Don't know about great minds, but I think that we probably trip over the same conclusions at the same rate. My epiphany came from converting IH rotors for use with P3 bars -- I realized that midsize rotors (1460, etc.) were the same diameter and we were only installing a total of 9 rotor bars on them. More concave crossbars on the IH, and more aggressive separation, but without a great leap it was logical to assume that doubling the number of crossbars for the straight in feeding on Gleaner as opposed to axial feeding on the IH would compensate for the lesser number of threshing_separating concave and separator grate crossbars on the Gleaner. Sweeps were added to provide a nudge toward the discharge and to agitate the crop for separation. I suspect that the pics and explanation I sent to AGCO may have reinforced their decision to go ahead since we already had rotors in the field. I did take time to patent use of rasp type bars on enclosed rotors and cylinders, and it was approved in July of '01. However, big companies have a tendency to use other people's ideas without consulting. They have attorneys on staff and I don't. Same thing happened with Massey rotors -- we modified our first one in '98, and in the fall of '01 AGCO came out with pretty much the same product. Don't know what happens next, guess we'll probably just have to compete with them. Sorry about the complaining, but I've been working with combines for about 30 years and it irritates me to see someone else take credit for my ideas.