Bad Science

[peterseager]

In ME, 11 April 1008, Jack Schilling had a letter published that said he was puzzled by the action of the Ewins oil pump because he thought a hydraulic lock occurred at the bottom of the piston stroke and prevented the piston rising. In ME 21 Nov 2008, Tony Finn very well explained the principle of the vacuum and how the Ewins pump works. Now Jack Schilling has had, not just a letter but, an article published in EIM, May 2009, wherein he tries to prove his theory to be correct and other model engineers not to understand basic theory. EIM editorials regularly snipe at ME so they obviously read ME therefore I am surprised they fell for this article.

Am I right worry about the way bad science is allowed to propagate through magazines?

It is ironic that in the EIM article Jack Schilling calls upon the "great scientist named Oliver Lodge" to support his theory. Lodge is credited with inventing the vacuum tube, impossible if Jack Schillings theory was true.

Peter

[alanstepney]

I dont doubt that the article will be followed by letters disagreeing or supporting the article.

Not having read the article or the letters I cannot comment on them, but will say that I have seen pumps to Jim Ewins design working, and that, for me, is the best possible proof.

I'm not sure how or why Lodge got dragged in as my understanding was that his primary work was in the field of electronics / telegraphy.
Oh, and spark ignition for vehicles, that lead to the Lodge spark plugs.

[baggo]

The lubricators sold by SteamFittings are based on the Ewins design and, so far as I know, they work fine! I'll let you know soon as I've just fitted one to the Kingette I'm rebuilding It's a pity Jim's not around to reply to Mr Schilling. I am sure Jim would rip him and his theories to pieces

Mind you, in theory, the Bumble Bee can't possibly fly but fortunately, no one has told them that ;D

Perhaps David (Clarke) would care to comment on the sniping at ME?

John

[engineernut]

Apr 25, 2009 12:36:05 GMT John Baguley said:

The lubricators sold by SteamFittings are based on the Ewins design and, so far as I know, they work fine! I'll let you know soon as I've just fitted one to the Kingette I'm rebuilding
John

My lubricator from SteamFittings works fine. Along with their inline check valve. ;D
Dave

[peterseager]

I have no doubts that the Ewins pump works and theory says it should. What I worry about is that bad science is propagated through the magazines and in the case there is reason to believe the second publisher should have known what he was publishing. How many other articles in magazines unknowingly contain rubbish?

Peter

[davidmew]

Hi There
When other magazines snipe at you, you know you are the best.
I will try not to print rubbish but unfortunately I don't know everything and do rely on contributors to get it correct to a certain extent.

We probably sell twice as many (per issue) as the nearest competing magazine, certainly with news stand sales and probably with subscriptions too.

You only have to look at the small amount of advertising in other magazines to see they are losing market share in this as well.
regards David

[classicsteve]

I just read this extraordinary reply. I have looked at the new ME web pages and thought "That looks OK", and it had taken a couple of years to get to this position, but THIS knocks me right back.

First to 'rely on contributors to get it correct to a certain extent', means the editorial board appear to be disclaiming control over the technical content of what they publish.

Any engineering or technical publication, the editor will have articles vetted by people qualified to state an opinion - surely, without this, you end up with something like the Sunday Sport.

In any publication, like ME, the editor keeps a panel of people available, and they must know arse from elbow, and how they are connected, and this is normal practice for any technical publication.

Secondly you are making the argument that you must be better because you sell more than the competition - see Sunday Sport above.

Third you are making the argument that you are better because the competing organisations are covering less advertising - see Sunday Sport above.

And if your sole objective is to beat the competition to death, then you will have a monopoly and all your argument about market share become vacuous - and still 90% of Model Engineers may not buy your magazine.

If you seek to operate as an organ for inspiration and communication between craftsmen, then you need to elevate the journal into the cross-over between hobby and profession, not degrade it to a rag of unvetted, and uninformed opinions - the technical side must be really good.

I was going to start taking the model engineering magazine, the stuff on the new website looked good, I was inches away - until I read this drivel.

[davidmew]

Hi There
I do check what is published.
I don't just publish any old crap.
regards David

[engineernut]

Jul 8, 2009 22:32:01 GMT @classicsteve said:

I just read this extraordinary reply. I have looked at the new ME web pages and thought "That looks OK", and it had taken a couple of years to get to this position, but THIS knocks me right back.

I was going to start taking the model engineering magazine, the stuff on the new website looked good, I was inches away - until I read this drivel.

Am sure ME will miss your possibly new subscription.
I look forward to reading my copy when posty delivers it, warts an all.

[metalworker]

I am responding to Cheshire Steve. I have to say, I agree with most of what he says.
I have looked through some back issues and in recent years, M E had several staff including a technical editor, assistant editor, associate editor who presumably checked things before publication. There were certainly comments put into articles and on the letters pages on occasions when things could be described as "iffy".
I also looked back to the days when Mr. Crisp was editor and then there where a number of consultants listed on the contents page. I assume they also where there to aqdvise.
All those people seem to have now gone, so it seems to me that more of this bad science willfind its way onto the pages.
I alaos find it irritating when different magazines try to score points over each other and not just in our hobby. It wouldbe better if the various publications tried to work together for the good of the hobby. After all a strong growing hobby will benefit them all.

[peterseager]

In ME's defence, their published letters were all in order. The author in question asked a question in Post Bag thinking something did not work and subsequent letters in ME homed in on the correct answer. A good use of the letter page. The bad science has come about because the original author then wrote an article for EIM, based on his original letter in ME, asserting that his belief was correct and suggesting all the other corespondents to ME were twits. An article, which normally purports to inform rather that question, would I hope be more thoroughly checked before publication. EIM is therefore at fault in this case, especially, as I pointed out previously, they obviously look at what ME publishes.

As someone above has suggested would happen, EIM has so far ignored the article in subsequent issues.

I have to agree with metalworker that the disappearance of the consultants from the list of staff of ME is a retrograde step.

Peter

[houstonceng]

I see the "bad science" is back in the August EIM. Not only that, Mr Schilling is asking additional questions about vacuum levels and measurement which could easily be answered by him reading about it, which, to my mind, indicates that he doesn't understand the very basic physics.

Glad I subscribe to ME & MEW and not to EIM.