What a good idea that system would work really well on a stripper header, has it ever been tried on one?Another thing I have done which gave me immense pleasure was working with New Holland to develop the Dual Stream Header. It was their idea and concept which we first tested in 2013. Then in 2014 it nearly got scrapped because it wouldn't fit on a Combine using tracks. So I came up with the idea of changing this
View attachment 473796
into thisView attachment 473798
The trouble was that removing the Central Rollers and Frame meant that the whole knife carrying assembly lost rigidity, because the knife itself is very flexible. The Single acting ram lifting mechanisms would jam and prevent the system from being lowered from its upper transport position (to enable it to be put on the Header trailer) to its lower working position.
So I converted the system to Double acting to force it to go down. Having done so, I could now fit a 3rd ram over the heavy drive gearbox on the RHS to take its weight, rather that leave it drooping whilst in the upper position.
As my machine was a prototype, New Holland were reluctant to do these modifications themselves. Because having proved that DS works just as well without Rollers, they scrapped the prototype and sold it to me. So it was up to me to find the solution.
For the 2015 production models, New Holland solved the problem by fitting 4 of their lifting assemblies, being 2 on each side.
Removing those central Rollers also had another huge advantage. Being that we no longer needed a very expensive and complicated Header Trailer, with wheels at each end rather than a Tandem axle trailer with wheels just aft of the middle. This alone will save future NH DS users more than £10,000!
Just to make sure it would work, rather than buying a Header trailer, we copied a well known brand, and slightly modified it so that the DS Knife now rests on its own bit of trailer frame. This is the one shown on that video.
We enjoyed building that too!
Home made machines
- Thread starter Griff
- Start date
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Would be the same wouldnt it, just cuts each stalk off once?
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Yes @Griff, it has been tried on a stripper header by a Dairy farmer in Cheshire who uses a Stripper header on a SP forage harvester, harvesting (whole-crop) Barley.
His idea was to be able to row up the straw and bale it. But of course once the wheels of the forager, let alone the tractor and trailers had run over the straw and squashed it to the ground, he couldn't pick it up again. Causing even more of a problem for subsequent cultivations.
So he fitted exactly the same DS knife but without the Rollers to cut the straw before any wheels pushed it to the ground.
However, his straw is much longer behind a stripper header than a Combine header and it struggles to clear the knife fast enough. Worse still, the Stripper header bends the straw forward which prevents it from hitting the knife upright, causing even more of a problem.
Here is another video (sorry it is a bit amateurish!) made by me which explains how and why a Dual Steam knife works on a Combine and the dramatic effect it has on harvesting capacity.
The trouble is that NH is run by Fiat's accountants. Who would rather sell you a bigger Combine with the same capacity as one fitted with a DS, but costing £75 - £100k more. In other words, they would preffer to sell you a Flagship Combine fitted with a conventional header, than a Mid-range Combine fitted with DS (costing about £1k/foot of width).
What they forget is that there might be some farmers who use other brands of Combine and who can't afford to renew it, but might be able to afford to buy a smaller NH fitted with DS instead at vastly lower cost.
But it wouldn't surprise me that DS is quietly forgotten by NH. UNLESS their customers demand it!
Which I think is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE when you consider that the International Machinery Manufacturers Association (IMMA), awarded it their GOLD medal at the 2015 Cereals Event!
Last edited:
I know the situation, the rape drill of mine at the start of this thread was a project with simba Great Plains that was shelved for much the same reasons, the Americans decided they had bigger and better machines to do the job. Pity really as not everyone wants a huge heavy shiny machine to do a relitavely simple task. Am thinking of producing a few of those particular machines for sale myself, I think they would be popular.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
You hit the nail on the head there @Griff!
The trouble is that the guy in charge of NH Headers Worldwide is an American. He is a really nice guy, but he is of course much more used to US conditions where straw is nothing like as long or crops so dense as ours in Europe.
So it was (and I think remains) really difficult to persuade him of all the benefits of DS.
Fuel is also much cheaper in the US. When you consider that our DS reduces MOG (Material other than Grain), thus increasing wheat harvesting capacity by 50%, that means we use 33% less fuel and 33% of harvesting time.
New Holland won't quote those figures because they'd rather sell you their bigger, more expensive, thirstier combine that does the same job.
I also have to point out that my figures are based on a Conventional Straw Walker Combine.
And What is the limiting factor on any Straw Walker Combine? The Straw Walkers.
DS in effect reduces the MOG straw to make the sieves the limiting factor.
However, I am still sure that it will give a 25% increase in capacity on a Rotary (CR) Combine.
The CR10.90 broke the Guinness world record in 2015 achieving 797.656 tonnes in 8 Hours.
I believe that if it were fitted with a DS header, it could break the 1,000 tonne barrier!
Quite agree!! Impressive performance figures those. I do believe that the big manufacturers have little regard for farmers actual needs and produce machinery that suits their own production and sales needs and then markets what they believe is the solution, unfortunately that usually means a more expensive machine. I am a big believer in keeping things simple and reliable and ultimately affordable.
dannewhouse
Member
- Location
- huddersfield
How much does the 9cm of "lost" straw equate to in kg/ton per acre or bales per acre?
as a livestock/ mixed farm we like to maximise our straw yield as well as grain but I see potential in this design
as you have stated the lowest 9cm of straw is going to be the wettest with the most weeds so isn't necessarily missed. if this could be quantified to say 5 or 10% most stock farmers wouldn't bother (even if it started as 25% less but due to drier straw equated to 10% loss of usefull bedding?)
I agree with you the design will probably be dropped due to the want to sell larger combines than smaller better specked machines
as a livestock/ mixed farm we like to maximise our straw yield as well as grain but I see potential in this design
as you have stated the lowest 9cm of straw is going to be the wettest with the most weeds so isn't necessarily missed. if this could be quantified to say 5 or 10% most stock farmers wouldn't bother (even if it started as 25% less but due to drier straw equated to 10% loss of usefull bedding?)
I agree with you the design will probably be dropped due to the want to sell larger combines than smaller better specked machines
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
Thats why the trailed combines were quietly axed about 15yrs ago, too cheap, too reliable and not flashy enough.
Go on tell us more then
glasshouse
Member
- Location
- lothians
the american combine makers stopped making them.
kidd had a prototype trailed combine which kverneland binned when they bought them out.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
I'd say it's about 12% in wheat or winter barley. But in weight it'd be more because it's the wettest straw.
I can assure you that you don't want to bale this straw because it is wet and has to be left to dry before you can bale it.
So you bale sooner but with less and drier straw. You cart less, stack less and need less to litter a yard because it has a greater absorbency level.
On top of which you are returning more organic matter to the field by not removing it as bales.
ill put my hands up immediately and say that i know little to nothing about combines or growing grain but im friendly with a few lads that do grow it.
dannewhouse put a point forward in his post that ive heard the lads talk about.
they say the straw helps with the income so altho your machine is a damn good idea is there not a loss there for the farmer.
i know you say that the straw lower to the ground will be damper and not what you want in a bale but id guess that if your harvesting to a acceptable moisture percentage then its going to be fairly dry and an extra day to dry it wouldn't be the end of the world to dry it out and you'd benefit from the extra bales.
now maybe straw is so low in price in the uk that the fertilizer benefits outweigh the loss or there is that much of it not many want it for all i know but id say someone will put me straight on that.
like i say, im working off limited knowledge here.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
No, you are thinking perfectly logically, very intelligently and are quite right to raise this question.
I love it when people are really thinking properly and pose questions exactly like this.
Straw does help with the income and DS does reduce the amount of straw/acre you will bale. BUT:
DS is obviously useful in taller crops, like Rape, Wheat, Rye and Winter Barley. Not so much in shorter Spring Barley and not at all in Peas & Beans.
Assuming a crop of wheat is 80 cm tall, a conventional header would cut it at about 11 cm from the ground so you will bales 69 cm of it. This 11 cm is also the height that the DS knife is set to leave the finished stubble at.
When using a DS, the Primary (Normal header) knife now cuts the wheat 9-15 cm above the DS knife. The straw that is in effect cut twice, we call the Dual straw.
So losing 9 cm of Dual straw from being baled is about 13% of the 69 cm of straw you would normally bale.
Losing 15 cm of Dual Straw from being baled is about 22% of the 69 cm of straw you would normally bale. You would only be at 15 cm Dual straw early in the morning and late at night as the Dew appears. That Dew works its way from the ground upwards as it appears and visa versa.
There is another very important point here. Inside a Combine, due to the threshing mechanism, moisture transfers from wet straw to the grain, making it wetter before it gets to the grain bin (tank). Keil University have proven that this will be between 0.6 and 1% more moisture. So there is a potential drying cost saving here too.
Back to your question re loss of income of Straw:
1. If you are a farmer baling your own straw for litter, you will bale 13% less straw. But this is dryer straw and the further up the stem it is, the more absorbent it is (due to the leaves). Yes, you could leave it a day or two to dry the lower straw out, but that lower straw will never absorb as much.
We have a chap called Bob who rents some buildings from us to keep beef cattle in. In 2013 when we first used DS, I was very worried that he would not have enough straw from the acreage we sell him, to litter his cattle. BUT by Spring 2014, he actually has straw left in his stack. This was because the straw he had was so much better than normal. He spent less time littering, because he needed less. He had also spent less time, baling and carting it.
2. If you are selling your straw behind the Combine, the baling Contractor is chuffed to bits because he can bale it right behind the Combine. He is charging by the bale and is travelling much faster and baling each bale (even) much quicker. So he is pleased. He earns more £/hour with his baler.
There are less bales to load onto lorries and the tonnage of straw /acre will be less. So there could be an income reduction here.
However, if that straw is being used for burning as a Renewable Energy source, these Energy companies have got very wise to moisture levels of the straw and realise that it takes a lot of energy from the (upper) drier part of the straw to dry the (lower) wetter (Dual?) straw enough before it will burn. So they will now want to pay you on Dry Matter. Therefore you are better off to leave the Dual straw on the field. What they are interested in is Calorific value/kg.
DS works by keeping MOG (Material other than Grain) outside of the Combine.
On a Straw Walker Combine, it stops the Walkers from being the capacity limiting factor (grain tonnes/hour) and allows the sieves to work at maximum capacity, which now becomes the limiting factor.
However once the sieves have reached their maximum capacity, you lower the primary knife down enough until you start to see Walker losses appear again. Combines do need some straw to work efficiently. If you want to bale more straw, then keep lowering that primary knife until you start to see more Walker losses. A DS knife will happily cope with Dual Straw up to about 20 cm in wheat. Above and beyond that, it will struggle to clear the Double cut straw (Dual straw) fast enough from the knife in dense straw crops like wheat. With Rape you can happily cut up to just bellow the lowest pods. DS will happily cope with taller Rape Dual straw, because there are less stems/square metre here.
On a Rotary Combine, the same applies, but for the fact that there are no Walkers to limit capacity. But using a DS still seriously reduces MOG to allow the grain pan and sieves to work far more efficiently, therefore increasing capacity.
Rotary Combines are more efficient than Straw Walker Combines. But they do mangle the straw up far more, which can be a disadvantage. Particularly if that straw gets rained on before it is baled. It takes a lot longer to dry it out.
Which makes Rotary Combine more useful to you if you are chopping all your straw.
So my argument is this:
If you want to bale your straw, why not use a (cheaper to buy) Conventional Combine, then chose a smaller mid range version fitted with a DS header (which is still cheaper than a Rotary or the equivalent larger Conventional) and get the same output in capacity grain tonnes/hour for less purchase cost?
Does that make sense?
dannewhouse
Member
- Location
- huddersfield
and bale a less amount of higher quality (drier) straw to provide an equivalent amount of "useful" straw
personally I don't see the 1k per foot value for the ds as a 24 ft header would be 24k extra still seems dear for the bit of extra metal involved? I know new technology/ unique modifications cost more than mass produced machines
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
Must admit that I see you point and sympathise with it. There is quite a lot to it and you would only appreciate how much when you actually get to see one. Incredibly cleverly designed with the lower knife spacing wider than the top to reduce vibration. Far less so than a conventional knife and finger system, only needing 4 HP over 30 ft to drive it.
The knife itself has been around for a long time. Commonly uses on dredging buckets to remove reeds from rivers and canals. So it is very robust and will deal with dirt and stones easily.
Then there is the drive system and the lifting system too. The Rollers are vital either side of the wheels and/or tracks, to push the Dual Straw to the ground and make it rot. Without these the straw would sit on top of the stubble and create a nightmare for subsequent cultivations. The wheels/tracks do the same job. Between the wheels, the swathed straw landing on the stubble or the momentum immediately behind the chopper, push the Dual Straw to the ground.
It is all mechanical. The only electrics involved are a solenoid operated hydraulic diverter valve to take oil from the Vari-feed circuit to the DS lifting assembly circuit and a switch in the cab. Vari-feed is still useful but distances are roughly halved
It did take considerable thinking about and design changes to perfect the system.
What we were expecting was about a 25% increase in capacity. So we use a 25 ft version to replace our 20 ft normal header.
What we found was that we were travelling 20% faster, despite the fact that the header is 25% wider! So in effect the cost is worsened by the fact that you need a header that costs up up to 25% more PLUS £1k/foot additional for the DS.
Or you will need very flat fields with no tram-line ruts and be prepared to be travelling at a very high forward speed.
These costs are still well below what the cost of an equivalent non DS Combine will be, that achieves the same capacity.
Not only do you get the same capacity for less purchase cost. You also get less wear on the header and the internal parts of rest of the Combine. There is far less chance of any foreign objects entering the combine, The crop is drier, requiring less drying,
Fuel used is 33% less and harvesting time is 33% quicker (than the same size combine without a DS fitted).
New Holland won't quote figures as high as these. But I am the guy who had used a DS more than anybody else in the world and these are my experiences. But even their figures still make sense.
So all in all @dannewhouse , I would agree that it does at first appear expensive for what it is, until you work it out, try it and see all the benefits.
I don't work for NH and don't get paid for any of this.
I am incredibly lucky to have been involved with the whole project and now I have my own, which I think I have earned.
I couldn't bare the thought of not having it!
I'm just telling you my experiences and what I see of it.
To me, It's a no-brainer!
In the last 60 years of Combine design and development, nothing else has ever created anything like as much as much of an improvement in capacity as the DS system!
PS
I have thoroughly enjoyed every bit of being part of the DS development. But I have had even more pleasure in making the prototype I ended up with work properly, designing and building its unique lifting assembly and building the Header trailer to fit it on.
IMO there is no greater pleasure than seeing something you know that you can improve on, then building it and making it work. Even more so than actually using it!
Last edited:
I think he helped Nh develop and test the prototype. He now owns that prototype. NH sell the headers.
yep, he owns the prototype but would it not of been NH's idea?
i was wondering would Nh not have a claim on the original idea/concept tho.
just a question is all.
- Location
- Moreton-in-Marsh, Glos
DS was New Hollands own invention, not mine. They came to me in 2013 and asked if I would like to be involved with testing one of 4 prototypes. My 25ft on a CX6080 mid range, two 30ft headers fitted on CR machines working in Germany and another 30ft working on a Case AFX in Kent.
Because the project was nearly scrapped in 2014, due to the invention of the 41 ft (12 metre) header which could only be used with tracked combines, the project designer and leader modified our prototype by removing the central Rollers to see if the system would still work. It did. But ours was the only prototype working in 2014.
In 2015 New Holland started to build production models and offered me our prototype for scrap value. There were several problems with our prototype, because it was originally designed to have full width frame and rollers. So I had to modify our model to make it properly lift into transport position and lower into work correctly. Production model lifting systems are quite different from my prototype, because they were specifically designed for a DS with no central Rollers.
At the same time, I also showed NH that DS would fit on a slightly modified conventional Header trailer.