Technical and engineering drawing.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 19/04/2011 11:43:36

I agree totally with Nick in the belief that one can learn something everyday and that does not necessarily mean on matters relevant to engineering either. There is a saying normally used in a derogatory manner - "What he know's would fill a book, what he doesn't would fill a library" Well perhaps we should aim it at ourselves a bit more - what we do know may well perhaps 'fill a book' but what we could still learn may fill one or two more - despite the age we are at. And as for mistakes - well you're right there too Nick. The difficult part for some however is admitting them. (One day I'll relate the tale of the leadscrew nut).

Edited By Ramon Wilson on 19/04/2011 12:46:10

Edited By David Clark 1 on 19/04/2011 14:50:27

Ok I have had my rant. Now for something more constructive, when looking at some of the drawings in ME and MEWS I have difficulty in spotting the units used. Could the drawings have a simple code on them? Say ‘I’ for Inch, ‘M’ for Metric and ‘B’ for both.

I know it is a bit off topic, why not also put your surveys ‘on line’. One of the problems with postal surveys is that you fill them in but it is raining and the PO Box is ½ miles (0.8km) away. The P.O Box is full, sealed, the local Postmen on strike or what have you. With the ‘on-line’ version fill it in. press the button and go to the pub/feed the dog/lag SWAMBO for the winter.

I am not and newer was a trained professional artificer. All I know I either learned in dad’s workshop or learned by trial and error or from reading. My interests could have gone in two directions Model Engineering or wood carving. Somehow the iron beat the wood.

I find the quality of drawings in both ME and MEWS is good as I can understand them. I find photos even more useful as I can see what is what. I have two drawings in my album they are both dreadful, but they are the best I can do.

Edited By Steve Garnett on 19/04/2011 22:32:28

Making one of my occasional visits to the forum I have hit on this thread and felt I would like to add a few comments on two aspects of the discussion.

Whilst I do not disagree with Terry's initial suggestion but do not see how the magazine can separate reading drawings totally from drawing drawings, as he mentions he would base his article on interpreting drawings drawn to BS308. My reservations are based on just how many contributors are conversant with that standard, my self included. In my case, the last time I worked producing engineering drawings was 57 years ago as was the last time I worked for a mechanical engineering company.

Also, having spent a few years as editor of MEW, I am fully aware of the impossibility of redrawing contributors drawings, both for practical and financial reasons, so that they comply. Contributors will therefore need help to comply fully, or at least largely, with the standard so that Terry's article on reading them stands a chance of achieving its aim.

Secondly, I calculate that the number of contributors to the subject amount to approximately 0.2% of MEW's readership and does not therefore alone make an overriding case in favour of the original idea. In any case, not all of the contributors appear to see the need for the item. The editor must therefore be allowed to balance this very small number against the feedback he receives by other means.

Of course, at this stage I have not found it possible to read every contribution in depth so if I have missed something my apologies.

Harold Hall

Edited By NJH on 19/04/2011 23:42:21

Edited By NJH on 19/04/2011 23:43:09