Hydraulic hose and fitting sizes?

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

3 hours ago, Chestnut said:

1/4" would be good for up to about 3 gpm

 

I can't imagine ever needing more than that unless you were running a FEL with multiple cylinders.

 

Of course, lowering the velocity would probably add some longevity with less 'scouring' of the inside of the hoses.

[ebinmaine 69,843]

@8ntruck @Chestnut @Jeff-C175

 

I was talking to a friend of ours who's VERY familiar with hydraulics.

Explained what I'm looking for in a system and future possibilities of adding a second circuit for angle. 

I'd rather have a slower, more easily controlled plow up/down speed. 

 

She said the IN/OUT of the valve should be 3/8 (1/2 not necessary) and the hoses to the cylinder should be 1/4".

Reasoning is that it would be good to reduce pressure and wear to/from pump to valve and having a smaller hose section in/out of the cylinder would keep cylinder movement speed down. 

 

 

 

Any thoughts, comments?

 

 

[Maxwell-8 4,366]

31 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

@8ntruck @Chestnut @Jeff-C175

 

I was talking to a friend of ours who's VERY familiar with hydraulics.

Explained what I'm looking for in a system and future possibilities of adding a second circuit for angle. 

I'd rather have a slower, more easily controlled plow up/down speed. 

 

She said the IN/OUT of the valve should be 3/8 (1/2 not necessary) and the hoses to the cylinder should be 1/4".

Reasoning is that it would be good to reduce pressure and wear to/from pump to valve and having a smaller hose section in/out of the cylinder would keep cylinder movement speed down. 

 

 

 

Any thoughts, comments?

 

 

Yes, makes complete sense! Thanks for the detailed info

But: bigger hoses can cause Oil moving too fast causing system damage, leaks and generate heat and heat in a hydraulic system is a sign of inefficiency. Oil moving too slowly will result in lower pressure and poor performance.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Maxwell-8

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

2 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

She said the IN/OUT of the valve should be 3/8 (1/2 not necessary) and the hoses to the cylinder should be 1/4".

 

That explains the -6 from my tranny to valve and the -5 from the valve to the cylinder!

 

Although, with the short distance that fluid has to travel, not sure it would really make much difference.

 

1 hour ago, Maxwell-8 said:

bigger hoses can cause Oil moving too fast

 

Don't quote me, but I believe the bigger hoses would be LESS velocity all other things equal.

 

My rationale is that bigger hose, same pressure and GPM, less fluid velocity.

Edited December 27, 2020 by Jeff-C175

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

2 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

cylinder movement speed down. 

 

I wonder if there is such thing as an adjustable flow regulator for hydraulic systems?  There must be.  Hello Mrs. Google?  You there?

 

Yes, of course, plenty of them.  Here's the first one that popped up, but if I ever hadda use one I would not want NPT fittings.

 

https://summit-hydraulics.com/product/hydraulic-adjustable-variable-flow-control-valve-w-relief-0-30-gpm-3-4-npt/

 

Edited December 27, 2020 by Jeff-C175

[Maxwell-8 4,366]

3 minutes ago, Jeff-C175 said:

bigger hoses would be LESS velocity

less resistance, would mean more gallons per minute, i may used the wrong words, i am also not a native English speaker, my bad

 

 and sorry i quoted you 

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

Just now, Maxwell-8 said:

sorry i quoted you

 

Salut Maxwell!  Not a problem at all... that's why we are here to discuss things!

 

If the pressure remained constant, yes, you may end up with higher GPM due to less friction.  Perhaps that is the factor that will change, but the velocity is probably going to stay relatively the same... maybe?

 

My fluid dynamics classes were a LONG time ago!  I need to think about this.

[Maxwell-8 4,366]

1 minute ago, Jeff-C175 said:

velocity is probably going to stay relatively the same

I mean you got the same pressure behind the fluid

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

Just now, Maxwell-8 said:

I mean you got the same pressure behind the fluid

 

OK, so with the same pressure, and less friction from a larger hose, I believe the GPM would certainly go up, but not sure about the 'speed' (velocity).  My gut is telling me the velocity will go down though.  

 

Where did I put those college textbooks? 

[Maxwell-8 4,366]

1 minute ago, Jeff-C175 said:

 

OK, so with the same pressure, and less friction from a larger hose, I believe the GPM would certainly go up, but not sure about the 'speed' (velocity).  My gut is telling me the velocity will go down though.  

 

Where did I put those college textbooks? 

Velocity, for you guys is speed, we in Belgium learn it as a heavy car going 60, has more velocity as a light car going 60

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

17 hours ago, Maxwell-8 said:

a heavy car going 60, has more velocity as a light car going 60

 

Hmmmm...  are you sure you aren't thinking of kinetic energy?

 

An object with more mass travelling at the same velocity possesses more kinetic energy (Joules)

 

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Jeff-C175

[ebinmaine 69,843]

24 minutes ago, Jeff-C175 said:

 

I wonder if there is such thing as an adjustable flow regulator for hydraulic systems?  There must be.  Hello Mrs. Google?  You there?

 

Yes, of course, plenty of them.  Here's the first one that popped up, but if I ever hadda use one I would not want NPT fittings.

 

https://summit-hydraulics.com/product/hydraulic-adjustable-variable-flow-control-valve-w-relief-0-30-gpm-3-4-npt/

 

Ok now there's a neat idea.....

 

Just so's you can understand the logic... I'm (at first anyway) going to leave a solid link connection to the plow. 

I do realize this isn't normally done but I'm wondering how difficult it would be to get used to operation at about 3 to 4 MPH. 

 

Just a bump up/down on the blade when needed. 

 

[Handy Don 13,129]

3 hours ago, ebinmaine said:

Just so's you can understand the logic... I'm (at first anyway) going to leave a solid link connection to the plow. 

I do realize this isn't normally done but I'm wondering how difficult it would be to get used to operation at about 3 to 4 MPH. 

 

In a thread on the GT14's the writer pointed out that its lift control was up-hold-down-float. Once the implement was fully down, it could be allowed to float but still be positioned in mid-range and held.

I sense you are trying to have the controls respond as do the hydraulics in machines with much larger and longer cylinders as well as control valves that permit fine adjustment of the flow rate. The cylinder on the 520, for example, is small and has a short throw and it takes practice and finesse to manage small movements. The system, though, seems optimized for "full up/full down" operation. Makes sense if you think about the common implements: mower, blower, snow blade, tiller, moldboard plow. These are typically up for travel and down for operation. In their "stock" form, each has its "depth/height" setting as part of the implement itself (mowers and blowers) or its attachment (plows). The engineers did a good job of designing for the target use with the basic rockshaft mechanism. We've added down pressure linkages, for example, and FELs' long cylinders.

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

38 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

still be positioned in mid-range and held

 

Yes... and I have to do that for my bluestone drive.

 

I can sympathize with wanting slower travel of the up-down.  When I'm plowing and want to adjust the 'float' level of the plow it's tricky to get it right where I want it.  Just a wee 'bump' of the lift valve is too much usually, and the plow 'bounces'.  I'm thinking a regulator on the 'down' side of the cylinder would be best.  The blade could still come up quickly, but down slowly.  Unless... these regulators are uni-directional.  If that's the case, they won't work...  the hoses to the cylinder have bi-directional flow.

 

The regulator might need to be inserted into the lines to/from the tranny, in which case both up and down would be affected.

 

A flow regulator might just improve that quite a bit.  And being easily adjustable would be a big plus too, because during mowing season it could be simply adjusted for faster response. 

[ebinmaine 69,843]

Really enjoying the learning and thought processes in this thread...

[Handy Don 13,129]

1 hour ago, Jeff-C175 said:

I'm thinking a regulator on the 'down' side of the cylinder would be best.  The blade could still come up quickly, but down slowly.  Unless... these regulators are uni-directional.  If that's the case, they won't work...  the hoses to the cylinder have bi-directional flow.

I wonder if an adjustable bypass could direct some of the flow around the cylinder and some into it.  In effect, slowing down the action when the bypass was active (snowplow?) and then turning it off when faster action was useful (mower or blower?)

Whatever gets used, you still need the pressure to enable the lift capacity and the bypass can't "leak" in reverse or the implement can't "hold" at. midpoint.

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

9 minutes ago, Handy Don said:

bypass

 

That's an interesting idea...  might need a check valve in the bypass line with the flow regulator on it if the regulator does not have one internally.

 

Bypass SOME flow in one direction but allow full flow in the other.

 

So tee fittings in both of the lines to the cylinder, with the flow regulator and possibly a check valve in between.

 

I'm going to research those valves a bit more.

[ebinmaine 69,843]

1 minute ago, Jeff-C175 said:

research those valves

Keep me posted please....

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

44 minutes ago, ebinmaine said:

Keep me posted please....

 

This one is 0-8 GPM with 3/8" NPTF ports :

 

https://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200336350_200336350

 

is only $40 and it says:

 

Quote

flow control and full shutoff in one flow direction, unrestricted flow in opposite direction

 

So that being the case, one could install this valve in either directional line to the cylinder and one way would be regulated, the other 'normal' speed.

 

I think this would work for what I'm thinking of, wanting to slow the 'down' of the plow but allowing full speed 'up'.

 

I don't see any way of actually mounting it though, no bolt holes, so a bracket would have to be fashioned.  

 

This is a lower flow range (0 to 5 GPM) valve, probably better for our applications, and smaller ( 1/4" NPTF ) ports and it's a little cheaper at $33.

 

https://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200336348_200336348

 

And here's another, smaller yet 0-3.7 GPM with 1/8" NPTF ports:

 

https://summit-hydraulics.com/product/hydraulic-flow-control-valve-w-free-reverse-flow-1-8-npt-ports/

 

Another choice:

Different brand, only $22 but does not allow full flow in reverse direction, has internal check valve I presume.  This would probably work as the bypass that Don spoke of.

 

Quote

Does this valve limit flow in both directions or is one way unrestricted?

The valve would only allow flow to go one direction.

 

https://www.northerntool.com/shop/tools/product_200746894_200746894

 

 

Edited December 28, 2020 by Jeff-C175

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

Here's what I'm considering... may or may not do this. 

 

I'd rather not cut a hole in the access panel but that would allow adjustment from the seat I think.  Not sure that would be necessary, once you have it where you want it I don't think it would need fiddling with during use.

 

 

Another possible mounting position would be the access panel just below the dashboard.

I like this location better but that would mean having to take out that lift valve again and I'd rather not mess with that if I don't have to.

Edited December 28, 2020 by Jeff-C175

[ebinmaine 69,843]

26 minutes ago, Jeff-C175 said:

possible mounting position

Is there enough structural strength in that valve that you could just attach it right at the cylinder itself and still have room for that brake rod to go back and forth?

 

I agree that you may not have to mess with it very often but it sure would be handy if you could just reach down and give it just a touch while you're trying to figure out the finesse of it for different applications. 

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

Just now, ebinmaine said:

Is there enough structural strength in that valve that you could just attach it right at the cylinder itself and still have room for that brake rod to go back and forth?

 

I agree that you may not have to mess with it very often but it sure would be handy if you could just reach down and give it just a touch while you're trying to figure out the finesse of it for different applications. 

 

That's not a bad idea!  If it were hard piped to the valve at the 45° angle, one would not need an extra hose, no holes to cut, no mounting bracket to fabricate, etc...  just a handful of extra fittings.

 

So, lessee...  need one 45° ORB to 1/4" NPTM to attach to the valve (if using the 0-5 GPM model) and one 1/4" NPTM to JIC 37° for the other one. 

[oliver2-44 10,098]

While these tractors hydraulic systems are no high pressure (around 700 psi) I would suggest using schedule 80 NPT fitting or actual hydraulic NPT fittings. 

NPT fittings at the hardware store are typically rated for 125 psi water service.

[ebinmaine 69,843]

1 minute ago, oliver2-44 said:

While these tractors hydraulic systems are no high pressure (around 700 psi) I would suggest using schedule 80 NPT fitting or actual hydraulic NPT fittings. 

NPT fittings at the hardware store are typically rated for 125 psi water service.

Another piece of information I didn't have. Thank you for sharing that.

I'll remember to get my fittings directly from the guy that makes my hoses.

 

[Jeff-C175 7,203]

On 12/26/2020 at 10:22 AM, rmaynard said:

His website is: 

http://www.classickitchensandmore.com

 

Just saw that Eldon is still selling the kits on ebay.