Hydraulic Remotes...Again!

[reguy]

First time posting.
I need to add remote hydraulic ports onto the rear (for log splitter) of my Branson 3510i and likely to the front for a grapple sometime in the future. I currently am powering the log splitter by disconnecting one of the quick disconnect outputs on my FEL joystick and plugging in my log splitter. I then use a bungee cord to pull the joystick lever energizing the circuit to the log splitter plugged into the joystick valve. It works ok but the splitter is slow due to the lack of adequate hydraulic fluid volume.

I understand I can install a Power Beyond fitting to my joystick hydraulic valve. That would then provide pressurized fluid to what ever implement is plumbed into this point. One of my concerns about this is that the fluid volume might still be less than ideal.

As an alternative, can I disconnect the pressure line to the input of the FEL joystick valve and connect a hydraulic manifold which would feed the FEL joystick valve from one output and the log splitter (or what ever I plug into it) from another output? This makes sense to me but am I possibly creating some problem?

Any help/advise would be greatly appreciated .
John

 

[TX mower]

Seems you first need to figure out what's the limiting factor ....

Any idea what your Branson's implement hydraulic pump flow is vs what your log-splitter would like to see? (might be that the tractor pump is limiting no matter what valve arrangement you use)

What about the flow curves for your loader valve (may differ for inlet>working port vs inlet>PBY port)? Note that the 'nominal' flow-rating given / advertised for many FEL control valves isn't at max pressure, you need to see the valve curves to determine that. (might be that the FEL valve is the limiting factor / 'bottleneck' and might remain so even with a splitter valve after it on the PBY port as you speculated)

If the FEL valve is the limiting factor you might consider inserting a higher-flow capacity logsplitter control valve with high-capacity PBY in series before the loader valve so it can give full system volume to the splitter and also pass that via PBY to the FEL control valve that's working fine now.

EDIT - If your Branson has a constant-flow hydraulic pump serving the implements it's my understanding that the 'open manifold approach' won't work because the fluid will take the path of least-resistance which will be via the return on the other open/tandem-center valve, not allowing either valve to pressurize a working port. For that type system you must use open/tandem-center PBY control valves in series as is the intended design. Using a valve to direct flow from the manifold to 'one-or-the-other' is a no-no because of the risk of deadheading the constant flow pump and damaging it. If the Branson has a variable-output implement pump with closed-center control valves that's probably a non-concern.

 

[/pine]

Not familiar with Branson but most CUTs/SCUTs that have FELs use control valves that already have power beyond...the PB port is then usually plumbed back to power the 3PH...(how many hoses on the FEL valve?)

If this is the case the PB port can then be used as the pressure line to a new valve (must also have a PB port) that can be used to control one or more sets of remotes...
...The PB port on the NEW valve is then plumbed back to the 3PH...return lines can be 'T'ed together...

 

[reguy]

Thanks for the reply. Don稚 have flow curves for anything. What I do know: when I connected splitter to friends tractor w/remotes the log splitter worked noticeably faster. The the tractor on board hydraulic pump puts out 8.9 gpm. It is a 35 hp tractor. Since the FEL is not moving nor is the PTO running and the tractor is not moving, I would estimate that there is enough capability in the pump to power a log splitter to the splitters max capability (what ever the splitters control valve will allow). As I speculated before, I believe the joystick valve is limiting the the flow when I connect the splitter in the jury-rigged, kludged up fashion I am using. So getting back to my original question...

Since I am questioning the FEL valves throughput, does anyone think that there might be a problem using a hydraulic manifold before the FEL valve to parallel some hydraulic oil off to the splitter?

I have not heard of this solution before which is why I ask. I do know that when one parallels a fluid flow more fluid is going to flow down the path of least resistance. Relevant or not, I don稚 know. Since the normal condition of the FEL when using the splitter would be no movement. By activating the splitter hydraulic valve, I would think the fluid would like to move toward the splitter. My rational is that the full 2500-3000 psi and most of the 8.9 gallons of hydraulic oil should be available for the log splitter to use. Yes...No? Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

I believe the volume problem you are having is due to the FEL coupler size, not the actual valve. 3/8" coupler size I believe??? 3/8 couplers are only good for 6 GPM.

Run a power beyond loop off of your loader valve and use 1/2" couplers. (1/2" QDs are rated at 12GPM)

That will be the easiest and least costly to do and is all you need to power a log splitter, no aux valve required.

 

[TX mower]

I believe the volume problem you are having is due to the FEL coupler size, not the actual valve. 3/8" coupler size I believe??? 3/8 couplers are only good for 6 GPM.

Run a power beyond loop off of your loader valve and use 1/2" couplers. (1/2" QDs are rated at 12GPM)

That will be the easiest and least costly to do and is all you need to power a log splitter, no aux valve required.

Brian, would that '~6 GPM bottleneck' remain if the pressure line from the tractor to the FEL control valve has any 3/8" (or #6) hose or fittings?

In other words, does everything in the path from the tractor connection point to the splitter need to be 1/2" (#8) to flow more than ~6 GPM to the splitter?

I understand your point that most any FEL valve will flow more than the tractor output of 8.9 GPM.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

Brian, would that '~6 GPM bottleneck' remain if the pressure line from the tractor to the FEL control valve has any 3/8" (or #6) hose or fittings?

In other words, does everything in the path from the tractor connection point to the splitter need to be 1/2" (#8) to flow more than ~6 GPM to the splitter?

I understand your point that most any FEL valve will flow more than the tractor output of 8.9 GPM.

Yes, all 1/2" hose and #8 fittings should be used. While a single #6 fitting may not slow the flow noticeably, it will for sure heat everything up.

Assuming that the pressure feed and power beyond lines on his tractor are all 1/2" with #8 fittings?? If not, then there might be potential problems down the road depending on how hard the tractor is used.

 

[npalen]

Brian, would that '~6 GPM bottleneck' remain if the pressure line from the tractor to the FEL control valve has any 3/8" (or #6) hose or fittings?

In other words, does everything in the path from the tractor connection point to the splitter need to be 1/2" (#8) to flow more than ~6 GPM to the splitter?

I understand your point that most any FEL valve will flow more than the tractor output of 8.9 GPM.

I've often wondered what affect a 3/8" sized hydraulic system does to flow capability when pumps get to the 8 GPM area and beyond. I realize there is restriction but how much does it actually reduce flow?

I see in charts that 3/8" hose creates a 40 PSI pressure drop in 10 feet of length.

It would be interesting to see some data as to where, in general, the CUT industry goes to 1/2" hose and fittings.

 

[reguy]

As I said before, I we installed it on my friends tractors remote hydraulics and it ran noticeably faster. Nothing was changed. All hoses and quick disconnects the same.

Back to my question. Does it seem reasonable to interrupt the pressure line to FEL valve, install a hydraulic manifold , then take outputs from the manifold to the FEL valve and to the the log splitter (or whatever is plugged into that output)? It acts as a splitter. I presume that if the manifold has enough throughput it should work fine. I am tempted to just go ahead and try it. Thanks

 

[K5lwq]

Could be that you can't get full flow through the spool of your FEL valve. However, I would think you would through the power beyond port. I would not use a manifold.

Does your friend's tractor use PB for his remote valve?