Jump to content

Preserved Machines


Recommended Posts

Recently I have come across some machines on public display and have thought about creating a category for them.

 

They often provide interesting information about the history of technology and science and are sometimes more decorative than many sculptures.

 

Some are associated with markers, some stand alone. I would only want to accept objects that are actively preserved and put on display. No abandoned gear where just nobody had the money to move it away; no machines that are in use; no vehicles, no agricultural equipment. Also no exhibits within museums.

 

What do you think? Could this be a good category? If I get enough positive feedback I will create a group.

 

There is a list of details where I am still unsure. Please tell me your opinion:

 


  •  
  • A good name for the category: Industrial Heritage on Public Display, Preserved Machines, ...?
  • Should the technical information be mandatory? If you don't find out what it was, then don't post?
  • Only originals or also reconstructions? Like ancient Roman treadwheel cranes.
  • Industrial era only or also ancient or medieval objects (No millstones, of course; they have their category)?
  • Single parts allowed or only complete machines?
     

 

Some examples:

fb89b5db-d6ea-4d47-a934-f5605e0388c9.jpg

a former generator of a hydroelectric power plant from 1916 now at the gate to the headquarter of a power supply company.

 

64d20a54-46ec-454b-a5bf-34f42eeeb357.jpg

No idea, what it is, but I found this at the entrance to a wastewater treatment facility.

 

e0304437-4883-4155-810a-b37655594ee8.jpg

An injection molding machine from 1962, now in front of the factory.

 

cba98389-b0d6-4489-b841-903a363ef2de.jpg

An large old valve of a groundwater pumping station.

Link to comment

I'm quite enthusiastic about this idea for a category! How about "Technical Monuments" as a name? I agree with the exclusion of vehicles, these already have their own categories. However, I'd prefer to limit it to items that are obviously put up for public display and receive some minimum of maintenance, to distinguish them from scrap lying about because nobody cares. That washer in the woods sure is a great sight, but I'd draw a line there...

Link to comment

Good idea!

I found this nice old washer directly near a trail, I think it's there because it's cool. Accept, or not?

Washer

-lumbricus

 

My first thought was, "Why not?" It is certainly a machine. However, after reading your original post, where you say,"I would only want to accept objects that are actively preserved and put on display." While this old washer is "on display", it doesn't appear to be "actively preserved". I agree with your statement. It seems that a logical dividing line between accepting or not accepting a waymark in the category, would be whether it is being actively preserved or just dropped off and left to the elements. But I guess, even the word, "actively" can be somewhat subjective.

Link to comment

Actively preserved often means these objects being painted, sometimes in ridiculous colours, to make them stand out whereas in real life they were unpainted. I saw a gaudily painted steam engine recently which made me sad that council saw this as preservation. I'd include that washing machine in the scrub as had it not been placed there, on public display, it may have ended up at a scrap metal merchant or rusting away in a weed infested industrial yard. As it is it's preserved for all to see. So - leave out "actively" & that way machinery in wild places can be recorded as well. I know of gold stampers etc now in National Parks that are preserved as a reminder of the area's history. Parks' officials don't interfere with them (paint, oil, clear undergrowth) but they are preserved & protected.

Link to comment

Thank you for all this positive feedback. This is going to be a great category.

 

The category will only accept objects that are put on display (or left at the original location sometimes) to preserve and educate or entertain. No illegally dumped crap or abandoned leftovers; some of them are cool objects, but there are several reasons to set these limits.

 

I have created a group and am working on a draft proposal.

Link to comment

Yes, that was partially done on purpose. I am well aware of the fact that maybe not all of my findings will qualify for the category in the end. I am more interested in a good category than in my own stats. On the other hand, this is just a first draft and I had not planned to send it to peer review as it is. I am not very happy with my definitions yet and I am still looking for improvment. This is work in progress and I am not in a hurry.

 

I have many objects in mind I would also like to welcome in the category like harbour cranes, reconstructions of ancient Roman cranes or mining equipment. Still the description should be clear and consistent; I want to avoid a lengthy list of inclusions and exclusions. If all my examples can find a home there under these circumstances, the better. But this is not a top priority.

Link to comment

I like the description as is but have question on the line "Parts of machines are accepted if they have a substantial size or show the leading principle of a specific machinery; a simple gearwheel is not enough." If I am reading this correctly a gear from a steam shovel would not qualify but the bucket itself would especially if it was like the one below as it would be the "leading principle of the specific machinery"

miningMuseumKidsDE_0.jpg

Link to comment

I think you have certainly hit on one of those gaps that many of us have encountered! I may have some in my bag, but often I pass them by if I think they won't fit in a category. We do have a few categories that might overlap, but these are fairly easy to exclude. I wouldn't necessarily exclude agricultural machines, however. Some are just tools, or implements that fit in that category, or old tractors, or other vehicles. But there may be some very interesting machines, say a vintage combine that harvested wheat, or something involved in other steps of food production. As long as they meet the other criteria, I think it makes sense to include them.

 

Bravo for introducing this!

Link to comment

I am thinking about removing the "use energy" from the machine description. It is technically correct but could be misleading. Manpower and horsepower are also energy, but I fear people could translate it to "motorized" and imagine narrower limits than was intended. And I could add flow control to the list of goals. This would also open the category to objects like #4.

 

Thoughts?

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...