Here is a list of all the postings Geoff Sheppard has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
Thread: Aircraft General Discussion |
10/07/2012 14:30:23 |
And how many who came out to look when they heard the Merlin said "It's alright, it's One of Ours"? |
09/05/2012 16:31:08 |
Bill Pudney's tale of the wing spar mill is of particular interest because last week I was able to spend some time on the Isle of Wight looking at places of interest. We visited the rocket testing site above the Needles, had a good poke about and took some photos. At dinner that evening, one of the other guests at the hotel (a nonagenarian professor who still gives the occasional lecture!) talked about the construction of the site. Apparently, a large concrete raft had to be laid to a high degree of level and flatness. When cured, it was checked and found to be well out of specification. The contractor re-worked the job, but with exactly the same result. It was after about the third attempt that it was found that the island was always on the move with the tide and that a consistent result was impossible. The wonders of nature! Geoff |
28/04/2012 17:05:24 |
No, Neil, they didn't take it quite that far. I guess that they are concious that they have something rather special on their hands, and don't want to risk damaging it.
Geoff |
28/04/2012 16:18:09 |
Back to the topic of Avro Vulcans. For many years now, my local model engineering society has organised a late summer holiday (usually a week-long coach trip) and we have ventured all over the UK and Europe. Last year we were based near York and did all the local attractions, particularly the North York Moors Railway and the National Railway Museum. We also went to the Yorkshire Air Museum at Elvington. As our coach driver checked in, the volunteers on the gate said that we may be in for a special treat as the preserved Vulcan was due to over-fly, en route to Scotland. Sure enough, at about mid-day, she appeared and gave us a quarter-hour aerobatic (for a Vulcan!) display. Magnificent. At least four of us in the party had worked at Patchway, so there were lumps in throats. Even my wife, who has never been a raving aircraft enthusiast, admitted that she could now understand our fascination. Quite a day. Can thoroughly recommend a visit to Elvington. Geoff
|
Thread: Letters to a Grandson |
03/08/2011 10:28:46 |
I don't remember being landed with this task, though it would be interesting! What I was going to do was make contact with old associates of Monty's (we were both members of a totally different organisation) to see if they had come across anything unpublished in his effects which may be of interest. Will keep looking.
Geoff |
Thread: Don't assume the obvious |
01/08/2011 14:10:34 |
Thank you for reminding us of Stan's words, Peter. MEW was very much Stan's brain-child and we owe him a lot. The then Editorial Management team had their doubts that a magazine purely based on workshop practice and technology would attract much interest, so they insisted that some photos of models be included, to try to 'connect' with the model engineering readership. It's popularity soon showed that this was not necessary and the magazine could stand on its own feet.
I think that all the subsequent editors have tried to stick to Stan's line.
Geoff |
01/08/2011 11:22:11 |
My attitude was that it was a magazine for anyone who had a home workshop, whatever the type of work carried on within it. However, the title was well established by then, so there was no prospect of a change.
As an aside, in 1947, Percival Marshall published a book entitled "Mechanics in Miniature" in which he defined model engineering as "engineering in miniature". Interesting, in view of later developments.
Geoff |
01/08/2011 10:22:39 |
We debated the title of MEW many years ago. The magazine itself was thought to be 'the workshop' and it was for more than one model engineer (an ambiguous title in itself, but traditional), hence the position of the apostrophy.
Geoff |
Thread: Percival Marshall |
21/07/2011 09:21:38 |
He's just gone supersonic. Wait for the boom! |
20/07/2011 16:33:16 |
The death of Percival Marshall was announced in the 'M.E.' for April 22nd 1948. The April 29th edition carried an unsigned eulogy, thought to have been written by J. N. Maskelyne. This was reprinted in the Centennial Celebration Collection No. 10 "Model Engineer, the first 100 years".
The History of the SMEE "100 Years of Model Engineering" also carries some information in Appendix A "Presidents of the Society"
Geoff |
Thread: Explanation of job 'Engineers Driller' |
19/07/2011 16:42:24 |
Being interested in Industrial Archaeology, I find these old engineering job descriptions fascinating. In the mid-1800s, my great-grandfather and one of his sons were working in the Pontypool area as "forgemen". Around 1860 they moved to Bristol with the occupation "charcoal iron refiners", charcoal iron being, of course, wrought iron. I often wonder what was the stimulus that made them "up sticks". Were there problems in Pontypool or were there new opportunities in Bristol?
They brought with them an infant son (my grandfather) who, at a very tender age, was listed as an "iron bucket maker". He went on to become a skilled sheet metal worker, established his own Company in the United States making Japan ware (another Pontypool speciality), returned and started another company making sheet metal illuminated signs - another innovation.
All much more interesting than writing code for a CNC machine!
p.s. Grandfather taught me how to solder a patch on a saucepan almost before I could read. It was wartime.
Geoff |
Thread: MEW 178 - Unimat 3 Tailtock Capstan |
06/06/2011 21:49:36 |
Probably close enough, but could be a bit under-size. Checking a piece of studding at random, it measured 11.81mm. |
06/06/2011 14:51:18 |
I think that the writer is trying to instruct the builder to machine most of one side of the roofing bolt down to a point 3mm above an imaginary diametral line. By then turning the bolt over and clamping the newly machined face down to the machine table, the other side can be machined down to leave a total thickness of 6mm. This results in 3mm being left on "the other side" of the diametral line, so that the 6mm is disposed equally about a this line.
What I am now trying to work out is how to measure the position of the first machined face if the bolt is dropped into a tee slot (good practice in my view) instead of being placed on to the surface of the table. I suppose the trick is to measure the diameter over the bolt threads before putting it in the tee slot, then to measure the distance between the top of the threads and the table surface when it is in position. This allows the height of the diametral line to be calculated. Add 3mm and the height of the required machined surface is established.
Sounds a bit complicated, but hope it helps. |
Thread: Technical and engineering drawing. |
20/04/2011 20:31:25 |
Strictly, of course, an engraved rectangle would have depth and this would create hidden detail, however shallow.
The 'two prism' solution was always the one preferred by our instructors.
Geoff |
20/04/2011 14:03:53 |
How about a verbal description of the figure shown in Sam's puzzle?:-
"A solid object formed by slicing a cube of side x diagonally from top to bottom. Superimposed on the resulting sloping face is a section of a second, smaller cube, similarly sliced, the two arranged sloping face to sloping face."
I'm sure that someone can make a better job of it than that.
Geoff |
20/04/2011 14:03:52 |
How about a verbal description of the figure shown in Sam's puzzle?:-
"A solid object formed by slicing a cube of side x diagonally from top to bottom. Superimposed on the resulting sloping face is a section of a second, smaller cube, similarly sliced, the two arranged sloping face to sloping face."
I'm sure that someone can make a better job of it than that.
Geoff |
20/04/2011 10:36:41 |
Sam
The little problem you set us and the mention of spatial awareness jogged my memory and took me back quite a few years. A colleague Development Engineer was having a problem with an engine component, so laid hands on one and examined it thoroughly. He soon worked out what the problem was and devised a design change which he thought would fix it. The task was to now convince the project's Chief Designer (VERY important in the hierarchy) that a) there was a problem and b) his solution would fix it, so he marches along to the great man bearing the offending object. After carefully explaining chapter and verse he was astonished when the designer said that he couldn't really appreciate the problem without the drawing in front of him. This despite the fact that all was plain to see. It is all too easy to get mesmerised by the theoretical and lose sight of the real world.
By the way, your challenge really had me delving into the memory bank. This sort of 'teaser' was very popular in the Training Drawing Office, with students trying to out-do each other with more and more obscure examples.
Geoff |
19/04/2011 16:22:32 |
Sam,
Sorry to disappoint you, but having done a quick check back to 1841, I can find no Lancastrian branch of the family. We are firmly rooted in West of England industry (mainly mining and early railways), with a major input from the forgemen of Pontypool. Perhaps that's why I've found myself in the post of Chairman of the Bristol Industrial Archaeological Society!
Regards
Geoff |
18/04/2011 16:12:05 |
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 |
18/04/2011 14:22:35 |
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 |
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.