Combines FARMBUDDY some Birotor questions

FarmBuddy

Guest
The dump type of grain bin shown in Figure 4 of patent 5,380,247 was never used on the XBR2. We used two drag chains with poly conveyors across the bottom of XBR2. Our objective was to eliminate the grain damage caused by augers. The drag chains worked ok on the XBR2, but could be improved with the auxiliary conveyor as shown in our patent 5,496,215. This design would provide a natural structural support to the top elbow of larger and longer unloading tubes or conveyors. This also let us top of the larger unloader conveyor at the top elbow, while letting any excess grain recirculate back around without plugging anything up. The center humped graintank would have let us lower the CG some, plus provide easy access clean out sump doors on each side of the combine. These clean out doors could have been replaced with pneumatic seed metering devices so that the XBR2 Versatile Power System could be used for seeding wheat or soybeans with a front mounted tool bar during planting season. This would have made more effecient and affordable use of the cab, chassis, tracks, engine, and GPS systems year around. The center hump also provided a natural routing location for some of the engine to cab interfaces, such as HVAC tubes, electrical harnesses and some oil lines to the headers. Overall this is a good graintank design that will get incorporated into future rotary combines because of the advantages listed above.
 

FarmBuddy

Guest
REgarding engine and capacity of the XBR2, we used a 3306 engine with around 265 HP, perhaps getting 290HP out of it with a little tweaking and the added efficiency of the overhead air intake system. The 30" wide tracks were on 120" center to center guage, which in my opinion can only be accomplished on a wide body combine by using the slim efficient design created by our dual path grain handling system which circulates around the out side of the combine. This design only takes up about 6 to 8 inches on each side of the side sheets and enables a true centerline design. The tracks were 110" from front idler to rear driver. The XBR2 was just a "proof of concept" machine, but would compete against the class 6 and 7 machines available a decade ago. It had the basic threshing, separation and cleaning foundation to become a class 8 or 9 combine, given enough HP and air flow. The top rear facing graintank fill auger would have made it easy to make a class 9 or 10 quad track style combine with a 500 to 600 bushel rear cart and articulated steering. That will come about eventually with more 16 row cornheads and higher corn yields. It is difficult to make combines any wider or higher due to transport restrictions, but we have not reached maximum allowable length yet, especially as the design is refined and made more efficient between the header and chopper area.
 

farmboy

Guest
Are you guys still working on_developing this combineIJIJ I thought I read that the design was sold to John Deere, and they have done nothing with it, just bought it to eliminate competition.
 

FarmBuddy

Guest
farmboy, your thoughts and understanding are pretty accurate. It is real disappointing to me that JD has not adopted some of the features, but they were pretty much committed to their STS design by 1995, when they bought up the Bi-Rotor patents (Some JD VPs even said they stole it for a bargain price) to keep the technology from cutting into sales of combines, tractors, sprayers and CC seeders. The entire XBR2 Bi-Rotor is still a very interesting proof of concept machine and the concepts are great conversion topcis during combine meetings and combine comedy tours. In hindsight, selling to JD may have delayed the machine, but I still don't think this will totally stop progress or competition. I remain hopeful that we'll see it in production some day. In the meantime, we work on some other projects and enjoy the capacity of solid build lexion 500 series.
 

Old_Pokey

Guest
Are you working on a rotory type cleaning sieve and shoeIJ
 

land_surfer

Guest
Rotary sieve and shoeIJ What is your background on rotary cleaning systemsIJ I think it is very logical and compact. Have you see them in actionIJ
 

Old_Pokey

Guest
It could be an interesting concept once some of the issues are solved. One problem I see is the amount of time the material has to spend in direct contact with the machinery. The ability of the machinery to self clean or unclog in high moisture material without causing mechanical damage to the material would be interesting to see. The complexity of feeding the material evenly into the cleaning system would also be interesting, especially in higher moisture crops. It'll be interesting if someone gets one into production. I'm curious to see the power requirements and the service life of the drive components.
 

FarmBuddy

Guest
Whoa, I think we need to let the benefits of a Bi-Rotor threshing and separation system evolve, before advancing a rotary cleaning sieve _ shoe. The bi-rotor concave provides MANY features that made the cleaning system MOG load less. 1) 360 degrees of continuous threshing AND separation means less damage to grain and less breaking up of stalks, cobs and straw. Current rotary systems expend a lot of energy and damage to MOG during crop transfer around the top, enclosed area of the rotor housing. 2) Dynamic vane angles are effectively attained by changing concave rotational speed _ ie RPM. Simply increasing speed of the rotary concave causes the vanes to have an effectively lower pitch angle adding to the number of passes around the threshing chamber. Conveniently, this increase in concave RPM also increasing Fc. 3) Centrifigal forces (Fc) increases exponentially with concave velocity _ RPM. The denser grain wants to fly the h out of there. 4) Concave holes can be smaller on a rotating concave, because they are moving and rotating in the same direction as the crop mat and rotor. Small concave holes meant less large MOG particles going to and overloading the cleaning system. 5) lateral distributor added effectiveness of the cascade fingers by distributing shoe load to the side with less shoe loss, normally the uphill side of the combine and shoe. But this system also provided more even distribution during variations in crop moisture and ease of threshing. 6) The dual path drag chain type of elevator provides more opportunity to let fines settle out across the bottom and across the top paths, while also reducing grain damage that is inherent with current lower cross augers and graintank fountain augers. It was exactly 10 years ago this month that we were demonstrating these features to JD engineers in northeast Nebraska. The Bi-Rotor technology will evolve and under go refinements. Then eventually evolve into the more advanced and smooth running XTR3 "tri-rotor" where the outer rotary chamber serves as the cleaning sieves, circa 2015. Regarding unplugging and self-cleaning, this is achieved on a Bi-Rotor system by slowing the internal rotor, which was driven hydrostatically, to less than outside concave chamber speed. That feature worked good, but you have to view the videos or observe it in action to really understand or see how this works. The same brushing and cleaning principles could be applied to a surrounding rotary cleaning chamber, albeit, turing in the opposite direction.
 

Old_Pokey

Guest
Tri-rotor ehIJ Sounds interesting. With todays push towards no-till or minimum-till planting practices, people seem to be going with stalk and straw choppers on their combines. If the bi-rotor or tri-rotor does'nt break up the straw or stalks, how will your system work in no-till practicesIJ I understand most of the theories and concepts behind the bi-rotor, they're quite interesting. I am curious however, with this tri-rotor, are you expecting to eliminate the seperate cleaning unit and do all the cleaning and seperating with centrifical forceIJ Sounds quite complex. Will it work in any crop around the worldIJ I was just thinking more in the lines of a retrofitable system for the existing machines today. Maybe rotory is the wrong description for what I'm thinking. 2015, wow that sounds like a long ways away. Are you having to abide by some sort of non compete claus in a contractIJ I understand if you cant talk about that. Are you still planning on having the tri-rotor mounted on two tracksIJ
 

FarmBuddy

Guest
It is generally beneficial to minimize straw and stalk damage during the threshing phase. Then there is less load of MOG on the cleaning system. Also, for those that want to bale the MOG or collect bio-mass, they have better straw and stalks to work with. Consequently, those operations coninue to be frequent buyers of strawwalker combines. Rotary threshing and separation tends to be more agressive, with more broken straw, sometimes to the extent that choppers are not even needed. Our objective with the Bi-Rotor was to minimize straw damage by using a constant radial clearance all around the rotor and get the threshing done in a shorter distance. This was accomplished by eliminating the constrictive front transition cone (IH- version) (Now improved via tri-steam on JD STS version) by feeding a full width concave area up front, followed by open concave grates within 10" of the feederchain (as now proven effective by APS on lexions) The XBR2 then had 360 degrees of concave so threshing and separation could be completed in a shorter distance (4') using higher Fc generated by the rotating concave plus mat speed. Subsequently, we could discharge better straw quality since there was less relative speed needed between the co-rotating rotor and concave. Radial concave clearance can be adjusted, if needed by moving the conical concave forward over the conical rotor. Not all no-till or minimum till farmers want their MOG segmented _ chopped, but if needed a chopper and _ or spreader option would have been available to them. We used a Crary spreader on the XBR2 when we wanted a wide spread pattern back in 1994. The Cat track system with low compaction was also beneficial to no-till operations, then as well as today. Frankly, the current Cat half track with fore-aft oscillation and the new suspension system and large rear tires is a good, if not better alternative to full tracks as used on the XBR2. Especially when crossing gullies and over the top of some terraces. The new 500 Series lexion track system is very impressive, well built and a nice ride. The overall XBR2 system would have worked excellent in no-till practices because the same power unit could have been used for planting, spraying and harvesting as shown in patent 5,499,948 Figures 5(Threshing module) , Figure 6 (sprayer module) , and Figure 7 (Planter module). We had tested and validated the up front planter concept on Claas 228CS combines using Great Plains no-till drills at Purdue in 1992. The GPS track used and recorded for planting could have been dupicated during subsequent spraying and harvesting since all functions would have been in the same relation to the satellite receiver, ie just in front of the cab. The Tri-Rotor may sound complex. The SpaceShuttle is complex, built by a large organization. On the otherhand, SpaceShipOne is rather simple and built by a much smaller and more creative team. We were making rapid progress on the XBR2 project up through 1995, when Agri-Technology sold it to John Deere. I was opposed to that path at the time. I think all of the other team members signed a non compete, non disclosure agreement with John Deere in 1995 and continued a few years of testing with them. I think I was the only team member who was leary of selling to John Deere. On one hand, we figured their check would be good for the investors, but on the otherhand, I felt that their stories of needing a rotary combine on tracks was just the words that Mark and Ralph wanted to hear. Yeah, right, they had the STS on the CAD CAM already and didn't want to risk renegade competition coming out of a green field in Kansas. John Deere, Ralph, and I did not see eye to eye on their future test and development plans for the JD XBR2 XBR3 Bi-Rotor project (That's another ten page .ppt). Consequently, I did not sign their not compete, non disclosure agreement with John Deere like the remaining Agri-Tech team members had to in 1995. Consequently, I just try to abide by general business ethics and speculate at will. In the mean time, I have enjoyed working on Tructor development, Cat lexion combine launch and factory start-up in Omaha, Machinerylink in Kansas last year, built a few 1_4 scale combines and created some landlogo images. That sure made 10 years go by at a nice pace. Even JD introduced the 9610s and 50 and 60 series STS during the past ten years. We wouldn't think they would let the seventeen Bi-Rotor patents just set on the shelf all that time, would weIJ If I'm lucky enough to be around to see 2015, we might have to have another book like the Dream Reaper, ie, the "Bi-Rotor twenty years later". 2015 will be here pretty quick and we've all got a lot to do on the XTR3 and centerline header drives. Take Care. Enjoy all the great friends and good things that you have to be Thankful for next week. Happy Thanksgiving to all of you, FarmBuddy friends and foes.
 
 
Top