Announcement re: Model Engineers' Workshop

Welcome Neil and may I wish DC all the best for the future and thanks for editing a great magazine for the past 7 years or so.

Ken.

> WOULD YOU BUY A USED MYFORD FROM THIS MAN ??

John! I've just spent half an hour looking for the Myford in my workshop and I still can't find it.

Neil

This is a break with tradition - an editor of MEW who doesn't have a Myford!

Congrats Neil

Make sure you get plenty of CNC articles in there

All the best for the future Neil. In the few years I've been reading this forum I think your posts have only been a positive addition to it.

Gary

I will write some articles but the priority is to find paid employment, preferably working from home.

I have just turned 60. Hopefully I have another 60 to 70 years left with the advances in modern medicine.

I don't intend to sponge of the state for that long.

regards David

Edited By David Clark 1 on 11/02/2014 08:00:30

Best wishes David for the road ahead. The editorship of ME MEW is not easy, there are so many differing opinions from subscribers. Seven years in the chair is a sterling effort. I wish I was just over the big 6. I have 4 years to the big 7. hmm

Hello Neil, the batten has been passed to you now, an interesting time too, model making is changing, to technology making. Radio control is ubiquitous and cheap. Even RC helicopters are old hat now they want a quad or up to 6 rotor copter with a camera, GPS and Gyro stabilised?... Yes naturally! and why not when the hole control system can be purchased so cheaply.

CNC? Modern train, clock, engines, and countless other genre builders are slowly embracing CNC It will never replace the true artistry we see at the local club or in the magazines but if we are going to attract new blood they will want CNC.

Anyway the readers will tell you what they want!

Regards
John

Good luck to both David and Neil.

Neil or Stub Mandrel,

First congratulations on your appointment.

Second about the use of Stub Mandrel or Neil Wyatt. I am reminded about the late, great Tom Walshaw who also wrote under the pen name of Tubal Cain. I'm not totally sure how he worked out which name to use, but I think it may have been Tom Walshaw for personal stuff, and Tubal Cain for what he may have thought was public or official stuff - if that makes sense. Suffice to say that "everyone" knew that he was both people.

Maybe the answer is to use Stub Mandrel for anything published in a personal manner, eg as on the forum, and to use Neil Wyatt when in the guise of Editor.

Not that it matters, we all know who you are, and there's no getting away from it!

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

ps. I describe Tom Walshaw/Tubal Cain as "great" because I always found his writings made sense to me, and this is the mark of a person who can get his point across. The fact that I do not necessarily remember what he said is my problem, not his.

Thanks Peter,

I won't pretend you're suggesting I'm the same league as Tubal Cain As I recall he used Tom Walshaw for professional publications (e.g. about diesel engine design) and ornamental turning, and Tubal Cain for model engineering.

Neil

You could always use Stub Wyatt if you are writing for both camps.

Yes, you could do that. What you could also do is just use your own name. You could use this as an opportunity to break with the cliquey, clubby, secret squirrel mentality that pervades both MEW and ME. "We" may all know who you are, (I didn't have a clue) but is anyone else likely to who comes to the magazine as a newcomer? They won't, but then the esoteric nature of most of the projects and the fact that they are serialised will likely make them put it back on the shelf. Serialised projects mean that if someone has just equipped a workshop, or is thinking "that looks like an interesting hobby, I'd like to try it", they come in at part 3 and so are excluded and thereby dissuaded from going further. Thus is the elitist nature of both magazines perpetuated.

I can hear the voices now, I'm one of the whingers and whiners on here. I'm not, I'm someone that wants to see these magazines print something worth keeping on my bench for future reference. I'm someone that wants to see them succeed.

I ordered one copy each of The Home Shop Machinist and Machinist's Workshop from the US recently. I did this in order to compare them with ME/MEW. The difference is like night and day. Articles on tooling, techniques, hints and tips, all self contained and occupying three pages at the most. I've already alluded to the sort of thing that could be included further up the thread. ME and MEW could be excellent publications but it is time for the little "in" nicknames and elitism to be got rid of. Otherwise you may well find that you have no magazine to edit.

Edited by JasonB to separate quoted text from reply

Edited By JasonB on 11/02/2014 17:07:21

Carl, the problem with that is you will just end up with a load of small tools!!.

Taking your 3 pages max per item we can generally say that would be broken down into one page of text, one of photos and one for the drawing. So with the best will in the world any author is going to be quite limited in what they can submit.

Same would apply to ME you would be hard pushed to cover a wobbler or finger engine over 3 pages. A simple glow engine or something like Stew's basic mill engine have 30plus parts and if these articles are to be aimed at beginners then they will need a reasonable amount of text to explain what to do and pictures to back it up so would need a lot more than 3 pages.

You also need some larger projects for the beginner to aspire to and move onto once they have some basic projects under their belts rather than just keep knocking out small items.

Don't get me wrong I feel there is a need for one or two short selfcontained projects in each issue but to do away with larger items completely would be wrong and would loose the following of the more experienced buyers. I would hate to see ME and MEW go the way of some of the woodworking mags, there are only so many bird boxes and planters you can build as weekend projects before you stagnate.

J

.

Potentially true, Jason ...

But I must commend the style of John M. Smith's article in MEW No.211

In less than two and a half pages, he manages to introduce the Fly Press, and illustrate a useful piece of tooling.

MichaelG.

True but its still a "small piece of tooling" which is what I said short articles would likely be limited to. And could the potential novice model engineer that Carl mentions make the tooling from those simplified sketches even if they did have a fly press. It gives enough for the likes of you and I to works out something along those lines to suit our own presses but could someone with no engineering teaching at school do the same?

Try describing a classic like a tool and cutter grinder or Universal pillar tool, etc in 3 pages and I don't think anyone could, maybe a tool holder (small tooling) for the grinder but not the whole thing.

J

Edited By JasonB on 11/02/2014 17:39:04

Carl,

Yes this is a club, a club which is open to anyone who has an interest in mechanical things, whatever they may be.

In respect of Tom Walshaw/Tubal Cain, I didn't orginally know who he was, but there were more than enough clues around as to who he was. And for that matter where he lived. I can't remember how I found out about his name - it may have been a work colleague of mine who was also into Model Engineering but once I knew, I discovered that there were a myriad clues, indeed the page facing the title page of his Model Engineer's Handbook gives the game away, and on the preface pages, he states "Tubal Cain, Westmorland" and "the library being a gallon of petrol away" In another of his books his preface says "Tubal Cain, Kendal". In short, I very quickly found who he was and where he lived, and had the pleasure of telephoning him once. No secrecy there.

I contribute, such as it is, to another forum, non-engineering this time, and like everyone else do indeed use a pseudonym. I do think in that particular forum, privacy is to an extent essential because of some of the views that are expressed, and some of the help that is given. Some people, experts in their own field, do not necessarily wish it to be known what they are doing.

The problem with articles is that I for one find it difficult writing short, pithy articles because whilst writing these articles, I am aware that there may be people, newcomers, who require more than "do this", "do that", "in the usual way" etc Hence, the few articles that I have done have probably been longer than necessary. To give an example, I have at the side of me a home-made steady for my lathe. There are a number of design details about it which readers might not understand why they are done in the way that they are. Now you might understand, but would Jim or Jane Newbody who, having picked up a lathe without a steady, thinks he/she would like to make one for herself/himself. At least by looking at mine, and the reasons why I did various things, she/he should then decide whether or not to include them in his/her own design. All of which makes for space. Then there are photographs. It is said that a photograph is worth a thousand words, but to make a photograph worthwhile needs both descriptive text, and space in the magazine to be able to reproduce it sufficiently large.

I haven't seen the magazines you mention, but it does suggest to me that the articles you refer to are probably very simple in nature.

A query for you. I have the glimmering of an idea for a low speed adaptor for my lathe. In essence it requires a planetary or epicyclic geartrain, a new set of pulleys, an extended motor shaft, bearings etc. Can that be done in three pages? I very much doubt it.

I do admit that there is indeed a problem with multi-part articles, but one way round that is to contact the back-issues department (if there still is one), or to see if the magazines are held in the library somewhere. As I understand it, photocopying of part articles for personal use is allowed. Failing that, a request on this forum will probably get a result.

I do not think there is any cliqueyness, or elitism here. I am not a practising mechanical engineer, and I have benefitted from others advice here. In return, I have attempted to help others wherever I think I can.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

No argument Jason ... I was just trying to give some praise where I thought it was due.

MichaelG.

Peter

See if you can get hold of a copy of "The Model Engineer and Electrician" (as ME was known then) for April 1st 1915 (unfortunate date!). There is an article by Mr A E Bowyer Lowe on the construction of "An Internal Reduction Gear" - an epicyclic gear system built inside the large pulley of a 3 step flat belt "speed cone". Just over three and a half sides of A4 and includes a full set of working drawings, a description, instructions and notes on calculating the reduction ratio. It can be done.

in spite of the date the article isn't a wind up, I've got a system made to the drawings (by someone else) that I'm about to fit to an old lathe.

Keith

Sturmey Archer ?

Edited By V8Eng on 11/02/2014 18:15:23