Maybe a Step 'Backwards', But Handy?

[BobRip]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

J J,
How can I tell if these are brass or something better? They don't look like the brass fittings on Surplus Center. The brass fittings looked cast. They were sold to me as hydraulic fittings.

Bob Rip

 

[BobRip]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

In addition to using anodized steel (not brass) components you need to add an additional hex nipple.
Edited: You do not need the additional hex nipple.

Bob Rip

 

[J_J]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

Bob, A magnet is a good way to tell if it's not steel. If the brass is covered with a steel coating, the magnet will attract. If you ask for high pressure, they must sell you high pressure, or they will be liable for any problem that arises. If it looks like coated brass, take a file and run the file deep enough too verify. Steel fittings cost more also.

 

[J_J]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

I did some more research on the web, and noticed that some companies make some brass fittings with what they call high density brass and the pressure was as high as 2000 psi on some of their fittings. Most of the brass fittings for hydraulics are around 500 to 600 psi.

 

[BobRip]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

J J, thanks for doing the research. Even 2000 PSI is a little low, if that is what I have. I went to a place today and got the nipples made of anodized steel, and at $1.95 for two it is well worth it to do the job right.

Do you see any problem with using only one valve. I plan to keep it that way (unless something goes wrong), but I want others to have a good system, and I hate to steer them wrong.

Thanks,

Bob Rip

 

[Spiffy]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

Great solution for this issue, Bob! /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif

If everything is to rated pressure [which it should be anyway], I don't see any real problems with the single valve. If it's plumbed as I think you have it, you may see the "un-used" cylinder and lines "twitch" a little when you reverse the flow, but it shouldn't hurt anything.

A single ball valve is how I first tried separating my BH and front implements. Worked fine, except I wanted to be a bit lazier yet and installed the triple spool.

Actually, even with the ball valve I could reduce [though on the PTO line, PT's configuration had some backpressure as long as the machine was running] the quick coupler pressure by opening the valve:
you might get some effect too (but the BH allows flow freely through it's open center hydraulics [just like your loader valves], so not quite a fair comparision with a ball valve before your QA cylinder).

 

[Spiffy]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

Tim, MR, BillC:

Thanks for the replies to my curiousity about the divertor valve versus a manual spool. My internet access has been sporatic the last few days, so my appologies for not responding sooner.

Bill, I don't know how much force the 4XX QA takes, but if it opens pretty easy, that electric actuator might be an elegant solution for the problem at hand! Actually, I know they make some "leadscrew with DC motor" configurations [they {intentionally} look a little like a hydraulic cylinder] that would work even if the force was more than a solenoid type actuator could move.

As far as diverter vs manual spool, I perhaps was too vague with the question, or perhaps the replies answered my question anyway. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I was trying to figure out why: since a divertor doesn't really create a new valve circuit; only reroutes an existing one [to whichever cylinder selected], why not just install a manual valve [or a double or triple while you're at it] in a power-beyond configuration?

My best guess being that electric makes it easy to [physically, not the hydraulic circuit] locate both the switch and the valve, so it's often chosen. The popularity then making it a default first choice, even on applications that could benifit from extra valves. My best guess anyway. /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[MossRoad]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

<font color="blue"> I was trying to figure out why: since a divertor doesn't really create a new valve circuit; only reroutes an existing one [to whichever cylinder selected], why not just install a manual valve [or a double or triple while you're at it] in a power-beyond configuration?

My best guess being that electric makes it easy to [physically, not the hydraulic circuit] locate both the switch and the valve, so it's often chosen. The popularity then making it a default first choice, even on applications that could benifit from extra valves. My best guess anyway. </font>

I'll try to make it short and sweet....

I'm lazy! I don't want to move my hand off the joystick to reach for another lever. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

But seriously.... you can stack multiple electric diverter valves just like normal valves. Then you get a joystick handle with as many buttons as you need. Button one operates circuit one, two operates circuit two, etc... many farm machines such as combines have this features. Kind of like selecting your weapon of choice like a fighter pilot does. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

 

[Spiffy]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

<font color="blue"> I'm lazy! I don't want to move my hand off the joystick to reach for another lever. /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
</font>

Makes perfect sense, thanks MR! Mounting on a joystick does make sense for a switch; though I've even seen switches [for divertor valves] used on lever arrangements for the same reason. Actually, I have seen joysticks with a twist motion cabled to a third spool, but then you need a whole new joystick.

The other application I've seen divertors [though often the former reason applies at the same time]: there's no room on the tractor to convienetly locate a manual valve, or the cylinders in question are close to each other but far from the operator [electric wire being much cheaper per foot than hydrualic hose].

Divertors certainly have their applications; I was only disappointed that they're so often the obvious choice [on tractors], that it's easy to forget other choices are available.

When I was modifying my PTO circuit, manual was the only [OK, only option without $$$$] option to have independant and analog [as opposed to ON/OFF] control. But, back to this case I have a slightly different type of laziness: I'll sacrifice ergonomics for the ability to control any combination of valves simulaniously. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I guess us PT guys are the laziest bunch on TBN! /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

 

[Spiffy]

Re: Maybe a Step \'Backwards\', But Handy?

<font color="blue"> Kind of like selecting your weapon of choice like a fighter pilot does. </font>

/forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif