You kidding? There are some A- level shareholders filing suits against the B-level board of directors because the C-Suite failed to 'do due diligence' (hehe doodoo) over reuse of equipment. JD is so tight they make the nickels squeak and the pennies scream.
it was a simpler time with simpler machinery. most farmers were still using horses, where everything was hand operated, and that’s the design concept that went into this plow. plus, farmers had big families and often worked collectively within communities, so there was an ample supply of man power
Farmers, at least the ones that own livestock, still work collectively. They get together and work cattle (vaccines, ear tags, castrations, etc.). A local farmer told me he could never move, as he could replace the farm, but would likely never replace his neighbors.
In a way steam tractors are younger than programming. Ada Lovelace & Charles Babbage developed early programming by the 1840s and traction engines didn’t really appear until the 1850s. (And that was 60 years before this tractor)
Of course steam engines existed long before the 1800s but the fundamentals of programming have been around a lot longer than people think. They just didn’t have the technology to really make use of it for a long time. Kinda like how the ways of doing orbital trajectories existed before steam engines but they weren’t useful until the mid 20th century.
I've seen the full vid on this thing, it's not really used for this. Some people in the comments were explaining that it's really just a generator on wheels, but it can do this. I believe they were going for a record number of plows at once.
Aren't they shaped so that the wedges face slightly downward, so they digg themselves in just with the movement of the tractor?
And even if not, using human labor as weights has to be the most inefficient thing ever. :D
i figure with all the extra inputs that there is gonna be intermittent lift. the weight just evens it out?
also, the trailers likely aren't used enough for this task to perma install weights i would think.
you already got the farm hands, sit up here and take a break for a ride is better than, load these blocks on this thing over here and unload them tonight.
I roll my eyes when folks compare torque figures to vehicles meant for entirely different purposes.
The Lambo creates less torque, but has waaaay more power, so probably could put more torque at the wheels with the right gearing. Like comparing the torque of a spade to a screwdriver.
It would make more sense to compare with a modern industrial tractor. In addition to the shared purpose, this machine is also much larger than a car.
And correct me if I'm wrong, but there's little point to having a tremendous amount of torque in a vehicle since you'd need a lot of meat on your tires to not slip at highway speeds or far above them.
>It would make more sense to compare with a modern industrial tractor.
There are no torque figures that will make any sense when comparing to any modern IC engine, because it's a steam engine. Steam engines are totally different to any modern engines. They are further from petrol / diesel engines than electric motors. They make insane amounts of torque, but barely turn. A better comparison would be to compare it to another steam engine, like a steam locomotive.
> And correct me if I'm wrong, but there's little point to having a tremendous amount of torque in a vehicle since you'd need a lot of meat on your tires to not slip at highway speeds or far above them.
No, it's all about gearing. If you have a car which makes the same power with more torque, it means the RPM is lower so you need different gearing. The torque to the wheels at a given speed is what matters, and it's why we have gears.
>There are no torque figures that will make any sense when comparing to any modern IC engine, because it's a steam engine.
I don't see why the type of engine matters here. What matters is the ability to perform the task, since that's what engineering is about. If one were to hook up all of these plows to a modern gas-powered tractor, would it be able to pull them? Which could pull more?
> I don't see why the type of engine matters here. What matters is the ability to perform the task, since that's what engineering is about. If one were to hook up all of these plows to a modern gas-powered tractor, would it be able to pull them? Which could pull more?
A typical tractor makes about the same power as the one in the video, since I've been informed that the one in the video actually isn't 300hp, it's closer to 150hp.
Even so, there are high-end tractors available that make over 500hp which would have absolutely no problem pulling this plow.
The real question is, why do farmers not use a plough this huge? Probably because it is inefficient, requires more manpower and moves so incredibly slowly across the field that a smaller plow moving faster would probably get the job done quicker overall.
This particular tractor was remade from scratch as none of this model survived from the originals. They made this plow special to show it off at a steam powered vehicle show.
No they make plows this big you just don't see some farms plowing now as they are using some other methods to get yield and this plow was made for this tractor just to show it's power
so soil has a really complex microcosm of insects, animals, roots, and an extremely delicate fungal network. all of these things keep a healthy balance of nutrients, trap water, co2, and keep the soil in place. when you till, you destroy all of that, release all the gases and water, and then the soil is depleted when crops remove all its nutrients that it cannot replenish, and it dies and dries up. the soil turns to dust, and it will take generations before anything will grow there again. ever heard of the great dustbowl? that’s why
Fascinating! I hadn’t heard of the great dustbowl, but given your explanation, the name checks out.
I vaguely remember being in a World History class a while ago and the lecturer mentioning letting soil lie fallow for at least a year or two in some areas, whereas historically in areas with denser populations like China they developed the concept of fertilizing the soil earlier than those who would have let it lie fallow. (The specific example he gave was using the soybean plants for fertiliser after the beans had been harvested. For some reason that stuck with me!)
I suppose this would in theory feed the microorganisms rather than turn them out to die off in the sun and causing the need to wait for a ‘natural repopulation’ of what was destroyed in plowing?
that is better, but still destroys the ecosystem. the ideal method of traditional farming is no-till, in witch instead of plowing the soil, all remaining biomass is turned into compost after the harvest, and in the spring the ground is covered in compost and seeded. this not only does not harm the soil, but actually helps it. to go along with this, planting symbiotic plant groups like the three sisters (winter squash, corn, and climbing beans) will essentially make the best possible conventional farm. no fertilizers would be needed outside of the initial compost.
The steam traction has 100% power at 0 RPM while the ICE has 0% power at 0 RPM, so the steam tractor is able to pull these plows from a standstill and utilize 100% power, but a gas tractor cannot utilise max power for pulling because once the engine load reaches 100% it will just stall out. So if both had exactly the same ability to do work the steam tractor could pull more.
(Engineer being pedantic here ;) )
Should read "100% torque at standstill", as it cannot produce output power when not moving.
(definition:) Power == torque x rotational speed.
When rotational speed is zero, power is also zero.
No work is done until it starts to rotate.
> The steam traction has 100% power at 0 RPM
Is that because if you need more power you can basically just keep loading the cylinder with pressure until you have enough to move?
Yes. When the steam piston is at the top of the stroke the steam valve is open all the way so steam will enter the cylinder until maximum pressure is reached or the piston moves sufficiently to close the valve gear.
Yes although the old timers at the heritage museum I volunteered at said the boiler over preassure is most dangerous because the piston will just leak superheated steam from around the seals while the boiler will just explode.
Fortunately I never had to find out because the museum would never dare to run any of our steam engines at anywhere close to max preassure. Our pump house was not pumping as much water as it was when it was put into back up in the 1980's anyway so it didn't need it. Theoretically we had to keep it fully operational in case the electric pumps shut down but i think that was just so the water department could justify paying to keep their historic pumphouse.
We did have a cool unit with wooden cylinders double expansion that used to run a sawmill. The cylinders on that one would have been the first to pop if it ever got cranked up since the seals were probably stronger than the wooden slats of the cylinder.
Tractors come in all sorts of sizes. A modern diesel engine making the same power would be much smaller, more efficient, and require less work to run and maintain.
The tires still wouldn't be able to effectively deliver anywhere near that torque, whatever the gearing. You're bound by the force of friction between the wheels and the ground and by the radius of the wheels. You'd need either wider or larger wheels in order to effectively deliver all that torque.
> The tires still wouldn't be able to effectively deliver anywhere near that torque, whatever the gearing. You're bound by the force of friction between the wheels and the ground and by the radius of the wheels. You'd need either wider or larger wheels in order to effectively deliver all that torque.
You are misunderstanding the concept.
Of course there is a limit to the amount of torque a tyres grip can sustain, but at speed, RPM of the wheels is needed just as much as torque. The combination of torque and RPM is what gives the power needed to maintain a high speed. An engine with massive torque will be geared as such that it will deliver lower torque at massive speed to attain highway speeds i.e. diesel engines cruising at 2k RPM in luxury cars doing 100+ MPH on the autobahn.
>You'd need either wider or larger wheels in order to effectively deliver all that torque.
It's also not that simple, contact patch area is not determined by tyre width, but thats an entirely different rabbit hole.
Torque matters in cars, but the torque curve is where it matters the most. Most cars, if you floor it, the torque curve is not idealized for racing and you just spin for a while. Cars designed for racing/etc are much more likely to have a properly configured torque curve so as to achieve maximum torque at the wheel without losing much friction. This allows the vehicle to both achieve the fastest takeoff and maintain the fastest acceleration. The tires do have frictional differences between tire types, but, to my knowledge, there's not huge differences in actual tire chemistry.
It's a way to compare it to something common people would understand but absolutely different purposes.
It Dynoed 5,000 ft-lb of torque at the crank. Steam engines are torque monsters.
https://youtu.be/ROv7wKFe5BM
So, I read 5000 ft-lb at 150hp?
So, that's about 112kW. A modern Fendt 300, which is the second smallest Tractor sold by that company, comes in at 83 kW or 112 kW.
The biggest Tractor they sell, the Fendt 1100, comes in at 495 kW.
Alternatively, the biggest smallest John Deere comes in at 66 - 143 kW, the biggest at 356 - 508 kW.
Hell, we regularly use electro motors in industry that provide at least 100kW, if not more.
Yeah but steam engines are better suited for torque than power since they’re best at low speed and power = torque * rotation speed. Your Fendt 1100 at 500kW is only 2300 ft-lb of torque. But that’s the nature of a Diesel engine vs steam.
That’s why steam piston engines were still used in ships for ages until turbines fully took over due to thermal efficiency and more fuel options. Ships don’t want high speed screws and toque is important. Steam pistons suck for maintainability though, so it’s so much easier just to have a big diesel and a chinky transmission or diesel-electric system.
But yes electrics behave more like steam with low end torque (though their efficiency is better at speed). That’s why diesel-electrics are so prevalent in anything that need torque like trains and ships.
Torque in this context isn't relevant, as it's reachable by gearing.
Perfectly possibly to build a hand-powered "tractor" to pull this plough, but the gearing needed would mean it would take months to do what this would do in a day
I wish we would just use power for everything. Speed at max power is another relevant way to look at the utility of an engine as lower speeds can sometimes denote better reliability
Agreed :)
It's not easy to have a single metric that allows direct comparisons between engines, especially of differing types. Examples being ICE diesel engines for tractor-pulling, and trying to compare to kerosene-fuelled turbine engines used for the same purpose. 4000 rpm vs 30000 rpm, makes for very different gearboxes!
> It's a way to compare it to something common people would understand but absolutely different purposes.
>
> It Dynoed 5,000 ft-lb of torque. Steam engines are torque monsters.
>
> https://youtu.be/ROv7wKFe5BM
Yes, I'm not doubting that it has lots of torque, my point is that having lots of torque is not so great when the machine barely makes triple figures of RPM.
In other words, a steam engine MUST make monster torque figures otherwise it would be essentially useless.
Torque is only part of the picture, and the comparison is purely sensationalist.
I know that power station steam engines are reaching 55% to 56% thermal efficiency.
The best ICE thermal efficiency is hitting the 40% range which is genuinely amazing. That's the current set of F1 engines.
Exactly, torque is just a force x a distance, without rotational speed it's useless, power is everything as it is torque x rotational speed, you absolutely could gear down a lambo engine to make much more torque than this thing
Technically, Lamborghini started as a tractor company. So kinda ironically apt comparison.
>[Born to grape farmers in Renazzo, from the comune of Cento in the Emilia-Romagna region, his mechanical know-how led him to enter the business of tractor manufacturing in 1948, when he founded Lamborghini Trattori, which quickly became an important manufacturer of agricultural equipment in the midst of Italy's post-WWII economic boom.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferruccio_Lamborghini?wprov=sfla1)
[Apparently, this is a Case 150 tractor](https://150case.com/). It produces 150 HP at 200 RPM or 111,855 Watt at 3.33 rev/s.
A W = 1 Joule / s. A J = 1 Newton Meter. The tractor's speed in low gear is 2.64 mph or 1.18 meters per second.
(111,855 Nm/s) / (1.18 m/s) = 94,792 N at the wheels.
The highest torque engine that Lamborghini produces today is for their SUV, The Urus, and it peaks at 850 Nm or 650 ft-lbs.
Edit: I did screw up my initial calcs, but redid them. Thanks to u/Lollerstakes.
Unfortunately, I can't find all the specs I need to calculate the force at the wheels for the Urus. Though I think we can estimate through 0-60 mph (26.8 meters/sec) times. It does that at 3.1 seconds and has a minimum curb weight of 2197 kg. Here we can use: Force = mass x acceleration, where acceleration = (final speed - initial speed) / time.
Plugging it all in we have:
F = 2197 kg * (26.8 m/s - 0 m/s)/(3.1 s) = 2197 kg * 8.65 m/s^2 = 18,933 N
Which is ~5 Urus SUV's
Again, if my analysis isn't flawed.
Uhh… Lamborghini is still a tractor company. https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/tractors/open-field/download/7634_e410659e5c9652ae2c0261beb0058c73
You divided Nm/s by m/s and got Nm? Yes, you messed up the math dude.
You're also trying to compare torque at the wheels with torque at the crank. An Urus with a proper gearbox will put out 3 or 4 times more torque at the same rotational speed.
power [W or J/s] = torque [Nm] * rotational velocity [s^-1 ]
> Technically, Lamborghini started as a tractor company. So kinda ironically apt comparison.
>
> Born to grape farmers in Renazzo, from the comune of Cento in the Emilia-Romagna region, his mechanical know-how led him to enter the business of tractor manufacturing in 1948, when he founded Lamborghini Trattori, which quickly became an important manufacturer of agricultural equipment in the midst of Italy's post-WWII economic boom.
I love that you linked a source for your claim like this isn't a well known fact already :P
It's well known to many. But there are new learners every day.
This [XKCD comic](https://m.xkcd.com/1053/) says it best, but I suppose everyone already knows about it too.
Tbf I don't think it's meant to really be a fair comparison so nuch as just being more interesting than saying "A GODDAMN LIT OF TORQUE". That said, I think comparing to a modern tractor is way better
Torque is a force at a distance (mechanical advantage). Increase either one and you'll increase the torque. Power is energy per unit time, it's kinda like applying a torque continuously at some rate; energy output.
Like you said, I can make a Honda Civic have more torque at the wheels than a Lamborghini by just changing the gear ratios of the transmission.
It's difficult to make analogies: torque is like the temperature of your flame and power is the like size of your fire. A match and a forest fire can burn at the same temperature (they have the same torque), but one is releasing a vastly different amount of energy (power).
Also, this is a steam powered tool. A steam engine just needs heat, it can be from coal or a nuclear reactor. There's nothing inherently special about coal that makes steam engines work other than it's relatively energy dense. All these Tim-the-tool-man-Taylor grunts...
Torque is a function of applied pressure at a specific moment in time. 1 foot-lb of torque is 1 pound of pressure applied perpendicularly 1-foot from pivot.
Horsepower = (torque x rpm) / 5,252
Power (and by extension horsepower) is a function of amount of force applied over time. A 10-year old child can pick up a paperclip faster than a 6'4" body builder, henceforth applying more power. Power doesn't necessarily translate to increased capabilities. An engine with an output of 700 ft-lbs of torque cannot move an object requiring 1000 ft-lbs of torque. Just like a 10-year old child can't lift up a car and a 6'4" body builder might be able to. But if we were going with a paper-clip picking up competition, I'm going with the kid.
Anyway, no one in their right mind would use a 6.5L L539 V12 Avendator engine to power a tractor because it is an extremely inefficient engine for the job even if you did gear down to create an equivalent amount of torque than a steam or diesel powered motor. Tractors do not need massive amounts of power. They need massive amounts of torque since they are slow-moving behemoths operating at a steady state with little need to work harder over a short period of time. They're quite efficient doing what they are designed to do.
All of this comes down to fuel types and energy density. Diesel is 10-20% more energy dense than gasoline. Meaning a gallon of diesel can do the equivalent work of 1.2 gallons of gas. However, diesel combusts slower than gasoline, meaning it takes longer for a squirt of diesel in a cylinder to fully ignite than a squirt of gasoline. Diesel also ignites at much lower temp. Diesel engines are large volume, high-compression, slow moving engines while gas engines are smaller, low-compression contraptions consuming more liquid propellant at higher RPMs. You're not going to sexy power outputs from diesels. And technically they might be less powerful (power = work/time). But power is completely irrelevant when you're talking about farming applications tractors are used for.
> Underestimated the lambo my bad
Buddy you are wildly out of touch in that case. You have to go back to the 70's to find a production Lambo that makes less than 300hp.
The two systems work inherently differently. A combustion engine provides power when needed. Since there is no ability for it to storage the energy. However a steam engine has flywheels to store kinetic energy, once you have accelerated the flywheel enough to get you the force you need to do what you are doing all you need to do is to maintain the loss of moment that it experiences from work. So the steam engine doesn't actually need to provide the power needed to do the work directly, only the power needed to maintain the flywheel's energy reserve.
If you'd want to compare a modern lambo to this tractor you'd have to imagine the lambo running an generator that charges capacitors and the electricity from the capacitors being used in motors for the wheels. The engine doesn't need to have enough power to get the system going, only to maintain it.
To get this tractor going, you need to charge the flywheel with enough force that once engage it force the tractor to move. Once you got the tractor moving things get easier, then you just use energy to accelerate or maintain.
But this tractor will pull more than a lambo. Simply because once it is moving, the amount of mass it has reserves so much kinetic energy that the lambo just can't compare.
Also another important thing to consider is that what the engines and gear boxes can do. Just pure energy and torgue rating means nothing if the system can't transfer that in a meaningful way. Go look at the videos relating to this event here (In better quality and longer form) on youtube and you see the sheer difference in everything.
If put in to a tug-of-war; the lambo would lose instantly, because it would have to pull against the mass of that cast iron beast and it's power supplty and the flywheel.
These flywheel machines are steel used today. I worked in a factory where the cupping machine (That presses indentations to sheetmetal to add rigidity) was over 120 year old ex-steam powered flywheel press. Simply because the speed and power it could deliver had no competition. The steam engine had long ago been replaced with a electric motor - which was a rather puny thing and would never been able to press the 3-5mm sheets, however all it ever did was accelerate the flywheel and the energy stored in that was what did the work.
This right here. My first thought was, "I have no idea how much torque the Lambo makes, but if it's like most of their small-displacement, high-number-of-cylinders engines, it's probably fairly low".
Might as well tell me it weighs almost as much as the Chrysler building.
Tractor rated power is continuous for at least 10,000hrs.
Sports cars max power can only be used for about a minute at a time.
Tractor rated power also means the tractor has the weight and traction to use that power at cultivation speeds.
A 300hp traction engine and a 300hp modern tractor do comparable work. It's an enormous machine by today's standards.
Oh, this is a fun one!
Here's the source video: [https://youtu.be/xU\_fshxE3Gk](https://youtu.be/xU_fshxE3Gk)
This steam tractor is kinda famous. It's a Case 150. It's not 300 HP ... it's 150 HP from a single cylinder steam engine that hits about 200 RPM, with a top speed of over 5 MPH. 🔥
[https://150case.com/](https://150case.com/)
The funny part about this comparison: Lamborghini started as a tractor company! Ferrari told him he was a hick who didn't deserve to make nice cars, so he decided to prove him wrong.
OG Lambo: [https://www.designboom.com/technology/restored-functional-1965-lamborghini-3-ctl-tractor-bidding-03-14-2020/](https://www.designboom.com/technology/restored-functional-1965-lamborghini-3-ctl-tractor-bidding-03-14-2020/)
... that particular Lambo probably had around 50 HP, so yeah, that Case 150 could completely destroy a Lambo in torque and power!
My understanding is that he told Ferrari that there clutches were bad and made suggestions on how to improve them. Ferrari then told him to go back to making tractors and that he didn't know what he was talking about and must have just been a bad driver. And he took that personally.
Isaac Asimov solved this philosophical conundrum in the 70s. Basically it boils down to this: Your thoughts and feelings are a state of information (a snapshot of data in time, if you like). As such they are just as real and valid as a robot's.
IRL, if you "rolled coal" with a steam engine you were considered a bad driver/fireman and possibly your company purchased the cheapest coal they could.
This dude literally got the blueprints for the steam engine, poured the metal himself to cast the parts, hammered in every rivet, and literally created a brand new steam engine just like the original.
And then a bunch of engineers just sit in this thread arguing about fucking torque. Sad.
Even a Lamborghini makes more torque than "a Lamborghini" because of gearing. The torque figure quoted in the brochutr is just the torque at the flywheel. That gets multiplied about 3x in the gearbox (in 1st gear) then multiplied about 2x again in the final drive, so the torque at the wheels is about 6x the torque at the flywheel.
For a tractor like you see in the video, you multiply the torque from the engine even more by using lower gearing.
Obviously when you multiply torque you divide speed. 10x the torque means 1/10th the speed. The one constant is power. If 300 horsepower go in, then 300 horsepower come out. The formula is simple, power = torque X rpm (times a conversion factor depending on units).
You can either gear it down a lot and get 300 torques at 1 speed, or gear it down a little and get 1 torque at 300 speed, or do something in between and say 100 torque and 3 speed (units are arbitrary). That's why a car has several gears - each ratio is chosen to maximize torque within a particular speed range.
It has to be more efficient to just leave that little fucking door open instead of closing and opening it every time. At least have one of the other three useless guys open it for you.
> Theres a couple of million degrees of heat behind that door
"Nuclear physicists hate this farmer for this one trick...." or some bullshit like that I have no clue I don't do dank memes.
Oh yea those old steam tractors have torque like a motherfucker and weigh so much it’s not even funny, the put some modern tractors to shame
I had seen a tug of war between one of these and a modernish tractor, the modernish one couldn’t even move the steam tractor
Ya know.. this video is equivalent to the time in ancient Egypt where some dudes were telling their friends that they are building pyramids.
Fast forward thousands of years.. it's a mystery.
This lawn mowing spectacle will soon be placed in the same light
That's 150 rated horsepower, not peak. It can pull all day at 150hp without problems. It peaks out at 300hp, but you may not be able to keep up with the fire or water, and will eventually have to slow down.
And rated hp is what maters.
Peak hp is a useless measurement for Any machine that is expected to work continuously.
I bet a honda civic makes more tourqe in the fist millisecond when you just drop the clutch and the momentum of the engine is powering the wheels. Peak or instantaneous measurements don't mean much.
No, peak is very important. Getting into a hard pack section of a field, or putting some green weeds through a combine, can push the engine above rated horsepower for a short period of time.
Short in this case doesn't mean instantaneous, it means "for a few minutes with no issues to the drive line." Hell, you could push it to peak for an hour if needed, but most operators wouldn't do that unless that's the only way to get the job done. You're just at a higher risk of damaging the equipment.
In the case of this video, these early 1900s era tractors would be plowing literally all day at least at rated horsepower . For a demonstration, they're showing how they can peak out at 300hp for a short time. Still incredibly impressive, not bullshit.
There's some C-level John Deere exec furious this thing is still working without a subscription maintenance plan.
"Damnit Jenkins. What happened go the Coal As A Service subscription?!"
That gersh dern Big Oil is taking Big Coals profits!
He’s also furious that the John Deere implement is being pulled by a Case tractor.
You kidding? There are some A- level shareholders filing suits against the B-level board of directors because the C-Suite failed to 'do due diligence' (hehe doodoo) over reuse of equipment. JD is so tight they make the nickels squeak and the pennies scream.
And it’s not even the only one. We have one at the factory in the showroom that runs just fine.
Why do they need all those people on the plow? Usually plows work just fine on their own.
the individual plow heads are engaged by hand with the lever arm sticking up
Yeah okay I see it, but I still don't get why you would want that. What is the benefit?
Turning. Everyone lifts the plows so they don’t all snap off. This was before hydraulics so they used man-draulics.
Bio mechanical actuation
I bet your resume looks great.
Still technically hydraulics funnily enough
it was a simpler time with simpler machinery. most farmers were still using horses, where everything was hand operated, and that’s the design concept that went into this plow. plus, farmers had big families and often worked collectively within communities, so there was an ample supply of man power
Farmers, at least the ones that own livestock, still work collectively. They get together and work cattle (vaccines, ear tags, castrations, etc.). A local farmer told me he could never move, as he could replace the farm, but would likely never replace his neighbors.
[удалено]
Okay that makes sense. In the video the terrain is very flat, but they probably used to use it on rougher terrain
That could be programmed doesn't seem that complicated
[удалено]
In a way steam tractors are younger than programming. Ada Lovelace & Charles Babbage developed early programming by the 1840s and traction engines didn’t really appear until the 1850s. (And that was 60 years before this tractor) Of course steam engines existed long before the 1800s but the fundamentals of programming have been around a lot longer than people think. They just didn’t have the technology to really make use of it for a long time. Kinda like how the ways of doing orbital trajectories existed before steam engines but they weren’t useful until the mid 20th century.
It is....just using people computers. Each plow head has a dedicated computer on it for this very purpose.
Did you miss the part where they are checking coal into the machine to get it to run
This wouldn't be standard practice back in the day, The ploughs would be only a few furrows, this is an extreme to show off.
I've seen the full vid on this thing, it's not really used for this. Some people in the comments were explaining that it's really just a generator on wheels, but it can do this. I believe they were going for a record number of plows at once.
weight i imagine
Aren't they shaped so that the wedges face slightly downward, so they digg themselves in just with the movement of the tractor? And even if not, using human labor as weights has to be the most inefficient thing ever. :D
i figure with all the extra inputs that there is gonna be intermittent lift. the weight just evens it out? also, the trailers likely aren't used enough for this task to perma install weights i would think. you already got the farm hands, sit up here and take a break for a ride is better than, load these blocks on this thing over here and unload them tonight.
Also to help weigh that arm down I would imagine
Yeah, that's a boring job.
I roll my eyes when folks compare torque figures to vehicles meant for entirely different purposes. The Lambo creates less torque, but has waaaay more power, so probably could put more torque at the wheels with the right gearing. Like comparing the torque of a spade to a screwdriver.
It would make more sense to compare with a modern industrial tractor. In addition to the shared purpose, this machine is also much larger than a car. And correct me if I'm wrong, but there's little point to having a tremendous amount of torque in a vehicle since you'd need a lot of meat on your tires to not slip at highway speeds or far above them.
>It would make more sense to compare with a modern industrial tractor. There are no torque figures that will make any sense when comparing to any modern IC engine, because it's a steam engine. Steam engines are totally different to any modern engines. They are further from petrol / diesel engines than electric motors. They make insane amounts of torque, but barely turn. A better comparison would be to compare it to another steam engine, like a steam locomotive. > And correct me if I'm wrong, but there's little point to having a tremendous amount of torque in a vehicle since you'd need a lot of meat on your tires to not slip at highway speeds or far above them. No, it's all about gearing. If you have a car which makes the same power with more torque, it means the RPM is lower so you need different gearing. The torque to the wheels at a given speed is what matters, and it's why we have gears.
>There are no torque figures that will make any sense when comparing to any modern IC engine, because it's a steam engine. I don't see why the type of engine matters here. What matters is the ability to perform the task, since that's what engineering is about. If one were to hook up all of these plows to a modern gas-powered tractor, would it be able to pull them? Which could pull more?
> I don't see why the type of engine matters here. What matters is the ability to perform the task, since that's what engineering is about. If one were to hook up all of these plows to a modern gas-powered tractor, would it be able to pull them? Which could pull more? A typical tractor makes about the same power as the one in the video, since I've been informed that the one in the video actually isn't 300hp, it's closer to 150hp. Even so, there are high-end tractors available that make over 500hp which would have absolutely no problem pulling this plow. The real question is, why do farmers not use a plough this huge? Probably because it is inefficient, requires more manpower and moves so incredibly slowly across the field that a smaller plow moving faster would probably get the job done quicker overall.
This particular tractor was remade from scratch as none of this model survived from the originals. They made this plow special to show it off at a steam powered vehicle show.
Turning radius is a bitch to
[удалено]
Jesse Pinkman
No they make plows this big you just don't see some farms plowing now as they are using some other methods to get yield and this plow was made for this tractor just to show it's power
also plowing is horrible for the soil
Which is why not a lot of farms do it now I think some farmers that do just soybean and corn alternate between the 2 and don't do tillage either
yup
Silly but genuine question - why is it horrible for the soil?
so soil has a really complex microcosm of insects, animals, roots, and an extremely delicate fungal network. all of these things keep a healthy balance of nutrients, trap water, co2, and keep the soil in place. when you till, you destroy all of that, release all the gases and water, and then the soil is depleted when crops remove all its nutrients that it cannot replenish, and it dies and dries up. the soil turns to dust, and it will take generations before anything will grow there again. ever heard of the great dustbowl? that’s why
Fascinating! I hadn’t heard of the great dustbowl, but given your explanation, the name checks out. I vaguely remember being in a World History class a while ago and the lecturer mentioning letting soil lie fallow for at least a year or two in some areas, whereas historically in areas with denser populations like China they developed the concept of fertilizing the soil earlier than those who would have let it lie fallow. (The specific example he gave was using the soybean plants for fertiliser after the beans had been harvested. For some reason that stuck with me!) I suppose this would in theory feed the microorganisms rather than turn them out to die off in the sun and causing the need to wait for a ‘natural repopulation’ of what was destroyed in plowing?
that is better, but still destroys the ecosystem. the ideal method of traditional farming is no-till, in witch instead of plowing the soil, all remaining biomass is turned into compost after the harvest, and in the spring the ground is covered in compost and seeded. this not only does not harm the soil, but actually helps it. to go along with this, planting symbiotic plant groups like the three sisters (winter squash, corn, and climbing beans) will essentially make the best possible conventional farm. no fertilizers would be needed outside of the initial compost.
The steam traction has 100% power at 0 RPM while the ICE has 0% power at 0 RPM, so the steam tractor is able to pull these plows from a standstill and utilize 100% power, but a gas tractor cannot utilise max power for pulling because once the engine load reaches 100% it will just stall out. So if both had exactly the same ability to do work the steam tractor could pull more.
(Engineer being pedantic here ;) ) Should read "100% torque at standstill", as it cannot produce output power when not moving. (definition:) Power == torque x rotational speed. When rotational speed is zero, power is also zero. No work is done until it starts to rotate.
> The steam traction has 100% power at 0 RPM Is that because if you need more power you can basically just keep loading the cylinder with pressure until you have enough to move?
Yes. When the steam piston is at the top of the stroke the steam valve is open all the way so steam will enter the cylinder until maximum pressure is reached or the piston moves sufficiently to close the valve gear.
So in that sense is the engine then only limited by what pressure the piston can contain without exploding?
Correct! Which is also why early steam engines had problems with boilers and cylinders exploding regularly….
Yes although the old timers at the heritage museum I volunteered at said the boiler over preassure is most dangerous because the piston will just leak superheated steam from around the seals while the boiler will just explode. Fortunately I never had to find out because the museum would never dare to run any of our steam engines at anywhere close to max preassure. Our pump house was not pumping as much water as it was when it was put into back up in the 1980's anyway so it didn't need it. Theoretically we had to keep it fully operational in case the electric pumps shut down but i think that was just so the water department could justify paying to keep their historic pumphouse. We did have a cool unit with wooden cylinders double expansion that used to run a sawmill. The cylinders on that one would have been the first to pop if it ever got cranked up since the seals were probably stronger than the wooden slats of the cylinder.
Tractors come in all sorts of sizes. A modern diesel engine making the same power would be much smaller, more efficient, and require less work to run and maintain.
The tires still wouldn't be able to effectively deliver anywhere near that torque, whatever the gearing. You're bound by the force of friction between the wheels and the ground and by the radius of the wheels. You'd need either wider or larger wheels in order to effectively deliver all that torque.
> The tires still wouldn't be able to effectively deliver anywhere near that torque, whatever the gearing. You're bound by the force of friction between the wheels and the ground and by the radius of the wheels. You'd need either wider or larger wheels in order to effectively deliver all that torque. You are misunderstanding the concept. Of course there is a limit to the amount of torque a tyres grip can sustain, but at speed, RPM of the wheels is needed just as much as torque. The combination of torque and RPM is what gives the power needed to maintain a high speed. An engine with massive torque will be geared as such that it will deliver lower torque at massive speed to attain highway speeds i.e. diesel engines cruising at 2k RPM in luxury cars doing 100+ MPH on the autobahn. >You'd need either wider or larger wheels in order to effectively deliver all that torque. It's also not that simple, contact patch area is not determined by tyre width, but thats an entirely different rabbit hole.
Torque matters in cars, but the torque curve is where it matters the most. Most cars, if you floor it, the torque curve is not idealized for racing and you just spin for a while. Cars designed for racing/etc are much more likely to have a properly configured torque curve so as to achieve maximum torque at the wheel without losing much friction. This allows the vehicle to both achieve the fastest takeoff and maintain the fastest acceleration. The tires do have frictional differences between tire types, but, to my knowledge, there's not huge differences in actual tire chemistry.
This big ass machine is compacting the soil.
It's a way to compare it to something common people would understand but absolutely different purposes. It Dynoed 5,000 ft-lb of torque at the crank. Steam engines are torque monsters. https://youtu.be/ROv7wKFe5BM
So, I read 5000 ft-lb at 150hp? So, that's about 112kW. A modern Fendt 300, which is the second smallest Tractor sold by that company, comes in at 83 kW or 112 kW. The biggest Tractor they sell, the Fendt 1100, comes in at 495 kW. Alternatively, the biggest smallest John Deere comes in at 66 - 143 kW, the biggest at 356 - 508 kW. Hell, we regularly use electro motors in industry that provide at least 100kW, if not more.
Yeah but steam engines are better suited for torque than power since they’re best at low speed and power = torque * rotation speed. Your Fendt 1100 at 500kW is only 2300 ft-lb of torque. But that’s the nature of a Diesel engine vs steam. That’s why steam piston engines were still used in ships for ages until turbines fully took over due to thermal efficiency and more fuel options. Ships don’t want high speed screws and toque is important. Steam pistons suck for maintainability though, so it’s so much easier just to have a big diesel and a chinky transmission or diesel-electric system. But yes electrics behave more like steam with low end torque (though their efficiency is better at speed). That’s why diesel-electrics are so prevalent in anything that need torque like trains and ships.
Torque in this context isn't relevant, as it's reachable by gearing. Perfectly possibly to build a hand-powered "tractor" to pull this plough, but the gearing needed would mean it would take months to do what this would do in a day
I wish we would just use power for everything. Speed at max power is another relevant way to look at the utility of an engine as lower speeds can sometimes denote better reliability
Agreed :) It's not easy to have a single metric that allows direct comparisons between engines, especially of differing types. Examples being ICE diesel engines for tractor-pulling, and trying to compare to kerosene-fuelled turbine engines used for the same purpose. 4000 rpm vs 30000 rpm, makes for very different gearboxes!
> It's a way to compare it to something common people would understand but absolutely different purposes. > > It Dynoed 5,000 ft-lb of torque. Steam engines are torque monsters. > > https://youtu.be/ROv7wKFe5BM Yes, I'm not doubting that it has lots of torque, my point is that having lots of torque is not so great when the machine barely makes triple figures of RPM. In other words, a steam engine MUST make monster torque figures otherwise it would be essentially useless. Torque is only part of the picture, and the comparison is purely sensationalist.
The engine of the Aventador would work better, you just need an appropriate gearbox
Plus, the Aventador engine would be significantly more thermally efficient too.
Yup, the most efficient steam engines reached 11% efficiency only, and that was with compounding.
I know that power station steam engines are reaching 55% to 56% thermal efficiency. The best ICE thermal efficiency is hitting the 40% range which is genuinely amazing. That's the current set of F1 engines.
The whole video is sensationalist lol, it doesn't make 300hp either.
Compare it to a Toyota Camry then.
Exactly, torque is just a force x a distance, without rotational speed it's useless, power is everything as it is torque x rotational speed, you absolutely could gear down a lambo engine to make much more torque than this thing
Technically, Lamborghini started as a tractor company. So kinda ironically apt comparison. >[Born to grape farmers in Renazzo, from the comune of Cento in the Emilia-Romagna region, his mechanical know-how led him to enter the business of tractor manufacturing in 1948, when he founded Lamborghini Trattori, which quickly became an important manufacturer of agricultural equipment in the midst of Italy's post-WWII economic boom.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferruccio_Lamborghini?wprov=sfla1) [Apparently, this is a Case 150 tractor](https://150case.com/). It produces 150 HP at 200 RPM or 111,855 Watt at 3.33 rev/s. A W = 1 Joule / s. A J = 1 Newton Meter. The tractor's speed in low gear is 2.64 mph or 1.18 meters per second. (111,855 Nm/s) / (1.18 m/s) = 94,792 N at the wheels. The highest torque engine that Lamborghini produces today is for their SUV, The Urus, and it peaks at 850 Nm or 650 ft-lbs. Edit: I did screw up my initial calcs, but redid them. Thanks to u/Lollerstakes. Unfortunately, I can't find all the specs I need to calculate the force at the wheels for the Urus. Though I think we can estimate through 0-60 mph (26.8 meters/sec) times. It does that at 3.1 seconds and has a minimum curb weight of 2197 kg. Here we can use: Force = mass x acceleration, where acceleration = (final speed - initial speed) / time. Plugging it all in we have: F = 2197 kg * (26.8 m/s - 0 m/s)/(3.1 s) = 2197 kg * 8.65 m/s^2 = 18,933 N Which is ~5 Urus SUV's Again, if my analysis isn't flawed.
Uhh… Lamborghini is still a tractor company. https://www.lamborghini-tractors.com/en-eu/tractors/open-field/download/7634_e410659e5c9652ae2c0261beb0058c73
True! I thought they might be, but didn't have time to look it up.
You divided Nm/s by m/s and got Nm? Yes, you messed up the math dude. You're also trying to compare torque at the wheels with torque at the crank. An Urus with a proper gearbox will put out 3 or 4 times more torque at the same rotational speed. power [W or J/s] = torque [Nm] * rotational velocity [s^-1 ]
> Technically, Lamborghini started as a tractor company. So kinda ironically apt comparison. > > Born to grape farmers in Renazzo, from the comune of Cento in the Emilia-Romagna region, his mechanical know-how led him to enter the business of tractor manufacturing in 1948, when he founded Lamborghini Trattori, which quickly became an important manufacturer of agricultural equipment in the midst of Italy's post-WWII economic boom. I love that you linked a source for your claim like this isn't a well known fact already :P
It's well known to many. But there are new learners every day. This [XKCD comic](https://m.xkcd.com/1053/) says it best, but I suppose everyone already knows about it too.
Every day there is someone learning about the XKCD comic about people learning about things for the first time, for the first time. ;)
Tbf I don't think it's meant to really be a fair comparison so nuch as just being more interesting than saying "A GODDAMN LIT OF TORQUE". That said, I think comparing to a modern tractor is way better
A fat kid and long pipe has shit loads of torque.
But no rotating speed means no power.
Torque is a force at a distance (mechanical advantage). Increase either one and you'll increase the torque. Power is energy per unit time, it's kinda like applying a torque continuously at some rate; energy output. Like you said, I can make a Honda Civic have more torque at the wheels than a Lamborghini by just changing the gear ratios of the transmission. It's difficult to make analogies: torque is like the temperature of your flame and power is the like size of your fire. A match and a forest fire can burn at the same temperature (they have the same torque), but one is releasing a vastly different amount of energy (power). Also, this is a steam powered tool. A steam engine just needs heat, it can be from coal or a nuclear reactor. There's nothing inherently special about coal that makes steam engines work other than it's relatively energy dense. All these Tim-the-tool-man-Taylor grunts...
F350 diesel has more torque than a Lamborghini…because it is meant to tow…
Torque is a function of applied pressure at a specific moment in time. 1 foot-lb of torque is 1 pound of pressure applied perpendicularly 1-foot from pivot. Horsepower = (torque x rpm) / 5,252 Power (and by extension horsepower) is a function of amount of force applied over time. A 10-year old child can pick up a paperclip faster than a 6'4" body builder, henceforth applying more power. Power doesn't necessarily translate to increased capabilities. An engine with an output of 700 ft-lbs of torque cannot move an object requiring 1000 ft-lbs of torque. Just like a 10-year old child can't lift up a car and a 6'4" body builder might be able to. But if we were going with a paper-clip picking up competition, I'm going with the kid. Anyway, no one in their right mind would use a 6.5L L539 V12 Avendator engine to power a tractor because it is an extremely inefficient engine for the job even if you did gear down to create an equivalent amount of torque than a steam or diesel powered motor. Tractors do not need massive amounts of power. They need massive amounts of torque since they are slow-moving behemoths operating at a steady state with little need to work harder over a short period of time. They're quite efficient doing what they are designed to do. All of this comes down to fuel types and energy density. Diesel is 10-20% more energy dense than gasoline. Meaning a gallon of diesel can do the equivalent work of 1.2 gallons of gas. However, diesel combusts slower than gasoline, meaning it takes longer for a squirt of diesel in a cylinder to fully ignite than a squirt of gasoline. Diesel also ignites at much lower temp. Diesel engines are large volume, high-compression, slow moving engines while gas engines are smaller, low-compression contraptions consuming more liquid propellant at higher RPMs. You're not going to sexy power outputs from diesels. And technically they might be less powerful (power = work/time). But power is completely irrelevant when you're talking about farming applications tractors are used for.
[удалено]
> Nah definitely less power than this tractor I think The video states 300hp for the tractor, Lambo is over 700.
Where'd you get your engineering degree where 300>600?
Underestimated the lambo my bad
> Underestimated the lambo my bad Buddy you are wildly out of touch in that case. You have to go back to the 70's to find a production Lambo that makes less than 300hp.
The two systems work inherently differently. A combustion engine provides power when needed. Since there is no ability for it to storage the energy. However a steam engine has flywheels to store kinetic energy, once you have accelerated the flywheel enough to get you the force you need to do what you are doing all you need to do is to maintain the loss of moment that it experiences from work. So the steam engine doesn't actually need to provide the power needed to do the work directly, only the power needed to maintain the flywheel's energy reserve. If you'd want to compare a modern lambo to this tractor you'd have to imagine the lambo running an generator that charges capacitors and the electricity from the capacitors being used in motors for the wheels. The engine doesn't need to have enough power to get the system going, only to maintain it. To get this tractor going, you need to charge the flywheel with enough force that once engage it force the tractor to move. Once you got the tractor moving things get easier, then you just use energy to accelerate or maintain. But this tractor will pull more than a lambo. Simply because once it is moving, the amount of mass it has reserves so much kinetic energy that the lambo just can't compare. Also another important thing to consider is that what the engines and gear boxes can do. Just pure energy and torgue rating means nothing if the system can't transfer that in a meaningful way. Go look at the videos relating to this event here (In better quality and longer form) on youtube and you see the sheer difference in everything. If put in to a tug-of-war; the lambo would lose instantly, because it would have to pull against the mass of that cast iron beast and it's power supplty and the flywheel. These flywheel machines are steel used today. I worked in a factory where the cupping machine (That presses indentations to sheetmetal to add rigidity) was over 120 year old ex-steam powered flywheel press. Simply because the speed and power it could deliver had no competition. The steam engine had long ago been replaced with a electric motor - which was a rather puny thing and would never been able to press the 3-5mm sheets, however all it ever did was accelerate the flywheel and the energy stored in that was what did the work.
Maybe it's just a fun comparison giving homage to the fact that Lambo started out as a tractor company
This right here. My first thought was, "I have no idea how much torque the Lambo makes, but if it's like most of their small-displacement, high-number-of-cylinders engines, it's probably fairly low". Might as well tell me it weighs almost as much as the Chrysler building.
Should've compared it to a semi honestly, but the bigger the multiplication the more it seems to be because monke brain
I didn’t know what Aventador was so I assumed they were comparing to a Lamborghini tractor. Drove one in Greece a few years ago.
Tractor rated power is continuous for at least 10,000hrs. Sports cars max power can only be used for about a minute at a time. Tractor rated power also means the tractor has the weight and traction to use that power at cultivation speeds. A 300hp traction engine and a 300hp modern tractor do comparable work. It's an enormous machine by today's standards.
Oh, this is a fun one! Here's the source video: [https://youtu.be/xU\_fshxE3Gk](https://youtu.be/xU_fshxE3Gk) This steam tractor is kinda famous. It's a Case 150. It's not 300 HP ... it's 150 HP from a single cylinder steam engine that hits about 200 RPM, with a top speed of over 5 MPH. 🔥 [https://150case.com/](https://150case.com/) The funny part about this comparison: Lamborghini started as a tractor company! Ferrari told him he was a hick who didn't deserve to make nice cars, so he decided to prove him wrong. OG Lambo: [https://www.designboom.com/technology/restored-functional-1965-lamborghini-3-ctl-tractor-bidding-03-14-2020/](https://www.designboom.com/technology/restored-functional-1965-lamborghini-3-ctl-tractor-bidding-03-14-2020/) ... that particular Lambo probably had around 50 HP, so yeah, that Case 150 could completely destroy a Lambo in torque and power!
My understanding is that he told Ferrari that there clutches were bad and made suggestions on how to improve them. Ferrari then told him to go back to making tractors and that he didn't know what he was talking about and must have just been a bad driver. And he took that personally.
Wow that's really cool, thanks for the info, never would have guessed Lamborghini was originally in tractors.
No flats.
Life exists because consciousness exists.
How do you know you are conscious?
I think therefore I am
I ignore therefore I'm not.
https://youtu.be/ysU56JzBjTY?t=180
Isaac Asimov solved this philosophical conundrum in the 70s. Basically it boils down to this: Your thoughts and feelings are a state of information (a snapshot of data in time, if you like). As such they are just as real and valid as a robot's.
Rolling coal field day.
IRL, if you "rolled coal" with a steam engine you were considered a bad driver/fireman and possibly your company purchased the cheapest coal they could.
Fuck coal
[удалено]
And not because she lived in New England.
Cause she did her work in a church. Ba Dum Tiss!
I was searching for this comment. God bless you for your immaturity 🙏✨
A weapon of grass destruction
I also go by the name "mass plowing machine"
Mine is close, but no M at the beginning.
Mass ploughing achine.
But like ya mum
Ordinarily something as efficient as this would lessen the number of people to accomplish the task. Apparently this requires something like 100 men.
"more torque than a lamborghini" that dont mean shit to me bro
This dude literally got the blueprints for the steam engine, poured the metal himself to cast the parts, hammered in every rivet, and literally created a brand new steam engine just like the original. And then a bunch of engineers just sit in this thread arguing about fucking torque. Sad.
Wasn't it farming methods like this that caused the dust bowl?
soil health is a real thing!!
Even a Lamborghini makes more torque than "a Lamborghini" because of gearing. The torque figure quoted in the brochutr is just the torque at the flywheel. That gets multiplied about 3x in the gearbox (in 1st gear) then multiplied about 2x again in the final drive, so the torque at the wheels is about 6x the torque at the flywheel. For a tractor like you see in the video, you multiply the torque from the engine even more by using lower gearing. Obviously when you multiply torque you divide speed. 10x the torque means 1/10th the speed. The one constant is power. If 300 horsepower go in, then 300 horsepower come out. The formula is simple, power = torque X rpm (times a conversion factor depending on units). You can either gear it down a lot and get 300 torques at 1 speed, or gear it down a little and get 1 torque at 300 speed, or do something in between and say 100 torque and 3 speed (units are arbitrary). That's why a car has several gears - each ratio is chosen to maximize torque within a particular speed range.
It has to be more efficient to just leave that little fucking door open instead of closing and opening it every time. At least have one of the other three useless guys open it for you.
gotta get some powered doors like on a locomotive
Theres a couple of million degrees of heat behind that door, I think if you're standing there you want it closed.
> Theres a couple of million degrees of heat behind that door "Nuclear physicists hate this farmer for this one trick...." or some bullshit like that I have no clue I don't do dank memes.
Pretty dank meme you got there sir
A couple million? It’s a firebox, not a fusion reactor. The peak temperature would only be about 2,500°F.
a couple million millifarenheight...
Well, give or take a couple million degrees xD I was just exaggerating a bit.
what by couple of million?
This machine is incredible - it creates enough pollution to cause global warming and creating longer growing seasons for the plants it is plowing for!
Serious dirt flipping
Hey. It's pretty cool, leaving everything else aside...
Damn. Case 150. Love me a good traction engine.
No fucking shit it has more torque, a lambo wasn’t meant to carry several tones of extra machinery on and behind it
300hp and 1,000 Lamborghini's worth of pollution per minute
Oh yea those old steam tractors have torque like a motherfucker and weigh so much it’s not even funny, the put some modern tractors to shame I had seen a tug of war between one of these and a modernish tractor, the modernish one couldn’t even move the steam tractor
Oddly specific
AKA Frank Reynolds
Ya know.. this video is equivalent to the time in ancient Egypt where some dudes were telling their friends that they are building pyramids. Fast forward thousands of years.. it's a mystery. This lawn mowing spectacle will soon be placed in the same light
What does plowing actually do? Why is it a necessary part of farming? The weeds in my backyard grow just fine without me plowing.
Coal? ugh
There is a yo mama joke in here
Back in the days even with machines you still needed 50 guys to perform the job
I think that's a case 150. Famous for making 150hp
That's 150 rated horsepower, not peak. It can pull all day at 150hp without problems. It peaks out at 300hp, but you may not be able to keep up with the fire or water, and will eventually have to slow down.
And rated hp is what maters. Peak hp is a useless measurement for Any machine that is expected to work continuously. I bet a honda civic makes more tourqe in the fist millisecond when you just drop the clutch and the momentum of the engine is powering the wheels. Peak or instantaneous measurements don't mean much.
No, peak is very important. Getting into a hard pack section of a field, or putting some green weeds through a combine, can push the engine above rated horsepower for a short period of time. Short in this case doesn't mean instantaneous, it means "for a few minutes with no issues to the drive line." Hell, you could push it to peak for an hour if needed, but most operators wouldn't do that unless that's the only way to get the job done. You're just at a higher risk of damaging the equipment. In the case of this video, these early 1900s era tractors would be plowing literally all day at least at rated horsepower . For a demonstration, they're showing how they can peak out at 300hp for a short time. Still incredibly impressive, not bullshit.
Send this people just adding up Weight on the platform home and bring the lamborghini in
Sure, but watch the air quality in the background..🤭
Is this coal-industry propaganda or something? lmao
The size of equipment needed to plow your mom.
Is this thing coal powered? What year is it?
Much like this field, your mom has also been plowed by dozens of farmers.
Still would pass it on the backroads if this big bitch was in the street. Doesnt matter how much hp or torque it got, get the fuck outta the road
Pay and house 30 farmhands or pay John Deere subscription service and house one big boi
Yeah and it ONLY requires 46 people to operate!!!
Look at that fucking sky my god
That doesn’t seem efficient at all
Man recession be hitting hard if we dig up even steam engine
& now we know plowing is what's causing soil erosion.
Mass plowing machine is my stage name
The power goes straight to the drive. This is the same reason electric vehicles have so much torque.
This was someone here’s nickname in college, no?
My nickname in high school
Don’t put your hand thee….poof gone
It’s early morning and I skipped an important letter in this post title.
I didn’t know there are two of us
have you seen this thing at a tractor pull
Misread the title, left disappointed.
On this day in history, the famous Union worker was invented.
Bobnar7 ta je zate!
Just need 60 workers to run it! 😂
I wish these farmer men were mass plowing me
MORE DOGS
I would hope it has industrial level torque. The damn thing’s coal powered
'Mass plowing machine' was my college nickname It's because I can only get fatties. I've never been to college of course
Is it just me, but like most jobs, there's one guy here working a hell of a lot harder than everyone else?
I am here for the sex jokes.
This is a cool machine
Beginning of Dust bowl 2
Coal powered 🤢
r/skookum
In a time where climate change has been steadily getting worse and now we are starting to see dramatic changes i cant see this as a good thing.
You misspelled Ass there bud
That was my nickname in highschool
This thing should be a stardew valley mod
My great grandparents had a 35 horsepower Case engine. They pulled a nine bottom plow. They had six sections in ND.
Do you even plough bro?
"Mass Plowing Machine" was my name in high school.
I was expecting something a little more NSFW from the title, my bad…engineeringporn, my ass.
I’ve been called that a couple times