Combines enclosed cylinders and rotors

[Gerald]

Interesting....

 

[tj]

A short history concerning this: We have been building that particular style rotor for about 3 years, and have had it posted on our website for about that long, as well. Actually started researching about 6 years ago, and began modifying Case IH and NH rotors and building conventional Gleaner cylinders before building the N_R series. FYI, we do have these rotors and cylinders patented -- U.S. Patent No. 6,621,176. We've done about 50 Case IH machines of all models, about 30 NH rotor machines of various models, half a dozen White_Massey rotors, 12 N_R series, about 40 l models, 3 or 4 M models and a few JD conventionals -- mostly 8820 machines. We have experimented with a staggered bar configuration on machines which bring material straight across the concave from the feeder house i.e. conventional machines and N_R models and found that ears of corn would break more than we wanted because they are required to bend around the ends of the leading rotor bar mounts. What really makes the difference with this type rotor (enclosed drum) is the fact that material is held against the concave, helicals and cage surface by the round skin of the drum and is rolled and fluffed for separation and can't escape by dropping away or being forced thru the openings between the rotor_cylinder bars. The rasp style bars with their more upright teeth carry the load much better than rub style bars, as well, and their depth provides and area for grain to escape between the teeth. This has applied to all models of machines in which we've installed drum type rotor_rasp bar cylinders and rotors. Per the first posting in this chain, there will be no confiscating of rotors, and I don't believe it could be done anyway. We do, however, feel that our patent has been infringed upon, and will ask that the infringement be stopped.

 

[Jeremy]

So...someone could show up out in the field and just yank the cylinder_cage right outIJ Wow. That would be a drag. Especially if the combine was moving at the time. Sorry, but just posting a topic like this is irresponsible, just like those trash TV shows. If there is a problem between two companies, they need to work it out, with lawyers if necessary. Scaring people by saying their equipment is going to be reposessed is not good.

 

[tj]

Not sure who posted that comment, but I'm pretty sure we wouldn't even consider that kind of action, or be a party to it. Our customers are too important to us. The patent was approved Feb., 01 and the number has just been assigned. As I understand this stuff, units installed before July 17, 01 would be immune from action, anyway. Hope this eases anyone's worries. Terry Welch St. John Welding