Taylor Spatial Frame - Very expensive bolts!!

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I'm a metallurgist and agree the metal fatigue "problem" is fatuous. But don't quote me on that in court unless I take a week to study the problem, charge as much in consultancy as the device cost, and take out £5M in liability insurance; and as others have suggested, there's little doubt that here lies the root of the problem.

The other reason for no re-use is of course infection, a major issue with mess and other antioniotic-resistant bugs. This could be even more expensive.

But it has done the job for your son and that is marvellous.

Keith
 
Great news Rob, hope you can temper his enthusiasm enough to allow things to mature.
 
Great news about your son Bob, bet you're more than chuffed, and very well done to him.

That device looks superb. I'm not a metallurgist, but like others, I suspect the reason/s for not re-using it must be the "legal climate" we live in.

Having said that however, being a retired aircraft engineer, I suspect the device COULD be re-used if it went through a process like, for example, the full overhaul of an aero engine.

In brief terms, an engine is stripped (to individual components), thoroughly cleaned (in various ways), then inspected (against laid down criteria). The end result is that the overhauler ends up with 3 piles of bits - a definitely scrap pile, a pile of repairable bits (against laid down procedures and methods), and a serviceable pile. In the end the scrap bits are replaced with new, the repairable bits are repaired, and the whole lot, along with the serviceable bits, are all re-assembled then tested (again against a set of defined test criteria). At the end of all that the overhauler returns the engine to service with a legally-binding certificate that the engine is good to go.

If all that sounds complicated and expensive, it is. The overhauler needs a huge investment in equipment (many millions) to even be allowed to offer his overhaul services in the first place; and a typical full overhaul of one engine can easily cost the customer a couple of million, take a couple of months+, and need around 6,000 man hours. But against the cost of a new engine (depending on type that can easily be 10 million and more) it obviously makes commercial sense, and as above, all the legalities are covered every step of the way.

Against that, I wonder how many of your son's devices are in use in the UK every year? And that device "only" costs 20 thousand quid!

To set up something like the above "legally-approved" system would alone cost a huge amount (never mind the cost of doing the overhaul work itself), and at a guess I'd think that even though the demands of overhauling and re-issuing such a device are (perhaps?) a bit less technically demanding than the demands of overhauling an aero engine, I bet my bottom dollar that the cost of setting up the required legally-binding approvals would be absolutely immense.

So my guess is that no one (company or organisation) would want to take the commercial risk of making such investments because the pay back would most probably take a very L O N G time.

Maybe all the above is wide of the mark, and like you I hate to see waste of such obviously excellent materials, not to mention excellent engineering design and manufacture. But I guess that apart from scrap metal values, there's little chance of re-using the device, or otherwise recovering that initial cost.

AES
 
That all sounds spot on, ie the legal and commercial risk out weigh the benefit, but isn't it a bit crazy, topsy turvy when if we (as a society) just stopped being so anal for 30 seconds, we could afford to cure more sick people. Idealistic I know but it sticks in my throat a little for some reason. Hey ho, better let them send it to the third world so at least someone gets helped by it!
 
I think since the beginning of the year I have enough surplus dressings to cover a king size bed - and many of them are expensive dressings not ordinary bandages, thought I have fifty or sixty of them as well. District nurses do not carry dressings other than an odd bandage, so send the prescription to the pharmacy. They cannot do their job without the correct dressings, so they over prescribe. When a different nurse comes she looks in the wrong box, sees none and orders them again. A different nurse turns up the next and doesn't know what thew last one or the one before that ordered, so orders again. I have five boxes of ten of one of the most expensive dressings - and I no longer use them. The day after your order turns up you see a consultant who totally changes the regime. So you get another lot. Ad infinitum. #-o
This must cost an arm and a leg as much of it will not be used and none of it can be reused. I'd have thought it would have made economic sense for the nurses to run a little van well equipped and stocked daily with everything they are likely to need - there isn't an infinite number of dressings. These dressings are purchased at the going rate for the NHS - which probably makes it even worse.
 
Random Orbital Bob":1bxv58xw said:
The quality of the engineering is superb with each of the bolts having a set of detents at exactly 1mm increments so it's easy to know when you've twiddled it by 1mm beyond just reading the scale.

Oddly enough....it wasn't made in China :)

Perhaps the Chinese could make it just as good if not better and charge half the price, maybe less.

Andy
 

Latest posts

Back
Top