|
|
It made a Crop | It appears John Deere Engineers were working on Rotary Combine design around the time of the "New Generation" tractor release. Patent number: 3179111 Filing date: May 28, 1962 Issue date: Apr 1965
This design was on a Rotary Separator installed in a pull-type combine.
This patent was filed prior to any patents I could find filed by International Harvester or Sperry Rand (New Holland) of Rotary/Axial-Flow patents. First one I found by IH was filed in Aug 1966 Patent # 3,481,342 . New Holland's first was filed in Nov 1969 Patent # 3,626,472. Both patents listed Edward William Rowland-Hill as one of the inventor. New Holland's patent # 3,626,472 was for the Auger Flight feed. I'm not saying this is 100% correct. IH and NH might have owned patent other than what I could fing . But, I find it interesting none the less.
 (3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype_Page_3 web.jpg)
 (3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype_Page_1 web.jpg)
 (3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[2] Pulltype_Page_1 web.jpg)
 (3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype_Page_2 web.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype_Page_3 web.jpg (93KB - 1041 downloads)
3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype_Page_1 web.jpg (48KB - 1087 downloads)
3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[2] Pulltype_Page_1 web.jpg (39KB - 987 downloads)
3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype_Page_2 web.jpg (57KB - 983 downloads)
3179111_THRBSHINO_CYLINDER_IN_COMBINATIO[1] Pulltype.pdf (323KB - 1118 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
New Ulm, MN | i always under stood that IH developed a rotor but that a engineer quit or was fired and hired by New Holland and NH got the TR out before IH's axail flow. ALso i belive all major combine players were working on rotors since at least the 50's. |
|
| |
|
Sunburst Montana | The combine it was installed in was the 65. Something must have happened when the group split off from IH to NH because why would IH put up with the elephant ears for so long when they could have used the auger feed the TRs used. That is unless they couldn't because of patent issues. |
|
| |
|
EC IA | Is that considered a "true" rotor design?
It looks like what CAT runs, a conventional threshing drum, but uses rotors to clean the grain after it's been threshed. Maybe I'm reading and looking at it wrong.
Very interesting find. I know it's being "discussed" about who was the first with what design. According to what you found, even though Mother Deere may have one of the first patents on a rotor design, did it really do them any good since they never used that design until recently?? |
|
| |
|
It made a Crop | Well I found Patent work on Rotor installed in 197t something John Deere combines. I think the Walker combines had the Market, so why did the need to Market a Rotor/Rotary/Axial-Flow. |
|
| |
|
Rudolph, WI | I remember my Dad combining oats with a Model 25 Deere combine with a 5 foot direct cut head when I was a kid. I don't think it had the STS option or a bullet rotor. Did not have the high unload rate option either. It did however have a canvas instead of an auger on that 5' head, was that the first draper header too?? :) |
|
| |
|
EC IA | Was there need for a mechanical threshing unit? The farmer could pick the corn by hand and save a lot of money! It's called being innovative and a foward thinker. There's always a better and more efficient way to do something, looks like Deere was on the right track, but for whatever reason gave up on it. |
|
| |
|
West Union, IOWA FLOLO Farm 52175 | Thanks for the info Dan.... I'd always heard about it never seen the proof. |
|
| |
|
Watonwan County MN | Gleaner was testing a rotary combine in the early to mid-60's as well. It was built on a CII chassis. Had two engines, one to run the base machine and one to run the rotor. It was a transverse at that time with the rotor down in front like the conventional Gleaner's. I know it's not Deere but virtually every company was testing rotary technology then. Now that we are on the subject, what ever happened to Roto-Thresh, the Canadian(?) company that built combines with the rotor laying flat like a blender? And does anyone remember the Farm Journal article about the "Dream Reaper" that had a minimal amount of moving parts? |
|
| |
|
Ontario Canada | Now that would be an interesting site.
mr.agco - 1/17/2011 17:26
Gleaner was testing a rotary combine in the early to mid-60's as well. It was built on a CII chassis. Had two engines, one to run the base machine and one to run the rotor. It was a transverse at that time with the rotor down in front like the conventional Gleaner's. I know it's not Deere but virtually every company was testing rotary technology then. Now that we are on the subject, what ever happened to Roto-Thresh, the Canadian(?) company that built combines with the rotor laying flat like a blender? And does anyone remember the Farm Journal article about the "Dream Reaper" that had a minimal amount of moving parts? |
|
| |
|
It made a Crop | I can't find patents filed by AC or Gleaner on Rotor design prior to 1970-late 60's. The blow is from the Combine Talk Show Gleaner Photo page,
"This picture, taken back in 1968, is of the first concept Axial Flow Combine which eventually turned into the N6. It was built on a C2 chassis. Note the down front rotor. The machine was being tested in soybeans; I can still remember it having the dirtiest bin sample I had ever seen as the C2 shoe was so overloaded. Unfortunately the only time I had my camera with me in the field was one evening and the flash wouldn't light up the whole machine so I only took the rotor. Two engines were needed not only for power to this massive rotor (compared to the C2 cylinder) but to counterbalance the rotor weight plus having to shift the header so far forward
Michael Enzmann"
Edited by Dan_wcIN 1/17/2011 17:44
 (Afc1.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
Afc1.jpg (33KB - 893 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Humeston, IA | Here's what I found at www.uspto.gov:
3430633 Conical Thresh. Assy Mark, A.H. Massey Ferguson March 4, 1969
3623302 Comb. Harvester Schmitt, H No company November 30, 1971
3848609 Axial Flow Type Harv Roland-Hill, Edward Clayson NV November 19, 1974
4192322 Axial Flow Separator Wilson, John E Deere & Company March 11, 1980
4136704 Rotor for a Combine Dyke, Calvin J Sperry Rand Corporation January 30, 1979
Both the Clayson and Sperry Rand patents involved twin rotors. Edward Roland-Hill, a co-inventor on the Clayson patent, has his address listed at Lancaster, PA - near New Holland, PA.
Calvin Dyke, however, has his address listed as Mt. Morris, IL. So, it would lend some creedence to him being an IH engineer, leaving, and going to Sperry Rand.
The Deere patent shows an auger mechanism instead of a rattle chain for the feederhouse. It is a single axial flow design.
The Massey Ferguson patent shows a mechanism very similar to the current Gleaner design, but with a cone shaped separator.
The Schmitt patent is from Germany, and although Claas isn't named, the designs appear to be very similar to the APS system used on the 400 series Lexions. |
|
| |
|
It made a Crop | Didn't Deere use Augers in the Feeder house of the Corn heads for 45-105 series? |
|
| |
|
| But it wasn't filed before ones like these... ;)
http://www.google.com/patents?id=NLxRAAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing&...
http://www.google.com/patents?id=T5JFAAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=3G1IAAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=vvF4AAAAEBAJ&printsec=drawing&zoom=4#v=onepage&q&f=false
Edited by McCartman 1/17/2011 18:33
|
|
| |
|
| And I will ask again - why was Deere dead last at actually getting one onto the market?
It doesn't matter who was experimenting - what matters is getting them into the fields. |
|
| |
|
Sunburst Montana | Actually it doesn't. Maybe to you but not us. We don't run our farm or make machinery purchases based on who got what to the field first. Over the years we just happen to buy from the best nearest dealer that had the best service. Did we know the CIH 2388s were as good of combine if not better then the JD 9000 serieswalkers in small grains. Yes. Wasn't enough to make us put up with a subpar dealer. But we still made money with JD walkers, and now with JD rotaries. We even made money with Massey and gleaner combines in the past. I find these posts interesting from a historical perspective but its going to be the last thing I'm thinking about the next time we traded combines.
Edited by Steiger Man 1/17/2011 18:39
|
|
| |
|
Nevada, Iowa | It's all interesting from a historical point of view and at the same time means very little other than that. Having said all of that, a point my Dad always likes to make since the rotary has become popular with almost every manufacturer and most of them touting to have the first true or the best rotary, wasn't the corn sheller really the first rotary design in a threshing / separating unit? I don't know who built the first corn sheller and they sure as heck weren't designed to pull through the field or to be self propelled but they appear to be the first rotor that I can recall. Most of them made a very good grain sample too. Just thoughts. |
|
| |
|
EC Kansas | Why was Deere last with a rotary?
Because their walkers would do equal or better job of threshing in more conditions than the rotaries on the market during the 70s and 80s....
UNTIL
CaseIH put enough horsepower on the 2388 to beat or clearly outcut a 9600. Lack of horsepower kept the walkers in play.
At least that is the way it looks to me in 20/20 hindsight.
|
|
| |
|
| I'm sure there are almost as many different philosophies on topics like this as there are farmers. We don't have a really good Gleaner dealer close by - our "good" dealer is about 70 miles away. We run Gleaners due to their simplicity. Since we very seldom have them do service work for us, having a machine that is simple to work on is most important to us. I don't care who was first to get one on the market either - just giving Dan some crap since he thinks the sun apparently rises and sets on Deere since he thinks they invented the things - when in reality, by the 60's it was an old concept.
Anyone will have to admit they were way late getting something on the market though. As quickly as they overtook their walker machines is proof there was market demand for them. |
|
| |
|
SWMN | Minneapolis Moline and John Deere and probably others were using the rotary cylinders in their corn shellers since way back. 40s &50s for sure , quite possibly in the 30s. White was still building them when they took over Minneapolis Moline in the 70s. Same basic principle used today, a spiral through a cage. Moline's first picker sheller was a corn head mounted on the back end of a Model D sheller with a hopper on top. |
|
| |
|
| Its hybred like a lexion not a rotary. angle of the rotor cone and intake lots of other things patented on a axial flow combine. first rotary IH machine was the cage sheller on corn pickers. esp 234 and 2mh d deere is still a copy cat and johnny come lately in rotary combines |
|
| |
|
Driftless SW Wisconsin | I was one of the folks working on JD rotary combine designs around the time the IH and NH were introduced. I did an internal research report at one time that showed Deere was actually working on an interesting rotary combine design at the Tech Center in the early 1950's. That is Fifties. The reason you will not find patents on any of the early work is that patents were not filed. Once you file a patent application it does two things: 1) Starts the clock ticking on patent life which now is 20 years from the date of filing I believe but at the time was 17 years from the date of issue....or something like that. Please don't quote those numbers. Something that is so different may not make it from the patent filing to production for 10 years or more in a large company system at which time you would only have 7 years or so of protection left. 2) Let's every one in the industry have an advance notice of what you are working on/future products. A common policy among R&D companies is to work on things but not make them public with patents. As long as it is still in an "active" development project, but NOT disclosed in public, you can always file for a patent later. Richard "Dick" DePauw was the engineer at IH whose name is on the main IH rotary patent. When IH went down the tubes financially and started moving people all over the place he came over to work at John Deere and was my boss for a time at John Deere Harvester Works engineering. He was a fine man to work for and was careful never to cross work done at IH with work done at JD. He worked on other things. JD did NOT hire him for his IH knowledge. He was an experienced combine engineer which are not all that common and worked mostly on platforms and testing as I recall. An unrelated comment: The elephants ears/auger rotor feed section debate is not as simple as it sounds. There are advantages and disadvantages to each system. IH's patent clearly tied up the elephant ears. One of the absolutely fascinating things about agricultural combine design is the wide range of both crops and conditions of each of those crops that a combine is expected to perform in. From down rice to standing wheat and 35% moisture corn to green soybeans - it is an engineering balancing act. Add to that the need to be able to function as a large grain truck, a cleaning system and to be stable and safe with a light 15' cutting platform as well as a heavy 12 row corn head way out front and combines are an engineer's dream... or nightmare. Maybe that is why folks are so interested in this subject even after 40-50 years or more? Jim at Dawn
Edited by Jim 1/17/2011 22:01
|
|
| |
|
It made a Crop | Jim, Thanks for sharing that info. I've seen were the patents reference application serial #nnn,nnn or might refernence an appilication # so or so that was later withdrawn. I'm just posting this info to show people that Deere didn't overlook Rotary design nor Massey for that matter.
|
|
| |
|
It made a Crop | Oh Jim, one other question did you work on the rotor that has the looks of an Apollo or Mercury Space Capsule?
 (4198802_Axial_flow_rotary_separator_for[1] John Deere 1977_Page_01 web.jpg)
Attachments
----------------
4198802_Axial_flow_rotary_separator_for[1] John Deere 1977_Page_01 web.jpg (82KB - 754 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Driftless SW Wisconsin | No, I did not work on the "conical rotary" design you pictured. That design work was just prior to my time there. I am familiar with that design however and I worked with the people who had been on that project. I think you will see the names of Ed and John as inventors. I believe that is a situation where Deere DID file for a patent as you show but well after deciding NOT to put it in production...it was a "dead" project by the 1977 date shown on your picture. Jim at Dawn
Edited by Jim 1/17/2011 23:09
|
|
| |
|
| This picture was not take in 1962, that's for sure. |
|
| |
|
It made a Crop | Just re-reading this tread after Land_Surfer's post. Didn't Curtis Bladwin break away from his brother and Gleaner to work on Rotary design. I know there is rotary threshing and/or separation design pattens dating back into the 1880s.
I didn't post this orginaly for any other reason then to show people that Deere had R&D on Rotors before New Holland, IH Gleaner and White brought them to market. As for pro John Deere only Green piece of equipment on this farm in the past 60 years was a Max-Merge for a while. LOL Raised around Gleaners. |
|
| |
|
| Just ask International Harvester about rushing new equipment into production! Ex: The New World Of Power line of tractors. Well, that's not possible sorry. Now take a look at John Deere and it's New Generation of Power. Sure Deere may have been last to develop a 4 or 6 cylinder engine In a tractor... Doesn't matter. What matters is they took the time and made damn sure it was going to be the best ever and no one could argue that. Harold Brock said that is why he came to Deere after Henry Ford fired him. Ford rushed the Select O Speed transmission into production and Brock was against that. He knew it was not ready for production yet and it wasn't. He said Deere gave him as much time as needed to design, develop and test a powershift transmission that worked. I once read a saying that said "It is easier to explain price once than to apologize for quality forever." |
|
| |
John Deere's Rotary Design work prior to 1962.
