@gonzo

I don't know.

I haven't been involved in planning the GVCS50, so how couldI answer Your  question? :-o

Mike

Rabert wrote:

FeF and Marcin are not service providers and you should not be idea consumers. Be active and move, do something, create and build, find friends and collaborators. That is the only thing what can change the world. You don't need Marcin or FeF for that.

Hy Rabert,

in general You are right in calling for more individual activities by people with interest in OSE. But I disagree strongly with the statement that FeF and Marcin are no service providers.

There are hundreds or even maybe more than thousand true fans with monthy contributions to OSE. And there are institutions and foundations with several large donations to OSE. So of course OSE owes to provide some service, some performance in exchange.

Me personally have never studied OSE financial affairs in detail, but its obvious that during the last years a very significant amout of cash has been given to OSEs and Marcins hands. So it should be OSEs duty to deliver real efforts and results.

IMO results are poor compared to the available budget, though I'm willing too recognize that it's a difficult task to develop something like a GVCS50. Nevertheless the level of craftmanship and engineering isn't satisfying yet.

OSE and FeF have shown efforts to do their task. But a lot of poor management, misorganization and personal conflicts have wasted personnal and financial resources, so it can be said that OSE could have done better during the last years. Marcin has visions and has done a good PR job in the past, but wasting a lot of resources is no merit for a leader. Even worse, if informations about wasteful management get to the eyes and ears of those who decide which organization gets donations, the future flow of money might be shrinking drastically.

I'm pretty sure the current organization and management model of OSE isn't fit at all for the future.

Mike

Comment has been hidden until an Official announcement can be made by OSE.

Hi Mark, this citation from my post was no critics against You. It was just an example of OSE projects that have been started severl times, and abandoned several times. Like other GVCS projects. A lot of time has beeninvested in the steam project, and the outcome are just some sketches. And I don't expect much more results from the steam engine project in the near future.

I know very well of Your concerns about the safety of high pressure steam, and Your concerns are reasonable. But are You sure You don't overestimate the risks of a steam engine itself? I'm talking only about the engine, not about the boiler or steam generator !
Steam power has taken a death toll during the last 2 centuries. But a closer look at these accidents will probably show that most serious accidents were caused by boiler failures, not by engine failures.The great volumes of boilers are responsible for disastrous results if they burst. The engines itself are low-risk parts compared to boilers, their failure only occasionally has caused fatal consequences. Important parts of steam engines are designed to withstand high dynamic forces during operation, and usually can withstand the forces of steam pressure easily. Maybe some moving parts in a steam engine can break but consequences, risks are limited to a very small area. Boilers/steam generators with their large volumes are responsible for fatal accidents; not steam engines itself.

And boilers are targeted by regulations, not steam engines usually worldwide.

Mike

Hi Daniel,

a very interesting project. It made for an interesting read!

The concept insn't bad, though I think the starter set is a bit too small.

Some comments on several points, that came to my mind while reading.

1. Sawing?
I think You need a machine like a saw. Something that cuts longitudinal structures like steel bars and wood boards to length. Its often the only operation on raw material needed to make it to a part ready for assembly.

2. Process plant
At current I still think You will need pretty different plant setups for different kinds of materials. I would consider metals, plastics, wood and minerals as different materials with different needs in production. Okay, wood production is biological, we just need to cut it. But plastics, minerals and metals require very different processes.
Maybe its possible to define a very complex set of components which fulfills all needs, but prob defining different sets for completely different materials would be easier and more economic

3. Bridge Mill
A double column mill, its a good versatile concept. But, its nonsense to do things like torch and laser cutting on the same machine as machining, milling, boring. The rigidity and precision needed for a mill is much higher than for a torch cutter.
And torch, plasma or laser cutting would destroy the high precision table of a milling machine. Forget this combination.

4. Grinding machinery
The absence of grinding machines won't work. Cylindrical grinders are essential for bearings and many other parts, as are bedway grinding machines for precision machines like lathes and mills.

5. Assembly

Your concept isn't convincing for Assembly. It's still a job mostly performed by humans. And Your concept overestimates the importance of machinery and roboters in the near future. Assembling is a difficult and very diversified task and roboters's capabilities aren't yet up to this task. Consider assembly an important and difficult task and give humans their place in this job. They are still urgently needed !

Mike

1. It needs a dependable source of high quality steam, which is not easy to produce.
2. Fabrication typically request casting in steel or aluminum.  Other approaches are possible, but wasteful.
3. Mobile steam engines require an energy-dense fuel, such as gasoline or diesel.
4. They are quite dangerous, especially if high pressure super heated steam is used.