Query – Derek Brown’s Pipe Bender – MEW 297

Advert

New Replies

Report Bug

Help/FAQs

Query – Derek Brown’s Pipe Bender – MEW 297

This topic has 56 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 2 December 2020 at 18:31 by ega.

Viewing 25 posts - 1 through 25 (of 57 total)

1 2 3 →

Author

Posts
15 September 2020 at 15:24 #495932
Greensands
Participant
@greensands
Has anyone tried making up the Derek Brown Pipe Bender as illustrated in the current MEW No.297? From what I can see there is a serious clash in the positioning of the two 1/4 Diameter holes at the bottom LH corner of Item 1, page 44.
Advert

15 September 2020 at 15:24 #19946
Greensands
Participant
@greensands
15 September 2020 at 15:49 #495937
Baz
Participant
@baz89810
I have made one from drawings in MEW, cannot recall offhand what issue etc but I had no problems with it and it works perfectly. A picture would help jog my memory if you can post one.
15 September 2020 at 15:50 #495938
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
My apologies, we were redrawing from scans of the original article which itself wasn't very easy to read.

The 0.583" dimension probably should be 0.683" or 0.663". As the two holes are drawn touching, I suspect 0.663" (0.413" + 0.250&quot is correct but going to be tricky to machine.

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 15/09/2020 15:54:27
15 September 2020 at 15:55 #495939
Greensands
Participant
@greensands
Thanks a bunch – That will teach me to start machining ops before checking but I made the mistake of assuming that because the design was taken from a previous issue, all would be well. Another chuck of steel heading for the scrap bin|
15 September 2020 at 16:10 #495942
KWIL
Participant
@kwil
Looking at my copy of MEW 64 page 38, item 1, it is quite clearly 0.683"
16 September 2020 at 16:19 #496144
Greensands
Participant
@greensands
Neil – There appears to be another error on these drawings, this time for the second Lever shown on Item 6, page 45. The 1.938" and 1.313" dimensions have been interchanged. Can I ask you to please check and confirm the right configuration. Perhaps a reproduction of the drawings as published in MEW 64 would not be out of place if reproduced here on this forum?

Many thanks.
16 September 2020 at 16:21 #496145
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
The early scans that Neil was working from are poor hence the errors so not much point in making them available

I don't think the dimensions have been interchanges the 1.938" should be 0.938" otherwise it would be at the end of the 2" overall length.

Edited By JasonB on 16/09/2020 16:26:52
16 September 2020 at 16:59 #496149
KWIL
Participant
@kwil
Again, by reference to my copy of MEW 64, Jason is correct, it is 0.938"
16 September 2020 at 17:15 #496153
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
Posted by Greensands on 16/09/2020 16:19:30:

Neil – There appears to be another error on these drawings, this time for the second Lever shown on Item 6, page 45. The 1.938" and 1.313" dimensions have been interchanged. Can I ask you to please check and confirm the right configuration. Perhaps a reproduction of the drawings as published in MEW 64 would not be out of place if reproduced here on this forum?

Many thanks.

The drawings I have are not of a quality suitable for reproduction – hence the errors, I'm afraid.

If you spot anything else I'll add it to a correction in MEW 298.

Neil
16 September 2020 at 17:19 #496154
Michael Gilligan
Participant
@michaelgilligan61133
[ responding to Jason ]

Does MTM not hold an archive of hard copies ?

… less than 300 slim magazines, so far.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 16/09/2020 17:20:43
16 September 2020 at 18:28 #496167
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
You would have to ask Neil about that.

I think head office may well have a set but it's a long way for Neil to pop down and have a flick through the pages. Just hope that those slim 300 are not at the bottom of the pile under 4500 copies of ME

Edited By JasonB on 16/09/2020 18:28:32
16 September 2020 at 19:28 #496177
Ady1
Participant
@ady1
MEW should be digitised every time a new print comes out, same with modern issue ME mags

Takes literally 5 minutes to drop an entire copy through a decent scanner, 5 minutes

gripe over, Neil and Jason are wonderful
16 September 2020 at 19:34 #496179
JasonB
Moderator
@jasonb
It is and no need for a scanner as it is produced digitally a click of the button will give a digital copy, problem is with the old issues that were not done at the time and even when they were scanned in during DC1's time the resolution of scanners at the time was not what it is now.
16 September 2020 at 20:08 #496185
Michael Gilligan
Participant
@michaelgilligan61133
Posted by JasonB on 16/09/2020 19:34:50:

[…]

the resolution of scanners at the time was not what it is now.

.

That was, of course, the reason for my [surprised] question.

If the unfortunate disposal of hard-copy originals was enacted … it is still not too late to ‘engage hindsight’ and buy some decent copies.

MichaelG.
20 September 2020 at 16:51 #496925
Greensands
Participant
@greensands
Neil – Could you please check out another dimension on the DB Pipe Bender for me. Page 45, Item 5, Anchor Posts. The dimension from the top of the post to the slot centre line should I think read 0.187" not 0.513 as shown.

(At this rate I think I could begin to claim Beta testing rates)
20 September 2020 at 16:59 #496926
Greensands
Participant
@greensands
Error – For 0.187" read 0.313"
20 September 2020 at 17:17 #496931
Michael Gilligan
Participant
@michaelgilligan61133
Posted by Greensands on 20/09/2020 16:59:47:

Error – For 0.187" read 0.313"

.

hoist and petard are words that spring to mind

… But you’re doing a grand job anyway.

MichaelG.
21 September 2020 at 10:57 #497016
Circlip
Participant
@circlip
" problem is with the old issues that were not done at the time and even when they were scanned in during DC1's time the resolution of scanners at the time was not what it is now."

Resolution at that time was 300-400 dpi. Problem was, although offered for free by the late SJ, the company that scanned them made a right pigs ear of it.

Regards Ian.
21 September 2020 at 11:50 #497027
A Smith
Participant
@asmith78105
I have found Derek Brown to be most approachable when doing his stuff at exhibitions. Does anyone know him well enough to ask for his comments on this?

Andy
21 September 2020 at 12:35 #497036
KWIL
Participant
@kwil
Greensands,

Anchor Posts, centre line dimension is 0.313"

Andy, yes but so far we appear to be coping.
21 September 2020 at 15:19 #497060
Nicholas Farr
Participant
@nicholasfarr14254
Hi, I have found five dimensional errors; item 1 Base, bottom hole centre should read 0.683" below the top five hole centres, item 5 Anchor Posts, from bottom of the shoulder to centre of the radii should read 0.313", item 6 Levers, lever for odd 1/32" sizes, middle hole of the three should read 0.938" from common data point, item 7 Formers, top left hand 1/4" former diameter should read 1.5", bottom left had 3/32" former, notched dimension should read 0.125".

These are all from those published in MEW 64 Feb-March 2000.

Regards Nick.
21 September 2020 at 23:16 #497135
Neil Wyatt
Moderator
@neilwyatt
Thanks Nick.

Neil
22 September 2020 at 08:07 #497153
Andy Rodgers 1
Participant
@andyrodgers1
I'm just modelling in SolidWorks from my Dad's copy of the magazine and realised there must be an error in the base. I've probably got the original issue in the loft but many thanks for publishing the corrections here and saving me rummaging through those old copies.

Regards

Andy
22 September 2020 at 11:16 #497188
Andy Rodgers 1
Participant
@andyrodgers1
Author

Posts