Conversion Factor for 3PH load capacity

[Reg]

An Hydraulic top link,
some sensors,
an adaptive algorithm,
electric controlled valves on to the top link.
(All/most of this has been done for the electric/electronic versions of self leveling loaders)

It seems the 100% goal could be accomplished with a little electronics that lets the top link out at a rate that is some function of the rate of lifting.
Not a faux parallelogram, but doing the same thing - functionally.
Heck, anyone for 105% ? 110% ? just change a variable (or two).

Draft control would be retained, no welding, metal cutting, or other hardware hacking required.
It could be "switched off" and that neat little feature that causes the rear of implements to come up more than the front when raised would come back.

Yeah, this looks a lot better than my previous (all mechanical) solution.

About the only thing left is the steering, I am wondering what happens when the front tires have less than 5% of the loaded tractor's weight on them...
"A bit LIGHT on the steering ?" Yeah, maybe worse than that.
Not much sense in lifting it if the tractor dumps it as soon as I try to go forwards with it.
Yeah, moving things that are lifted is useful, more useful than just putting them down again.

I still think that tractor stability overrules mechanical capacity in mfg's spec sheets - and it SHOULD.
Not just for their legal liability issue, but for our safety.

 

[AndyMA]

I just read the entire 7 pages of this post. Basically all of what SPYDERLK says is correct. He is a trained and practicing mechanical engineer as am I. Statics, Dynamics, Kinematics and other elements of mechanical engineering and Physics explain how mechanical things work. What many of you are trying to do is force a simple explanation on a problem that was solved long ago. On this site there is much false information conveyed particularly in the area of electricity/electronics. I happen to have over 35 years experience as a dual degreed engineer and there are many things written here that just make my hair stand up. I usually only jump in when I see a real dangerous situation being created in the electric world. I commend SPYDERLK for his tenacity and patience in carrying on with this thread,

Andy

 

[LD1]

I just read the entire 7 pages of this post. Basically all of what SPYDERLK says is correct. He is a trained and practicing mechanical engineer as am I. Statics, Dynamics, Kinematics and other elements of mechanical engineering and Physics explain how mechanical things work. What many of you are trying to do is force a simple explanation on a problem that was solved long ago. On this site there is much false information conveyed particularly in the area of electricity/electronics. I happen to have over 35 years experience as a dual degreed engineer and there are many things written here that just make my hair stand up. I usually only jump in when I see a real dangerous situation being created in the electric world. I commend SPYDERLK for his tenacity and patience in carrying on with this thread,

Andy

No credit to me????

 

[AndyMA]

No credit to me????

Oh so sorry, yes full credit to you. Me bad

Andy

 

[AndyMA]

Oh so sorry, yes full credit to you. Me bad

Andy

And just who shall we fail??? I actually teach this stuff sometimes.

Andy

 

[LD1]

Thanks. Now my feelings aren't hurt any more

 

[dodge man]

I'll jump in here, and say what I think the problem is. People are thinking of the 3 point hitch like a tettor totter. If you make one side longer, it will take more force on the other end to lift the load. From what I have read in this thread, that is not how a 3 point hitch works, so the load on the 3 point hydraulics doesn't really increase as you move the load further out, it just makes the tractor more tippy.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[LD1]

I'll jump in here, and say what I think the problem is. People are thinking of the 3 point hitch like a tettor totter. If you make one side longer, it will take more force on the other end to lift the load. From what I have read in this thread, that is not how a 3 point hitch works, so the load on the 3 point hydraulics doesn't really increase as you move the load further out, it just makes the tractor more tippy.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Well I wont be the one to correct you....because you're right

But someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it spelled TEETOR TOTTOR

 

[dodge man]

It took me 5 minutes to spell it as close as I did!

 

[Reg]

I'll jump in here, and say what I think the problem is. People are thinking of the 3 point hitch like a tettor totter. If you make one side longer, it will take more force on the other end to lift the load. From what I have read in this thread, that is not how a 3 point hitch works, so the load on the 3 point hydraulics doesn't really increase as you move the load further out, it just makes the tractor more tippy.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Yeah, pretty much.
A lot has been made of it as a "trick question" such as prepubescent males delight in.
It is easy to jump in on the assumption that 24" behind means (essentially) that the lift arms are effectively extended by 24".
Well, they are not, they still terminate at the eye, which is a joint.
Beyond that joint... is "Stuff", but that is beyond that joint.

===============================
Points, points,
they have no parts,
or joints
Then how can they combine
to form
a line ?

<nevermind>

===================================
BTW, we havn't YET seen any evidence that the "at the eyes" spec is derived solely from the hydraulics and geometry.
It might well be part of the manufacturers' stability spec, e.g. in order to maintain steering control when traveling up a grade of x%
SOME percentage of the loaded tractor's weight must be on the front axle..... from which the 3PH lift capacity is derived.

Possible, even likely.