small sq baler input HP

[rebuilder]

I believe the answer is that the JD baler requires less HP because JD says so.... and only because they say so. Manufacturers HP recommendations, when they offer them are not terribly reliable and subject to interpretation. If JD says 35 HP is all that's needed, they may be correct if they're telling you what is required to turn the baler over at the rated speed with "average" hay. NH on the other hand, may be telling you what you can reasonably expect to operate (including pulling a loaded wagon) the baler with safely and reasonbly efficiently, again with "average" hay. It's important to compare apples to apples.

The response that JD tractors are "better" is both inappropriate and ignorant on the rep's part. That wasn't the question asked and it assumes you will only operate a JD baler with a JD tractor. However, kudos to him for answering on Sunday!!

 

[jgh]

20060319

Let me ask a variation:

Does the fact that JD puts its flywheel on the side, and NH on the front, 90º different, make any difference?

One of my servicemen told me a story about a stuck slip clutch that caused a NH flywheel to break off and zoom about 100 yds (or was that feet?) across a field.

Scarier thought: since the JD rotates in line with the tractor, could its coming off lead it to slam into the tractor? Depends on which way it is rotating, I suppose.

BTW, my Case/Kubota salesman thinks we can run a 273 NH with a B3030 (30 engine HP). I dunno, sounds like a whole lotta shakin'll go on....

J

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I agree with what you said, but by JD saying you only need a 35 horse tractor to run their baler they are opening themselves up to a possible lawsuit when someone ruins a tractor or injures someone. There should be some fine print somewhere but I can't find any.

Where are you located in WNY? You missed out on a good breakfast this morning with some of us other TBN members.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I was wondering the same thing about the flywheel placement but Hesston has theirs set the same way as NH. I don't think it really matters but was more of a way for JD and NH to say their machines are better because of where the flywheel is.

 

[jimg]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I can't answer your question as to why NH wants more hp on their balers but I can speculate that by requiring higher hp tractors on their high capacity balers they cover themselves in case some guy rips out the pto on his 50 hp tractor pulling a 575 /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

As for bales per hour, first you need to determine how many strokes per bale you are trying for. If you say 15 then that gives you roughly 6 bales a minute or 360 bales an hour roughly. It all depends on how your field is laid out and if you are doing a lot of turning like required on some irregular shaped fields.

I will say this, if JD is only requiring a 35 hp tractor on their largest small square baler then they better have some fine print somewhere as that small of a tractor will not handle that baler with a thrower and a wagon on hills. Heck, a 35 hp tractor won't handle just the wagon on a hill when fully loaded. )</font>

OK, this is interesting and I understand...First the NH sm sq baler sales blurb, in fine print, indicates that HP alone is not enough to spec a capable tractor. The tractor must outweigh the baler and both are important parts of the equation. Ive yet to see a JD sales blurb *BUT* Im sure they must also give this same advice. I think theyre serious people trying to make a good product and so would openly advise theyre customers in this way.

Its intersting that the baler would actually do harm to an underpowered tractor. I thought the slip clutch would prevent this.

As for strokes/min I assumed this is the meric used for baler speed. While theres no way to know how efficient a particular situation would be an ideal situation would be useful as it gives an idea of what to expect at the top end. If I were writing a sales blurb I would use the ideal case and indicate it or at least make my sales force aware of it. As for counting stokes/bale would that vary in the ideal case if there was no hay starvation and the tractor supplied sufficent power?

 

[jimg]

</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I sent a e-mail to JD and to NH. The JD rep was very fast and replied to my question immediately. I asked him "Why does JD require a min hp of 35 to run a 348 small square baler while NH requires a minimum of 75 to run the 348's rival, the 575. "

His reply,

</font><font color="blueclass=small">( Mr. Turk: I'm on-line at home this afternoon. I saw your email and I thought I'd try to respond to your inquiry at this time.

I hope everything I say dosn't sound biased, but I'l just be honest. We're better. Our tractors get more PTO hp "to the ground" - less parasitic losses. That's why NH Kubota etc. don't like to talk about PTO horsepower. They like to only like to talk about engine horsepower. However, the secret is how much you get the ground and how much your left for the other things you do.

Thank you,

Wade Malcolm
Deere & Company - Agricultural Equipment Division
One John Deere Place
Moline, IL. 61265
)</font>

I will say I was impressed with how fast he replied (especially on a Sunday) but will leave my thoughts about his response out of this. )</font>

Hmmmm.....thats really intersting as far as it goes and it left me wanting more details. However, seeing as its Sunday this is good enough to begin w/. If I understand what he's saying then the JD design is different and efficient enough to truly require less HP. I will be *very* interested to see what NH says. Do you know if the person ansering is an engineer? BTW thanx for forwarding this to JD and NH!

 

[Robert_in_NY]

Strokes per bale is used to keep a uniform bale. If you just run the baler as fast as you can stuff hay in it you will have bales of vastly different lengths. So if you want 15 strokes per bale you just keep an eye on things and if the hay thins out you speed up. If the hay gets thicker you slow down to maintain the same strokes per bale.

I had a spring clip break on my TN somewhere in the pto system. When it broke it took all power away from the pto so while the pto would spin and could start the discbine it couldn't provide any force and when the cutter bogged down it died. I have no idea why it broke but I think it had more to do with the fact I run a 575 baler behind that tractor and there is a lot of shock on the system.

 

[jimg]

Yes, how the testing was done is important and certainly not consistant between mfgs. That said it would be *REALLY* not in JD best interest to so skew sizing data as to be completely misleading. Im figuring these companies have reputation, money and customer base to maintain and doing something which (to me) appears so deceptive wouldnt be in keeping w/ that. Im more than willing to give them lots of leeway in this regard. Im assuming theyre serious people trying to satisfy customer demand by making real products that perform w/o pages of fine print. I would think that farmers would have little use for such products and quickly abandon them.

 

[Robert_in_NY]

I don't have a clue who the guy is. He could just be a marketing guy who handles internet questions. JHEnt made mention on Ag talk that the fact the NH flywheel is on the driveshaft it might require more hp to get going then the JD setup. I also hope NH answers and I will post their reply.

 

[jimg]

I think there would be difference if the motion of the flywheel had to be redirected. That is, if the motion of the side flywheel had to be redirected to 90deg then it would have to go thru a gearbox which would cause efficiency loss. How much loss I dont know.