Maybe a Step 'Backwards', But Handy?

[Spiffy]

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

Excellant description of the two types JJ! As you noted the true reason for the open "neutral" postion is coasting to a stop; but a real bonus for the PT is how it makes connections so much easier - without even turning off the engine.

I'm using a motor spool to the PTO, and a cylinder spool to the BH (since it already has open center no risk of dynamic pressure forces). My valve has another cylinder spool I'm not currently using, but that's only because the 3 spool happend to be a good buy at the time (it'd be way too big on a 425 though).

Anyway, at the risk of my verbosity causing more confusion, the 425 configuration in question would be identical (motor spool to PTO), except the cylinder spool would go to auxillary hydraulics like grapples etc.

Does that make more or less sense? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[Spiffy]

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

Excellant description of the two types JJ! As you noted the true reason for the open "neutral" postion is coasting to a stop; but a real bonus for the PT is how it makes connections so much easier - without even turning off the engine.

I'm using a motor spool to the PTO, and a cylinder spool to the BH (since it already has open center no risk of dynamic pressure forces). My valve has another cylinder spool I'm not currently using, but that's only because the 3 spool happend to be a good buy at the time (it'd be way too big on a 425 though).

Anyway, at the risk of my verbosity causing more confusion, the 425 configuration in question would be identical (motor spool to PTO), except the cylinder spool would go to auxillary hydraulics like grapples etc.

Does that make more or less sense? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

 

[Spiffy]

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

<font color="blue">Even with the engine and pump off, and you activate one of the valves, you will have full pressure until the accumulator is empty. </font>

Good point; it would always be under whatever pressure you charge it too (3ksi, if allowed to fully charge - though that'd be 60% capacity on a 5ksi accumulator).

Of course, for the expense, time, and effort there; not to mention having stored energy on the system even if turned off; I do like valving options much better.

 

[Spiffy]

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

<font color="blue">Even with the engine and pump off, and you activate one of the valves, you will have full pressure until the accumulator is empty. </font>

Good point; it would always be under whatever pressure you charge it too (3ksi, if allowed to fully charge - though that'd be 60% capacity on a 5ksi accumulator).

Of course, for the expense, time, and effort there; not to mention having stored energy on the system even if turned off; I do like valving options much better.

 

[J_J]

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

I agree, that makes perfectly good sense.

 

[J_J]

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

I agree, that makes perfectly good sense.

 

[catsco]

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

Thanks all for the discussion and suggestions.

I think I'll try to fabricate a "T" with a diverter valve or two valves on it to connect to the tractor.

Then, flip the valve (or close one and open the other) on each side, disconnect hoses, then swap attachments, reconnect attachment hoses, then flip the valve (or close one and open the other).

This shortens the procedure. Obviously, the attachment hoses still much be detached and attached.

Seems like the lowest cost solution, and avoids the extra two hose swaps to power the release mechanism.

Mark H.

 

[catsco]

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

Thanks all for the discussion and suggestions.

I think I'll try to fabricate a "T" with a diverter valve or two valves on it to connect to the tractor.

Then, flip the valve (or close one and open the other) on each side, disconnect hoses, then swap attachments, reconnect attachment hoses, then flip the valve (or close one and open the other).

This shortens the procedure. Obviously, the attachment hoses still much be detached and attached.

Seems like the lowest cost solution, and avoids the extra two hose swaps to power the release mechanism.

Mark H.

 

[Barryh]

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

Man you are good. Spiffy too. I know my machine has hydraulics, but it pretty much ends there. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

[Barryh]

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

Man you are good. Spiffy too. I know my machine has hydraulics, but it pretty much ends there. /forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif