MEW 289

[Michael CParticipant @michaelc17572]

[Michael CParticipant @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

[JasonBModerator @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.

[Michael CParticipant @michaelc17572]

Thanks Jason. I just accessed it via Pocketmags as you suggested.

Cheers,

Michael

[Neil WyattModerator @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

[Michael CParticipant @michaelc17572]

Thanks Neil

[CirclipParticipant @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.

[SillyOldDufferModerator @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…

[JasonBModerator @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

[Jeff DaymanParticipant @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?

[JasonBModerator @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!

[Neil WyattModerator @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

[Jeff DaymanParticipant @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.

[JasonBModerator @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

[Michael GilliganParticipant @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

[Neil WyattModerator @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