Technical and engineering drawing.

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

I am more inclined to think that the older generation (Us) had better basic skills as we had it included in our education syllubus.

We then went into industry/work with the ability to carry out these basic skills and learnt on from them.

One of the hardest things I had with a steep learning curve was to convert to the electronic testing of Theodolites, I would go home with my head bizzing.

In consequence I started to build my own PC and learn the basics which in the early 80’s cost me an arm and leg. My first PC plus printer was some £1500, a 386. I still have it but now I have made about five PC’s and do not look back.

The rate of change in the equipment we sold changed almost monthly and of course we had to learn the new equipment on the trot as you might say.

Technological advances and miniturisation being the watchwords coupled with reduced power consumption to allow a full days work on one battery!

Some of us specialised in one type and others were more generally applied as they had more skills in the machining and basics of engineering instrument wise.

I just found it hard to get the young ones to accept the basics and to follow protocols laid down.

Some of the basics would be the upkeep of the ultrasonic tanks which the young workers would not deal with and it was left to the older ones to clean and replenish.

This was annoying as the younger ones were the ones that would contaminate the tanks and not care. They were expensive to run being Freon or Chlorothene.

Another thing I found was that they would go to a pub at lunch time and drink and by mid afternoon were drowsy and useless.

Anyway they are days gone by and now I am retired I no longer care and just do my thing,

I hear from the firm occasionally about the goings on and whats happening and it is all changed completely, centers of exellence I am told,and then I wonder why they send the work down to me in an ancillary firm a hundred miles away?

 

Clive

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Clive Hartland on 24/04/2011 11:14:37:

I hear from the firm occasionally about the goings on and whats happening and it is all changed completely, centers of exellence I am told,and then I wonder why they send the work down to me in an ancillary firm a hundred miles away?

 

Because, as you have suggested may be the case, that’s where the centre of excellence really is?

[Tony Pratt 1Participant @tonypratt1]

Dave, your are quite right, if Sam’s little test was supplied with all the necessary information at the beginning it wouldn’t have been a test and I could have spent more time cutting metal rather than scratching my head and I believe that is the whole point! I used to know the drawing standards years ago but like many things they are filed away in a forgotten part of my brain. In the context of all engineering work the drawings should be clear and unambiguous so the part can be produced in a timely and efficient manner, this applies both to amateur and professional drawings and in theory should be a simple process to follow.

People of a certain age do have a lot of knowledge to pass on but we all tend to get impatient with the young as our fathers and granfathers did, I have taught many apprentices and now my 19 year old son Toolroom techniques and I really do have to remind myself that they are only just starting out on the journey of life.

Tony

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Gray,

My thought is that it won’t get better but actually get worse.

 

Instead of getting people back into the fold the choice of interests will drive them away to specialised points of interest.

 

It has already happened with the spin off of boats planes and tooling into separate publications, possibly a costing exercise that may well backfire.

 

As interests change and develop, take CNC, I know many are not interested but for some this IS their main point of interest and has spawned new publications for these users, as per digital machinist in the US.

 

Whilst not technically Model engineering [ I hate that name many of my friends have workshops and none make models ] there has been a vast rise in the number of CNC routers over the last few years and not all are for cutting wood. That big a rise it has spawned it’s own brand of software but so far no specialised publications

 

We are starting to see web blogs crop up and although these are hard to find, keep track of etc they are there.

We already have one free web based model engineering magazine which I won’t link to or this post will disappear !

 

ME is still predominantly about loco’s and steam but with the rising lack of time and skills taking on a large project such as a loco is dying away and the increase of kit built loco’s is on the rise , to that extent some clubs run Polly weekends just to run kit built loco’s, something you would have been thrown out of a club for a few years ago.

 

My thoughts are dilution will be the outcome and not concentration.

 

John S.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Graham Meek on 24/04/2011 13:08:36:

Hi Steve,

 

There are always arguments for and against, but I do not believe that those responding to the Survey do so purely because they are passionate about the Magazine, just remember there is an incentive to do so.

 

 

My experience is that incentives are generally what you have to offer to get even enthusiastic people to fill them in at all. The theory about this says that the anticipated reward of participation has to exceed the cost of responding, otherwise people simply don’t. And this is, I’m afraid, universal. For instance, if you don’t even make a survey reply-paid, then you should expect an absolute minimum response to it. Believe it or not, there is even evidence to suggest that stamps produce a better return rate than franked envelopes!

 

There is a load of other stuff you have to do as well to get truly representative results from a survey – there’s more science in this than you might credit, and virtually all of it has come from real-world experience. In fact if you get it right, ‘belief’ almost doesn’t come into it.

 

Having said this, how would you, or others envisage I and new potential readers be drawn to the fold? A fresh bold approach like the article Terry is proposing which I consider a good thing might be a start, but I shall remain to be convinced on that score.

 

Good question. First thing anybody researching this has to do though is not to assume that they might know the answer. But that’s where surveys come in, if they’re designed properly. This is mainly because what a survey really measures is Attitude – and that’s what you are trying to elicit – what makes people tick, and why they might want to do certain things rather than others. So the first thing I’d look at is the existing readership of ME and MEW, but ask them questions not so much about what ought or ought not to be in the magazine, but what drew them to consider modelling, etc in the first place. And this might need to be quite detailed. And you might need to get at some of this sideways – by asking about the sorts of things that satisfy them, etc. for instance.

 

Chances are though that to do this thoroughly, you might need more than one questionnaire – simply because you can’t predict in advance what the scope of replies will be, and it’s very easy to fall into traps. At the risk of a slight diversion, I’ll give you a real-world example: Many years ago, when cable TV was in its infancy in this country, a research firm was commissioned to find out how much people were prepared to pay for what sorts of channel, and they had the usual list of suspects to ask people about. When the results came back, one in particular was rather surprising – and that was that apparently, people were prepared to pay quite a lot of money for a Political channel. This didn’t exactly tie in with other research (no surprise there…), so they had to devise a more detailed sub-survey to find out what this was really about. Turned out that this was a mistake of interpretation on the part of the respondents – what they thought that they’d be prepared to pay a lot for a Political channel, as long as the company guaranteed to keep all politics on it – and nowhere else! When they discovered the truth, of course they weren’t prepared to pay anything at all. But that does go to show just how careful you have to be when asking people about their attitude to just about anything.

 

So the direct and honest answer to your question is that I don’t know – but I think that I do know how to find out!

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Having just read what JS wrote whilst I was composing the above, I think that it supports rather well what I’m proposing as an answer. The other thing about this of course is how do you support it? Are printed publications the way forward at all? With that much fragmentation, they may well not be cost-effective in the slightest.

Edited By Steve Garnett on 24/04/2011 15:19:19

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Steve

The survey is based on the last survey with many questions altered.

If one or two people said they would like 2 to 4 pages of tooling articles in Model Engineer I would not be overly bothered. However, the majority of people said 2, 3 or 4 pages. One or two people said none, we have MEW for that and one or two people suggested 8 or more pages.

 

On that basis, I will probably try to include 3 or 4 pages of tooling related articles in Model Engineer in the future.

 

I can only go on the results of the survey, it gives me a place to start from.

 

regards David

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

I don’t know if the prizes affect the survey.

I would like to think model engineers would fill the survey in anyway.

The prizes are a little thank you for some of those who respond.

regards david

 

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by David Clark 1 on 24/04/2011 15:34:09:

I don’t know if the prizes affect the survey.

I would like to think model engineers would fill the survey in anyway.

The prizes are a little thank you for some of those who respond.

 

 

 

All the evidence I’ve ever seen about surveys says that yes, anything that provides a direct incentive will make a positive difference to the response rate.

 

Unfortunately though, it would take a survey posted with absolutely no incentive to complete it to prove this – and that might turn out to be rather a waste of time and effort, one way or another if the collective evidence is correct…

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Graham Meek on 24/04/2011 15:27:29:

Hi Steve,

 

I understand exactly why and how the Surveys are made up, what I do not like is people saying this is the way I think because of such information.

 

 

That’s quite correct – unless a specific result from a survey is directly attributed to you, the collated results won’t directly represent your POV at all. And indeed may represent very little of it!

 

But the point I’m trying to get across about surveys is that unless you are stunningly careful, they are likely to represent a self-fulfilling prophecy anyway. You almost need a disinterested party to create one for you if you truly want to find out interesting things about the respondents; a lack of personal agenda tends to produce rather more impartial questions.

 

I haven’t looked at the ME survey – I only purchase ME when it contains something I’m specifically interested in. But I don’t quite see how this one, and one that might be in MEW should be targeting the same things at all. I think that there’s a very good chance that there are significant differences in the readership now, even if it wasn’t intended to be like that at the outset, and the questionnaires should reflect this difference.

 

And I hope it is fairly clear how this all relates to the subject of this thread…

Edited By Steve Garnett on 24/04/2011 22:19:18

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

Gentlemen,

Nick has shown us the side view of the simple test and, with his rather faint construction lines, how to get there. Always assuming that you know about these things.

There have been suggestions too, that there are many other possibilities (than just Nick’s solution). No doubt we’ll (mostly) agree to these alternatives so long as they do not contradict the two primary (FRONT and PLAN) views.

However, after too long and a distinct loss of kudos, I can hold off no longer, so here are my two.

 

Regrettably, when I came to use the built-in (software) switch to `convert’ from three dimensional to two dimensional, the settings for `view alignment’ were for third angle projection. On this occasion, changing back to English projection did not appeal to me.

 

I’m not even sure if the isometric view is the right way around or in the right position, but at least it fits neatly into the empty space. Leaving as is, does offer further debate.

 

I still find great delight in viewing drawings like the clock/watch lever escapement which I introduced a few pages back.

Regards to all,

Sam

Edited By Sam Stones on 25/04/2011 00:53:08

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

If you take the curved solution, there is an infinite series of curves that meet the necessary constraints. For instance if you imagine the curve as shown but just flattened a little, it would still work. The curves that are possible solutions must not create any hidden lines, for example by bulging out too far, but within those constraints there is in fact an infinite series.

 

regards

John

[Sam StonesParticipant @samstones42903]

I wish I had said that John!

 

That’s (perhaps) where centre lines become necessary.

 

In years gone by, shading of round(ed) parts was normal practice, and which served to make ones drawings `come alive’.

 

Sam

Edited By Sam Stones on 25/04/2011 07:38:40

[Anonymous]

Precisely why I pointed out that the number of solutions is infinite! The curve doesn’t need to be part of a circle, so centre lines wouldn’t necessarily help.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

I don’t think it matters what form drawings take as long as they are clear and dimensions clearly illustrated. Sam’s post above shows that a good three quarter view often helps in interpretation. Some people can imagineer in 3D in their heads (I can) based on 2D drawings where others (like my brother) can’t. The most important thing is that ALL the required information is provided. I sell a series of technical drawings of quite complicated models and all the feedback I’ve received suggest the inclusion of the three quarter views amongst th 2D helps everything drop into place.

 

I think there’s also a fine line between offering feedback and bullying. The owners of the magazine have the right to publish what they think will sell. If they get it wrong, market forces will show them their error. A wise editor will listen to feedback but is not obliged to act on it. Everyone wants to have their opinion heard but the decision still lies with the editor.Clearly, a large number of readers would welcome such an article but if I was honest, in the leisurely context with which I read magazines, I’d probably skip over it. If I wanted to get into the subject, I’d buy a book.

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

On the subject of surveys. As a wise one once said “If I do not know what people want how can I sell it to them? The survey will tell the editors what the readers are really interested in, and what they are not.

Now I have no interest in building railway locomotives. There is nowhere I can run them. In the U.K. my local club only wanted ‘Qualified Drivers’ –people with 5” locos to pull the punters round-. Had I built such a locomotive I would have seldom able to drive it myself as this would be left to the little clique deemed qualified to do so. I do however enjoy reading the construction articles like thinking about them and how locomotives could be improved.

ICs. Yes perhaps, clocks –sometimes- and so on, but that is all for the survey. Could I think of new topics here the answer could well be yes. .

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Chris

Exactly.

Just what I was thinking when I posted on page 5 of this saga som eons ago – but more clearly expressed by you!

 

I think the editor should by now have a clear view of the opinions of the few who post on this thread and must now consider these compared with those of the many who read the magazine and  have the opportunity, should they so wish, to respond to the survey.

 

Regards

 

Norman

 

Edited By NJH on 25/04/2011 11:01:39

Edited By NJH on 25/04/2011 11:02:19

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Reading Richards post two up [ if no one gets in quick ] Which I have seen mirrored in other posts and my own views match up I think we need a survey that asks :-

 

Are Clubs doing all they can for the hobby ?

 

From what I have seen and read Clubs are all about loco’s but the hobby is by no means all about loco’s. Are they stuck in time ?

 

John S.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

A filled in survey is of more interest to me than posts on this website although I do take notice of some of them.

At least I know when I receive the survey,

they have bothered to buy the magazine rather than just complain on this site.

regards David

 

 

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by John Stevenson on 25/04/2011 11:09:23:

Reading Richards post two up [ if no one gets in quick ] Which I have seen mirrored in other posts and my own views match up I think we need a survey that asks :-

 

Are Clubs doing all they can for the hobby ?

 

From what I have seen and read Clubs are all about loco’s but the hobby is by no means all about loco’s. Are they stuck in time ?

 

 

I strongly suspect that part of the problem here is that the clubs have no more idea of how to go about this than anybody else appears to have – and possibly not the will to do it either, because they don’t see it as a part of their remit to do so.

 

Look at it historically – a bunch of people get together to form what they call a model engineering club, but is in reality a collective model train running service. We have evidence that this is really all it is, at least in some cases, because of the complaining correspondence here from potential members who have their own premises rather sniffily vetted before membership is even considered. They are only allowed to join if their facilities meet a rather arbitrary train-building specification. But, all the time these clubs have a viable level of membership based on this, then why should they bother to alter anything? There is absolutely no law preventing them from being elitist, is there? I don’t think that they are stuck in time as such, but stuck in an agenda. I’m sure that they wouldn’t see it quite like that, but I’m afraid that I do, and I’m pretty sure that I’m not alone in that.

 

What is possibly most annoying about this is that these particular clubs that have names that don’t truly represent their activities confuse the heck out of people who don’t understand this (probably because they do understand English), and I think that all of the complaints from this POV are fully justified. Now I know that not all clubs fall into this category, and that there are plenty that welcome members with other engineering interests with open arms – but how are people supposed to tell???

 

But John, I’m not even sure that we can call it ‘the hobby’ – I think that it’s distinctly more than one. It’s not just about model engineering – and only partly because we can’t all agree on a definition of ‘model’ in this context. There are people who simply like to maintain workshops and make equipment to use in them – that doesn’t sound like model engineering at all to me; it’s just engineering in your garden. And I think that there’s quite a major distinction between the hobby these people have, and people who build model boats, for instance.

 

And it’s all this stuff, and more besides, that make me think that constructing any questionnaire to truly get to the bottom of all this, and what everybody really do in this regard in their leisure time, is fraught with a lot of difficulties, snags and pitfalls. But until this is seriously recognised, and acted upon, we aren’t really going to move forward into engineering/model making as a more disparate hobby with publications that will more accurately reflect what people do – not what they want, because I don’t think that most of them truly know that.

 

Let me give you an example: We keep being told that people are prepared to accept n pages on any given subject in MEW or whatever. What does this mean? I don’t think anybody really knows. For instance, would you rather read one page of something either very useful or truly inspiring on a given subject, or 5 pages of semi-waffle? How much difference does the number of photographs/drawings actually make, and why? Does who wrote it make a difference? What makes more sense in this particular regard is to ask people to judge individual articles, because at least then you would be able to correlate the information you got with with a tangible product. You might not like the results too much, but at least it would be honest…

 

But even that is a compromise, because it’s only looking backwards. And that’s why I think it’s more important to look at the attitudes of people, because that way it might become clearer as to how to fulfil what it is that is motivating them. And for all I know, it may well not be what any of us think.

 

I’m sorry that this sounds a bit like a rant – and it is, really – but I think it’s something that needs to be said.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Graham

I can’t see the posting about-

How about answering the previous posting from me in “Where is Terry when you need him”, or is it beneath your dignity?

 

What is it about?

regards David

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Graham

I can’t seem to find it.

What thread is it on?

regards david

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Grahame

I have found my posting.

What did you want me to do with it?

regards David

 

[Chris TriceParticipant @christrice43267]

Slowly losing the will to live reading the barely concealed animosity being shown. It’s getting old.

 

In respect of technical drawings, I don’t think it matters what form they take as long as ALL the necessary information and dimensions needed are included and the shape of the item is clear. A good three quarter view often paints the picture more clearly.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

I think that this is my personal favourite solution so far:

 

Apologies for the only approximately correct (and oversize) isometric projection – it’s only to give you the idea.

[Author]

Posts