HayDR
Veteran Member, Approved Advertiser
Capitalism works! We see there is no more USSR. Socialism, communism, & fascism are the tools of despots that pillage anyone in their path.
Technology in Farm Machinery Field
- Thread starter nomad
- Start date
- Views: 9269
- Status
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 58,153
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
<font color="blue"> Not too related, but the most obvious example I can think of is the early oil delivery trucks. They did not have baffles in the tank and if they "jerked" the load somehow, usually going up a hill with a partially filled tank, all the oil rushed to the back of the tank, significiently changing the center of gravity. Between that and the pulse impact on the rear of the tank, there wre numerous cases of trucks flipping over backwards. Sometimes when the load shifted to the side on a corner, they went over sideways. This still happens with trucks when any kind of load breaks loose and shifts. I picked up too many of these when I drove a tow truck. If the COG on my tractors changes, I want to be the one to control it.
</font>
Excellent points, Andy. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
</font>
Excellent points, Andy. /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
rockinmywaypa
Platinum Member
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2003
- Messages
- 615
- Tractor
- john deere 3130, universal case 970 and a IH 1086
Nomad In order to figure this out a person needs a set of weigh scales. You weigh the front axle and the back axle and compare readings, then you add or subtract ballast front and rear so that you have a 60/40 relationship. Anytime you are pulling an implement say a plow you will encounter draft which translates into more weight on the drawbar in a line that corresponds between the drawbar and the point of resistance in the soil. This will pull down on the rear of the tractor and increase or transfer and even out the weight on the front and rear of the tractor. If conditions warrant and you are not achieving wheel slip in the I think it's around 7% then you add or subtract ballast keeping the original 60/40 relationship. There is no need to carry around extra if I am staying in the same field under the same or reasonably the same conditions for a long period of time.
My day job or more correctly night job is working for an auto parts manufacturer. The company manufactures shock absorbers and under contract sells them to the big three to be used on their vehicles. The company is the manufacturer, the president to the plant manager down to me the machine operator all work for the company. We are all employees. When we walk out the door and purchase something we are consumers. I used to run cnc machines but have switched to a multi spindle machine that I think was built around WW2 it is old. These machines [2] can cut out 7 rods a minute each compared to a cnc that cycles around 59 to 73 secs per rod. That is around 6000 plus per shift for me compared to 600 to 800 for them in the same amount of time. Who do you think is making the least cost part that ultimately is in the price of the finished product? I will admit that the cnc is a more perfect looking rod but that rod doesn,t function any better in the final assembly.
My day job or more correctly night job is working for an auto parts manufacturer. The company manufactures shock absorbers and under contract sells them to the big three to be used on their vehicles. The company is the manufacturer, the president to the plant manager down to me the machine operator all work for the company. We are all employees. When we walk out the door and purchase something we are consumers. I used to run cnc machines but have switched to a multi spindle machine that I think was built around WW2 it is old. These machines [2] can cut out 7 rods a minute each compared to a cnc that cycles around 59 to 73 secs per rod. That is around 6000 plus per shift for me compared to 600 to 800 for them in the same amount of time. Who do you think is making the least cost part that ultimately is in the price of the finished product? I will admit that the cnc is a more perfect looking rod but that rod doesn,t function any better in the final assembly.
Rockinmywaypa, a good contribution to the topic by bringing other things to be considered.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I think it's around 7% then you add or subtract ballast keeping the original 60/40 relationship. There is no need to carry around extra if I am staying in the same field under the same or reasonably the same conditions for a long period of time. )</font>
And, 7% change in COG position from 60/40 ratio was probably taken into account when designing the tractor. Yes, actually, rather than static center of gravity, the dynamic (including resistence force by, say, a tiller attachment) center of gravity should be considered. I suppose the designers of tractors use a method somethings like "center of force" method instead of "center of gravity". Then, the average resistance force in the soil of the tiller is probably an average of statistical data by the real field experiments. Now, our discussion sits on a more concrete base. But, a new question arises and this can be answered only by farmers who are the real field scientists. How much do their results (the final products; tractors - a design by sample statistical data from the "real field") fit the "really real" tests (applications by all farmers) with millions of data. Your tractors are running like a wild horses highing up their fronts? I'm wondering if tractor manufacturers are publishing a user manual that says something like "you can't pull this implement and you can pull that implement" for many different kinds of implements. Farmers have no time to calculate how much resistant force is being applied by their special implements.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
The company is the manufacturer, the president to the plant manager down to me the machine operator all work for the company. We are all employees.
)</font>
I don't classify the system as a manufacturer and a consumer. There is buyer and there is seller. There is agreement between them. And, it's traditional that the seller gives a word about "delivery place" too. If the seller promises to send the product to be delivered to the door of the buyer, then the seller should organize everythings. Open-system-sellers (who don't hire people who will do delivery work) usually do this with the people outside the system (called the dealers.) If the seller is a manufacturer, he/she should keep his/her words till delivering place. If he/she doesn't have an organized system (from with marketing people to delivering people working in the factory system), then we can call it open-system-seller/manufacturer. Then, in this case, we can also say "the dealers outside the manufacturing system too are actually a kind of employee of manufacturing system". Therefore, the dealers will always be there near the open-system-manufacturers/seller. Closed-system-sellers/manufacturers who are big organizations need the dealers much less. They sometimes need during the agreements if the agreement capable people aren't hired in their system. So, as a conclusion, even many people out of a factory are actually a kind of employee of that factory. Anyways, sorry for long response on this. I just wanted to point on a thing which is usually confused about.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( These machines [2] can cut out 7 rods a minute each compared to a cnc that cycles around 59 to 73 secs per rod. ...Who do you think is making the least cost part that ultimately is in the price of the finished product?
)</font>
One(old) finishes job in ~10 seconds and the other one (new modern) finishes the same job in ~70 seconds. The old makes the finished product with the least cost (if we don't think about the quality of product much.) But this is a rare case. We know that most of new machines do a work much faster than the older machines. So?
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I think it's around 7% then you add or subtract ballast keeping the original 60/40 relationship. There is no need to carry around extra if I am staying in the same field under the same or reasonably the same conditions for a long period of time. )</font>
And, 7% change in COG position from 60/40 ratio was probably taken into account when designing the tractor. Yes, actually, rather than static center of gravity, the dynamic (including resistence force by, say, a tiller attachment) center of gravity should be considered. I suppose the designers of tractors use a method somethings like "center of force" method instead of "center of gravity". Then, the average resistance force in the soil of the tiller is probably an average of statistical data by the real field experiments. Now, our discussion sits on a more concrete base. But, a new question arises and this can be answered only by farmers who are the real field scientists. How much do their results (the final products; tractors - a design by sample statistical data from the "real field") fit the "really real" tests (applications by all farmers) with millions of data. Your tractors are running like a wild horses highing up their fronts? I'm wondering if tractor manufacturers are publishing a user manual that says something like "you can't pull this implement and you can pull that implement" for many different kinds of implements. Farmers have no time to calculate how much resistant force is being applied by their special implements.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">(
The company is the manufacturer, the president to the plant manager down to me the machine operator all work for the company. We are all employees.
)</font>
I don't classify the system as a manufacturer and a consumer. There is buyer and there is seller. There is agreement between them. And, it's traditional that the seller gives a word about "delivery place" too. If the seller promises to send the product to be delivered to the door of the buyer, then the seller should organize everythings. Open-system-sellers (who don't hire people who will do delivery work) usually do this with the people outside the system (called the dealers.) If the seller is a manufacturer, he/she should keep his/her words till delivering place. If he/she doesn't have an organized system (from with marketing people to delivering people working in the factory system), then we can call it open-system-seller/manufacturer. Then, in this case, we can also say "the dealers outside the manufacturing system too are actually a kind of employee of manufacturing system". Therefore, the dealers will always be there near the open-system-manufacturers/seller. Closed-system-sellers/manufacturers who are big organizations need the dealers much less. They sometimes need during the agreements if the agreement capable people aren't hired in their system. So, as a conclusion, even many people out of a factory are actually a kind of employee of that factory. Anyways, sorry for long response on this. I just wanted to point on a thing which is usually confused about.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( These machines [2] can cut out 7 rods a minute each compared to a cnc that cycles around 59 to 73 secs per rod. ...Who do you think is making the least cost part that ultimately is in the price of the finished product?
)</font>
One(old) finishes job in ~10 seconds and the other one (new modern) finishes the same job in ~70 seconds. The old makes the finished product with the least cost (if we don't think about the quality of product much.) But this is a rare case. We know that most of new machines do a work much faster than the older machines. So?
RobS
Super Member
<font color="blue"> We know that most of new machines do a work much faster than the older machines. So? </font>
Not necessarily true as pointed out by Rockinmywaypa. CNC machines offer flexibility but for a long run part it's difficult to match the efficiency of a dedicated machining center such as a dial machine. Investment, set up and changeovers kill you but if you can set up and run consistently a dial will outperfom a CNC hands down. Once again, good old supply/demand has moved the markets to more niche products requiring shorter runs and more changeovers. The Japanese have done this well for decades but the US is making huge strides.
To supply/demand. Yes, there is a macro and micro level to consider. Not hardly an area of my expertise but this gets to why the starving Africans don't get the great resources of American wheat. The supply/demand equation is localized to the economy at hand. Many outside influences affect that equation such as government subsidies. Again, it's not my area but the radically different economies of the US and African nations greatly affect the supply/demand on a macro level. On a more micro level, even the poorest in the US are generally afforded a basic loaf of bread, one way or another.
Back to the original topic...
Ag tractors require a variety of weight conditions. Light weight, heavy weight and various locations of CG. Perhaps it is better to refer to it as center of force, rather than center of gravity as that is what provides the traction. It was the original Ferguson system that varied the center of force based on the draft load, wasn't it? Hardly high tech these days, but still quite effective. I was recently in the cab of a large Case-IH tractor with all sorts of computer paraphanelia to monitor and control tire slippage. It may not transfer actual weight but it seems like it could transfer torque to the axles based on the changing conditions. Pretty high tech to me /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Not necessarily true as pointed out by Rockinmywaypa. CNC machines offer flexibility but for a long run part it's difficult to match the efficiency of a dedicated machining center such as a dial machine. Investment, set up and changeovers kill you but if you can set up and run consistently a dial will outperfom a CNC hands down. Once again, good old supply/demand has moved the markets to more niche products requiring shorter runs and more changeovers. The Japanese have done this well for decades but the US is making huge strides.
To supply/demand. Yes, there is a macro and micro level to consider. Not hardly an area of my expertise but this gets to why the starving Africans don't get the great resources of American wheat. The supply/demand equation is localized to the economy at hand. Many outside influences affect that equation such as government subsidies. Again, it's not my area but the radically different economies of the US and African nations greatly affect the supply/demand on a macro level. On a more micro level, even the poorest in the US are generally afforded a basic loaf of bread, one way or another.
Back to the original topic...
Ag tractors require a variety of weight conditions. Light weight, heavy weight and various locations of CG. Perhaps it is better to refer to it as center of force, rather than center of gravity as that is what provides the traction. It was the original Ferguson system that varied the center of force based on the draft load, wasn't it? Hardly high tech these days, but still quite effective. I was recently in the cab of a large Case-IH tractor with all sorts of computer paraphanelia to monitor and control tire slippage. It may not transfer actual weight but it seems like it could transfer torque to the axles based on the changing conditions. Pretty high tech to me /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Villengineer
Gold Member
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( Villengineer, since you are an engineer )</font>
Yes, I am a mechanical engineer. I have worked in carbon fiber R&D, automotive, custom hydraulics & cylinders, and currently I design custom material handling equipment. I don't intend to be mean, but you apparently are not an engineer and you should stop posing as one. You keep making untrue statements and when you get caught you just pass it off as being misunderstood or unclear. It's not right to keep mis-informing the individuals on this site who are trying to learn from these discussions. I will point out how you have done this once again:
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( you too know that all weights aren't carried by the tractor. If the tractor moved upward (against the gravity), then all weights including added weight would be carried. Since the tractor moves horizontally (vertical to gravity) only a portion of total weight (tractor and its attachment) is carried by the tractor. In other (in clearer) words, tractor is only overcoming friction forces and drag/resistant forces by the attachment. Okay, there is a certain relation between the total friction force and the total weight (as they are somewhat proportional), but this shouldn't be confused. Adding a 100 units of extra weight doesn't mean that all these 100 units will be carried by the tractor. Lets say only 30 units of this 100 units weight.)</font>
ALL the weight on the tractor is carried by the tractor. What else is carrying it? There are no "free rides". Every object has inertia which must be overcome before it moves at all. To sugest otherwise is ignorant. The very definition of force is F=MA where F is force, M=mass, and A=acceleration. A tractor expends work both in moving itself and anything attached to it. It's true that the mechanisms that make up a tractor make it "easier" to do the work, but it still requires work to move any additional weight. Otherwise car manufactures wouldn't spend lots of money trying to remove just a pound or two from a car.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I'd install a rod OR a long hydraulic cylinder between the rear and front rears. I could slide a mass on the rod OR could press the oil in the hydraulic cylinder back/forth to change the position of CG depending on the weight/lenght of attachment. Automatic adjustment is only a way of controlling method and it's not difficult to do it once you mounted the rod or hyd. cylinder. This is the simplest idea. Many idea you can come up if you think a little more. )</font>
This is a great idea in theory and what I thought you kept refering to, however it's simply not practical. The amount of weight that would have to shifted on even a medium size tractor to achieve any significant change in the CG is quite large. This is even more amplified if the shifted weight is kept between the axles. Simply shifting oil in even a relatively large cylinder wouldn't even move the CG a fraction of an inch. Like was mentioned in other posts if it were to be done with a liquid it would require a very dense liquid and a lot of it. Now, are you willing to give up ground clearance to mount this system, or would you like it hanging over your head to achieve this negligable benefit.
Now, all this being said, I'm NOT trying to tell you to stop trying to come up with new ideas. What I'm trying to say is when you have an idea listen to those who have training, knowledge, and experience and don't make "factual" statements about things you don't seem to have a firm grasp on.
Yes, I am a mechanical engineer. I have worked in carbon fiber R&D, automotive, custom hydraulics & cylinders, and currently I design custom material handling equipment. I don't intend to be mean, but you apparently are not an engineer and you should stop posing as one. You keep making untrue statements and when you get caught you just pass it off as being misunderstood or unclear. It's not right to keep mis-informing the individuals on this site who are trying to learn from these discussions. I will point out how you have done this once again:
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( you too know that all weights aren't carried by the tractor. If the tractor moved upward (against the gravity), then all weights including added weight would be carried. Since the tractor moves horizontally (vertical to gravity) only a portion of total weight (tractor and its attachment) is carried by the tractor. In other (in clearer) words, tractor is only overcoming friction forces and drag/resistant forces by the attachment. Okay, there is a certain relation between the total friction force and the total weight (as they are somewhat proportional), but this shouldn't be confused. Adding a 100 units of extra weight doesn't mean that all these 100 units will be carried by the tractor. Lets say only 30 units of this 100 units weight.)</font>
ALL the weight on the tractor is carried by the tractor. What else is carrying it? There are no "free rides". Every object has inertia which must be overcome before it moves at all. To sugest otherwise is ignorant. The very definition of force is F=MA where F is force, M=mass, and A=acceleration. A tractor expends work both in moving itself and anything attached to it. It's true that the mechanisms that make up a tractor make it "easier" to do the work, but it still requires work to move any additional weight. Otherwise car manufactures wouldn't spend lots of money trying to remove just a pound or two from a car.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( I'd install a rod OR a long hydraulic cylinder between the rear and front rears. I could slide a mass on the rod OR could press the oil in the hydraulic cylinder back/forth to change the position of CG depending on the weight/lenght of attachment. Automatic adjustment is only a way of controlling method and it's not difficult to do it once you mounted the rod or hyd. cylinder. This is the simplest idea. Many idea you can come up if you think a little more. )</font>
This is a great idea in theory and what I thought you kept refering to, however it's simply not practical. The amount of weight that would have to shifted on even a medium size tractor to achieve any significant change in the CG is quite large. This is even more amplified if the shifted weight is kept between the axles. Simply shifting oil in even a relatively large cylinder wouldn't even move the CG a fraction of an inch. Like was mentioned in other posts if it were to be done with a liquid it would require a very dense liquid and a lot of it. Now, are you willing to give up ground clearance to mount this system, or would you like it hanging over your head to achieve this negligable benefit.
Now, all this being said, I'm NOT trying to tell you to stop trying to come up with new ideas. What I'm trying to say is when you have an idea listen to those who have training, knowledge, and experience and don't make "factual" statements about things you don't seem to have a firm grasp on.
MossRoad
Super Moderator
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 58,153
- Location
- South Bend, Indiana (near)
- Tractor
- Power Trac PT425 2001 Model Year
<font color="blue"> I could slide a mass on the rod OR could press the oil in the hydraulic cylinder back/forth to change the position of CG depending on the weight/lenght of attachment. Automatic adjustment is only a way of controlling method and it's not difficult to do it once you mounted the rod or hyd. cylinder. </font>
I think he was talking about having a hydraulic ram push some type of weight(presumable a slab of steel or iron) that was suspended on a rod or track, not the weight of the hydraulic fluid, itself.
I think he was talking about having a hydraulic ram push some type of weight(presumable a slab of steel or iron) that was suspended on a rod or track, not the weight of the hydraulic fluid, itself.
yellowsocks93
Veteran Member
In the big 4 wheel drives there is a lot of suitcase weights on the back so you could put that on a track but I bet it would be expensive to make the whole thing work properly with the hydraulic rams and such. Maybe tractors should not change that much. They do work well as they are and the front suspension has really helped minimize wheel hop. If people are to add all the ideas we have been talking about the cost of one of these rigs would be high and all the hyd. cylinders would need work over time. Trying new metals might work like when JD fine tunes their ripper points and other metal blades and knives. I am not a expert on tractors so please don't take any offence to what I say. We seem to have a heated debate going on here.
cowboydoc
Super Member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2000
- Messages
- 6,725
- Tractor
- JD 8320 MFWD, JD 6415 MFWD, FEL, and cab, John Deere MFWD 4600, John Deere 4020, John Deere 4430, John Deere 455 mower, Deutz, and Gehl 4610 perkins skidsteer
I see that Nomad is just pulling everybody's chain. No matter what is said he just comes back with some offbeat retort or philosophical stuff. It doesn't look like this is going anywhere productive.
- Status