Which crusher to produce BRF (Raméal Fragmented Wood)?

[Ahmed]

I speak of curvature, but at no time of an arc; in reality, the deformation of this sheet follows a well Euler curve, which corresponds to an intuitive approach (mixed experience) and not mathematical on my part!
I wrote:

The fact that the curve is progressive, without breakage, is a positive point for extraction: no risk of accumulation, then jamming.

If you want, I will make you a photo ...

[Did67]

OKAY.

I looked better. I saw.

It nevertheless seems "brutal" to me: still in the axis of the right chute, if you extend, you have almost, on the right, the sheet metal at 90 ° ... There Fangio leans (or overturns his Ferrari ).

[Ahmed]

Frankly, I recognize that the curve sees its radius decrease a little abruptly towards the end of the journey, but the shred is ejected really well. Do not forget that the cap of all the shredders form an angle with their chute, but it is not critical at this point in the trajectory and that I will not have this configuration ...

[Ahmed]

I thought about your remark a little and, indeed, if the entry of the curve corresponds well to a spiral of Euler, the exit marks rather an accentuation which would be harmful to Fangio, but seems to me suitable for this case of figure, since thus we obtain an increase in the speed of ejection *, which is the objective (anti-jamming) and this, despite the friction which certainly slows down a little ...

* The initial speed increases as a function of the decrease in the radius of the curve, therefore the less distance traveled, it seems to me.

[Ahmed]

My somewhat too intensive confining activities had a heavy impact on my lumbar muscles (which are vintage! ), forcing me to a wise suspension in terms of grinding. I just brought out the shredder to finish my pile of branches in arrears for a little while: it spits out loud, without showing, under any circumstances, the slightest hint of stuffing: that happiness!
I wait until Monday to finish all this (no need to piss off the neighborhood on a Sunday, the week is full of days!). I garnished my potatoes with mulch, a little strawberry, as expected, and I started to spread it around fruit trees ...
To come, a site of slightly dry walnut branches that the confinement prevented me from milling so far (not far, but not on the spot) ... Nothing to worry about with a back that has finally recovered its usual functionality ...

[Rust COHLE]

Hello everyone, first of all thank you for the quality of your discussions on this subject, I would like to purchase a thermal grinder to make BRF, like a good Lazy, by reading all of your posts on this thread I was determined to purchase the GEOTECH PRO PCS 70 L, instead of the GS70 with double hopper which seems less practical and slower because of the two hoppers, but a few tens of minutes ago I was came across this ST PIERRE DU CHAMP crusher https://www.bricolagedirect.com/broyeur ... 03328.html at a slightly higher price.
Here is the presentation video:

BROYEUR.jpeg (122.83 KiB) Viewed 5639 times

I would like to have your opinion and more precisely those of AHMED and ELECTRON owners of GEOTECH.

The differences that I noticed at my level are as follows:
- Round ejection chute shorter than the GEOTECH
- Feed hopper and ejection chute mounted on hinges to facilitate opening, unlike GEOTECH? It seems to be a different assembly on photos especially at the bottom of the hopper (I want to take them apart for storage and transport, would that be easier?)
- Weight: 95,5kg instead of 85kg for the GEOTECH
- Displacement of 196cm3 instead of 212cm3 for the GEOTECH, 6,5 horses instead of 7.
- Cutting capacity announced of 100mm instead of 70mm, while the engine seems less powerful?
- Double reversible and resharpening blade, Reversible, adjustable and resharpening counter blade, the same thing on the GEOTECH it seems to me?

Will these few differences make you think that the technical improvements you have made are unnecessary on this shredder? Not being a handyman, I could not do them on the GEOTECH.

In conclusion, would you recommend this model instead of yours?

Subsidiary question, does the diameter of the BRF have an impact? Here about 4-5 cm knowing that the smaller twigs are they seem more difficult to crush, it passes without being crushed from what I understood, while they are the ones who have the buds for the future leaves and so the most nutrients (not being good in science I await your enlightenment) ...

Finally, I plan to make a BRF of river alder (glutinous?), Nitrogen fixing tree to compensate for nitrogen hunger, what do you think?
I came across this video

advocating the willow in BRF, I had in the idea of ​​making a mixture with the alder what do you think? 50/50? 70 alder / 30 willow?

Thank you in advance.

[Ahmed]

I will try to provide you with some answers, knowing that I could only rely on the observations of the photos that you provide and the few technical characteristics. To put it simply, I will resume the order of the questions ...

- The chute, whether square or round, does not change much; the fact that it is narrowed constitutes the pitfall which causes jamming when large volumes of small elements cannot be evacuated. Hinging the discharge chute probably allows unclogging a little faster, but does not address the cause ...
- The feed hopper is also mounted on hinges on our model, so no differences (not surprising since your shredder is also Chinese and most probably came from the same factory!). These mountings on hinges will not change much for a possible storage, anyway, the front hopper has electric wires that will have to be disconnected each time and its weight is more substantial than the rear chute ... I doubt it. practical interest of this maneuver.
- Regarding the weight, I have no explanation. Perhaps the Chinese engine (Loncin) is heavier than the American?
- On the subject of power, you must understand that we are already at the minimum of what is reasonable, so reducing it is not necessarily a good idea.
- Cutting capacities are often inspired by the greatest fantasy, so no need to rely on it and the 10 cm is a dream. For ours, rather aim for 7-8 cm at most, with the capacity to absorb a slightly larger irregularity ...
- The blades are similar, as are the counter blades. It should be noted that the counter-blades wear out very little due to their oblique working position; their possible readjustment is justified by the wear of the blades and the need to maintain a minimum clearance between these two elements.
- Given the few differences between these two devices, this question is not applicable. An important point regarding the use and maintenance of this machine is that it is good to have a minimum of skill in mechanical DIY or someone available who meets this criterion (even when not considering any modification ). What seems to me worrying in this model, it is especially the appreciably lower power, power which could not be compensated by an argument of cutting capacity of the "commercial" type.
- Small diameters are not a problem; Admittedly, the fine branches are less crushed, but biologically they are easier to digest and in a practical way, they can be reserved for uses where a more homogeneous granulometry is not necessary; fork-sorting is easy. Do not worry about the distribution of nutrients according to the size, since everything is mixed (reminder: BRF = maximum diameter of 7 cm, that gives the margin).
- I do not particularly know the BRF of alder, but concerning nitrogen, we must not confuse the fixing capacity of the roots of alder (and therefore the food of the tree) and the nitrogen content of the twigs ... There are quite a few ways to solve this nitrogen hunger problem (which can very well manifest itself outside of the use of BRF!).

I hope that these answers will be of a nature to enlighten you, do not hesitate to ask other questions ...

[Rust COHLE]

I will try to provide you with some answers, knowing that I could only rely on the observations of the photos that you provide and the few technical characteristics. To put it simply, I will resume the order of the questions ...

- The chute, whether square or round, does not change much; the fact that it is narrowed constitutes the pitfall which causes jamming when large volumes of small elements cannot be evacuated. Hinging the discharge chute probably allows unclogging a little faster, but does not address the cause ...
- The feed hopper is also mounted on hinges on our model, so no differences (not surprising since your shredder is also Chinese and most probably came from the same factory!). These mountings on hinges will not change much for a possible storage, anyway, the front hopper has electric wires that will have to be disconnected each time and its weight is more substantial than the rear chute ... I doubt it. practical interest of this maneuver.
- Regarding the weight, I have no explanation. Perhaps the Chinese engine (Loncin) is heavier than the American?
- On the subject of power, you must understand that we are already at the minimum of what is reasonable, so reducing it is not necessarily a good idea.
- Cutting capacities are often inspired by the greatest fantasy, so no need to rely on it and the 10 cm is a dream. For ours, rather aim for 7-8 cm at most, with the capacity to absorb a slightly larger irregularity ...
- The blades are similar, as are the counter blades. It should be noted that the counter-blades wear out very little due to their oblique working position; their possible readjustment is justified by the wear of the blades and the need to maintain a minimum clearance between these two elements.
- Given the few differences between these two devices, this question is not applicable. An important point regarding the use and maintenance of this machine is that it is good to have a minimum of skill in mechanical DIY or someone available who meets this criterion (even when not considering any modification ). What seems to me worrying in this model, it is especially the appreciably lower power, power which could not be compensated by an argument of cutting capacity of the "commercial" type.
- Small diameters are not a problem; Admittedly, the fine branches are less crushed, but biologically they are easier to digest and in a practical way, they can be reserved for uses where a more homogeneous granulometry is not necessary; fork-sorting is easy. Do not worry about the distribution of nutrients according to the size, since everything is mixed (reminder: BRF = maximum diameter of 7 cm, that gives the margin).
- I do not particularly know the BRF of alder, but concerning nitrogen, we must not confuse the fixing capacity of the roots of alder (and therefore the food of the tree) and the nitrogen content of the twigs ... There are quite a few ways to solve this nitrogen hunger problem (which can very well manifest itself outside of the use of BRF!).

I hope that these answers will be of a nature to enlighten you, do not hesitate to ask other questions ...

Good evening AHMED, a big thank you for your return, I conclude that a priori this shredder is not very interesting ...
Just to be sure, you are talking about an American engine, can you confirm that your shredder is the one with the Chinese LONCIN engine or is it the American Briggs & Stratton engine?
Thank you in advance.

[Ahmed]

Being very little difference, it's up to you to conclude ...
To answer your question, yes, I preferred the model equipped with a Brigg & Stratton engine to the one driven by the Chinese Loncin; a bit more expensive, but renowned for its robustness and reliability.

[Rust COHLE]

Hello, in the "One day, one idea" section, what do you think of the DELEKS brand?

In particular of its model DK-500-LF: https://www.deleks.fr/fr/p/599/broyeur- ... oteur-15cv

I don't know the brand of the LIFAN engine, any idea? (there are also versions with B&S, YAMAHA and HONDA engines)

Who seems less efficient than the GEOTECH, engine and cutting diameter smaller, and yet more expensive ... Perhaps because of all the accessories and spare parts offered?

If you have opinions, I am interested ...