Which mag

[Sandy MortonParticipant @sandymorton10620]

I was a regular subscriber to ME for about 40 years and I have never read MEW. However after some of David's previous comments I unsubscribed to ME. After his moderation antics today the only magazine I would contemplate continuing with would ne EIM. hth and is all imvho

[Keith Wardill 1Participant @keithwardill1]

Surely the view that 'one mag complements the other' is a contradiction of the actual case. For most of its life, ME covered the fields now covered by two magazines. IMO the only obvious reason for the split into two mags was to increase the amount of money that the publishers take off gullible readers, Simply by introducing another high-priced magazine, and spreading the contents of the original mag over two publications, they doubled their income – and apparenlty no-one said a dicky-bird!

Sandy Morton is right – Sad to say, there are other magazines with more interesting content than ME or MEW. Try comparing some of the older MEs with todays offerings.

I think Bazyle has it the wrong way round – ME + MEW may come twice as often, but each copy is (less than) half as interesting. ME used to be published twice monthly earlier in its life, so now you are getting 1/4 of the content per magazine for a considerably greater cost. (I also did not renew subscriptions).

[Harold Hall 1Participant @haroldhall1]

Sandy

The vast majority of the content of ME is provided by the authors as would have been the case during the 40 years you took the magazine. Sadly, by you not taking it, it is mainly you, but also the authors who have lost someone to enjoy their efforts, who are the losers.

Wotsit

A very large proportion (well over half) of the readers of MEW when I was the editor were not at all interested in model making, Many of these would not have taken ME just to have a few pages devoted to their interests.

Also, the magazine was only to be 4 issues a year so was in no way a ploy for selling two sets of magazines so you are very wrong in your interpretation of the reason for this. It was because it became so popular that it was increased to 6 issues and as this was too many for Stan Bray then I took over. During this time many of the readers, not the publishers, were still asking for more issues.

Harold

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by wotsit on 18/01/2013 21:37:21:

ME used to be published twice monthly earlier in its life, so now you are getting 1/4 of the content per magazine for a considerably greater cost. (I also did not renew subscriptions).

 

…. but it still is published twice a month (actually bi-weekly….. 26 times a year)

But I agree MEW is a lot less interesting. I can still pick up one of the earlier copies and read it for days on end. These days …. well … TWO interminable beginners series and a stepper-motor lathe series that's been going for a year and I can't believe that a significant proportion of subscribers is contemplating building it.

Edited By Sid Herbage on 18/01/2013 23:20:19

[David LittlewoodParticipant @davidlittlewood51847]

Ron,

I have taken ME for about 40 years, and also MEW and EIM since their first issues. I would say that over the last 10-15 years there has been far more in MEW to interest me compared with the other two; MEW covers general workshop techniques, and the making or improving of workshop equipment. ME, since the start of MEW, has concentrated almost exclusively on projects, most of which you will skim through but get little from. EIM is rather similar, but with a few general workshop articles.

I think the problem from the beginner's point of view is that most of the "good" stuff is in MEW's past, and quite a lot of the articles now are on rather abstruse projects you will not be equipped to do. There are however some quite good series for beginners. Personally I think your best bet would be to watch eBay for a set of MEW and read the back issues, and start a planned program of buying key books.

On books, I can't really comment on the basic ones of recent years as I progressed beyond them before they came out. A basic lathework book and a basic milling book would be good. I agree with Peter that anything by Tubal Cain (Tom Walshaw) is worth reading, and recommend his books in the Workshop Practice series (Drills Taps and Dies, Soldering and Brazing, and Workholding in the Lathe spring to mind). I disagree with Peter about the G H Thomas books; they have probably been the ones having the most influence on me, at least, and I go back to them time and time again. True, the Workshop Manual is mostly based on Myford 7 lathes (which is what GHT used) but the consummate engineering expertise in there is worth anyone's time.

But, whatever you choose to do, have fun, find out what you enjoy doing most, and learn to do it better. To paraphrase Dumbledore, help will always be given here for those who ask for it.

David

Edited By David Littlewood on 18/01/2013 23:28:10

[Keith Wardill 1Participant @keithwardill1]

Sid,

My apologies – you are right about the bi-monthly publishing – its some time now since I cancelled my subscription, and I'm getting on a bit. I realise that different people like different things, so it is hardly fair to complain about articles which others find interesting. That said, I found the same problems with some of the contents of ME. The Darjeeling Himalaya loco springs to mind. It was a wonderful piece of work, but it went on and on and …… perhaps better published as a separate book. It would be interesting to know how many people were building this loco, because it is hard to believe that a high proportion of readers were. I remember filling in at least two Customer Questionnaires about magazine contents in the last few years, but I cannot remember ever seeing any results, which may have indicated where readers interests lay.

Harold,

I cannot argue with an insiders explanation of the reasons for introducing magazines. Perhaps what I failed to explain clearly is that I believed ME suffered by the introduction of MEW. Looking at past copies of ME, there were always articles covering both modelling and workshop aspects. Like many people, some of these interested me, and others not so much – however, some of the articles, perhaps outside my usual interests, gave me ideas. Since the split, the balance of articles in ME has changed IMO. ALthough there are occasionally workshop related items, I for one find the range of subjects now covered is considerably smaller than it used to be, making ME of little further interest to me.

You say that many readers 'would not have taken ME just to have a few pages devoted to their interests', and again I have to agree, but then why does MEW use material which at one time would surely have appeared in ME? This implies I need to buy both ME and MEW to get the same content as I used to get in one magazine. It seems to me that you have created the opposite case – why should I buy MEW when it has only a few pages devoted to my interests? I would also point out that not everyone can afford the cost of two magazines, both probably with limited appeal.

Unfortunately, and rather sadly after many years, for readers like me ME/MEW have lost their appeal , so like others I look elsewhere.

[DerryUKParticipant @derryuk]

In my limited experience (I have 60 years worth of ME and all issues of MEW) ME is aimed at people that actually make models and MEW is aimed at those that would like to make a model but would rather make something for their lathe/mill/whatever instead.

For instance in MEW you will find nothing about how to turn a crankshaft or a piston. There will be no discussion about piston rings.

Also, ME readers are less conservative than MEW readers so they do more ineteresting things and write about it. MEW readers can barely accept that CNC, CAD/CAM, 3D printing actually exist and don't dare talk about making a model in your model engineers' workshop.

So I would suggest you buy ME, buy any of the books above but most of all keep reading these forums.

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

I take both. Gave up MEW for a few months and got withdrawal symptoms.

The fact there are folks willing to speak up for either over the other speaks volumes about the fact they ARE very different in both feel and content.

I would agree ME has lost out on not having as many 'short sharp' articles to complement the longer series, as these often suit MEW.

As a sometime contributor I would point out that, in most cases, articles are submitted for one or the other magazine and I have rarely heard of the editor suggesting that an article would be

Neil

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Bloomin' eck Derry !!

.… ME readers are less conservative than MEW readers so they do more ineteresting things and write about it.

Are you trying to start war!!!

Norman

[Anonymous]

Posted by DerryUK on 19/01/2013 17:44:16:

In my limited experience (I have 60 years worth of ME and all issues of MEW) ME is aimed at people that actually make models and MEW is aimed at those that would like to make a model but would rather make something for their lathe/mill/whatever instead.

For instance in MEW you will find nothing about how to turn a crankshaft or a piston. There will be no discussion about piston rings.

Also, ME readers are less conservative than MEW readers so they do more ineteresting things and write about it. MEW readers can barely accept that CNC, CAD/CAM, 3D printing actually exist and don't dare talk about making a model in your model engineers' workshop.

Personally I find that rather an insulting post; one might almost think that the poster was an obscurantist himself.

Andrew

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Posted by DerryUK on 19/01/2013 17:44:16:

In my limited experience (I have 60 years worth of ME and all issues of MEW) ME is aimed at people that actually make models and MEW is aimed at those that would like to make a model but would rather make something for their lathe/mill/whatever instead.

For instance in MEW you will find nothing about how to turn a crankshaft or a piston. There will be no discussion about piston rings.

Also, ME readers are less conservative than MEW readers so they do more ineteresting things and write about it. MEW readers can barely accept that CNC, CAD/CAM, 3D printing actually exist and don't dare talk about making a model in your model engineers' workshop.

So I would suggest you buy ME, buy any of the books above but most of all keep reading these forums.

This is absolute rubbish. ME is allowed to print models and tooling articles.

By tradition MEW does not print model articles and from lots of correspondence, MEW readers do not want models in their magazine.

I used to get complaints about CNC articles in MEW, I have not had one for a long while. Perhaps the non CNC readers of MEW have stopped buying it?

I have not attempted to run CNC articles in ME. I think that would be the kiss of death for ME. Maybe in 10 years time CNC would be fine in ME.

I believe I have a make a crankshaft article that I am going to put into MEW. Techniques such as this are legitimate content for MEW.

Piston rings are more suited to ME and I believe an article is imminent.

regards David

[NJHParticipant @njh]

Hear Hear David!

I think the two mags run very well together and are complimentary. Personally I subscribe to MEW and don't have a problem with articles there showing techniques and set -ups such as the crankshaft you propose. I don't object to some CNC content and my previous objection was only to the amount ( I think it was three articles in one issue).

ME I look at in my local newsagent and buy if there is something of interest or if there is a construction series that I may (one day!) tackle.

For the beginner wanting information of machines etc., which this is where started, I suggest thet MEW Has greater relevance.

Cheers

Norman

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

In the first years of "Model Engineer and Amateur Electrition", the range of subjects was much greater, flying machines, radio, how to make a battery or an Acetylene gas generator, dynamos, electric motors, model boats,……etc etc. Ian S C

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

Hi Ian,

The older ME had several staff, an in-house workshop and a drawing office. But the big difference was that a much wider range of readers submitted articles ona wider range of subjects. Editors can generate some content but rely on active contributors for breadth of content.

If the folks on this website wrote up what they often put on line in a bit more detail, particularly as short r single installment articles… topics that would suit (in my humble opinion) could be:

• Favourite gadgets
• Workshop tricks/tips/ interesting set-ups/how I solved a problem
• Descriptions of unusual subjects for models
• The story of interesting models
• Profiles of model engineers, (focusing on what they make!)
• Puzzles – the sort you can't easily google the answer for
• More letters
• Simple models or tools that can be described in a few pages
• How to articles (e.g. how to make an arbor and use slitting saws)

The crunch is that people have to write and submit the articles.

Neil

[JoParticipant @jo]

Neil,

I would suggest that the problem is rather than ME has been diluted by the spin off of so many specialist areas (clocks, model boats, tools -> MEW) that little is left except (IMHO) repetitive model locomotives that is already covered by a multitude of magazines. So the wider range of reader went with the other topics…

When I last subscribed there was two repeated model locomotive series by LBSC. Both of which are dated, a simple updating of their machining techniques would have added so much value. (and I already have the original mags with the articles.. so where is the added value?)

If you want to keep your readership there is only so many beginner's article that you can publish…

I do wonder if the previous editorship understood what the younger generation is interested in. Yes the older generation are into model locomotives but I see so few of the younger generation interested in such things, they seem to be into model tractions engines, stationary engines and lots of exciting other things.

I explained all this to the nice young lady last friday when she attempted to encourage me to pay more to renew my subcription than I could pay on line.

Jo

 

Edited By Jo on 20/01/2013 17:32:24

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

Hi Jo,

None of the topics I listed is a hobby suited to another magazine

There is plenty more than locos that could be in ME, including things like flash steam hydroplanes which are more likely to appeal to ME readers than Model Boats readers who would only want to see a single issue article at most.

For longer topics I would enjoy seeing covered:

• Steam turbines (explained in a way we can actually understand)
• Scale/near scale IC engines (I'd like to read a modern build of some of ETW's engines)
• Gearboxes and other mechanisms
• Hand powered & miniature machinery
• cars & bicycles
• More on surface finishes
• Applications of new technology (not really cad, more robotics and the like)
• One pagers on mechanical theory (as 'letters to a grandson&#39
• Stationary engines
• More on heat engines (bring back the annual gnat power competition!)
• Design of small electric motors and generators
• Design for a small magneto
• Small hydraulic systems
• Unusual motors
• Making small pressure gauges
• Sheet metalwork/bodywork skills
• Ordnance
• Model aircraft flight timer
• Historic models (siege engines, crossbows)
• Building the Antikythera mechanism
• Theory of clock making/basics (not just a build I want to know the 'whys&#39

Will that do for now?

Neil

[Keith Wardill 1Participant @keithwardill1]

I believe Jo and Neil have not only hit the nail on the head – they have driven it through the plank!. Why aren't they employed as editors of a rejuvenated ME? – these sort of things all used to appear in ME in what were surely the 'good old days' , before, as Jo says, they were hived off into specialist magazines.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Stub Mandrel

I have passed a flash steam article to Diane.

It includes full drawings and plans for the boat it goes in.

regards David

 

Edited By David Clark 1 on 20/01/2013 18:52:21

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi Jo

The original LBSC articles only appeared in English Mechanics.

How many readers beside you have copies of English Mechanics.

Not many I bet.

regards David

[Another JohnSParticipant @anotherjohns]

Posted by David Clark 1 on 20/01/2013 10:31:07:

I have not attempted to run CNC articles in ME. I think that would be the kiss of death for ME. Maybe in 10 years time CNC would be fine in ME.

David;

I think that above comment is insulting.

Please read the first article of:

http://cnc-for-model-engineers.blogspot.com

(Yes, it is my web page, and yes it is fairly new, and yes, I have 100 more bits from my notes to put in it.)

The fact is that there are some of us out there that do use CNC, and 3D printing, and are interested in locomotives (where CNC comes into its own, unlike my Worden build – see above page) and maybe we are not interested in purchasing Model Engineers Workshop, or equivalent.

Another JohnS

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by John Alexander Stewart on 20/01/2013 19:09:27

http://cnc-for-model-engineers.blogspot.com

Another JohnS

Thanks for posting the link, John

I have bookmarked your blog.

Keep up the good work!

MichaelG.

[David Clark 13Participant @davidclark13]

Hi John

Which is the first article?

The first one on the main page says you used a manual mill rather than the CNC.

From contact with readers, they would not like CNC in Model Engineer. You only have to look at the Free ads to see the ages of ME readers selling their machines. Up in their 70s and 80s.

It is only recently that MEW readers have stopped complaining about CNC articles.

If readers really want CNC articles in ME, they will have to ask Diane. It is too late for me to put CNC into Model Engineer.

I have no objections to putting CNC into Model Engineer, it belongs there with laser and waterjet cutting. So John, when can Diane expect your first CNC article for Model Engineer. Perhaps you ought to start with CAD before you start with CNC?

regards David

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

Posted by David Clark 1 on 20/01/2013 21:07:01:

Hi John

Which is the first article?

The first one on the main page says you used a manual mill rather than the CNC.

From contact with readers, they would not like CNC in Model Engineer. You only have to look at the Free ads to see the ages of ME readers selling their machines. Up in their 70s and 80s.

It is only recently that MEW readers have stopped complaining about CNC articles.

If readers really want CNC articles in ME, they will have to ask Diane. It is too late for me to put CNC into Model Engineer.

I have no objections to putting CNC into Model Engineer, it belongs there with laser and waterjet cutting. So John, when can Diane expect your first CNC article for Model Engineer. Perhaps you ought to start with CAD before you start with CNC?

regards David

David

I respect your position as editor but feel that the tone of some of your comments on this forum is often wrong.

In your reply above you state' its only recently that readers stopped complaning' etc. Surely it would be more considerate to your readers to regard there 'complaints' as useful feedback? To automatically take the stance that the readers that take the trouble to express an opinion are complainers speaks volumes for the MHS policies.

I read and followed the recent fiasco about the exhibition weather. If your initial request had politely explained the reason for your action I doubt whether there would have been even the slightest murmurs.

Actually its not often what you say, but more the way you say it. To me it often comes across as confrontational.

Ian Phillips

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

David – that's a prompt response! Is it from Windy?

Wotsit – Very kind of you – but it is easy to be a brilliant editor when you only have to make up the titles.

Real editors need real content, so what both ME and MEW need are contributors!

So get writing!

Neil

P.S. the problem with CNC/CAD is that the articles being submitted were dominated by how to use particular programmes or full of g-code examples. I'm all for more accessible articles that appeared last year – such as one that reviewed a range of CNC/CAD programmes and explained how they worked together, or another that described RepRap.

[Another JohnSParticipant @anotherjohns]

Posted by David Clark 1 on 20/01/2013 21:07:01:

Hi John

Which is the first article?

Hi David;

I know this blogging software is backwards – it's the new way of things, I guess. The introduction is probably the last article – as these things go backwards in time.

The idea started off from talking to someone at the Taunton Exhibition last April; "does CNC help the model engineer?".

Certainly, if you read the axle box article, (and, understanding what I do about you and your background) you'll realize that I should have done it on the CNC mill, but I "chickened out" as they say over here. Still, using those "modern methods" (DRO on manual mill) in the axle box article on my blog is much better/faster than the old LBSC way, in my opinion. Machining using this idea via CNC would have been much better, especially if one were modelling a 2-8-8-2!

From discussions with club members, some of whom have CNC, or just go and get parts printed, there's an interest, and activity in CNC and 3D printing, and electronics. 

Thanks;

Another JohnS.

 

Edited By John Alexander Stewart on 21/01/2013 00:01:15

[Author]

Posts