Presentation of innovative or unknown tools

[Ahmed]

It's a joke? Do you want to boost the morale of the troops?

[oli 80]

Hello, at the moment everyone needs it, at the same time I am discovering new things, despite the context it makes you think of something else

[Ahmed]

Yes, excuse me, it was not a criticism, I just forgot the smiley ...

[oli 80]

Hi, it doesn’t matter, here’s something everyone could need

[Ahmed]

To change you a little (I hardly hope for more! ) of covid19, here is one of my little crafts.
Owner of a Sandvik weeder, I was disappointed by the poor functioning of this tool which only allows the cutting of rather small branches despite the multiplication of the force allowed by the hauling system. The problem is due to a messed up design: on a slightly larger branch, the blade enters the wood well, but since it attacks from the bottom, all the downstream weight of the branch tends to close the cut on the blade. and to block it: all those who use secateurs know that it is possible to facilitate the cut by bending the branch in the favorable direction with the other hand.
Therefore, the perfect theoretical solution was simple: it was necessary to reverse the system so that the weight of the branch, instead of opposing the penetration of the blade, facilitates it. I first thought of an articulated device with 2 pinions, in order to reverse the direction of movement of the blade (which corresponds to its reversal of orientation and the impossibility of acting other than by pulling on the rope, therefore down). The application was arduous on a small device not designed for this modification and would have required to start from scratch, which was not my goal, much more modest. The case remained there for a long time, until the solution was imposed: since it is difficult to influence the movement of the blade, why not do it on the usually fixed part which is called the 'anvil? As soon as said, as soon as done and here is the static result in pictures. To make it clear, the first photo shows the tool open and the second closed. It was necessary to make a part (in gray) of connection between the support and the cutters which is adequate for the movement and the desired location (to find the right profile, I first cut test pieces cardboard-based). If you look closely, you will see that I also took a small organ harvest from the end of the anvil and that I welded it back in the other direction to accentuate the "beak" effect, this in order to '' avoid the sliding phenomena observed during the first tests.
I specify that, as expected, everything works perfectly.

IMG0079B.jpg (486.01 KB) Consulted 2721 times

IMG0080A.jpg (467.45 KB) Viewed times 2721

[Obamot]

I buy if it is not the product of an abstract value

Are the welds guaranteed for 3 years?

[Ahmed]

I absolutely guarantee both: the welds, as well as the value that is not which (if I may say so! ) real. No risk, therefore, for those who would be allergic to abstract value, since there is no trace of it, even the smallest ...

PS: since there is no abstract value, this tool cannot be purchased ...

[Obamot]

At this price it is really [not] given because we must salute the inventive effort, and the work!

Note that the soldering station was possibly acquired one day with abstract value, is there perhaps equalization somewhere?
As well as the tool in its original form? That gives me an idea: how could companies acquire / trade their goods and services without the use of abstract value?
(As an attempt to get out of the circuit and move towards a virtuous circle ..?)

Finally I mean a transitional method achievable as it is, and the most virtuous possible !?

[Ahmed]

There are indeed indirect residues of abstract value, notably in the tooling, as you note. However, if the pruner is originally a commodity, this transformation makes it mutate towards a pure use value (which it did not previously have, but which would not have been contradictory with a possible use value) . It is moreover because the transformation of the tool did not require work that it does not present in this process of abstract value.
The idea of ​​bypassing the passage through abstract value during the exchange of goods or services by companies is, stricto-censored, impossible, since work, company and abstract value are categories immanent in exponential economism. The local currency does not allow to escape, except in a superficial and cosmetic way, from this intrinsic logic. Let's say that to get around this pitfall, we have to go from AMA 'to, for example, MAM (where M = commodity; A = money and A' = initial investment + profit).

[Obamot]

It's still great, thank you for the effort of responding!

One thing calls out to me, why the A' is at the end and not at the beginning of the formula AMA '?

Because the investment is before entering the circuit (in today's economy: a printer will first invest in an offset machine, inks, paper, a cutter, and some other supplies before being able to start to print and make a profit ... And this assuming that he pays cash ... to do so, he may have saved his salary from a previous job.)

Then the MAM, I do not see the practical application, it would not be:
1) I offer potatoes = “M”,
2) whoever wants it gives me money = “A”
3) and with this money I buy celery in direct exchange (or possibly deferred) = “M”
The “applicant” is the one who seeks to sell his production and not the potential customer.
The role of the requester is restored, because the exchange is done by “the substance” (M) and not by the money (A) abstract value.
I have good?

You tell us “for example”, What other examples could we use?