Criteria for article in Me or MEW

Not complaining, just wondering how the editors choose an article for ME or MEW. The latest ME (#4454, 19 April - 2 May 2013) includes an article about a "Laser Centre Finder". Just seems more "MEW-ish"

If you don't have a selection in ME it will rapidly become Model Choo Choo's

ME has always cast the net much wider than MEW. It would be a shame if all workshop devices were excluded from it.

The answer is to have a go at writing something YOU think people will be interested in. Anyone who can describe a model or a process on this forum should be able to write an article for ME.

Neil

Please, please, please keep articles that may help us "model choo choo" people keep our machines running and our workshops efficient.

I *really* like the Model Engineer of old, before the MEW split off, because it was a well-rounded magazine. I know you can't please everybody, but that split displeased me!

Another JohnS.

Hi There

I doubt I would run an article on a laser centre finder.

regards David

Hi all,

As author of this article, I would like to add comments. I submitted the article for publication in ME or MEW in May 2012; leaving the choice of magazine to the discretion of the Editor. However, nothing happened for months. I enquired in August and it appeared that the piece was in the files of the Editor and en route for publication. My second enquiry in February this year left me with the notion that the article had been lost. At that stage I considered offering the article elsewhere. Then we gained a new Editor of Model Engineer. I sent the article to Dianne; receipt was rapidly acknowledges together with an approximate date for publication. It is now in print. I call that excellent service. As to the content of the article. It is a topic that I found interesting to write about and hope that others will find it thought-provoking to read and/or useful. As to the choice of ME or MEW; I imagine that many readers of both magazines have cause to centre objects on a milling machine.

Ray Griffin

Why?

IanP

David

You did run an article on making a laser centre finder in MEW issue 186. It was submitted by me!

Ray your not the only one who has submitted articles (3 at least) which appear to have gone into the unknown. I'm not wasting my time any more.Ted

Hi There

I should have said another laser centre finder.

regards David

Too right David.

You need to leave more space for toolposts, bed stops, door stops and CNC.

Edited By John Stevenson on 20/04/2013 19:19:49

Hi All,
I totally agree with Ray Griffin's and John Fletcher's comments regarding the apparent lack of a reliable filing system for submitted articles. It would not take any significant effort to arrange a folder system on a computer to file submitted articles by subject etc. Also there are no acknowledgments sent to say if an article is suitable or unsuitable.

Les.

Les - you'd be surprised (or maybe not) how quickly such a folder based system would end up in a complete mess. There are however fairly simple and relatively low cost ways to organise documents that would overcome the problems of a folder based approach.

OK David

You've got my attention -

".......fairly simple and relatively low cost ways to organise documents that would overcome the problems of a folder based approach."

Would you care to elaborate?

Norman

........how quickly our obsession with computers has replaced the good old filing cabinet.......

I think it is a state of mind which you either have or don't. Some people are incredibly organised but me, I'm just a chronological heap sort of person.

Hi Guys,

I welcome the split between ME and MEW it can only improve the two magazines due to, hopefully, friendly rivalry between the two editors. Although DC did an exemplary job, it polarized the writings too much. MEW should be exclusively workshop topics, as denoted by it's title, but ME should encompass all disciplines, workshop, choo-choos, days out, and anything at all related to it's title.

It usually takes me about 5-10 minutes to read ME each fortnight due to the predominance of series model building. There is no point reading a whole series unless you are going to build the thing described. If there was a little more variety it might takes me more than one visit to the thunder-box to read it.

So Diane, you stand your ground and make the magazine your own. Become one of the great editors and who knows maybe one day they will name a Model club HQ after you.

chriStephens

Now come on Ted, you had one published in 2007. Have you spent that fee already?

Phil

Norman,

There are Document Management systems which allow a variety of information (metadata) to be entered against a document (or indeed about a 'project' or 'article' or whatever... to which documents are linked). Information would likely include author, keywords, maybe process(es) or category. Files can be searched/displayed by any of these, or by occurence of a word in the document, depending upon the current requirement.. In comparison folders are restrictive, and/or tend to lead to multiple copies (a nightmare to maintain) in an effort to over come this.

It becomes trivial to display (say) 'all unpublished submissions in the steam category'.

I am involved in selling/supporting a particular package, but there are many options available out there.

OK David

I see. I do a lot of photography and my image " store" and primary adjustment tool is Adobe Lightroom. This program allows images to be identified by one or more keywords hence a search by keyword or multiple keywords allows rapid retrieval of images. This is a much more effective system than depositing the images into folders. I guess you are advocating a similar system for the articles.

If your system is any where near as good as Lightroom then I would endorse it enthusiastically!

Thanks

Norman

Hi all,

As author of this article, I would like to add some “perhaps final” comments. I wrote this piece with the aim of comparing traditional and a newer method of centre finding. Hence the title “Any advance on the man with the sticky pin?” The safety of lasers obviously needs consideration as indicated in the article. However, my main thought was to indicate how useful to me these devices are compared to metal points. I rank my Laser Centre finder alongside the height gauge, surface plate and digital calipers as essential aids. I may be wrong, but as I see it devices such as sticky pins and wrigglers can only be accurate when the point of the tool is coincident with the centre of the shaft. True concentricity can only be formed and maintained by the accurate grinding of hardened metal. This sounds expensive to me and far above the cost of the average device. However, perhaps the results meet expectations or requirements. On the other hand, once my laser is centred on the axis of the spindle of the machine, the spot indicated on the work is accurately centred. Any views on this?

Who makes the choice of articles for ME and MEW? My comment earlier in this thread was to counteract the impression given in the thread by David Clark that he would not have published articles on laser centre finders. Subsequently, he changed to any more articles on laser centre finders; as an article on making a laser centre finder published in issuer 186 (Feb. 2012) was brought to his attention. My dissatisfaction in this arena arises from the fact that I submitted my article to David in May 2012 and on an enquiry in August was informed that he had the article and that it was destined for publication in MEW. So he had no objection to publication at that stage. On my second enquiry in February 2012, the article appears to have disappeared and he asked if he had acknowledged receipt. I keep all e-mails so could answer in the affirmative. To my mind this is a very cavalier approach by an editor to the intellectual property and work offered by contributors. Articles take a lot of time and effort to write and it is disheartening when they just disappear. There are a number of computer programmes that handle and sort references.

Fortunately, the choice of MEW or ME is now in the hands of contributors as there is no longer one editor for both magazines. My earlier comment on the care, efficiency and professional approach shown by Dianne to my recent offerings to Model Engineer gives a clue to the destination of any future work that I manage to put together.

Ah well, back to the workshop. I am just finishing my model of the Ransome and May mill engine and hope to show it at an exhibition at Hyères in October.

Ray Griffin