Shredder Discusion

We are back! This page was temporarily closed for proprietoy purposes, but management has decided to put further emphasis on other pursuits! 

I'll work with anyone that wants to improve effective fiber through shredding Corn Silage, this is an open page to everyone.

You yourself may want a local machine shop to do the custom work, but we think doing several KISS Shredders will be able to customize shredders at or below "local" machine shops that are doing a "once" custom job.

Before continuing, everyone should read the following to get a perspective of the challenges and potential gains related to shredding Corn Silage vs. Kernel Processing




(The author decided to start his college in Secondary Ag Education vs that as an Ag Engineer and considers himself a KISS back yard engineer).

So what can be learned from the article?

First, let's make some assumptions!

The first being that we are doing SWAG, but looking at the figures, let's assume we are no farther off than 25%! Let's assume we have, via a BIG new forage harvester 800 HP available 700 of which is used. (We don't make it grunt or exceed 800 HP and stall the unit so 700HP is probably realistic)

Let's assume traditional CS takes

100HP to move the machine?

100 HP to run the head?

200 HP to run knives

200 HP to run the KP (55/45) 120HP to run top roller 80 HP the lower

100 HP to run the accelerator (Blower)

Let's assume any forage harvester with a kernel processor runs about the same ratios, whether they be a 150 HP pull type forage harvester or our 800 HP unit, the challenges to modify a kernel processor to shredder are all going to be about the same.

Referring back to our article, they were essentially doubling the speed of the top roller in relation to the bottom roller and doubling the length of cut!

That would mean, they had an extra 100HP available to the shredder, yet they admitted it took extra power to shred vs kernel process.

That would mean it took 300+ HP to run the shredder! Why?

A) It just did! Meaning the power requirements to shred exceed that of cutting the material twice and kernel processing 

B) We are undersized or are not as efficient as we could be with our shredding (more with less)! The shredder just can't shred fast enough causing a back up of material and a "stall" requiring the chopper operator to slow forward movement.

If we take the "A" position (and they have kept the bottom roller turning at factory, around 80 MPH, the upper is turning at approximately 200 MPH) Impacts alone and variation in impact speed are going to shred the raw material and if our existing processor rollers are in good shape, merely  doubling roller speed will get(as in their case) the job done.

We at Pleasant Creek Hay Equipment are taking the "B" position. We think the lower roller is turning to slow stalling the output.

What does your processor look like? It might be feasable to rework the gearing using the existing processor rollers. Instead we think, because there is (at least on JD's well over an inch of maximum clearance 1.2" ) adding an inch to the total roller diameter would (in the case of JD keep roller clearance at .7") keep well within tollerance.

Adding an inch (and effectively surface area and capacity to the processor),

a) We'd either keep our existing bottom roller, reworking the upper

b) make new 60:40 rollers, with a twist! A real twist! Effectively adding length and shear to the rollers. Our surface area speed will be .8 x 45% =36% and 1.2 x 55% = 66 %, 35:65. Those are figures of less variation then there 30:70 ratio.

We think by running our roller speeds faster and having a greater MPH variation and with a counter twist, we can match or exceed the "shred of their 30:70 ratio shredder.  

You kernel processed at 100 MPH, we think we have to shred with a 100 MPH variation between top and bottom rollers to maximize through put!

How are we going to accomplish this? What is your current lubrication?

A) From pictures it would appear a new Class 494 has oil lube. in some cases we are going to be turning shafts at close to 6000 RPM. We are going to have to modify any processor to oil lube that isn't already.

B) WE are increasing the power requirements of the top roller substantially! We need to increase shaft size by at least 50% increasing torque abilities to 225%, other wise among other things, even though the roller might hold up for a season, fatique may set in and we'll lose the shaft. Likewise, we will need to "work" the drive gear to accomadate the larger shaft size.

C) How heavy? Lighter is better! This isn't a stationary unit! It may be going down the field at 5-10 MPH, but the outside surface is spinning at 200 MPH! Hit a bump or a dip and that 250 lb object breaks even our larger bearings, going around corners tends to run the gyroscope heavy against the bearings sides pushing the most secure shaft through the bearing! We'd like to cut the weight by 25% at least using either a chromed alluminum upper roller or titanium chromed! (as of 7/3/12 we are unsure of this as an alternative to a larger heavier upper roller, but it is a concern)

D) 300 HP and 50% faster! Reduce the drive gear size by 1/3? Maybe, but we think we have to at least match the drive gear size and increase the driven by 50 % and prefer increasing drive by 50% and driven by 225%, 40% and 200% to maintain power sufficient to turn our "new" 300 HP shredder.

E) The unit itself! How is it mounted in the machine?

a) We think the forage harvester itself should be on a Tire Pressure Control System, alleviating some of the shock of field conditions.

b) WE think the Unit should be pressure Spring mounted, top and bottom vs a heavy mounting to the frame