Universal Grinding machine construction series?

[John CoatesParticipant @johncoates48577]

Posted by Ziggar on 12/09/2013 11:39:22:

Its going in ME no matter what anyone says.

That being the case then I think it would finally decide for me that MEW would no longer be the magazine I need. I'd go over to one of the Home Workshop/Machinist kind of mags

[Luke GrahamParticipant @lukegraham30014]

This is the kind of article that I bought my subscriptions to read. Please go for it!

I don't mind which magazine it is in, as I'm subscribed to both. ME is less interesting to me than MEW, but this would make me excited to open it again. I'm not one for trains (they are just a means of getting to work for me), and am far more interested in the workshop/tooling side of things, or just about any other engineering subject.

Diane, if you would like some feedback on ME specifically, there was a short series on building a canal-side crane a little while ago that I liked a lot. I will not pretend to be the typical ME subscriber, but articles on engineering models that aren't trains are what I'd like to see.

Luke

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

I think ME should contain a bit of everything as historicly it always has.

Most of our club members are interested in a bit of everything though there are a handful who are very narrowly focused. It results in a much richer club experience with opportunities for cross fertilisation of ideas and techniques. It would be terrible to take the view that some subjects must not be covered – would someone really say horology must go to Clocks magazine, Club chat to Facebook, reviews of commercial products to Shopkeepers monthly.

[Roger VaneParticipant @rogervane67137]

I've read the various recent posts regarding the future of MEW, the quality of articles submitted and into which magazine the 'Universal Grinder' should appear. It is now time to throw my hat into the ring and make a few observations.

Everyone seems to be knocking MEW and it's content, and maybe it's not perfect, but the magazine will only ever be what the readership dictates – it is they that supply the articles. As has been said many times before, DC can only publish what he receives. So, for those of you that are not happy with the content, why not have a go at writing some articles? Also, as MEW is basically a workshop biased magazine, it can never have the same wide range of potential subject matter as ME, so the range of articles is somewhat limited and repeats are more likely – however, even 'repeats' can offer a differing view of the subject matter.

For those of you that have submitted articles which have not been published, rather than moaning about it, why not ask "when, or if, they will see the light of day". After all, you will probably have spent many hours producing the article, so surely you have the right to know if it's acceptable or not, and the likely publication date. If it's not acceptable you always have the option to offer it elsewhere.

On the subject of articles, there has been much comment about the quality of articles published in MEW. I've had a couple of articles published, and have some more in the pipeline. Despite the criticism from some quarters, it is not an easy task – for example, at what level do you pitch the article? Do you want to attract the beginner or the more experienced worker? I would suggest ideally both, and so I try to pitch my articles for readers of average experience and ability, so that the beginner can advance their skills and hopefully the more experienced can also gain some ideas. That approach will, of course, be considered wrong by some people. As the old saying goes – you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Believe me, considering the hours spent producing articles, this is no cash cow as some people have suggested – there are drawings to be prepared, photographs to be taken and descriptions to be written up, as well as making the thing in the first place. For those of you who hold this view, my advice would be to try writing an article.

So, to those of you who knock MEW and it's content, rather than cancelling your subscriptions, how about determining it's future in a more positive way. Write some articles that suit your interests because the subject matter is obviously not being covered. Alternatively, why not ask DC to commission articles – after all he has access to both the readership and the authors.

Finally, to the subject of the 'Universal Grinder' – I say "please publish it". To me it makes no difference if it's published in ME or MEW, although I must admit it's good to see a limited amount of workshop articles back in ME.

Rant over – back to the workshop.

[PekkaNFParticipant @pekkanf]

I would love to see this in MEW. I have a 1200 kg TCG but I have to duck for cover every time I start it…..

If it is done in ME and not offered to MEW only audience as a peace offering/freebie or something….I would feel completely gutted.

PekkaNF

[Harold Hall 1Participant @haroldhall1]

We keep hearing that we must do something to encourage newcomers into the home metalworking pastime ( and I do not just mean those at the younger end of the scale) and I am sure most will agree to that.

However, I cannot see a few pages an issue in ME is ever going to satisfy this need, especially as some will be of the calibre of the one being discussed here. If therefore, MEW ceased to be published, and I do not see that, where would these individuals get their guidance.

Often it is suggested that they should contact their local model engineering club, but how many are near enough to a club to take that route I ask. I live some 25 miles north of London and am not near enough to do that, especially in the winter months.

Could though be good for the sale of my books.

Harold

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

As it's going to be a long series, it might be best in ME, or it will go on for years in MEW. Perhaps in a year or three, it could be published as a "Best of Model Engineer" book.

As an ME subscriber, I used to enjoy articles by those such as Peter Spenlove – Spenlove, and others. Others won't agree, but I have never really understood why two mags. Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 12/09/2013 14:03:38

[Alex HapgoodParticipant @alexhapgood64562]

I know this will not be popular with subscribers to both MEW and ME but why not run it in both magazines. I am only taking one magazine and I am sure there are others like me. Obviously, both camps are interested and not everyone subscribes to both magazines. MEW could run it in consecutive issues instead of every second issue proposed for ME. Just a thought, as I have no interset in building a locomotive or traction engine I will never see the proposed article if it only goes into ME. No offence Dianne, I just ended up on the other side of the fence because of my interests.

Alex

[RJWParticipant @rjw]

As this project was offered to Dianne by the writer for publication in M.E. and presumeably NOT MEW, why are so many people muddying the water by bringing MEW into the mix?

Let the editor of MEW find and publish his own material, Not that poached from Dianne because a handful of moaners put the screws on!
As Dianne stated, the two magazines are independent and, that it was intended for M.E publication, she made no mention of MEW!!

It would appear the writer wants it published in M.E. rather than MEW otherwise he would have offered it there, so his magazine of choice for publication is his prerogative Not yours, and if Dianne is prepared to run it for the benefit of the readership, then who are any of you to bitch about it!

It's very likely that if all the doomsayers here get their way, the project will end up being shelved by the writer simply because he'll be as sick of hearing the endless negative postings on this site as I am!

Publish and be damned Dianne, I don't subscribe to either magazine, but I do buy a full series of any runs containing articles of which I am interested, and This is one of them!

John.

[StovepipeParticipant @stovepipe]

I get GPO'd about some of the supposed hostility on here. As far as I'm concerned, publish and be damned. I think that this article will be of interest to quite a lot of people, especially for the manufacturing processes involved, not necessarily the finished article. The only caveat I would suggest is that the article should run for a reasonable amount of time (say) 12 or 15 issues, not up to Part 46 where readers get fed up with it. It might be best to break into logical chunks and make a feature of that chunk on the front cover.

My two pennorth

Dennis

[S DeakinParticipant @sdeakin73134]

I would love to see ME getting back to the wider spread of topics we once had. A tool grinder would make a very good project, the one envisaged sounds to me like a very useful bit of kit, with the price of castings now making most projects a non starter, it would be refreshing to see a machine such as this made from bar stock, the CNC aspect would also be worthy of investigation. So yes, please think about running the series.

Stephen.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

I only subscribe to MEW because I'm not the model building sort. I like reading about other people's exploits and seeing the results. Ever since MEW came to be, it's the one I'm happy to subscribe to. By and large I'm happy with the content.

I have to say I doubt many people would actually build such a beast, so you could probably miss out on all the detailed drawings and concentrate on the narrative and pictures. I think I'd rapidly tire of endless detailed drawings of a home made grinder which would seem rather pointless given the limited or possibly non-existent number of people who would do anything with them. Spending months drawing all those parts up seems a significant exercise in its own right.

Although I would admit to being more of a tool maker than a model maker, if I wanted a grinder I'd generally go and buy a used industrial example and then spend my time fettling and augmenting it. It's not as if they are ruinously expensive, whereas the materials to build a complete machine from scratch would be – you aren't going to be making one of these out of your scrap bin.

Like Andrew, I'd much prefer to learn about how to use a proper machine than watch someone attempt to reinvent the wheel.

Muzz

[Gray62Participant @gray62]

Muzzer, I would have to disagree, leaving out the detail, drawings etc would, I think seriously detract from the value of the article. MEW are still running the series on Alan Jacksons Stepperhead lathe, whilst I doubt that many, if any of these will be built, the included detailed drawings lend inspiration to other projects.

I already have T&C, cylindrical and surface grinding facilities in my shop however, I would still Be interested in the build methods and techniques employed which can only be effectively conveyed through the inc,usion of detailed drawings.

Graeme

[Cabinet EnforcerParticipant @cabinetenforcer]

As others have mentioned, I would find some discussion of design considerations/philosophy and also instructional information on how to best use the machine very interesting, probably moreso than the actual build articles.

Perhaps DC could consider commissioning some articles in that vein to run in parallel to the constructional articles in ME? This could generate some extra magazine sales from the genuinely interested, without necessarily short changing either readership?

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Sounds interesting, maybe it's been offered to ME only for publication, so if it does not go in ME, it might not get published at all. Go for it Diane. Ian S C

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

I am all for it. But publish it on a scale that gets the message across quickly. Words, photographs and some explanatory GA drawings. The availablility of a download for the detailed drawings would keep the weeks shorter but make the full picture available to those that are really interested.

Personally I found the long running Stepperhead lathe article boring in length but interesting in the detail, the more so for having looked at the original machine. There again, a download of the detailed drawings early, would have been really useful.

Please avoid being too commercial by offering "full drawings are available at £XX" that would be quite off putting as regards wanting to follow the series.

Edited By KWIL on 21/10/2013 12:03:08

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hi Kwil

| " boring in length but interesting in the detail, .." precisely and succinctly put! – I concur.

Norman

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Diane,

Just publish the surface grinding part, that will appeal to the flat earth society.

[John HinkleyParticipant @johnhinkley26699]

I can hardly believe what I'm reading here. Four LONG pages of editorship by committee. Diane, ask yourself: "What would I do with this article if there was no internet or forum?" Will it interest my readers? Yes – publish it. If not, don't. Pick up the 'phone and ask David if he'd like it for MEW, with the author's consent.

I only subscribe (at the moment) to MEW, so I'll probably not see it. Even more likely, I'd never get around to making one, even if I did. At my time of life, after one heart attack, I'm best off not starting any long projects – guess I'll never get to read War and Peace, either.

Rant over.

John.

[John McNamaraParticipant @johnmcnamara74883]

Reading through this thread a few thoughts come to mind.

As background I only subscribe to a couple of magazines, although I do receive a few engineering and construction trade journals as well FOC.

I do subscribe to Circuit Cellar, It specialises in applied electronics for measurement and control. I mention this magazine because of the format they use. in particular the "Resources" file at the end of each article. These resources comprise support documentation Images and software. You will find the files under the "Magazine" tab on their website. as "article code and files" note how they are stored by magazine number and contributors name. A set of ZIP files containing all the documentation for each article in that edition. (Note how they use a simple FTP server to deliver the files. Very inexpensive.)

The proposal to publish a long article in this case a tool and cutter grinder is indeed a worthy one, as is the Stepperhead lathe, although I have not built one I have learnt a lot and it has given me inspiration for other projects.

Thinking about the Stepperhead project and the numerous plans published they certainly take up a lot of very fragmented space in the magazine. and if you do wish to construct one photocopies of magazine articles as working drawings for construction are certainly not ideal.

Proper plans are needed. A link at the end of the article to PDF files that can be printed to proper scale Maybe A3 minimum (Most self serve copy centres offer cheap A3 B&W printing, 17c in OZ). You just put the file on a USB stick take it to the copy centre and print from the stick . USB sticks only cost a few dollars these days.
The PDF's can still be printed scaled down at A4 on a home printer.

I guess some readers may not have internet connections. It would be interesting to know how many these days, I suspect not many. For the few that don't a mail out plan service could be offered at a reasonable fee. Or the reader could ask a friend to download the file.

If plans were online maybe very long articles could be condensed down to less issues. Wonderful as it is the Steperhead project is in my view too long. I know this would upset the article pricing model of so much a published page, that would have to be reworked. however it would allow more varied articles into the magazine. As most designs have a fair amount of bread and butter parts, for example simple brackets fastenings and the like, not very interesting to the reader if they are not building that particular project. The same applies to tables containing lists of fastenings etc. Most of us already have them. They can go online.

There are many advantages to adding an online link as mentioned above it will allow for more articles to be published, and also allow supporting documentation that never would have been published in the magazine(s) due to space requirements to be provided with each instalment. And most important it will add perceived value to the magazines.

Regards
John

Edited By John McNamara on 21/10/2013 14:06:38

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by John McNamara on 21/10/2013 14:05:28:

There are many advantages to adding an online link as mentioned above

I think perhaps you are overlooking one difficulty for the publishers. Many people would be quite capable of constructing the machine simply from the drawings. Simply putting all the drawings on an open website is tantamount to giving away the design to all and sundry.

It could be done by limiting access to the website to those with current magazine subscriptions but that means another level of complexity. And it would still fall into the same paranoia category that sees the publisher, rightly or wrongly, restrict the printing options of digital issues lest they show up on the internet.

And that doesn't even address the author's rights. Some people are vary wary of letting high quality copies of their designs get around lest they be used inappropriately.

Edited By OMG on 21/10/2013 14:37:33

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

I would be more than happy to supply additional files (pictures, pdf, video even), if these were of interest to readers, but these would be to supplement the published articles not to replace them. Not all authors feel this, so it has to be optional.

Many authors go on to sell castings/plans and putting them online free would undermine this.

Neil

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Ha Neil!

Are you the mystery grinder-man then?

N

By the way – please tell me just what your new Avtar image is?

I've been trying and trying to figure it out!

Yours

Desperate of Devon

Edited By NJH on 21/10/2013 15:13:29

[John McNamaraParticipant @johnmcnamara74883]

Hi OMG

I think the horse has bolted as far as copying is concerned, If someone wants to do it they can…. just photocopy the article at a library or dredge it up of the net; Bah Humbug to them……

However if a reader has purchased the magazine from a news stand or received it via subscription they have paid their way. I was not suggesting posting the entire article. And the supporting files and plans are only issued for each monthly part.

Hi Neil

I am glad you concur in principle, Of course it should be optional, It would not affect castings (Apart from selling more), I guess the few that sell plans could opt out.

To me the main thing is selling more magazines. and promoting light engineering. and model engineering. That follows through to the advertisers selling more goods. A scarcity mentality is not the way forward. you have to give in order to receive.

Regards
John

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Posted by NJH on 21/10/2013 15:08:50:

By the way – please tell me just what your new Avtar image is?

I've been trying and trying to figure it out!

Yours

Desperate of Devon

Edited By NJH on 21/10/2013 15:13:29

It's a macrarmie elephant made from old ML7, Drummond and South Bend saddle wiper strips

[Author]

Posts