Performance Analysis for a Card Cleaner Type Separating System of Pepper Harvester

Jo, Yeon-Ju; Kang, Young-Sun; Nam, Ju–Seok; Choe, Jung Seob; Inoue, Eiji; Okayasu, Takashi; Kim, Dae–Cheol

doi:10.5109/1911185

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The self-propelled chili pepper harvester consists of the picking and transfer parts that remove peppers from plants, a separation sorting part that removes small branches and leaves, and a collecting part that contains the peppers [25]. Previous studies were conducted on the separation sorting part using a star wheel and a card cleaner [26][27][28][29] as well as using an air blower [26,30] to remove small branches. When bigger particles, such as stemmed chili peppers, flow in from the picking part, the development of additional separating and sorting devices are required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Testing and Evaluation of Drum-Type Stem-Separation Device for Pepper Harvester

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The chili pepper harvester has shown potential problems of low pepper stem separation and a high pepper damage rate. The low pepper stem separation has required additional labor, which consists of separating the pepper and stem after pepper harvesting. To improve the stem separation and sorting function of pepper harvesters, three-shaft and four-shaft drum-type stem-separation devices were manufactured, and performance tests were conducted to assess these devices. In an attempt to reduce the damage rate, a brush was used as the teeth in the drum-type stem-separation device. In the factor test, the rotational speeds of shaft 1(A), shaft 2(B), shaft 3(C), and the conveyor for the three-shaft drum were 0.9, 2.7, 1.3, and 0.5 m/s, respectively. The rotational speed of the four-shaft drum was the same as that of the three-shaft drum except for shaft 4(D), and the rotational speed of this additional D was set to 1.3 m/s, which was the same as that of C. In the non-moving status during the non-picking operation of the pepper harvester, the average stem-separation efficiency (SSE) of the four-shaft drum increased by 1.2%, the average pepper with twig rate (PTR) decreased by 5.9%, and the average damage rate (DR) increased by 3.7% compared to the three-shaft drum. In the moving status during the picking operation of the pepper harvester, the SSE of the four-shaft drum increased by 3.6%, the PTR decreased by 9.1%, and the DR increased by 3.8% compared to the three-shaft drum, so an improvement in the pepper stem-separation capacity was observed.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance Testing and Evaluation of Drum-Type Stem-Separation Device for Pepper Harvester

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Factorial Experiment for Air Blower of the Pepper Harvester

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Performance Comparison and Evaluation of Two Small Chili Pepper Harvester Prototypes That Attach to Walking Cultivators

Kim

Cho

2020

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two prototypes of small chili pepper harvesters that attach to walking cultivators were designed and manufactured before field performance tests were conducted. The two prototypes were designed and manufactured with different main frame materials, forms of divider, picking guides, and helix rotation speeds. The maximum helix speed of the first prototype was 500 rpm, and the helix rotation speeds of the second prototype were a minimum of 510 rpm and a maximum of 730 rpm. Field performance tests were conducted on two species of chili, the AR Legend and the Jeokyoung, to determine which was suitable for mechanization. The Jeokyoung species was found to be most suitable for mechanization as its harvest efficiency was higher and its pepper left on plant rate and ground fall loss rate were lower than AR Legend's. When the first and second prototypes were compared at helix rotation speeds of 500 to 510 rpm, in the case of the AR Legend, the average harvest efficiency of the second prototype was higher than the first prototype by 2.2%, the average pepper left on plant rate was lower by 2.1%, and the average ground fall loss rate was lower by 3.9%. In the case of the Jeokyoung, the performance of the second prototype was further improved over the first prototype as the average harvest efficiency increased to 5.2%, and the difference in average ground fall loss rate increased to 8.8%.

show abstract

Performance Analysis for a Card Cleaner Type Separating System of Pepper Harvester

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Performance Testing and Evaluation of Drum-Type Stem-Separation Device for Pepper Harvester

Performance Testing and Evaluation of Drum-Type Stem-Separation Device for Pepper Harvester

Factorial Experiment for Air Blower of the Pepper Harvester

Performance Comparison and Evaluation of Two Small Chili Pepper Harvester Prototypes That Attach to Walking Cultivators

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About