Universal Grinding machine construction series?

[Peter TuckerParticipant @petertucker86088]

Just put it in both magazines.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graeme W on 29/09/2015 18:12:20:

Will you all stop harping on about which magazine you think this should be in!!

Diane was canvassing to see if she should publish it not which mag it goes in. If it doesn't go in ME we may never see it. If you are interested, then you can buy the odd copy of ME to follow this particular series if you don't subscribe.

.

Graeme,

1. This is a forum
2. Diane's question was actually "What are your thoughts?"

MichaelG.

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by Graeme W on 29/09/2015 18:12:20:

If you are interested, then you can buy the odd copy of ME to follow this particular series if you don't subscribe.

Probably reasonable – if you live in the UK. Good thing I like cake.

[Gray62Participant @gray62]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 29/09/2015 22:41:14:

Posted by Graeme W on 29/09/2015 18:12:20:

Will you all stop harping on about which magazine you think this should be in!!

Diane was canvassing to see if she should publish it not which mag it goes in. If it doesn't go in ME we may never see it. If you are interested, then you can buy the odd copy of ME to follow this particular series if you don't subscribe.

.

Graeme,

1. This is a forum
2. Diane's question was actually "What are your thoughts?"

MichaelG.

Michael

1 – what is your point??

2 – Diane made it very clear early on that this was a question about whether it should be run in ME, not which magazine should run it

"Regarding which magazine – as editor of Model Engineer my concern is what is best for Model Engineer, which is why I have asked the question here."

I think that quite concisely puts to bed any discussion about which magazine is running the series

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graeme W on 29/09/2015 23:16:46:

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 29/09/2015 22:41:14:

Posted by Graeme W on 29/09/2015 18:12:20:

Will you all stop harping on about which magazine you think this should be in!!

Diane was canvassing to see if she should publish it not which mag it goes in. If it doesn't go in ME we may never see it. If you are interested, then you can buy the odd copy of ME to follow this particular series if you don't subscribe.

.

Graeme,

1. This is a forum
2. Diane's question was actually "What are your thoughts?"

MichaelG.

Michael

1 – what is your point??

.

Graeme,

My point is, quite simply that [within the bounds of the forum rules] everyone is entitled to express themselves, without being 'shouted-down'.

MichaelG.

[Gray62Participant @gray62]

No one is shouting anyone down, the 'which magazine' discussion is null and void for the aforementioned reason!

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graeme W on 29/09/2015 18:12:20:

Will you all stop harping on about which magazine you think this should be in!!

.

… looks like "shouting-down" to me.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. … You will see that I have already stated:  "But mostly: I would like to see it published."

I can always read ME in the Public Library.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 29/09/2015 23:47:01

[doubletopParticipant @doubletop]

We've been here before with this blurring of the lines between ME and MEW. I'm of the opinion that Diane and Neil need to agree their editorial boundaries. In the future do we expect to see a multi part locomotive build in MEW or worse still the same article in both?

I guess subscribers to a single magazine would tend towards the magazine of their choice. I subscribe to both

Pete

(I see there are 6 pages of comments which I haven't read so apologies for repeating somebody else's points)

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Publish one part in ME and the next part in MEW and alternate between magazines then readers will only have to buy half the magazines they would not normally buy.

[Mark CParticipant @markc]

David, Do you have twins by any chance? that is the sort of tactic I would use when dealing with my bickering twins when they were younger.

Mark

[John McNamaraParticipant @johnmcnamara74883]

Looking at the photos It will be a rather long article. and there lies the problem for the publisher. The readership is so diverse, some readers build models, some build machines, not counting clocks, motor bikes and vehicles, and dozens of other specific interests.

I am also guessing that this machine is not the only Large project that has placed the publishers between a rock and a hard place.

I wonder if it would be better published separately. It is now possible to order short run editions of books published and bound digitally. High quality colour printing too with a decent cover not just a rough photocopy. Books like this could be ordered off the web or via an order form in the magazine and posted out (A Magazine subscribers discount would be nice).

As a one off maybe not worth the effort but if it could be the start of a regular offer of other quality works. I for one would be happy to add a copy to my library.

In the digital age many authors are now "self publishing" using short run printing. There are many services set up to do it.

Regards
John

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

John Mc, You say it could be rather a long article, it probably would not be longer than the Stepperhead Lathe article which was published inspite of being a minority interest.

[John PParticipant @johnp77052]

Hi there,

As the author of this proposed article i have deliberately avoided
joining the discussion since i have an interest in seeing it published in
some form.
This here will not sway the decision one way or another as this
is beyond my control but some facts will give a clearer picture.

Like many other authors of published articles i write about the things that
i make and feel that others may be interested in seeing .
Eventually most articles are published some more quickly than others,
i have had submitted articles that have been published almost instantly
and some that have taken 5 years or so to see the light of day.I expect
other authors have had the same.
I followed the thread and as with any poll there are some for and some
against and some who don't know .Without counting through i am not sure
if there is a clear outcome so far .
From the original posting by Diane was "as a bit of an experiment".
I can understand the reasons as she stated, having a long article
drag on ( my words) for years may eventually lead to some criticism .
This article would very likely "drag" on as it is a very large piece of
work .Using the comparison with the "Stepperhead lathe" in the
posting by KWIL it is possible to see how long an article this may
be.As far as memory serves i believe the Stepperhead had around 70
drawings, i stand to be corrected on this .This article when sent to Diane
was the concluding first part which would see the machine fully operational
to the level seen in the recently published photographs .That is
between centres cylindrical grinding and surface grinding.
At that point there were around 220 A4 size drawings some with only
one component some with as many a ten items ,around 230
photographs and somewhere around 50,000 words.I had
deliberately not written this up as a blow by blow account as to do so
would have made this very much longer.
This may seem a lot of drawings but the machine as it is has somewhere
around 1600 parts so far.

A second part is still under way and will include some additional parts
and accessories and like the first part i severely underestimated
the time and the amount of work needed get to completion .
As the second part proceeds the component count is steadily rising
and it difficult to know what this will be but i think at the moment there
are about 60 or so drawings.

In the previous post to KWIL John McNamara suggested this could
published as a book.On a thread on this forum some time ago a
publisher of engineering related books were asking for possible
authors to contact them.I put together small presentation of this
machine ,i got very swift reply thanks but no thanks the reason
given "as no commercial value" .

During the thread a view was expressed on having a "taster"of what
may be to come.At that time i wrote a short article 7 A4 pages
of text and 7 photo's , this article is with Diane and was updated
from the original version and was sent in with the finished construction
article and shows the machine as it was just over 1 year ago.

The decision to publish rests with magazine and to some extent the
readers choice if they wish to see it.

John

[Mark CParticipant @markc]

John, not doubting the part count but that must include fasteners and all sundries?

Mark

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

As a further example, we are currently in ME at episode 18 on the subject of internal combustion engine theory and practice. Interesting maybe, but hardly a mainstream subject.

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

There's quite a difference between a "build log" that tells the (short?) story of how something was conceived / designed / built / modified etc on the one hand and a series of "build instructions" with detailed 2D drawings that you would use to replicate such a beast on the other.

Realistically, there aren't many people who would actually start the build of such a complex machine and obviously fewer still would actually come close to completion. That's not to knock the motivation and achievement in the slightest. This looks like an impressively designed and executed beast and one I'd love to hear more about.

I love reading the contributions on the forum and in the magazines which is why I have been taking ME / MEW sporadically for 40 years or more but I have never considered them as build instructions – although I appreciate some people do. Which is why the few contributions I have made myself tend to be of the "build log" variety – and put on internet forums like this one. For the same reason, I don't have the slightest problem "publishing" (making freely public) the work I have done. There's no money to be made and realistically not many implementations will come about either. Vanity publishing and patents are indulgences in this arena and I doubt they ever pay back.

I don't believe that the magazine is a good place for large projects to be spelt out in myriad drawings and endless machining instructions ("drill and ream a 1/4" cross hole and silver solder the pin…&quot. Far better to tell the story, publish photos, pass on information if requested and then get on with enjoying even more workshop time.

Just my thoughts!

[Enough!Participant @enough]

Posted by John Pace on 30/09/2015 14:57:48:

This article would very likely "drag" on as it is a very large piece of
work .
This may seem a lot of drawings but the machine as it is has somewhere
around 1600 parts so far.

Hmm …. this raises the further issue of whether it's even worth my getting involved with this at my age.

(No smiley as I don't think I'm kidding)

[John McNamaraParticipant @johnmcnamara74883]

Hi All

This is in response to the quandary Mr Bandersnatch proposed. Is there enough hours left in the glass.

Large projects and time marches on….

Looking at the pictures, the beautifully designed and produced grinder John Pace has made and is continuing to improve there is no doubt of his passion, and investment in time and mental anguish as the inevitable problems that came up were overcome. A huge effort, also countless hours preparing drawings and just thinking.

Given the benefit of the plans and a proven working design I can imagine how It might be produced. I have not seen the plans but by breaking it down into pre cut and steel sections that are welded and or bolted together a lot of time can be saved by laser cutting. Grinders need to be very rigid and massive to damp out vibration some of the plates will need to be quite thick maybe 20mm, no problem… for a modern laser a walk in the park.

Using pre cut material is the next step up from the castings that many model makers purchase at great expense to make their favourite model. I say step up because the accuracy of modern laser cutting is to within a small fraction of a millimetre requiring far less finish machining. Its not unheard of in model making anyway I notice that a lot of train frames and bogies are laser cut. There was also a recent article in MEW on a company that CNC machines and cuts train parts for sale to model makers. It is inevitable that more and more models will be part constructed by modern methods as used by the train model supplier above it saves precious time that many of us don't have.

Right now I am almost finished the design of a 2400 x 1200 x 200 CNC router/mill although it can be made smaller, Currently there are about 150 3D CAD drawings; at a guess triple that for 2d Plan and elevation drawings. I hate to think of how many design hours over two years that have gone into it however there is a reward at the end, most of the machine will be laser cut panels that fit together. When I send the files to the laser cutter the job will be cut in less than a day and most of that will be setting up time. There will still be a fair amount of fettling the assembly Alignment(Big job), other machining work and electrics. I have set a time budget of three months to finish it. There is not a lot of machining to do. It will cost a bit but no more than plans, castings and components for a steam replica engine and boiler. Although being an MEW long term subscriber I am more interested in tools and machinery.

Should works of this magnitude be published as a series in a magazine, Yes if published in their entirety, and there lies the problem they are a bit big.

I have decided to go the self publish route, keeping the work in one volume. if someone wants to build one they can get going straight away divided into segments it would take years. How to protect the computer CNC files that form part of the design is one question I find quite difficult to answer. This will probably apply to many large projects.

The big question is how large works of this kind can be incorporated into and supported by a magazine? I hope they can because it increases the breadth of readership, hopefully and very importantly attracting younger readers, also the small backyard start up businesses that are trying to set up a small workshop that are cash poor but have a vision.

One thing is certain I cant wait to purchase a copy of the John Pace Grinder Plans

Regards
John Mac

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

Are these "large works" any more involved than say a 7.25" loco or 6" traction engine which we don't seem to have issues about the length of.

I agree that describing and drawing a fabricated part is going to be longer than if that part were a casting. This can be balanced by not needing to describe in detail as the likely builder will not be doing this as a first project.

The other option would be just to post it as a build thread on this or any of the other forums particularly ones where its easier to attach all sorts of file types so drawings can be included and even DXF files so potential builders can get parts cut, really down to the individual if they want to give it freely or get paid. Similar to what I do with all my engine builds where the number of photos alone would put me at the risk of "packing out" a magazine article. I'm doing an engine at the moment which I have said Diane can have the write up for but I will be putting additional photos, files etc onto the web as I don't think the mag will want all that I have.

J

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

Hi John Mac – why bother trying to "protect" your CAD files? If you make them freely available, there's a chance someone might use them as they are or take them as starting points for their own projects. That's very much the way things are these days on a lot of the CNC self-build forums.

As you know, there are many thousands of these machines out there, finished or under construction as we speak and no one design is going to stand out. It's a process of continuous learning and improvement as the knowledge base and available parts base grow.

It's precisely because of the open source nature of current self-build CNC and the associated CAD / CAM / maker etc activities that things are moving so fast and excitingly out there. I'd urge you to be a part of it by openly publishing and making available your CAD and CNC files to whoever is interested. Probably quite a few younger people, which can't be a bad thing!

Murray

[Diane CarneyModerator @dianecarney30678]

John's excellent article is still with me. There are several options availalble to us regarding publication – these may involve publsihing some of the drawings in PDF format on the website – which I still have to discuss with John.
In general I think there is sufficient interest in this article, due to the versatility of the machine and the quality of John's work but, even by M.E. standards, it is a huge project that isn't a model. For this reason I am presently considering options other than publishing everything in the magazine.
As others have pointed out, even though relatively few readers will decide to follow the series and complete the machine, there will be many aspects of its fabrication that will have value in other contexts.

There are currently eight multi-part construction series running in Model Engineer plus three further multi-part series not dealing with construction – and several waiting in the wings – so I will defer planning the start of another until some of these are complete.

Diane

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

OK just sit and await then

Thank you Diane for clarification from your viewpoint.

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

Hi John,

You have my admiration for doing such a project. It is bound to be of interest to many. When I did the Stepperhead articles, I first thought just a description would be enough, but later on some people wanted a construction series and that is a lot more work. I drew about 68 drawings of about 180 components and only described the more difficult parts as to how I made them. Even this was considered by some as an overlong series. What else can you do? The magazines seem to want short interesting articles that will only occupy an few issues of the magazine. The alternative to long articles seems to be a proliferation of similar subjects like sharpening drills and end mills, or make a lathe bed stop. This can only be of interest to the new reader, the long in the tooth reader (me perhaps) has seen these articles repeated in various forms and only of a passing interest. Anyway more power to you John and good luck with all those drawings , who will check them?

Best Regards

Alan

[V8EngParticipant @v8eng]

Posted by Diane Carney on 01/10/2015 10:48:50:

In general I think there is sufficient interest in this article, due to the versatility of the machine and the quality of John's work but, even by M.E. standards, it is a huge project that isn't a model.

Diane

 

 

 

Isn't that why it should be in MEW, plus the website?

Edited By V8Eng on 01/10/2015 19:38:23

Edited By V8Eng on 01/10/2015 19:39:28

[Harold Hall 1Participant @haroldhall1]

Personally, I am too busy to give each magazine more than a quick glance, so I am not really in a position to comment, However, I have been prompted to estimate from John's details of the article just how many pages would be required. Of course, not seeing the drawings makes estimating the pages for these somewhat hit and miss. Even so, drawings in the magazine are printed larger these days which is good making them easier to read, especially with the amount of white space often used.

So at

1600 words per page——————– 31 pages

Two A4 drawings per page ————110pages

10 Photos per page————————23pages

Total 164 pages making, at 4 pages per issue, 41 issues, just over 3 years for MEW and I have made no allowance for the large headings used. This is nearly twice the size of the Stepperhead construction series.

It has been suggested that some of the date could be added to this forum, may work but can it be guaranteed that the data will still be available for someone reading the article in say 20 years time, I am not sure.

Harold

[Author]

Posts