Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A New Grid Bar Design for a Modified Cylinder Cleaner. Sanh Le, Ph. D. U. S. Cotton Research Unit Stoneville, MS. Objective. Design a seed-cotton and lint cleaner that: is non aggressive preserves fiber properties yields high turnout cleans efficiently - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A New Grid Bar Design for a Modified Cylinder Cleaner
Sanh Le, Ph. D.
U. S. Cotton Research Unit
Stoneville, MS
Objective
• Design a seed-cotton and lint cleaner that:– is non aggressive– preserves fiber properties– yields high turnout– cleans efficiently
• Evaluate two seed-cotton packing methods
Test Method
• Test 1– 3 cleaner treatments– 2 varieties– 2 packing methods
Ginning sequence
Feed control Dryer
Seedcotton
Stick machine
Seed cotton
Gin standLint cleaners Condenser
Lint
Cylinder cleaner
Dryer
Cylinder cleaner
Modified Cylinder cleaner
Lint cleanersW/ 1 grid bar
45 degrees
1 in.
0.5 in.
Chisel-shape grid bar
Gap between bars: narrow (0.25 in.) or wide (0.375 in.)
FC
CC
SM, TM
MCC or SLC
Condenser, baler
EFGS
FC
MCC
SM, TM
MCC or SLC
Condenser, baler
EFGS
Test 1 Test 2
Step 1:seed cleaning
Step 2:lint cleaning
NFCCNCCCWCCC
NCHCCWCHCC
Cleaner treatments
1. Hybrid lint cleaner* with wide gap chisel-shape grid bars (WCHLC)
2. Hybrid lint cleaner with narrow gap chisel-shape grid bars (NCHLC)
3. Saw-type lint cleaner (SLC)
*Six-cylinder cleaner + saw-type lint cleaner with one grid bar
Varieties
• Hairy-leaf variety (STV4892)
• Smooth-leaf variety (DPL555)
Packing methods
• By hand
• Suction pipe
Experiment
• Split plot with cleaner treatments as the main unit.
• 30 runs with 3 replications
Test 2: 2 stepsStep 1: seed-cotton cleaning
• 3 Seed cotton cleaning treatments
Step 2: lint cleaning• 3 lint cleaning treatments (same as Test 1)------------------------------------------------------• 2 varieties• 2 packing methods
FC
CC
SM, TM
MCC or SLC
Condenser, baler
EFGS
FC
MCC
SM, TM
MCC or SLC
Condenser, baler
EFGS
Test 1 Test 2
Step 1:seed cleaning
Step 2:lint cleaning
NFCCNCCCWCCC
NCHCCWCHCC
Seed-cotton cleaner treatments
1. Modified cylinder cleaner with narrow gaps and flat, square grid bars (NFCC)
2. Modified cylinder cleaner with narrow gaps and chisel-shape grid bars (NCCC)
3. Modified cylinder cleaner with wide gaps and chisel-shape grid bars (WCCC)
Results
Source of variance
Reflectance Yellowness Leaf grade Trash area, % Uniformity,%
Cleaner treatment:
NCHLC
75.1b 8.5 3.2 a 0.040b 81.2
SLC
76.1a 8.6 3.0 b 0.035c 81.1
WCHLC
75.3b 8.5 3.3 a 0.046a 81.3
Varieties: STV4892
73.9b 9.0a 3.4 a 0.043 a 82.0a
DPL555
77.1a 8.0b 3.0 b 0.038 b 80.4b
Test 1, HVI
Source of variance Neps/g Seed coat neps/g Dust/gVisible foreign
matter, %
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC
289.2a 12.7 387.1ab 1.79a
SLC 260.8c 11.6 342.4b 1.31b
WCHLC 275.3b 12.1 412.7a 1.95a
Cultivar :STV4892 206.0b 14.4a 403.0 1.79a
DPL555 344.2a 9.9b 358.5 1.57b
Packing : Hand 271.0b 12.5 375.3 1.69
Pipe 279.2a 11.8 386.1 1.67
Test 1, AFIS
Source of varianceUpper quartilelength(w), cm
Short fiber content(w), %
Fineness,mTex
Maturity ratio, %
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC
2.90 8.48 167.8 0.869
SLC 2.90 8.41 167.9 0.870
WCHLC 2.90 8.42 167.8 0.869
Cultivar : STV4892 2.92a 7.23b 179.3a 0.892a
DPL555 2.88b 9.64a 156.4b 0.846b
Packing : Hand 2.90 8.51 168.3 0.870
Pipe 2.90 8.36 167.4 0.869
Test 1, AFIS
Seed-cotton cleaning
Source of variance
Strength, g/tex Reflectance Leaf grade Length, cm
Seed-cotton treatments:
NFCC
28.0b 75.2a 3.7a 2.76 b
NCCC 28.5a 75.0ab 3.6a 2.76b
WCCC 28.2ab 74.8b 3.4b 2.77a
Test 2, HVI
Micronaire Reflectance Yellowness Leaf grade Trash area, %
Lint cleaner treatments:
NCHLC4.4 74.8b 8.6a 3.6a 0.047b
SLC 4.4 75.5a 8.7a 3.4b 0.039c
WCHLC 4.4 74.7b 8.5b 3.7a 0.056a
Cultivars:
STV4892 4.3a 74.0b 8.9a 3.7a 0.049
DPL555 4.4b 76.0a 8.3b 3.4b 0.046
Packing :
Hand 4.4a 75.3a 8.6 3.5 0.047
Pipe 4.4b 74.7b 8.6 3.6 0.047
Test 2, HVI
Source of varianceShort fiber
content(w), %Fineness,
mTexMaturity ratio, %
Seed-cotton treatments: NFCC 8.00 167.9 0.872
NCCC 7.97 167.8 0.872
WCCC 8.17 166.8 0.868
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC 8.09 167.6 0.871
SLC 8.02 167.0 0.870
WCHLC 8.07 168.0 0.872
Cultivar:STV4892 6.95b 178.3a 0.892a
DPL555 9.15a 156.8b 0.850b
Packing: Hand 8.11 167.7 0.872
Pipe 7.99 167.4 0.870
Test 2, AFIS
Source of variance Neps/g Seed coat neps/g Dust/gVisible foreign
matter, %
Seed-cotton treatments: NFCC
248.6b 12.0 401.8 1.83
NCCC 253.8ab 12.9 412.9 1.86
WCCC 262.5a 13.1 399.2 1.90
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC
260.0a 13.0ab 423.9ab 1.95b
SLC 245.2b 11.7b 352.1b 1.55c
WCHLC 262.8a 13.4a 438.0a 2.09a
Cultivar: STV4892 205.2b 15.3a 417.1 2.06
DPL555 304.2a 10.1b 392.1 1.67
Packing: Hand 249.2b 12.7 401.4 1.87
Pipe 260.7a 12.6 407.9 1.86
Test 2, AFIS
Source of varianceLint turnout, %
Cleaner waste,kg/bale
Cleaning efficiency, %Based on visible waste
(Shirley Analyzer)
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC
38.3a 3.53b 34.3b
SLC 37.5b 7.97a 47.3a
WCHLC 38.0ab 3.27b 30.8b
Cultivar: STV4892 37.7b 4.34b 37.1
DPL555 38.2a 5.51a 37.9
Packing : Hand 38.1 5.05a 39.6
Pipe 37.8 4.79b 35.4
Test 1
Cleaned lint in waste, % Visible waste in waste, %
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC 21.3c 75.9a
SLC 47.6a 51.1c
WCHLC 27.3b 70.6b
Cultivar: STV4892 31.0b 67.0a
DPL555 33.1a 64.8b
Packing : Hand 32.7 65.2
Pipe 31.4 66.5
Test 1
Source of varianceLint turnout, %
Cleaner waste,kg/bale
Cleaning efficiency, %Based on visible waste
(Shirley Analyzer)
Seed cotton treatments: NFCC 39.57 4.65 9.80cw
NCCC 39.59 4.69 18.9b
WCCC 39.65 4.59 26.8a
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC
40.0a 3.16b 28.7b
SLC 39.0b 7.59a 52.5a
WCHLC 39.8a 3.19b 27.8b
Cultivar : STV4892 39.46 4.56 34.81a
DPL555 39.75 4.73 37.89b
Packing : Hand 39.69 4.66 37.48a
Pipe 39.52 4.63 35.22b
Test 2
Cleaned lint in waste, % Visible waste in waste, %
Seed cotton treatments: NFCC 31.3 67.2
NCCC 31.0 63.2
WCCC 32.1 65.7
Lint cleaner treatments: NCHLC 22.3b 74.9a
SLC 44.4a 54.1c
WCHLC 27.7b 67.1b
Packing : Hand 31.1 67.3a
Pipe 31.8 63.5b
Test 2
Conclusion
• Chisel-shape grid bars clean seed cotton more efficiently than flat, square grid bars
• Hybrid lint cleaners– Yield higher turnout (14.3 lb/bale), without
compromising classer’s grade– Loss less fiber in waste (50% of SLC)– Provide similar fiber quality, except neps,
seed coat neps and cleaning efficiency
Variety effects
• Smooth-leaf variety– Is easier to clean (low VFM)– Had higher fiber strength, reflectance, neps
and short fiber content– Had lower seed coat neps, fiber length,
fineness and maturity ratio
Seed-cotton packing methods
• No difference in trash level resulted from packing methods
• Hand packed method had higher mike, cleaning efficiency and visible waste in waste
• Packing methods did not affect fiber properties, except – Hand packed seed cotton was higher in
reflectance and lower in neps
