|
Manitoba, Canada | I really don't know much about the JD design but the claim seems to be about the single tine separation concept, not the "rotary" concept. I would hazard a guess that the STS design has separation elements that was supposed to reduce the power required to separate the grain? Is that correct? I am assuming that because single tine makes it sound like increased room for material between the rotor and the cage. If so and power was the limiting factor at the time the claim could be made because it allowed the rotary concept to be closer to par with the conventionals in less than ideal conditions which would have been a big improvement at the time. Is the design of the elements of the single time separation significantly different than the CIH design? If so then they can lay claim to that concept of separation elements.
If I remember right I believe CIH claimed the bullet rotor was an improvement when it was introduced also.
I don't know why they would claim that it wasn't a rotary. I can think of a reason though. It appears that they spent many years testing out prototypes that they themselves called rotaries. It sounds like they didn't have much success with the early attempts. Maybe they wanted to create separation of their own failed "rotary" attempts from the new production versions. If people knew there were major issues with the design they would not want that negativity carried forward to the new design. It would kind of make sense that way. Maybe the comment wasn't made because of the IH model.
I really have no idea. I am just guessing and trying to figure out the truth. Maybe if I had read the claims at the time I would feel like others do also. I just find that sometimes the context that statements are made in can completely change the meaning.
| |
|
Can anyone post some of the JD literature...
