you measure it in. unlikely but if i ever submit something for publication it will have both measurements. i will however use the same datum point for all my dimensions, not doing so causes a build up of errors

[martin haysom]

On martin haysom Said:

. i will however use the same datum point for all my dimensions, not doing so causes a build up of errors

There are always exceptions: a hole pattern for example should be dimensioned from the datum to one hole but from there should be dimensioned within the pattern. There are other features that should be dimensioned in a similar way.

Rigidly creating every dimension from a single datum point is not the panacea that you think.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Though if using handwheels one datum point can be useful as it allows all other features to be positioned by +ve movement of the handwheel to help avoid backlash problems. (right image) On the other hand if using a DRO it is often better from the ctr of a part.(left image)

[Author]

Posts