MEW 180

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I have received an email of complaint.

regards David

 

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

I have to say I’m not sure I’m entirely happy about features on virtual tooling. I’m sure the principles are sound but without being built they remain theoretical and unproven. I wonder how a whole article on a steam locomotive ONLY built in the computer would go down in Model Engineer magazine? Now if someone had built it….

 

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

Chris, are you referring to the “planer” ? Last night I designed a brilliant new method to simplify parting off, at any diameter. Unfortunately I woke up before the drawing was finished.

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by Chris Trice on 07/08/2011 11:11:40:

I have to say I’m not sure I’m entirely happy about features on virtual tooling. I’m sure the principles are sound but without being built they remain theoretical and unproven. I wonder how a whole article on a steam locomotive ONLY built in the computer would go down in Model Engineer magazine? Now if someone had built it….

 

 

I knew [ dead now ] a retired engineer who lived in a nursing home who was building Minnie on the computer using Solid Works or Solid edge, one of the 3D modelling packages.

 

He spent a few hours per day and got immense satisfaction out of it. He had most of it done before he died and he once told me that the most satisfying part was he’d not broken on tap in the building of it

 

John S

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Chris

It was an interesting method of using the lathe.

It would have to be different for each individual lathe so there was no point in adding dimensions.

I saw it as a good idea and the basis of a good project for readers.

If it was complicated and open to errors, I would not have published it.

It was simply a handle to push the cross slide backwards and forwards.

It seemed very well thought out.

regards David

 

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

I don’t think prototyping stuff in the computer, where you can easily alter things and tweak the layout before you start cutting metal, is a bad thing but it is unproven in the real world. The magazine covers computer prototyping, which is good but always as part of the process to an end product in meat land. It just feels like only half a job has been done.

 

What John says is cool. A hobby is a hobby which we do to enjoy and we tailor our enjoyment based on what’s available to us. In this case building a computer model is satisfying in itself but it’s a different skill set. There is some crossover but it’s not exactly the same.

 

I don’t disagree that the principles were all sound but computer modelling is computer modelling. I would feel equally short changed if one of the plastic kit mags had someone scan an Airfix kit and build it in the computer only. I only mention it in the context of personal reader feedback.

[SteambuffParticipant @steambuff]

Posted by Chris Trice on 07/08/2011 13:17:50:

I don’t think prototyping stuff in the computer, where you can easily alter things and tweak the layout before you start cutting metal, is a bad thing but it is unproven in the real world.

I disagree with Chris …. Roundhouse Engineering use this method to design there new 16mm locomotives. Designed, Prototyped and Tested on the computer before cutting any metal.

 

Dave

 

 

 

 

 

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

It’s a useful tool for doing that but you’ve only simulated it in a computer. You may be confident it’ll all work but it remains unproven until you do it for real. You can test the mechanical principles are sound in a broad sense as part of the design stage but you can’t be sure there isn’t an unseen issue until you make one. It may be the other end of the scale but how many aircraft manufacturers make test aircraft and no modifications despite all aspects of modern manufacturing saying that what they’re cadding is perfect? In this case we’re talking a very simple device which we can probably be highly confident will work but where do you draw the line? In my opinion, it’s the tip of an undesirable precedent because if that’s OK, why bother wasting metal at all. How would readers feel if all contributors make their items in a computer because by definition if one is acceptable then it must be OK for all? I don’t think readers want to see that. I think readers want to see things carried through to the making stage rather than an unbuilt proposition that probably but not definitely might work.

[keithmartParticipant @keithmart]

Hi

Back to the digital issue, has anyone noticed that there are pages missing?

They are advertisements, but I thought we have had that argument before. It seems very odd to me as most of the magazines adverts are included.

I wonder what the advertisers make of it!

I have as yet received no answers to my 5 emails to senior management, perhaps that says something about the organisation.

Regards

Keith

Leeds UK

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Keith

Which digital issues?

All numbered pages should be included.

All non numbered pages were not.

I now number all pages so they should be included.

 

regards David

 

[keithmartParticipant @keithmart]

Hi

Hi David

MEW 180

Keith

Leeds UK

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Keith

Yes, not correct.

I will shout at them.

regards david

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Keith

ME is wrong as well.

I have emailed them.

regards David

 

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

Figure 9 on page 40 of MEW180 shows a right angled slit into the bore to clamp the shaft.

This is a good example of computer design which is untested. How would you propose a potential builder would cut this slit? If we all can do proposed designs in virtual reality using virtual materials which are strong, hard, straight and cost free it will save a lot of trouble doing things the old fashioned way. If this had happened a few years earlier I think Myfords would have closed down much sooner than they did. Also just think of the electricity saved by going virtual, the new green model engineering.

Alan

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Alan Jackson on 10/08/2011 22:22:19:

Figure 9 on page 40 of MEW180 shows a right angled slit into the bore to clamp the shaft.

This is a good example of computer design which is untested. How would you propose a potential builder would cut this slit?

 

 

Put it on the mill and run a slitting saw through it?

 

(Given its context, your question appears to be rhetorical so perhaps I’m missing something? I haven’t read the article – just looked at the picture reference).

 

Edited By Sid Herbage on 10/08/2011 23:05:45

[Anonymous]

Posted by Alan Jackson on 10/08/2011 22:22:19:

Figure 9 on page 40 of MEW180 shows a right angled slit into the bore to clamp the shaft.

This is a good example of computer design which is untested. How would you propose a potential builder would cut this slit?

 

 

Wire EDM

 

Andrew

[Peter Riedie RiedieParticipant @peterriedieriedie]

Posted by Alan Jackson on 10/08/2011 22:22:19:

Figure 9 on page 40 of MEW180 shows a right angled slit into the bore to clamp the shaft.

This is a good example of computer design which is untested. How would you propose a potential builder would cut this slit?

Alan

 

 

 

Gulliver ????

[alan frostParticipant @alanfrost17805]

It appears to me that the root cause of this and many similar problems is that ME and MEW current ownership is in the hands of a company purely interested in maximising profits and with no interest at all in customer service. My guess based on several bad experiences is that they pay peanuts and we get monkey service. In general this seems to be the way the world continues to go and I suppose even bad ownership is preferable to no ownership and no magazines. Oh, for the days when niche magazines were largely staffed by enthusiasts with some notion of customer service.

 

I have a great deal of sympathy for the editor who has to field most of the complaints. My only criticism of him would be that he spends too much time defending the indefensible but then the indefensible pay his salary so who am I to criticise ?

 

It is however interesting to compare the efficiency of the ME/MEW site with the Homeworkshop site , run by a couple of unpaid (except for first choice of QCTPs ) amateurs which receives constant and deserved praise, and even the odd donation. They have incorporated constructive suggestions into the site , usually very successfully . Usual disclaimer.

 

My main complaint would be the recent quality of the magazines’ content (I , to some extent , absolve the editor, who can only print what he gets) altho I bought issue 180 which showed improvement IMO with short articles which related to issues recently raised in internet forums. Was this coincidence ? Maybe DC should commission articles which relate to current issues ?

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Cutting that slot.

Use a hacksaw.

Cut down from the outside.

Cut along from inside the hole.

Job done.

Simples.

regards David

 

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

For something like this it’s up to all of us to take what is offered as a concept in design only, remember someone suggested EDM, David suggested a hacksaw.

 

What happens if we have neither? After all we do have equipment limitations.

 

Another way would be to mill a step and add a second piece.

 

Going back to David’s answer it would still work if after boring and drilling all the holes it was hacksawed into two pieces.

 

Get real guys, it was offered as a concept design, accept it as such and work round it.

If it had been offered as a complete and proved design for say a Myford, someone would be complaining it wouldn’t fit their Boxford.

 

John S.

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

If it is offered as a concept, it is therefore put up as an untried design for review.The premise of the design is to save the forces being applied by the existing saddle drive mechanism which is not designed for the proposed axial shaping forces, it applies the force at the lowest point of the saddle. This leaves the cross slide and topslide to deal with the bending moment due to the distance up to the centre height. Putting bending forces onto the topslide, which also is not designed for this. A design which applied the axial force higher up and in line to the cutting tool direction would avoid the bending moment being applied to the topslide and cross slide. As such the design only achieves about half of its premise that it proposes to protect the lathe from axiaI shaping forces that it is not designed for. Is this fair criticism?

 

[Author]

Posts