Query – Derek Brown’s Pipe Bender – MEW 297

[GreensandsParticipant @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.

[GreensandsParticipant @greensands]

[BazParticipant @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.

[Neil WyattModerator @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

[GreensandsParticipant @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|

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Looking at my copy of MEW 64 page 38, item 1, it is quite clearly 0.683"

[GreensandsParticipant @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.

[JasonBModerator @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

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Again, by reference to my copy of MEW 64, Jason is correct, it is 0.938"

[Neil WyattModerator @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

[Michael GilliganParticipant @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

[JasonBModerator @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

[Ady1Participant @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

[JasonBModerator @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.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @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.

[GreensandsParticipant @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)

[GreensandsParticipant @greensands]

Error – For 0.187" read 0.313"

[Michael GilliganParticipant @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.

[CirclipParticipant @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.

[A SmithParticipant @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

[KWILParticipant @kwil]

Greensands,

Anchor Posts, centre line dimension is 0.313"

Andy, yes but so far we appear to be coping.

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @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.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Thanks Nick.

Neil

[Andy Rodgers 1Participant @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

[Andy Rodgers 1Participant @andyrodgers1]

[Author]

Posts