Odd Article in ME 4559 28April - A Variable Frequency Drive

Posted by electrosteam on 23/07/2017 23:42:50:

Neil,

As an engineer, I would have thought the difference between 101% and 3600% was significant.

The language I used to describe the article was simply my opinion, you may have a different opinion.

I haven't moved the goalpost at all.

The subject of Vfd torque boost was introduced by you.

Exactly, I introduced it and you suggested it was 'nonsense'.

When I showed it wasn't, you claimed the amount was 'insignificant' compared to a gearbox.

That's moving the goalposts.

The editorial team should have picked up the poor writing and the erroneous statements before publication.

Did this article get any peer review ?

If not, then I respectfully suggest that the editorial team consider this in future.

I have nothing to do with the editing of the magazine in question, but last time I looked, hobby magazines are not peer-reviewed journals. What would you be willing to pay for a peer-reviewed version of Model Engineer?

We are all being inundated with wild claims in various media, and we want the ME and MEW to provide a solid view of the hobby as it is, and how it could develop.

The hobby is unlikely to develop if people don't have a forum for publishing speculative work, from rosebud grates and concentric superheaters to 3D printing and new materials.

The sensible approach to an article like this is not derisory criticism but real debate of the issues within the article.

Rather than debating the article instead I find myself defending my colleagues and the author.

I think perhaps, you should re-read your original post and decide for yourself whether it appears courteous and constructive or facetious and rude?

Neil