Modular dividing head MEW289

I have been trying to decipher the the diagrams of indexing and the worm module in this article. Is it a printing error or am I the only one who cannot decipher them as they are both tiny and indistinct? Could they be reprinted or found on this forum so those of of us with failing eyesight can actually see them?

myopically

Andries

Andries,

Likely none of us can see them! Not by failing eyesight methinks.

Please show us, or tell us, the article, so we can all see it.

.

There is a big hint in the thread title

See here if you are not a subscriber to MEW

**LINK**

https://www.magzter.com/article/Hobbies-Craft/Model-Engineers-Workshop/The-Modular-Dividing-Head

MichaelG.

It's not you, totally unreadable at least on the forums digital version.

I'll let Neil know and maybe he can upload them to the forum.

PS I have edited the title to include "MEW 289"

Edited By JasonB on 29/12/2019 07:05:01

Are you seeing MEW 289 now Jason, I,m not..?

The paper copy states, on p37

“This figure is intended as a key to the figures for the basic dividing head which follow”

But: It is largely illegible and incomprehensible

I suspect that the author provided it to assist with page layout ...

Even if legible, it would serve no useful purpose to the reader, and was probably printed by mistake.

... The similar figure on p42 seems equally useless to the reader.

MichaelG.

[ standing ready to be corrected ]

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 29/12/2019 09:30:53

Ron, I have other ways to see the digital MEW, though if you have a digital sub you should be OK to look at it on Pocketmags

Looks like it may have been on A3 or even larger and has been reduced down too much to fit half a magazine page.

Edited By JasonB on 29/12/2019 10:09:32

Hi folks,

Sorry I've been away...

The author didn't include any figure references so we decided to include those images as 'keys' in an experiment.

Unfortunately although we could read the text here, it was too small to be legible in the published versions.

All the information in these two images has either appeared or will appear as multiple, smaller, normal-resolution images so you aren't missing anything.

Suffice to say we won't be repeating the experiment and sorry for the confusion.

Neil

Agree with the comments re the tiny and virtually unreadable diagrams. I didn't get to read the whole article until receiving the March edition.

Having got Issue 290 page 36 I found tables 2 and 3 difficult to understand, can I presume it is showing the difference between a gear and a rack? The text doesn't mention either table. Then on page 37 another table 2 crops up where it says Depth of tooth and flats (in inches) then lists width of flats and depth of tooth in inches which are I believe ridiculous figures. Can I presume the decimal place is incorrect for most of the items listed. Then surprise surprise the same table appears as Table 4 in slightly larger print with exactly the same ( I believe) errors.

I am still plodding through the whole article.

Having said all that it does look like a useful workshop item.

Dave

Further to my last post' reading further Table 5 and 6 are identical. Both for the same series of lathe. Glad I didn't have to proof read this. Neil has definitely been away.

Dave

David this has been covered in another thread as I spotted the table errors, though not the size error.

Don't think we can even presume the figures have the decimal point in the wrong place as depth looks wrong for the 1MOD though they ar eclose metric sizes except the first 16DP one which looks to be imperial . Even the trig for feeding in at an angle look to be wrong.

I have let Neil Know

Ed

Edited By JasonB on 21/02/2020 08:03:21

Jason.

I am still trying to soak up what is being said re different lathes.

I would have thought that having made a worm gear to suit the Module or Dp of the gears you chose to use then it will always be a case of one rev of the worm turns the gear one tooth. Then it purely a case of doing the maths necessary to give your turns and holes whatever you set up.

Am I correct or have I lost the plot.

Dave

I've not really read it but that sounds logical.

Looking again at the table 4, I think the dimension for the 16DP width of flat is in decimal inches and the rest in metric though I don't agree with the metric figures which seem a little bit out.

Anyone else want to have a stab at the figures, they relate to cutting a worm gear so you have included angle, width of flat at end of tool, length of tool (Depth of cut?) and infeed with angled topslide. red is what I think it should be in relation to inch/mm

Jason

Thanks for that. They look more like being in the correct ball park.

The other tables have the odd errors in them so I would advise checking before use.

Dave

I'm sorry about these errors. I'm afraid this was a long article split over dozens of files and several issues and in the end the complexity of getting it all organised got the better of me.

This has been compounded by the separated and enlarged figures for the worm module not getting to us in time for issue 291, so we had to drop in another article to fill the space and these should appear in issue 292.

Hopefully 292 will see the article completed properly.

Neil