On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 17:16:31 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 13:16:23 -0400, Joe Gwinn
wrote:

In article , Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 09:20:56 -0700, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 10:56:21 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

SAE's online operations produce some good videos of mechanical
operation of car parts. Here's a video on contemporary manual
transmissions (conventional) that they link to at DriveLineNews.com.
If detents, synchronizers, blocking rings and clutch cones are a
little vague in your mind and you want to see them in action, take a
look at this.

http://drivelinenews.com/videos/manual-transmissions/
Thanks for the link Ed. Even though I already knew how manual
transmissions work, and have rebuilt a few, I still like looking at
animations of them working. In fact, I like to watch just about any
type of mechanical system working. I still get fascinated watching my
CNC machines make a part even though I am the one who programs and
sets up the machines and can see in my mind's eye what the machine is
doing as I write the program.
Eric

I love those things, too. I'll bet that most of the people here, at
least the mechanical types, enjoy it as well.

I have some great videos that I'm planning to use as the cover
"photographs" for the online magazine I'm working on. You go to the
magazine home page, and the video starts right up.

People on dialup will not be happy with this. (No, I'm on cable.)

If they're on dialup, they probably won't be reading our issues. We're
"direct": we send out 71,000 copies by e-mail.

And we're on the Web with the same material. But it's a byte-heavy
online-reader format, and I think what's left of my hair would fall
out before I paged through an issue with dialup. g

A lot of the trade mags are going this way, and it's a problem. I've
stopped reading a number of old standbys because the interface is just
too awkward.

Yes, they have been awkward. The latest ones are a lot better.


In a number of cases, the content also became insipid. I think the
core problem is that the magazine isn't profitable enough, so the
editorial staff is a bit thin. This could easily become a death
spiral.

Some have already augered in.

The online magazine business is still evolving, and some models have
already been abandoned. And you're right, many of them are little more
than cut-and-paste press releases. That's what's happened to the
greatest of them all, _American Machinist_. When I was there, we had 7
full-time editors, of which 3 or 4 were degreed engineers. Today, it
has one editor, and it's an empty shell.

Magazines are "push" communications. The Web is inherently a "pull"
medium for people who are looking for something. Most of the models
try to emulate the push model. Ours is halfway in between, but I'm
sure it will become more "pull" as it evolves. As Tim (I think?) said,
we expect a good search engine, and the push models don't have that.
They need to.



It looks good and it really communicates. I don't know what issue I'll
use it for, but I'm planning on it.

As for this magazine who cannot yet be told, in what subject area is it?

It can be told now. It's FAB Shop Magazine Direct:

http://www.fsmdirect.com/

The publisher, TechGen, was planning a new automotive magazine to
begin in January. I was to be chief editor. But Russ Olexa, the editor
of FAB Shop, which is a several-years old, profitable and going
operation, died suddenly two weeks ago. Instead of the automotive
magazine, which is now pushed up a year, I've had to take over FAB
Shop.

Oof. That had to be a shock to all. Russ Olexa is still listed on the
website.

It was a shock, and his son is one of my staff editors. The kid pulled
himself together.

A lot of people in industry knew and liked Russ. I had written a few
articles for him in the past, and he will be sorely missed.



'Not much chipmaking. It's laser cutting, plasma, welding, punch
presses, bending and forming, band-sawing, and other fabrication
technologies. I haven't done much with those subjects in recent years,
so for the next few months, I'm just following the previous editor's
schedule.

Think of it this way - the chips are very large, and people pay to get
them. With those tiny oily chips, you have to pay to dispose of them.

Good point. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Joe Gwinn