Technical and engineering drawing.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Terry

It is complaints about previous articles such as the 3D ones and CNC ones in MEW which made me turn your offer down.

 

Terry states

“I’m also sorry to say that David’s reply inferred that we are only interested in (quote) “Steam Engines and Tools”. How about clocks, i.c, engines, model machines, and all the other subjects we may model. Does David’s comment reflect current editorial policy? If so I’m saddened after many years of reading both magazines the idea of Experimental Engineering etc seems to have been sacrificed to the God of the steam locomotive.”

 

Editorial policy is to publish anything that might be of interest to readers. I always get complaints about something or other. Lots of complaints from skilled model engineers about the side lever engine is a typical article complained about. There are several more complaints, mostly based on someones preference and not genuine reasons. We are doing a reader survey which should help, please fill it in and send it back.

 

I publish articles on clocks, trams, I/C engines and various other things.

I am not biased against them or anything else.

Look at the last two years of Model Engineer and you will see a wide variety of projects.

 

Drawings received from contributors are not usually to any particular engineering standards. If I only printed drawings laid out to BS standards I would have nothing to publish.

We only have an illustrator who redraws drawings as received. We don’t have a draftsman so as drawings are to no recognised standards, what would be the purpose of teaching people to read drawings we will probably never publish.

However, if you, Terry come up with a design for a model that could be published and used to illustrate the design and drawing principles, I would consider it.

 

The drawing included in the portable engine was connected to the wheel drawing by a line and there was no text to indicate it did not belong to the wheel. It was nowhere near other parts of the forecarriage.

 

I don’t consider the Portable Engine to be particularly easy project for a beginner but the only way the author would let me publish it was if I included the beginner’s infomation with it. It has been on hold for two years before taking the decision to publish it. Because we have had very few articles offered on traction type engines over the last few years I finally decided to publish it.

 

It was published under Countrymans Steam as it is just that and not road steam.

 

regards David

Edited By David Clark 1 on 18/04/2011 10:55:12

[SpurryParticipant @spurry]

I would have thought that such an article would be of more widespread interest than the ones on CAD design in MEW. Whilst I have no criticism of those particular articles they would be of real use to the users of those specific programs.

 

I will read any article where I can actually learn something.

 

Pete

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

We are not doing any more CAD articles in MEW.

regards David

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

I think my comments about complaints were based on a previous survey done two years ago.

When I get time I will look back through and see what the comments were.

regards david

 

Edited By David Clark 1 on 18/04/2011 11:48:34

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

David Yes! let’s make things. All my stuff is sketched in perspective scribbles so I can see what it looks like when it is finished. I have a free CAD package but it seems to disagree with my Video drivers and is NBG or (NBJ in Hungarian). When I can get it fixed I have some articles for you. I do not think anyone would make head or tail of my note book. I am trying to dimension photographs instead

Sam I am almost that old. I seem to remember my dad going to the yard sales to buy some wood – They were breaking up the Ark at the time.

The art teacher showed us it in art classes where we had to draw things like postage stamps wrapped round drain pipes. The year was 1947. The lady who taught us before was into finger painting etc. but this one was a perspective nut. He could also draw.

[EtheAv8rParticipant @etheav8r]

I would have thought this suggestion from Terry would be an excellent idea for a good meaty artical or comprehensive series.

 

I personally would have found it to be of great interest and of real benefit to my lerning of this malarky.

 

I subscribe to MEW precisely because I am NOT interested in Steam or Traction engines, but I am interested in engineering for small stuff and models (R/C helicopter parts for instance), and in learning to use a lathe and mill and expanding my repertoire as knowledge grows and interest is kindled.  Being able to read and correctly interpret drewings is key.

Edited By EtheAv8r on 18/04/2011 12:59:41

[John CoatesParticipant @johncoates48577]

How would this fit alongside the Workshop Practice book no.13 on Workshop Drawing out of interest? (as I bought that to help me)

 

I did TD from a building perspective (no pun intended) for my HNC so it was architectural detailing, plans and elevations and isometric perspectives. Having gotten into this hobby it gave me a bit of a headstart but didn’t help with the shading used to show cut aways etc. So that is an area/topic I think would be well worth covering

 

John

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Hi Sam,

 

Thanks for that amusing little aside. I’ve not seen that one before and it took me several minutes to work out what was happening and I think that I’ve nailed it.

 

Quite clever, it’s a good job I have a reasonable spatial awareness in order to work stuff like that out. I was always good at that sort of puzzle and simply cannot understand why others find it difficult. I also love work by Maurits Escher

 

It’s one of the reasons I made my offer to David but he seems very anti the idea. I still don’t see how you can make a success of any model if you can’t read a drawing properly.

Best regards

Terry

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Posted by Terryd on 18/04/2011 13:09:32:

… I still don’t see how you can make a success of any model if you can’t read a drawing properly.

Best regards

Terry

Exactly.

And how are you going to make anything of your own design, if you can’t draw it and prove it’s viability first?

 

Martin.

Edited By blowlamp on 18/04/2011 13:20:49

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Posted by John Coates on 18/04/2011 12:31:57:

How would this fit alongside the Workshop Practice book no.13 on Workshop Drawing out of interest? (as I bought that to help me)

 

I did TD from a building perspective (no pun intended) for my HNC so it was architectural detailing, plans and elevations and isometric perspectives. Having gotten into this hobby it gave me a bit of a headstart but didn’t help with the shading used to show cut aways etc. So that is an area/topic I think would be well worth covering

 

John

 

 

Hi John,

 

The ‘shading’ in Engineering drawings is called ‘cross hatching’ which is a common term you might come across. When a device is sectioned it may cut through several components to show an assembly if it is complex. In that case there would be several different methods of cross hatching in order5 to identify the individual parts. It is quite difficult to explain without examples to show which is why I made the offer.

 

To be fair to David he may have thought that I was offering to teach people how to make drawings rather than be able to read them fluently and accurately. My lecturer at college insisted that Graphicacy was the 4th ‘R’ and, like any other language needed to be taught. It is not understood instinctively as some users seem to think.

 

The last CAD series was intended to instruct folks how to use it, that was not my intention with my offer. It seems a shame when we are often complaining that skills are being lost as generations pass on, and reading a drawing is a distinct skill and there are many thousand project drawings out there.

 

Thanks to all for the very positive comments I appreciate it. I may develop the articles anyway, either for a competitor or for my website.

 

Best regards

 

Terry

[jomacParticipant @jomac]

Terry, you have got my vote. A clear updated article on TD, would probably help me to better under stand the cheap and basic Cad programs, And trying to correct the badly drawn IC plans of the internet, is difficult, knowing how to do it properly will help, I am NOT interested in live steam only IC so an article by you is a must.

John Holloway

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Posted by Richard Parsons on 18/04/2011 12:03:48:

David Yes! let’s make things. All my stuff is sketched in perspective scribbles so I can see what it looks like when it is finished. I have a free CAD package but it seems to disagree with my Video drivers and is NBG or (NBJ in Hungarian). When I can get it fixed I have some articles for you. I do not think anyone would make head or tail of my note book. I am trying to dimension photographs instead

Hi Richard

 

I wholeheartedly agree about ‘making thing’ and using ‘sketches’ for our personal use. My point was that many modellers, beginners especially but not exclusively, when undertaking a published project or kit, are faced with what can seem incomprehensible orthographics which are a mass of confusing lines of different types covering several sheets for a large project. Costly mistakes are then easily made, perhaps not by yourself with your high standards, but I have been guilty in the past.

 

I merely thought to explain these graphic standards such as encapsulated in BS 308, so that the users could read technical and engineering drawings accurately and fluently. Perhaps you also misunderstood my intentions as obviously did David unlike others who have contributed here.

 

I may not always make myself clear and I’m sorry if that is the case, but I do like folks to read what I write, not what they think I wrote.

 

Best regards

 

Terry

 

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Terryd on 18/04/2011 13:09:32:

 

Thanks for that amusing little aside. I’ve not seen that one before and it took me several minutes to work out what was happening and I think that I’ve nailed it.

 

 

Out of interest, I just drew it out on a bit of paper, explained the rules and gave it to SWMBO. She got it in about 10 seconds, simply by pointing out that if you base it on the information given, there is no other possible answer – and she’s a primary teacher, not an engineer…

 

I still don’t see how you can make a success of any model if you can’t read a drawing properly.

 

Absolutely. You might make something, but the chances are that it won’t be what is on the drawing, will it? As I observed in the other thread I linked to, it’s worth noting that one of the best ways to make sure you’ve got enough sensible information in a drawing is to have to go back and make the thing yourself again, just from the drawing. Having to do this quite regularly makes me very careful about drawings these days!

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi All

How far does Workshop Practice Series No 13 contribute towards a good understanding of workshop drawings ? ( I don’t have a copy!) If it falls short of requirements then, Terry , here is an opportunity! On the other hand , if the concensus is that it meets requirements, I would personally prefer this information in book form. So, those of you who have this book, is it a good buy?

 

Regards

 

Norman

[Geoff SheppardParticipant @geoffsheppard46476]

As a previous Editor of Model Engineers’ Workshop, may I be permitted to add my two-pennyworth to this discussion?

I sympathise with David over the content of drawings he is able to present because of the time pressures he is under. I took on the job at six issues a year, but was soon ‘nudged’ up to eight. When it became obvious that the next target was twelve, I decided that enough was enough and moved on. My decision was influenced by the fact that, with the resources available to me, I was not going to be able to produce a publication to the standard I had set.

Much of the problem was due to the time required to bring drawings to an acceptable standard. I always recognised that I was going to receive contributions containing both text and drawings which would need considerable adjustment, this being the inevitable consequence of relying on ‘non-professional contributors (not ‘un-professional’, I hasten to add). It would never be possible to bring all drawings in line with the British Standard, but I always bore in mind the words of a former editor of ‘M.E.’, who said “will the intentions of the designer be clear to someone trying to work from the drawing?”. By the way, why are they so often referred to, incorrectly, as ‘plans’?

Much of my time was spent dealing with drawings to the notorious ‘two-and-a-half’ angle projection. Where on earth did this originate?

I applaud any attempt to help potential contributors produce drawings to a higher standard. It could do something to alleviate the disastrous effects on my blood pressure when I see some of the ‘howlers’ perpetrated in some publications. David, I understand the pressures on editorial space and the likes and dislikes of many of our readers, but I feel that Terry’s offer should not be refused too hastily. Why not get him to produce an explanatory leaflet, not as comprehensive as Tom Walshaw’s Workshop Practice No. 13, but enough to set a potential contributor on the right road? This could be made available to anyone requesting it, in the same way as ‘Notes for Contributors’ used to be.

Turning to the CAD argument, my predecessor, Harold Hall, spent a lot of time acquiring a significant number of CAD programs and learning how to use them. His subsequent articles were intended as a guide to those readers trying to decide which one to choose. This heroic effort was derided by a number of readers who were of the opinion that “Computers have no place in model engineering. We want nothing to do with them”. It was ironic that, by the time I retired, most of my correspondents were using e-mail or were quoting an address. Looking around any model engineering exhibition these days, I never cease to be pleasantly surprised by the number of computers being used, in a fascinating variety of ways, to explore new boundaries of this hobby. Remember, when Percival Marshall started these magazines, the treadle lathe ruled and electricity in the home was quite a novelty. Tempus fugit.

Geoff

[Howard JonesParticipant @howardjones35282]

sorry terry but I think an article on how to read a technical drawing would be as dull and boring as you could possibly imagine.

I dont buy all the model engineers or workshops and articles such as you suggest are issues I put back on the news stand.

 

I want to be inspired not bored to death by what I read.

 

Mogens Kilde is solving your problem by leading from the front I would suggest. the 3 view cad pictures and solidworks images he creates for his articles have actually inspired me to buy issues because I thought what he was presenting was interesting.

 

so if you want to navel gaze, or reminisce about “how I usta do it when I was great” for gods sake stop yourself from going any more senile and get a life, as the saying goes.

 

if you want to produce an inspirational article on a new project then submit away!

 

I think David was entirely correct in the original rejection of the concept.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Howard Jones on 18/04/2011 15:06:41:

 

I want to be inspired not bored to death by what I read.

 

 

So presumably all the beginners who might perhaps feel inspired to try to build something from drawings, if perhaps they felt a little more confident, are supposed to be inspired by your attitude?

 

I mean, bravo for going against the tide and all that, but for me your argument sounds rather self-serving and not really for the greater good at all.

 

**********************************************

 

Geoff, Terryd isn’t proposing drawing lessons at all – but interpretive ones.

 

The only real snag with an informative article like this that I can see is that in the long run, there could be rather more scrutiny of drawings, and in rather more detail, than there perhaps has been up to now. Perhaps David is (quite reasonably from his POV) trying not to make any more of a rod for his back than he has already… I almost hesitant to say this though; it feels like treading rather heavily on eggshells. And on that basis, I absolutely insist that I’m not having a go at anybody – I do realise the issues involved, honest.

[Geoff SheppardParticipant @geoffsheppard46476]

Steve

 

I appreciate the point you’re making, but there’s a very fine line between ‘transmit’ and ‘receive’ in this situation. If all the drawings are not prepared to the same standard then it would be very difficult to advise on interpretation. Giving advice would be a bit of a guessing game.

 

Geoff

[Donald WittmannParticipant @donaldwittmann92536]

I did’nt think that I would ever agree with Terryd, but he is spot on with the idea about how to decipher engineering drawings correctly. If you can’t understand the drawing[s] how are you going to build the item?

Jesus 2 agreements in 1 day, because Graham is also correct about the frequent use of the phrase “it’s near enough”. Maybe, just maybe have I begun to see the light? and there is more to the people on here.

Donald.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Donald Wittmann on 18/04/2011 18:01:12:

Maybe, just maybe have I begun to see the light? and there is more to the people on here.

 

Goodness, that sounds like damning with faint praise…

 

Personally, I tend to judge ideas on their merit, rather than on the basis of who had them…

[Donald WittmannParticipant @donaldwittmann92536]

Steve I will certainly give praise where it is due,and mean it. Beginners must be given the chance to learn how to interpret engineering drawings that is 1 of the fundamentals, the “fag packet sketches” are quite often only understood by the “fag packet sketcher” and no one else, that is why we have drawing standards, but very few newcomers will be able to fully decipher them without some form of tuition. Im sure that Terryd does not mean the whole kit and cabodle of G D&T but just the basics.

Graham, Yes standards have certainly slipped from Britains once lofty peak. I have seen engineering from both sides of the fence from Germany and Britain and as it stands now there is no comparision . British society, and the education system has a lot to answer for as regards to the lack of pride in the job. I’ m not having a go at Britain as there are still some very good Engineering firms left but they are getting rarer. The H&S taking lathes and milling machines out of schools tells it’s own story. It pains me to say it but the way things are shaping up Britain will soon be a nation of call centres.

Donald.

[Ian AbbottParticipant @ianabbott31222]

Though Terry’s intention is to assist in decyphering drawings, a series of articles would in fact help in teaching drawing to beginners, just by explaining how everything works together.

I think that those of us who learned engineering drawing, used it over the years and progressed into CAD would find it quite interesting, particularly given the multitude of opinions on what’s good an what’s not.

 

Ian

[DustyParticipant @dusty]

I fear that Terry is preaching to the converted, on this Forum. I would applaud any attempt at teaching us all, as I know we would all learn something from such an excercise. If it only improves the quality of drawings sent to David for publication it would be worthwhile. I like Steve Garnett am hacked of with drawings with multiple datums or datums in the middle of nowhere and you have to go back through 7 or 8 dimensions to find where they originated. I think everyone should be capable of producing a reasonable engineering drawing before they indulge in ‘Satans Tool’ I mean CAD.

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

I purchased one of Kozo Hiraokas books, not because I wanted to build the particular locomotive, but simply because of the beauty and clarity of his drawings. Because his drawings are so good, you can learn a lot from the book.

 

Not all of us have the skills to work to that standard, although with the modern tools it is getting easier to produce a good drawing. Back when I endured 12 months in a drawing office, it was really hard to produce a good drawing because essentially you couldn’t afford to make any mistakes, as erasing them just made a mess of things. Nowadays, with CAD you can at least get rid of the errors without leaving the original looking smudged, and with solid modelling programmes you can also produce rather nice isometric drawings with very little effort. It is still important to include the right dimensions in the right places and also the right views.

 

So I think that a bit of guidance on good practice would not go amiss..well illustrated with good and bad examples of course. OK, it might not interest some…do you really imagine that everyone likes every article? So long as there is a balance it will be OK.

 

regards

John

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I learnt my engineering from Model Engineer by reading it in the school library.

In industry I had English and American projection drawings in the same company.

I also had fag packet drawings.

Perhaps this is partially why I don’t normally have problems finding my way around most drawings in Model Engineer.

 

On the odd occasion where we could not figure out the drawing, out came the plasticene and a 3D model was made.

 

I always studied the drawing for a few minutes on simple drawings and thought about the method I would use to machine it.

The difficult drawings would be looked at for an hour or two before setting up and cutting metal.

 

Normally I will get the drawings about a day before print day if I am lucky. I check them for errors, they are dropped into the pages and off to the printer.

I try not to make mistakes but we will never be perfect.

 

regards David

 

 

 

 

[Author]

Posts