Dump wagon build

[bcp]

Actually just reversing it using the same mount points would reduce the force ... because the rod side of the has less surface area for the fluid (under pressure) to act on.

Force would be exactly the same if reversed. The fluid still has to go into the base end, not the rod end, to extend.

Bruce

 

[rswyan]

... Once I figure out how to best get my lower frame rails anchored I will be able to properly evaluate if my setup actually works since it was the anchoring that was the weak link that failed. I don't even know for sure if I have enough lift or not. If then find my current setup doesn't work, I'll likely rebuild with a telescopic cyl mounted vertically at the front like a dump truck

It will "work" ... until you really load it up ... and then you'll run short on "steam" to push it up.

The reason I say that is I have 4 x 8 cart and you have a 6 x 10 ...

I'm using a 4" cylinder @ around 2000 psi ... at a roughly similar initial angle. (think mine might be 12 degrees but I would have to check it)

When I have mine fully loaded (probably overloaded by 1000 lbs - 5K in the bed) it will barely raise ...

You have 28 sq. ft. more floor area than I do ... 60 sq. ft. vs 32 sq. ft. - that's almost double.

If you want to be able to fully utilize all that additional floor area and be able to dump a heavy load, you're going to have to get the mechanical aspects (mainly leverage, initial angle, and mechanism) correct to do it.

 

[rswyan]

Force would be exactly the same if reversed. The fluid still has to go into the base end, not the rod end, to extend.

Bruce

Good catch - my error :thumbsup:

 

[Rustyiron]

CFB, It looks like if you were to add some "long sills" as they are called on a truck dumper, right under your "lower frame", just like a dump truck, you could use this to "hang" some side plates down, then go across with a heavy (wall) pipe or sq tube…. like 4" sch.80 or 4x4/3/8 wall (remember the forces this will see will be (approx) 45* to almost 90*) so it needs to be strong on more than one axis, pipe & sq. are good for this over any "I" or angle. This would be your new & lower location to mount your cly. If I've not explained this properly, think of an older grain dump (truck). They would often have this type of set up although usually with a cylinder on each side of the (truck) frame. This would also be an option for you. These new "long sills" should also be (in my guestimation) 6" chan @ about 10.5 lbs./ft. assuming that the cyl. would be mounted at about 1/3 of the span. Also the side plates that drop down to support your X tube for the cyl. mount needs to be somewhat of a large triangle also for the above described forces back & down.

 

[CDN Farm Boy]

Yes Rusty, that makes sense if I were to use dual cyl. As it is, with a center mounted cyl, I can go any lower than the reach. But your idea could be a way to strengthen things for a centerish lower mount even with what I have now, if the geometry were in my favour

 

[thirdroc17]

Frankly, with the mechanical disadvantages of having the lift cylinder under the bed as compared to a telescopic cylinder lifting directly at the front, I'm amazed any dump box dumps!

The telescopic cylinder at the front has it's greatest lift force when the bed is down. Cylinder under the bed has it's least lifting force when the bed is down. It's just backwards. Unless of course there is some fancy linkage beyond my ability to design.

But hey, they work, and that's all that matters, eh?

 

[CDN Farm Boy]

If you want to be able to fully utilize all that additional floor area and be able to dump a heavy load, you're going to have to get the mechanical aspects (mainly leverage, initial angle, and mechanism) correct to do it.

I don't disagree with you on that. Since what I have is seemingly not going to work the best, I need to figure out exactly how to best move forward from this point. Depending on how corrective action will be taken to improve dump force, will have an affect on how I re-anchor things. If I switch to a front mount telescopic cyl, then the only horizontal force would be from gravity acting on the raised bed. I knew from the outset that I'd have more horizontal force than vertical in my design but since I had no force calculator to see just how much lift I would get from the angled cyl prior to construction, it was all just a guess if I would have enough.

With a front mount cyl, it's pretty easy to calculate the forces. I'm going to look into the specific design and forces of incorporating a scissor lift and see how it would work in my application. If I can make a scissor lift fit within my given space (12" from top of reach to bottom of bed crossers in current configuration) AND improve lift force, that's likely the way I'll go since it would reuse my existing cyl and hoses. It still seems to me that the main purpose of a scissor design is to be able to use a shorter cyl. If I have to raise the bed a few inches, I will but I'd rather not. The other thing I need to figure out is if I can make a scissor lift work with my 30" cyl. Better to figure that out now before I spark the welder back up.

 

[CDN Farm Boy]

Frankly, with the mechanical disadvantages of having the lift cylinder under the bed as compared to a telescopic cylinder lifting directly at the front, I'm amazed any dump box dumps!

The telescopic cylinder at the front has it's greatest lift force when the bed is down. Cylinder under the bed has it's least lifting force when the bed is down. It's just backwards. Unless of course there is some fancy linkage beyond my ability to design.

But hey, they work, and that's all that matters, eh?

Eh? You must have some good Canadian blood in you! :thumbsup: :laughing:

You are exactly right on the forces but with the cyl under the bed it's the most compact design and a standard cyl can be used rather than a telescopic at double the price. As someone mentioned earlier, brute force can overcome this as long as the components can take it -- which is where mine failed. I sheered off my stop blocks and was pushing it off the back of the wagon rather than lifting it.

 

[CDN Farm Boy]

CFB, It looks like if you were to add some "long sills" as they are called on a truck dumper, right under your "lower frame", just like a dump truck, you could use this to "hang" some side plates down, then go across with a heavy (wall) pipe or sq tube? like 4" sch.80 or 4x4/3/8 wall (remember the forces this will see will be (approx) 45* to almost 90*) so it needs to be strong on more than one axis, pipe & sq. are good for this over any "I" or angle. This would be your new & lower location to mount your cly. If I've not explained this properly, think of an older grain dump (truck). They would often have this type of set up although usually with a cylinder on each side of the (truck) frame. This would also be an option for you. These new "long sills" should also be (in my guestimation) 6" chan @ about 10.5 lbs./ft. assuming that the cyl. would be mounted at about 1/3 of the span. Also the side plates that drop down to support your X tube for the cyl. mount needs to be somewhat of a large triangle also for the above described forces back & down.

Rusty, I'm wondering if these "long sills" you refer to are actually the same as my "lower frame"? In the below pic, you can see that I have the 2x4 tube as main and side rails of the bed AND 2 lengths that remain horizontal with the wagon frame -- these are what I was calling my "lower frame". If I'm interpreting you right, I'd simply be doubling these up.

View attachment 404595

 

[aczlan]

That if you took out the center portion of your reach at the end where the base of the cylinder is and replaced it with either:
1. A piece on each side moved outboard far enough that the cylinder can fit inbetween going back to the intersection of the reach and the C channels that come up from the axle.
2. A piece on each side moved outboard 6" that goes straight back to the C channels that go from the axle to the reach.
Here is a drawing showing the current setup and the above options.

That would let you move the base of the cylinder down enough that it can have more lifting force and would also give you a place to tie some reinforcement into if desired.

Aaron Z