Technical and engineering drawing.

[TerrydParticipant @terryd72465]

Hi Hansrudolf,

 

Please may I correct some misconceptions, I was not intending to write a long series about technical graphics, nor would it be solely about BS 308. It would not be intended as an instructional manual about how to create Technical Graphics as was the CAD series but rather a guide to understanding Graphic images, nor would it be aimed at only the UK audience.

 

While you may only use1st angle in orthographic projection, there are those who only understand 3rd angle. While your standards in your country are of course not to BS 308, however if you read ME and MEW, the drawings there will often be influenced by, if not exactly conforming to those standards, as they have been since the standards were introduced in the second decade of the last century to collect together and standardise all the various systems in use at that time. So perhaps it may be a good idea to understand those standards in basic terms.

 

My aim is simply to help model engineers and would be model engineers (who may or may not be trained engineers, draughtsmen etc) understand the strange language, punctuation and grammar of the world of graphics which many take for granted but is not intuitional and is so crucial in communicating our ideas in order to try to minimise mistakes and to make the hobby more interesting and satisfying.

 

Is that such a bad aim as to warrant negative comments?

 

By the way I beleive that there is more than one solution to the conundrum set by Sam, only the simplest has so far been shown. I have never seen it before but due to my fluency in the language of graphics I think that I have seen a second solution, the one shown is the easiest to conceptualise.

 

Best regards

 

Terry

 

[KraeheParticipant @kraehe]

I too would like to see an article about interpeting drawings.

 

Previous posters have suggested that instruction in a given standard would not help with other standards, and would be of little value to ME and MEW readers as drawings in these magazines are drawn to no particular standard. It seems to me, however, that gaining a familiarity with the basic concepts of any standard should be of some utility in interpretation generally. Moreover I, and I am sure many others also, are not limited only to ME and MEW for ideas and drawings.

 

I’m sure that such an article would be useful for me.

 

[GoCreateParticipant @gocreate]

Drawings and sketches in ME can sometimes be difficult to interpret easily. Sometimes dimensions have to be calculated from a collection of dimensions from various views. Uncertainty can be the result.

Terry, I think you have a valid proposal, ME’s are not really needing to read production drawings and know all the ins and outs of various standard and I know that is not what you propose. However, we do want to communicate effectively within our hobby using drawings, what better way is there.

Terry, maybe your article could set out a general standard for ME drawings, this could then be used from this point forward, not to make it mandatory but available for use. Contributors could then state, “Drawn generally in accordance with Terry ME standard”. Then maybe your article can be made permanently available on the web site for contributors and ME’s reference.

What basics should be included?
1. View projection

2. Hidden detail

3. Sectioning a view

4. Good dimensioning practice – Dimensioning from suitable datum’s is often not used in ME drawings

5. Tolerances – We’re not interested in putting tolerances on all our sizes but it would be helpful to know the quality of fit intended. I would like to know, is the fit within 0.0005-0.001 clearance. Maybe you could set a standard fit tol 1 = xxxx, fit tol 2 = xxxx. Don’t know just an idea.

6. Geometrical tolerance – We don’t want to have geometrical tolerances all over the drawing but we may want to emphasis diameters that need to be concentric (machined on one setting), these faces must be parallel. Etc.

I think that’s about as far as it goes. Not too comprehensive but good enough to help contributors and readers.

Regarding 5 & 6 above, we all work to our own standard and generally produce more accurate work than always needed, but sometimes some guidance would be helpful. Contributors who are not familiar with tolerances are not going to be able to apply relevant values. However, presumably they make the parts they are drawing and have an idea of the type of fit they used and when diameters needed to be concentric and so on. So some ME method of indicating this on ME drawings, without the intricacies of BS, ISO standards etc may be a way forward.

Maybe Terry and David could work together on this to provide something relevant to the hobby.

Nigel

[Anonymous]

Posted by Terryd on 22/04/2011 00:16:40:

 

By the way I beleive that there is more than one solution to the conundrum set by Sam, only the simplest has so far been shown. I have never seen it before but due to my fluency in the language of graphics I think that I have seen a second solution, the one shown is the easiest to conceptualise.

 

 

The set of solutions is infinite, of the uncountable kind.

 

Regards,

 

Andrew

[GoCreateParticipant @gocreate]

Hi Graham

Yes, I am agreeing with Terry really, and as you say lets not cloud the issue with talk of BS standards and 3D stuff.

 

Just something relavent to the hobby and appropriate to the way we build our models, guidance for the in-experienced regarding 2D drawing.

 

Nigel

Edited By tractionengine42 on 22/04/2011 12:04:12

[Bill StarlingParticipant @billstarling10428]

The number of postings
on this thread shows that the topic is of great interest, but I feel
there is another aspect that isn’t being considered. As well as the
‘how will it help me to make models now’ approach, what about the
historical side? Surely part of the fascination of model engineering
is understanding the history of the subject?

Engineering drawings
were an essential part of the history of what was made and how. A lot
of contributors are obviously of my generation or older and grew up
with ‘old fashioned’ drawings. What about all the ‘youngsters’ who
only know about computer generated images?

‘Whilst looking to the
future, let us not forget the glories of the past’ – to quote the
Newcomen Society. Technical drawing may only be a small part of the
glory, but it’s an essential one, so let’s understand it.

Terry – please get
writing!

[GoCreateParticipant @gocreate]

Terry
With all this interest and publicity you’re getting in this post why not self-publish a book? Regard this as my pre-order; there you have already sold one.

 

Just a thought but risky.

Nigel

[Roderick JenkinsParticipant @roderickjenkins93242]

This is a very interesting debate. My particular problem is that I am trying to draw up a simple i.c. engine in what I hope will be an understandable format. Being entirely self taught (my grammar school preferred Latin to TD) it seems to me that the British Standard is as good a place as any to start, I have been guided by Tubal Cain’s book and there is a good introduction here http://www.tech.plymouth.ac.uk/dmme/dsgn131/DSGN131_Course_Notes.pdf . However, it seems to me that there is much that is not particularly relevant to model engineering and could be confusing .e.g. tolerances and surface finish – surely these are much better explained to the amateur by text rather than by cryptic symbols. In addition, I think a comment, for example, to mark bolt holes in the cylinder from the cylinder head is more useful that a repeated set of dimensions. David appears not to favour this method but that may exemplify some of the conflict between the Professional and the Amateur. So, perhaps, what we need is some sort of Model Engineering guidelines for drawings, a la Tubal Cain but with recognition of the capabilities (and restrictions) of CAD.

 

Rod

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

From the first 80 or so surveys, almost everyone is happy with the drawing quality in ME.

regards David

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

Tolerances are not usually used on drawings for model engineers use.

The best way to machine a part for a model engineer is to to make the first part as accurately as you can and make the other part to fit. It is usually easier to machine the bore then turn the shaft to fit.

 

Again, with surface finish, usually the better the finish the better the model will work.

I have been caught out on good finish in industry where they specified a bad finish so the glue had something to grip.

We had to remachine them to be rough.

 

Also, when making locks, they needed to be a loose fit as the lock would not work when they were made to close limits.

regards David

 

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Grahame

Yes, they are collatad by a proper company but I still read the free form comments in the boxes first.

regards David

 

[Harold Hall 1Participant @haroldhall1]

I must first apologise to Steve and
Graham for having been so long in replying to them. Unfortunately,
other pressures on my time have not let be become fully involved in
the thread. Even so, I have learnt an important lesson from the
experience, that is, do not become involved with an item on the forum
unless one has the time to follow it up.

Dealing first with Graham’s nurse
(20/04-16:13)who wishes to take up metalwork in the home workshop and
needs to understand the drawings and maybe produce drawings
eventually for use in the magazine. Obviously, in the first instance,
he or she will find it difficult but this is not confined to just
drawings but to most aspects of the hobby. I will add here that I
have no objection to an article from Terry, providing it can be seen
that sufficient of the magazines readership wishes it.

Even with an article available, this
will only be the first hurdle and studying numerous drawings over a
long period will be required in an attempt to understand them, as a
result, gaining the necessary experience. Very many able readers of
the magazine will have started in this way (without an article) so it
is possible if one is willing to spend the time getting the
experience. A common saying, “you have got to walk before you can
run”.

As to the second part of the question,
producing drawings. This I consider is quite a different as most of
what is required has been gained at the reading stage. To produce
good drawings the draughtsman needs an, eye to detail, and an ability
to produce drawings that are both complete and accurate, requirements
that are not just confined to drawing. As an electrical/electronic
engineer I used to produce information on the basis of “I don’t
know what you don’t know” so I explained everything, worthwhile if
it were to be used by a newcomer to the drawing office or the shop
floor. This is a good approach to produce drawings for the magazine
as there is definitely a very wide range of abilities having to read
them. Those on the first rung of the ladder will of course still find
them much more difficult.

I could add a lot more but will
refrain.

As to Steve,s (19/04-23:05) reservation
regarding my comment that the view of 0.2% of the readers cannot
reliably be taken as the overall wish of the readers I can see his
reasoning but still feel it is far too small proportion of the
readership on which to base a decision.

With this subject in mind it is
interesting that in Graham’s contribution (22/04-21:26) he considers
that almost all out of 80 readers who are happy with the present
drawing standard proves nothing, basically taking the same approach
as mine but with a much larger number. At some point though we have
to let the editor make the choice as any survey will never reach 50%
of the readership voting one way.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi There

80 surveys in 3 days is a good start.

I would expect at east 500 to 1,000 surveys back for each magazine maybe a lot more.

I can only take into account surveys received.

The american government reckons for every reply, there are 13 people who think the same but can’t be bothered to reply.

regards david

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Harold Hall 1 on 23/04/2011 10:58:41:

As to Steve,s (19/04-23:05) reservation regarding my comment that the view of 0.2% of the readers cannot reliably be taken as the overall wish of the readers I can see his reasoning but still feel it is far too small proportion of the readership on which to base a decision.

With this subject in mind it is interesting that in Graham’s contribution (22/04-21:26) he considers that almost all out of 80 readers who are happy with the present drawing standard proves nothing, basically taking the same approach as mine but with a much larger number. At some point though we have to let the editor make the choice as any survey will never reach 50% of the readership voting one way.

 

Harold, I have subsequently given this some more thought, and was going to update my comment about it anyway – but thanks for replying, regardless.

 

The real issue here of course isn’t the number of respondents per se as a percentage of the readership, but far more likely to be a matter of statistics. Before I get flamed for daring to mention anything that imprecise, let me explain what I mean:

 

The chances are, that for any given subject idea, the number of people in favour or against it will follow a normal distribution. What this means in terms of a survey or comments in this thread even, is that the vast majority of people fall in the middle – or because they actually read the mag, possibly slightly on the positive side of 50% of the approve/not approve continuum. I would hope, in fact, that the distribution itself was skewed positive! The people that actually respond are more likely to be the people at either end of the continuum though; they would be the ones with some real feelings about the subject, either positive or negative, and who wished to express them. On that basis alone, it’s not too difficult to arrive at the conclusion that the vast majority of people would agree with this particular article suggestion – or at least not care too much about it being there.

 

Since there is rather a lot of evidence from many fields supporting this sort of distribution, I’d say that without strong evidence to the contrary, it would be rather harder to dispute!

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

I did also want to make one other comment, and that is also based on my slightly longer consideration of what Howard said several pages ago about being inspired.

 

I realised that I in fact get quite a lot of inspiration from looking carefully at drawings, and at the detail of how somebody has constructed something – often by careful study of cross-section detail. And if that works for me – okay, because I’ve had quite a bit of practice at interpreting drawings over the years – then why shouldn’t it work for others who might be less confident about it as well? So anything that gives them a helping hand shouldn’t be discouraged in the slightest, really, should it? This isn’t really about whether a particular drawing is to some standard or other, because at the end of the line, the views they express are generally the same – but about helping people to develop their imaginations by realising what they are actually looking at.

 

Through musing over a few back issues over the last couple of days, I’ve also realised that MEW hasn’t entirely been devoid of coverage that is at least related to this issue, even though it doesn’t address some of it directly. Have a look at Dave Fenner’s ‘Musing on Drawings, Dimensions, Tolerances and Marking Out’ in issue 160 for instance. There is certainly something to build on from within that article, I think.

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

I believe you can actually check up on sales of various magazines on line, the idea being that the mag has to disclose total sales so advertisers can work out if it’s worth taking an advert out or not.

 

In the case of speciality mags such as ME and MEW most of the advertisers are talking to the converted but some of the more general advertisers need to know.

 

John S.

[mgjParticipant @mgj]

Steve – you are dead right, and I think an important point has been missed.

 

A hell of a lot of drawings, both in industry and in the modelling worlds are still not just in old formats, but in old dimensions too and they are unlikely to be updated. (though I agree some have been cleaned up in CAD)

 

So its no good the young generation thowing a hissy fit – if they want to make something badly enough they will have to learn.

 

Sure one can (should) encourage, and one can (should)assist, but if they want to be (model) engineers, they HAVE to learn how to take a 2d drawing on paper, and in their mind turn it into a 3d hunk of finished metal. If they don’t have that imagination or kind of brain, they might just as well go off and play golf, where, if they cannot hit a ball straight, and in their minds eye they have to put together stroke, distance wind etc …….

 

Perhaps we ought to accept that this is in general, possibly not a young mans hobby? We need kit which is expensive, we need patience on long projects, and we need expertise, and none of these come easily to the young?

 

There is IMO, a difference between a youngster and a beginner BTW.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Richard ParsonsParticipant @richardparsons61721]

Ah MGJ – these days the fill their brains with the ‘Hippy – Twitch’ or whatever is the latest craze. Their brains are too full to remember the Number 25.4. We had to learn all the parts of a £ like 3/4d which is 1/6 of 240d (£1) OR 13/4d 2/3 of a £ etc. and how to handle the odd ‘vulgar fraction’.

I very often have to sketch out from a drawing what the thing will look like when it is finished. Humph!

Us olduns can grump ‘Nostalgia is not as good it used to be’.

RGDS or as the old time sparks would sign off ‘UYP’ – and do not ask

Dick

[mgjParticipant @mgj]

Well its true. When I was 20+ as a young officer in tax free Germenay, about the only things I was seriouly interested in was how much gin I could sink a day (at 7/10d a tax free export bottle), a large motorcycle, and getting her knickers off. (Mostly in reverse order).

 

And if she was any good and a bit lively, she had more interesting things on her mind than my going fishing or spending hours on lathes!

 

Thats just young men. All you can do is generate a general interest which can develop. I was lucky, – Her Majesty sent me on a driving and maintenance instructors course (tanks), and then the Long Armour Course, which was all about tank design – someone in the Regiment wisely realised I was bent that way, and that allowed me to learn about engineering at degree level during working hours, while attempting to navigate as many frilly things as one could in my spare time. (Tights had just been invented by some grotesque spoilsport) – but then so had the pill!!!) No matter, as a young cavalry man I met with enough success to make working hours useful and you may read that as you will.

 

What we have to understand/accept as old decayed fogies is that the whole nature of professional production engineering has changed. Yes there are the jobbing workshops with centre lathes and mills, but mostly some graduate programs the the machine, and tests all in a wax, and the machine minder keeps the thing fed with sharp tools from a box, and adds metal as required, and someone else checks it.

 

So the guy who needs to understand what he is making is no longer the guy on the machine. Thus IMO there isn’t the body of hands on machinists around to go into the hobby. So its no good us all getting nostalgic and saying “Fings aint wot they usterbe”, because they are not, and we have to adapt the hobby.

 

Problem is I’m too old to adapt in such a general sense and I don’t want to anyway – I like munching metal using handwheels and micrometers. For the next generation will there still be a set of plans for Springbok in ME, or will it just be a disc each month with a set of DXF files?

 

 

(Look at model aircraft – you can hardly buy a real model kit any more – dope, nylon and balsa. Glens Models used to do really excelent CAPs and Extras, but no one wants to make those. They want to shake the box and fly next day. – I never liked the ARTF kits -they were never built as light as they could have been, and they only gained weight by saving on the covering. But that didn’t matter. Break it, go buy another. Is it better – ? You tell me, but its certainly different.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited By mgj on 23/04/2011 19:17:47

Edited By mgj on 23/04/2011 19:19:20

[NJHParticipant @njh]

MGJ

Too much information !!!

 

Yes I have pretty nearly zero interest in CNC – I’m sure it is useful and interesting to some but I already spend far too much time in front of computers and when I see pages of code in MEW I am taken back to the days of the ZX Spectrum. Hours and hours of input only to lose it all just as I was about to complete and run the programme that I was copying from some magazine! Give me a few knobs to twiddle anytime !

 

There seems to be much tearing of hair and renting of garments here about the state of the world in general and the lack of (traditional) skills and expertise in the “younger generation” Frankly – I ‘aint bovered – I can only persue my own course through this fascinating and engrossing hobby. I’m very happy to offer any help if I am able but I don’t think it is my role to educate or lay down rules for others. The youngsters today will find their way through life and will no doubt gain as much satisfaction on their journey as I have on mine. We didn’t do things better in our youth – only differently just as the old guys then did when they too were young..

I do understand that Terryd, for instance, may have a rather different perspective on adolescents having suffered rather more exposure than many here but I suspect even he was, at times, the scourge of some teacher! I do know that even now I can be pretty silly at times – or so my wife tells me! ( But she has put up with me for the last 45 years!)

 

Regards

 

Norman

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by mgj on 23/04/2011 15:44:41:

 

Perhaps we ought to accept that this is in general, possibly not a young mans hobby? We need kit which is expensive, we need patience on long projects, and we need expertise, and none of these come easily to the young?

 

There is IMO, a difference between a youngster and a beginner BTW.

 

 

Added to that list, we also need an adequate supply of time, and that’s another commodity that they are generally a bit short of too… but we perhaps shouldn’t be too keen to promote workshop activities and model-making as only fitting for people who fall into that demographic, should we? There’s a lot to be said for softening people up along the way, I think, and making it a bit easier for them to appreciate what’s being presented to them as a possible future activity.

 

Yes there are youngsters and beginners, and they are certainly different. But ‘others who might be less confident’ seemed to me to avoid any particular labelling of that sort, which is why I used it. The reason that I describe some people as such is based on the experiences I had with one of my ex-bosses, who had been building model boats for years, but when presented with a machine drawing had – well let’s say some considerable difficulty working out what an awful lot of it meant. The thing that Richard Parsons does, presumably quite happily, in turning 2D into 3D sketches he had a lot of difficulty with, and I’m sure he’s not the only one. I’m pretty sure that there really is a wide range of ability amongst drawing readers, one way or another.

 

In many ways it’s a lot like reading music. Some people can quite happily play by ear and turn out quite musical results along the way; but if you want to play other peoples’ works, then reading their music is generally the most efficient way of achieving this.

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by NJH on 23/04/2011 20:44:30:

 

The youngsters today will find their way through life and will no doubt gain as much satisfaction on their journey as I have on mine. We didn’t do things better in our youth – only differently just as the old guys then did when they too were young..

 

I wish. When I was the age my kids are now, I was renovating houses, etc and generally doing stuff for myself. My father didn’t do quite so much of that, but generally he was/is pretty capable too (although he’s rather old for too much of this these days). His father did it as well before he did, although I don’t know what happened before that.

 

But despite encouraging my kids to do stuff for themselves, they are generally absolutely crap at it – except one. And yes this is largely the fault of an education system that places no value whatsoever on skills like this. The general idea now is that if you can’t do it yourself, you get somebody in to do it for you. And even these people who do it for a living have to start on it pretty late, as a rule – same reason. The one of mine who’s actually capable this way I can’t really explain – for a lot of reasons I can’t really take the credit for this at all.

 

But regardless of that, I’m afraid that I’m going to stick my neck out and flatly disagree with you – I’m pretty damn sure we did do things better in our youth – because at least we actually did them!!!!

[Clive HartlandParticipant @clivehartland94829]

Looking at the young of today I have found that there is a distinct lack of interface between hand and brain, yes, they can use computers and digital TV items and enjoy sending highly significant text and pictures to each other. But! give them a monotonous detailed job and within minutes they are off on a jaunt.

I had the hardest job trying to get or even find likely candidates for apprentice training and in the end only had one when we needed at least four to fill situations within three to five years. (We had to make do with older candidates to fill posts and teach them up!)

Teaching them the basics of engineering, filing, drilling, thread cutting and trying to instil this knowledge was an uphill climb as they could not remember constants from one day to the next.

As for trying to instil knowledge of Optics in conjunction with electronics was a nightmare situation.

Then letting them loose on a machine was not possible as I am sure they would jhave lost digits or even maimed themselves, again through lack of knowledge and experience. No way could they grind a tool!

In fact, this single apprentice attained a City and Guilds cert. and immediately de-camped to work on the then Southern Rail (Connex) as a signal technician, Since then I have not been on a train.

 

As regards to Technical Drawings, I forever found errors and had to vet everything that came through carefully to check for errors.

Worst was sending off circuit diagrams for printed circuits and receiving a mirror image circuit boards from a reputable board maker, not once but several times. Cant get the staff they say but they still drive around in big cars that I could not afford.

 

With drawings for modelling use, they are mainly drawn up by amaturers for amature use and errors or conception of design do not get layed down properly in 2d or envisaged in 3d.

I have found several errors in an expensive set of Loco drawings and received much the same comment when seeking clarification about them as other posters have found.

Working through the drawing I was soon able to make a correction to make it work.

 

I have Geometric and Technical Drawing qualifications and actually passed the exam when I was 15, achieving a Distinction, they had never awarded 100% so I was marked at 98%. It has never had any effect on job application and has never been referred to.

 

Mention has been made of our early years of model airplane making and how much we learned from that. Deisel and Glo-plug engines taught me nearly all I needed to know about vehicle engines and instilled a desire to learn as much as I could about such things so that I am now fully independant and can repair anything I need to,

But you do not see that now! Its a throw away society and its ‘Easy-come-Easy-go’.

 

I do not think it matters which angle a drawing is set in 1st or 3rd angle, being able to interpret the physical shape/outline and the hidden detail is able to be put off to one side on a seperate sheet if need be.

Tolerances are fine but in any case you still need to follow a Norm. be it DIN or a current Uk Norm. Nobody seems to know, but DIN Norm is pretty standard and easy to follow.

In my work I have to work in Deutsche text and sometimes the translations do not come through very well and I have to amend to correct them.

Some of the drawings of the Theodolites are extremely detailed and can take some considerable study to see how parts are functioning and it is all hidden detail. I wish I could post one to show it.

 

One aspect I have not seen mentioned is that the last Gobment did away with Tech. colleges where students did engineering as a part of their studies, woodwork was a nice afternoons work for me and I slipped classes to stay in the engineering dept. until I was able to leave school and join the army at 14.

So we now have at least a generation of people who have no concept of model making nor knowledge of how to read a drawing so ergo we get rubbish drawings from them.

 

Clive, long post I know

 

[Steve GarnettParticipant @stevegarnett62550]

Posted by Graham Meek on 24/04/2011 08:30:45:

One site I have looked at estimates the circulation as 20,000, but this is not the same as having the actual figures, but it does serve to show that the views of 1000 actually influence what the 19,000 read in the future.

 

Also it does fit in with the top end estimate of Responders at 5%

 

There’s a good chance that this is true, but also that it’s a good thing. Because I could make a strong case for saying that it’s the 1,000 people who care enough to respond who also care enough about the content, who make the magazine acceptable for the other 19,000 to read. If this wasn’t the case, then presumably the other 19,000 wouldn’t read it!

 

This also fits in quite well with the figures for a normal statistical distribution. Which means that if the Ed makes decisions on what to publish based on that sort of response, he’s unlikely to be wrong. The only thing you have to be really careful about in this sort of situation is insidious agenda-setting.

 

For instance, if you gave, in your questionnaire, examples of existing types of articles and asked people to rate their interest in them, then all they would be doing was considering the limited agenda you gave, and voting on that. Even if you ask them what other sorts of articles they’d like to see, that’s an open-ended suggestion to put down the first thing that comes into their heads – not necessarily helpful. But if you first of consider the article types that could be within the remit of your journal, but that you haven’t included, and base questions on that, then you would probably get a more representative view.

 

And this may be why the perceived wisdom about the desirability of some types of articles is why it is – targeted questions in those areas just haven’t been asked. Yes that’s easy for me to say, and I don’t mean it to sound like that. Please don’t go away with the idea that creating questionnaires and getting it dead right every time is easy – it most certainly isn’t. And yes, I do know a bit about it.

[david simmoParticipant @davidsimmo]

hi after reading most of the post on this subject clive you was young once and had to learn the young off to day just like most of us in are young days beer girls and motorbikes but you learn eg from the the people around you help each other even at work someboby will help you . sam if that test drawing was draw right 1st time most people would know the corect shape .in model engineer in the 1950s (before my time)the mag had a novices corner so even then you all have to learn sometime and thing progrese and some people stand still but have a great knowledge to pass on to the young (there children) and friends and work colleague so have patientwith the young so more help for the novice dave

[Author]

Posts