Ok, ok. I must apologize for giving you guys the wrong information the first time around. I read the info somewhere and it stuck in my brain. I did a little more research on this ISO specification thing, and we were totally off. I have no idea where the geometry thing came from, but that isn’t correct. I removed all the posts with the incorrect information, so later on nobody reads bad info before scrolling down to see the correct info.
Grain tank capacity: The ISO spec is actually very simple and accurate. Basically it says that you need to fill the grain tank as you would normally (via the clean grain elevator) until grain starts to run over the sides. Then you unload that, and check the bushels that were unloaded. You have to do several tests and average them.
Unload capacity: Basically you need to have the whole machine running (header, rotor, etc). With a full grain tank, you start unloading and start a stop watch at the same time. You keep timing until the flow starts to slow down right before it is empty. Divide the bushels unloaded by the time it took. Of course you have to do this a few times and average the numbers.
The ISO spec isn’t all that old, so I’d guess that when the 8010 first came out, not a lot of time was spent on numbers. In this case, it is better to under estimate than over estimate. Nothing changed on the 8010’s grain tank size or unload rate, it just finally got an accurate test, and then probably took a while to update all the marketing materials.
Again, I apologize for giving anyone the wrong idea in my previous (now removed) post. I hate to see inaccurate information spread across the Internet. Bad information is worse than no information at all.
Please keep in mind that typically a standard crop is used (wheat) and it is to be at a certain moisture due to the angle of repose. Basically the wetter the grain the higher you can stack it before it runs over thus increasing your capacity. All of this should be found in the ISO standard as well to put everyone on the same playing field. There is more to the standard than whats listed above.
Don, malicious intent isn't the reason. Redistribution of information that is incorrect is the reason I removed the posts. I could have left everything there, but then somebody may have read just enough to get the wrong idea. I could have edited the garbage out of the posts, but then there wouldn't be much left. So just removing all the bad information seemed like a good idea.
Point taken Lance. It's just that regular follower's of "100 most recent posts" had already read them, but for longer term, I guess you made the right decision. By the way my figures lie and liars figure post was meant as a joke.
Speaking of 100 posts I see sometimes there more than 100 per day, any thought of raising that number or posts last 75 hours during the busy times?
Thanks for backing me on Metric Anniversary. Created more good discussion than I thought it would. I didn't expect much support and I didn't expect any from USA. You are a forward thinker.
Congratulation's Lance. Just noticed 1000 Posts. Party on dude!!!
I removed all the posts with the incorrect information, so later on nobody reads bad info before scrolling down to see the correct info.
Sorry Lance, I get it. But to LOSE previous posts strikes me as the wrong approach. Too admit that you were simply wrong as per your interpretation of facts at the time of writing does not, to me indicate any malicious intent. I, along with most readers of this forum understand that mistakes can be made in or out of discussions here. YOU are not a computer, you are a human being.