No 4407 More Errors

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Jason

The DXF files are imported into Illustrator.

Illustrator decides on its own dimension and sometimes adds or removes a tiny fraction of the measurement, hence the 0.02mm.

 

I missed the radius on the 38.5, it should be diameter.

The diameter sign on the 22.8 pad was added by the illustrator and I missed it.

 

Heights don’t add up. 1.75 + 7 + 6 + unknown does not equal 13

Yes, something is wrong but 1.75 is irrelevant (oh for a spell checker)

 

Fig 8

Dimensions are correct, I have checked original. Just not to scale.

 

Fig 4

14.5 appears to be right

14.3 does not go to the edge of the pad.

 

Bore for cylinder liner is incorrect but same as the original.

 

Fig 12

3mm refers to the bar the thread is turned from

 

And where does one get 2.85mm silversteel and a reamer to suit?

Get a 2.85mm reamer here

 

Turn the silver steel down from 3mm diameter

 

Beam bearing holes are 1.75 from borrom.

1.75 is from fig 9 where they fit and holes are in line with the 1.75 dimension.

 

regards David

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SteambuffParticipant @steambuff]

David

 

What about JasonB’s Darjeeling query …

 

Darjeeling

Nut bottom right page 15. Shown as 3/16″ long

Also says drill and tap 3/16″ deep

Leaves nothing to drill the 3/32″ hole into

 

Dave

 

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Thanks

 

Fig 4

If thats the case then the lower edge of the water discharge pad should be lower than the top edge of the crank bracket pad but its drawn above it.

 

Fig 7

Any comments, I would expect the curve to be a quater circle, unfortunately this part has not been shown on the plan view of the jacket

 

Fig 12

But the dimension lines go to teh thread, the dia of the bar is drawn at 6mm proportionally to the rest of the drawing

 

Fig 10

If the beam bearing holes are 1.75mm from the bottom then we still need a dimension for the depth of the two recesses to be able to correctly position the axle horizontally

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Fig 4

If thats the case then the lower edge of the water discharge pad should be lower than the top edge of the crank bracket pad but its drawn above it.

Not on the original

 

Fig 7

Any comments, I would expect the curve to be a quater circle, unfortunately this part has not been shown on the plan view of the jacket

 

 

Fig 12

But the dimension lines go to teh thread, the dia of the bar is drawn at 6mm proportionally to the rest of the drawing

Yes, the illustrator got it wrong but the text on the drawing explains it.

 

Fig 10

If the beam bearing holes are 1.75mm from the bottom then we still need a dimension for the depth of the two recesses to be able to correctly position the axle horizontally

 

The recesses are in the other fig, and are 1.75 deep, the bit the bearings screw to.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Fig 12

Text does not explain it, It says 8BA x 3mm (assume 3mm length of thread) the plan view and end elevation clearly show that the larger dia of teh pin is substantially more than 3mm.

 

Fig 10

The 2.85mm hole centerline is not shown in line with the 1.75mm recess, it is clearly shown above it. Therefore we either need a height for the hole (PROBABLY 2MM) or the 1.75mm is not teh size of teh notches on teh bearing blocks.

 

Steambuff

Taking a guesstimate I would allow 1/32 to 3/64 at the end of the nut, unfortunately most of the other nuts on teh double page spread are not in proportion to the dimensions you you can’t judge it from there. While looking at the nuts I also noticed the bore for nut top left of page 14 is also missing.

[BogstandardParticipant @bogstandard]

Jason,

 

It seems to be like a very well known casting and kit suppliers reply when you find out after many hours of previous work, there is not enough meat on the casting left to drill your latest hole into. I am talking about undersized or very close tolerance castings.

 

“If you are supposed to be a model engineer, then you should be able to sort it out yourself”.

 

 

John

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Steam buff

It is correct to original drawing.

Just make it 1/16 longer.

It must go on the component at top left

so there is plenty of room.

 

 

regards David

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Fig 12

Text does not explain it, It says 8BA x 3mm (assume 3mm length of thread) the plan view and end elevation clearly show that the larger dia of teh pin is substantially more than 3mm.

On the original it is clearly shown as 3mm.

 

Fig 10

The 2.85mm hole centerline is not shown in line with the 1.75mm recess, it is clearly shown above it. Therefore we either need a height for the hole (PROBABLY 2MM) or the 1.75mm is not teh size of teh notches on teh bearing blocks.

On the original it is clearly shown in line with the 1.75 steps.

 

Steambuff

Taking a guesstimate I would allow 1/32 to 3/64 at the end of the nut, unfortunately most of the other nuts on teh double page spread are not in proportion to the dimensions you you can’t judge it from there. While looking at the nuts I also noticed the bore for nut top left of page 14 is also missing.

The nut above has 1/16 at the end so use that on the lower nut by extending the length by 1/16in.

The bore for the nut top left is 5/32 as shown on the nut below.

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

We have an illustrator, not an engineering draughtsman.

He lives in Greece so comunication is not perfect and is often slow.

I am waiting for drawings at the moment and they go to press this afternoon.

I won’t have a lot of time to check them.

Luckily they are mainly simple drawings without dimensions I think.

regards David

 

[VersabossParticipant @versaboss]

Posted by David Clark 1 on 01/07/2011 08:54:48:

We have an illustrator, not an engineering draughtsman.

He lives in Greece so comunication is not perfect and is often slow.

Ah fine, you support the Greek economy. It surely can use any little help it gets

Greetings, Hansrudolf

[Engine BuilderParticipant @enginebuilder]

How about this one.

Page 52 .A full page advert for the 2011 Model Engineer Exhibition.

No mention of what date it is on or where it is being held!

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

That was the wrong advert.

Someone used an incorrect partial design.

They are trying to change it for 4408.

Might be too late.

I suspect MEW 179 is wrong as well.

regards David

 

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by Engine Builder on 01/07/2011 16:22:00:

How about this one.

Page 52 .A full page advert for the 2011 Model Engineer Exhibition.

No mention of what date it is on or where it is being held!

 

 

But at least you you know it must be no earlyer than the 9th December.

 

Regards Nick.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by JasonB on 29/06/2011 17:04:31:

Darjeeling

Nut bottom right page 15

Shown as 3/16 long

Also says drill and tap 3/16″ deep

Leaves nothing to drill teh 3/32″ hole into

Posted by Steambuff on 30/06/2011 19:43:34:

David

 

What about JasonB’s Darjeeling query …

 

Darjeeling

Nut bottom right page 15. Shown as 3/16″ long

Also says drill and tap 3/16″ deep

Leaves nothing to drill the 3/32″ hole into

 

Dave

 

 

I’d probably use the dimensions of the nut on page 14 top right hand.

 

Regards Nick.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Posted by JasonB on 29/06/2011 16:54:51:

Bracket clock

 

Fig 14, overall thickness of gear shown as 0.125″

Thinner edge after chamfering 0.165″

 

J

 

In my mag, Fig 14 is the Ratchet Housing, and the 0.165 is the depth which the housing is bored to, nothing to do with the chamfering. The left hand dimension arrow is just on the wrong line for the 0.125 dimension, it should be on the next right hand line.

 

Regards Nick.

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

With all this attention to these drawings, may we look forward to an extra large number of these models being made? Somehow I doubt it.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi Kwil, touché. I think one needs to read the text as well as look at the drawings, eg. with the items that are silver soldered on to the water jacket in the Rider Ericsson article, the author states that the really critical item to be positioned is the bearing mounting bracket, the two slightly different dimensions given for the crank bracket pad being insignificant to my mind.

 

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 02/07/2011 13:03:21

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

I might have a go at the Rider Ericsson, But the dimentions will be no trouble, I’ll use my usual method, the drawing gives the general outline, and away I go. If I do build, I will change the cylinder from brass to steel, or cast iron to reduce friction. It looks a nice simple build. Ian S C

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I too doubt that I will make one, if I did then the pivot for the flywheel would be moved as it hangs out beyond the upright on the full size, having it directly over the upright makes the who engine too long. I would also make all the bits that solder onto the jacket oversize and once soldered machine the faces & tap the holes, far more likely to get it all lined up with the bore that way, in effect treating it as a casting.

 

As I said earlier the more experianced of us can likely work out what is supposed to be there but I get quite a few PMs from the those that are new to the hobby asking about things like this as they don’t want to look silly asking something that may be obvious to us. So rather than be selfish and “going to make some swarf” I point these things out in the hope it will help others.

 

Now we just need answers for the Great Western

 

J

[Bill PudneyParticipant @billpudney37759]

My better half told me that pedantry is dead.

This thread proves her wrong.

 

cheers

Bill Pudney

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Long may it live!!

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

When I saw “… he lives in Greece” I cracked up, but at least it was a new one that wasn’t in Jeff Daymans list. “Greek tragedy” and “its all Greek to me” also came to mind.

Seriously; having recently been a victim of this drawing errors problem I was coming to the conclusion that there was an issue in the illustration area, now I believe it to be deeper than that and more of a systemic problem in the way ME is produced. I’m new to this area of engineering but I’d have expected the discipline of getting drawings right would have been second nature to people who’d been in the industry for years. I’d also have thought that these days this sort of problem would be reduced by the use of computers.

So rather than vilifying David and the crew is there anything that can be suggested that would be useful to them to improve the magazine quality? A review of the process? Or even a group that could assist David with proofing the articles before they are printed. They pay the original author, so of course for a fee.

Pete

PS: publishing the corrections here isn’t that helpful either as I doubt every ME reader trolls through this site just in case they find a correction. All of the above needs to be consolidated into a “Corrections” item in the magazine. Give the regularity of these issues maybe it should be a regular feature.

[VersabossParticipant @versaboss]

I cannot help but draw your attention to ‘another one’ which escaped the critical eyes up to now.

On page 39 there is an article about making a chuck adaptor plate for the Hobbymat lathe.

The text in the article gives the following data:

Hobbymat spindle flange diameter: 55 mm

Chuck internal register diameter: 56 mm

The drawing clearly shows a boss (for the chuck) of 55 mm diameter, and on the other side a recess (for the spindle flange) of 56 mm diameter.

If someone would produce such an adaptor, trusting and relying upon the drawing only,

he would be up for a nice surprise…

Not the end of the world I admit, but a sign of the quality checks done (or not).

Greetings, Hansrudolf

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Well I had to leave one for somebody else to find

 

And lets face it if you are not too pedantic about the concentricity of the chuck it will all fit  (loosly) together that way

 

J

Edited By JasonB on 03/07/2011 15:32:08

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, well I have just checked my Hobbymat, and the register on the lathe comes out at 55.9mm, so it is possible that the drawing is correct and the text is wrong. It would pay anyone who will be making such an adapter to measure their own registers on the lathe and any new chuck they use anyway. Then follow the procedure given in the article.

 

Regards Nick.

[Author]

Posts