Steve Garnett | 18/04/2011 10:09:23 |
837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Sam Stones on 18/04/2011 08:36:29: ady, You could be on to it ! Hmm.... I think that ady has just made Terryd's case for him entirely! Hoary old chestnut it may be, but it still has its uses, eh? And Michael seems to have come up with some evidence (at least anecdotal) that this may well be perceived wisdom, and not anything real. Edited By Steve Garnett on 18/04/2011 10:12:25 |
Bill Starling | 18/04/2011 10:22:06 |
102 forum posts 7 photos | Dear Terry, I've only just seen this thread. Yes please, an article(s) on technical drawings would be an excellent idea. I remember some cryptic comments from one of the expert tutors on the SMEE training course about model engineers' drawings, where dimensions had no common reference point. On the other hand 'proper' engineers' drawings gave dimensions from a fixed datum. Am I alone in thinking that model engineering is more than just making things, whether steam engines, aeroplanes or even trams? For me it includes studying the history and development of technology and techniques. In many ways the Model Engineer magazines of the 1950s and 60s were more interesting than those of today. The contributors seemed to have greater practical experience of the subject – yes, I do realise it's not so available today. Also the articles were more wide ranging and aimed at producing models using basic equipment and skills. Personally I don't want a computer to drive my machining centre, I may as well buy a finished product. Never the less I really appreciate the constructive contributions to this forum, especially those with photos – and drawings! Bill.
|
Steve Garnett | 18/04/2011 10:42:00 |
837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Bill Starling on 18/04/2011 10:22:06: I remember some cryptic comments from one of the expert tutors on the SMEE training course about model engineers' drawings, where dimensions had no common reference point. On the other hand 'proper' engineers' drawings gave dimensions from a fixed datum. You might like to read through page two of this thread, where it is discussed, and what I hope is a realistic point of view is advanced - because it's by no means as clear as has been expressed by some commentators, certainly when it comes to actually machining parts. And, in the relevant BS standard, variations on dimensioning schemes are allowed for precisely this reason. And having just read through it again, I'd say read the entire thread. It is particularly relevant to this issue, and explains rather well why I agree very much with Terryd's idea of an article, and just how damned relevant it would be. Edited By Steve Garnett on 18/04/2011 10:49:12 |
David Clark 1 | 18/04/2011 10:53:04 |
![]() 3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | Hi Terry
It is complaints about previous articles such as the 3D ones and CNC ones in MEW which made me turn your offer down.
Terry states
"I'm also sorry to say that David's reply inferred that we are only interested in (quote) "Steam Engines and Tools". How about clocks, i.c, engines, model machines, and all the other subjects we may model. Does David's comment reflect current editorial policy? If so I'm saddened after many years of reading both magazines the idea of Experimental Engineering etc seems to have been sacrificed to the God of the steam locomotive."
Editorial policy is to publish anything that might be of interest to readers. I always get complaints about something or other. Lots of complaints from skilled model engineers about the side lever engine is a typical article complained about. There are several more complaints, mostly based on someones preference and not genuine reasons. We are doing a reader survey which should help, please fill it in and send it back.
I publish articles on clocks, trams, I/C engines and various other things.
I am not biased against them or anything else.
Look at the last two years of Model Engineer and you will see a wide variety of projects.
Drawings received from contributors are not usually to any particular engineering standards. If I only printed drawings laid out to BS standards I would have nothing to publish.
We only have an illustrator who redraws drawings as received. We don't have a draftsman so as drawings are to no recognised standards, what would be the purpose of teaching people to read drawings we will probably never publish.
However, if you, Terry come up with a design for a model that could be published and used to illustrate the design and drawing principles, I would consider it.
The drawing included in the portable engine was connected to the wheel drawing by a line and there was no text to indicate it did not belong to the wheel. It was nowhere near other parts of the forecarriage.
I don't consider the Portable Engine to be particularly easy project for a beginner but the only way the author would let me publish it was if I included the beginner's infomation with it. It has been on hold for two years before taking the decision to publish it. Because we have had very few articles offered on traction type engines over the last few years I finally decided to publish it.
It was published under Countrymans Steam as it is just that and not road steam.
regards David Edited By David Clark 1 on 18/04/2011 10:55:12 |
Spurry | 18/04/2011 11:06:11 |
227 forum posts 72 photos | I would have thought that such an article would be of more widespread interest than the ones on CAD design in MEW. Whilst I have no criticism of those particular articles they would be of real use to the users of those specific programs.
I will read any article where I can actually learn something.
Pete |
David Clark 1 | 18/04/2011 11:44:43 |
![]() 3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | We are not doing any more CAD articles in MEW.
regards David |
David Clark 1 | 18/04/2011 11:48:14 |
![]() 3357 forum posts 112 photos 10 articles | I think my comments about complaints were based on a previous survey done two years ago.
When I get time I will look back through and see what the comments were.
regards david
Edited By David Clark 1 on 18/04/2011 11:48:34 |
Richard Parsons | 18/04/2011 12:03:48 |
![]() 645 forum posts 33 photos | David Yes! let’s make things. All my stuff is sketched in perspective scribbles so I can see what it looks like when it is finished. I have a free CAD package but it seems to disagree with my Video drivers and is NBG or (NBJ in Hungarian). When I can get it fixed I have some articles for you. I do not think anyone would make head or tail of my note book. I am trying to dimension photographs instead
Sam I am almost that old. I seem to remember my dad going to the yard sales to buy some wood – They were breaking up the Ark at the time. The art teacher showed us it in art classes where we had to draw things like postage stamps wrapped round drain pipes. The year was 1947. The lady who taught us before was into finger painting etc. but this one was a perspective nut. He could also draw. |
EtheAv8r | 18/04/2011 12:22:19 |
![]() 111 forum posts 3 photos | I would have thought this suggestion from Terry would be an excellent idea for a good meaty artical or comprehensive series.
I personally would have found it to be of great interest and of real benefit to my lerning of this malarky.
I subscribe to MEW precisely because I am NOT interested in Steam or Traction engines, but I am interested in engineering for small stuff and models (R/C helicopter parts for instance), and in learning to use a lathe and mill and expanding my repertoire as knowledge grows and interest is kindled. Being able to read and correctly interpret drewings is key. Edited By EtheAv8r on 18/04/2011 12:59:41 |
John Coates | 18/04/2011 12:31:57 |
![]() 558 forum posts 28 photos | How would this fit alongside the Workshop Practice book no.13 on Workshop Drawing out of interest? (as I bought that to help me)
I did TD from a building perspective (no pun intended) for my HNC so it was architectural detailing, plans and elevations and isometric perspectives. Having gotten into this hobby it gave me a bit of a headstart but didn't help with the shading used to show cut aways etc. So that is an area/topic I think would be well worth covering
John |
Terryd | 18/04/2011 13:09:32 |
![]() 1946 forum posts 179 photos | Hi Sam, Thanks for that amusing little aside. I've not seen that one before and it took me several minutes to work out what was happening and I think that I've nailed it. ![]() Quite clever, it's a good job I have a reasonable spatial awareness in order to work stuff like that out. I was always good at that sort of puzzle and simply cannot understand why others find it difficult. I also love work by Maurits Escher It's one of the reasons I made my offer to David but he seems very anti the idea. I still don't see how you can make a success of any model if you can't read a drawing properly. ![]() Best regards Terry |
blowlamp | 18/04/2011 13:19:17 |
![]() 1885 forum posts 111 photos | Posted by Terryd on 18/04/2011 13:09:32:
... I still don't see how you can make a success of any model if you can't read a drawing properly.
![]() Best regards
Terry Exactly. And how are you going to make anything of your own design, if you can't draw it and prove it's viability first?
Martin. Edited By blowlamp on 18/04/2011 13:20:49 |
Terryd | 18/04/2011 13:24:30 |
![]() 1946 forum posts 179 photos | Posted by John Coates on 18/04/2011 12:31:57: How would this fit alongside the Workshop Practice book no.13 on Workshop Drawing out of interest? (as I bought that to help me) I did TD from a building perspective (no pun intended) for my HNC so it was architectural detailing, plans and elevations and isometric perspectives. Having gotten into this hobby it gave me a bit of a headstart but didn't help with the shading used to show cut aways etc. So that is an area/topic I think would be well worth covering John Hi John, The 'shading' in Engineering drawings is called 'cross hatching' which is a common term you might come across. When a device is sectioned it may cut through several components to show an assembly if it is complex. In that case there would be several different methods of cross hatching in order5 to identify the individual parts. It is quite difficult to explain without examples to show which is why I made the offer. To be fair to David he may have thought that I was offering to teach people how to make drawings rather than be able to read them fluently and accurately. My lecturer at college insisted that Graphicacy was the 4th 'R' and, like any other language needed to be taught. It is not understood instinctively as some users seem to think. The last CAD series was intended to instruct folks how to use it, that was not my intention with my offer. It seems a shame when we are often complaining that skills are being lost as generations pass on, and reading a drawing is a distinct skill and there are many thousand project drawings out there. Thanks to all for the very positive comments I appreciate it. I may develop the articles anyway, either for a competitor or for my website. Best regards Terry |
jomac | 18/04/2011 13:37:09 |
113 forum posts | Terry, you have got my vote. A clear updated article on TD, would probably help me to better under stand the cheap and basic Cad programs, And trying to correct the badly drawn IC plans of the internet, is difficult, knowing how to do it properly will help, I am NOT interested in live steam only IC so an article by you is a must. John Holloway |
Terryd | 18/04/2011 13:39:57 |
![]() 1946 forum posts 179 photos | Posted by Richard Parsons on 18/04/2011 12:03:48: David Yes! let’s make things. All my stuff is sketched in perspective scribbles so I can see what it looks like when it is finished. I have a free CAD package but it seems to disagree with my Video drivers and is NBG or (NBJ in Hungarian). When I can get it fixed I have some articles for you. I do not think anyone would make head or tail of my note book. I am trying to dimension photographs instead Hi Richard I wholeheartedly agree about 'making thing' and using 'sketches' for our personal use. My point was that many modellers, beginners especially but not exclusively, when undertaking a published project or kit, are faced with what can seem incomprehensible orthographics which are a mass of confusing lines of different types covering several sheets for a large project. Costly mistakes are then easily made, perhaps not by yourself with your high standards, but I have been guilty in the past. I merely thought to explain these graphic standards such as encapsulated in BS 308, so that the users could read technical and engineering drawings accurately and fluently. Perhaps you also misunderstood my intentions as obviously did David unlike others who have contributed here. I may not always make myself clear and I'm sorry if that is the case, but I do like folks to read what I write, not what they think I wrote. Best regards Terry |
Steve Garnett | 18/04/2011 13:46:13 |
837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Terryd on 18/04/2011 13:09:32: Thanks for that amusing little aside. I've not seen that one before and it took me several minutes to work out what was happening and I think that I've nailed it. ![]() Out of interest, I just drew it out on a bit of paper, explained the rules and gave it to SWMBO. She got it in about 10 seconds, simply by pointing out that if you base it on the information given, there is no other possible answer - and she's a primary teacher, not an engineer... I still don't see how you can make a success of any model if you can't read a drawing properly. ![]() Absolutely. You might make something, but the chances are that it won't be what is on the drawing, will it? As I observed in the other thread I linked to, it's worth noting that one of the best ways to make sure you've got enough sensible information in a drawing is to have to go back and make the thing yourself again, just from the drawing. Having to do this quite regularly makes me very careful about drawings these days! |
NJH | 18/04/2011 13:52:34 |
![]() 2314 forum posts 139 photos | Hi All How far does Workshop Practice Series No 13 contribute towards a good understanding of workshop drawings ? ( I don't have a copy!) If it falls short of requirements then, Terry , here is an opportunity! On the other hand , if the concensus is that it meets requirements, I would personally prefer this information in book form. So, those of you who have this book, is it a good buy? Regards Norman |
Geoff Sheppard | 18/04/2011 14:22:35 |
80 forum posts 1 photos | 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 |
Howard Jones | 18/04/2011 15:06:41 |
70 forum posts 112 photos | sorry terry but I think an article on how to read a technical drawing would be as dull and boring as you could possibly imagine. I dont buy all the model engineers or workshops and articles such as you suggest are issues I put back on the news stand. I want to be inspired not bored to death by what I read. Mogens Kilde is solving your problem by leading from the front I would suggest. the 3 view cad pictures and solidworks images he creates for his articles have actually inspired me to buy issues because I thought what he was presenting was interesting. so if you want to navel gaze, or reminisce about "how I usta do it when I was great" for gods sake stop yourself from going any more senile and get a life, as the saying goes. if you want to produce an inspirational article on a new project then submit away! I think David was entirely correct in the original rejection of the concept. |
Steve Garnett | 18/04/2011 15:44:42 |
837 forum posts 27 photos | Posted by Howard Jones on 18/04/2011 15:06:41: I want to be inspired not bored to death by what I read. So presumably all the beginners who might perhaps feel inspired to try to build something from drawings, if perhaps they felt a little more confident, are supposed to be inspired by your attitude? I mean, bravo for going against the tide and all that, but for me your argument sounds rather self-serving and not really for the greater good at all. ********************************************** Geoff, Terryd isn't proposing drawing lessons at all - but interpretive ones. The only real snag with an informative article like this that I can see is that in the long run, there could be rather more scrutiny of drawings, and in rather more detail, than there perhaps has been up to now. Perhaps David is (quite reasonably from his POV) trying not to make any more of a rod for his back than he has already... I almost hesitant to say this though; it feels like treading rather heavily on eggshells. And on that basis, I absolutely insist that I'm not having a go at anybody - I do realise the issues involved, honest. |
Please login to post a reply.
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.