electrall question

What killed the electrall idea. Was it just a lack of interest or because you could only run IH implements with it. From what I have read it doesn't seem to have gotten off the ground when it came out.

The following is my opinion. The use of electricity to power major implements is a compromise. A generator of the era might have an eighty 80% efficiency on a proper resistive load with everything adjusted correctly (optimistic value). couple this with the 75% efficiency of the Motor or actuator on the implement, and you were down to just more than 60% real transfer of power. The generator is heavy and in the visual path of some tasks. The system was not "live" being driven from the belt pulley it stopped or slowed when clutched. A trailer driven generator would be live (on an SMTA or newer 300 or larger series, but that precludes the use of an implement.
The price would also have been dramatically more than a PTO shaft, which has a transfer of power of 97% running straight.
Farmers of the era were also not prone to go where no farmer had been before. Electrical things were not beyond them, they were mostly small motors and lights, not 10s of HP and higher voltage.
Savy farmers purchased many trailer based Electrall systems to provide emergency capacity to milk, run the furnace, and the barn cleaner. They still use them for that with great success.
Opinions will surely vary on this topic. Jim

This is just my opinion, but I'd say IH's and just about everyone else's tractors obsoleted the integral/sidemount electrall as it was made available to the public. Once tractors hit the 50+ hp. range and had the power to drive implements with only the tractor, additional power wasn't needed for implements that once required an additional engine. Live PTO had to be a big help, too. PTO driven equipment was getting more popular in the mid-50's and by the late 50's/early 60's was taking over, and if your tractor had the power to do the job by itself, why hassle with another motor, either gas or electric? The TA probably helped some, too.

If the pto was live or not, most tractors had them and there was an industry standard for over a decade at the time. If your tractor with electrall had serious problems, your equipment would have been worthless to put behind a tractor without one.

A 2pt. or towed version would have been a handy generator to have on the farm, though. There probably just wasn't that kind of demand for them at the time. Unless you were milking cows, a power outage usually wasn't the end of the world that many make it out to be today.

You probably wouldn't have heard: "Phooey, the power's out! Quick, honey, fire up the 400, I'll be darned if I'm going to miss Ed Sullivan!"

I'd say that it was a great concept, but maybe it was 10+ years too late for implement use and maybe 10+ years too early for an on-farm generator.

AG

What killed it?

Airheads in charge. Four months before the Electrall's introduction, IH started selling tractors (SMTA and SW6TA) with IPTO. Original concept was to create an electric IPTO. Now you could buy a tractor with two completely different IPTO's. Nobody needed two.

The Electrall concept goes all the way back to an experimental 10-20. I think it is likely that the same engineer was responsible for both systems. When this guy saw the drawings for the IPTO driving gear coupled to the tractor's main clutch pressure plate, he finally had a power source he could use. It was located on the top side of that gear. He was able to sell the concept to management and they signed a contract with GE.

It took years to get rid of that inventory. It was listed in Parts Books for many models for the next six to eight years. They even shipped some generators to the Truck Division.

SMTA, 400, and 450 are the only models that could run the side mount. All the other tractors used the rear PTO and it could only be used as a standby generator. Lots of other companies also made standby generators, probably cheaper as well.

Jim.

The side-mount is always rotating. It is totally live. It is switched on/off with a dash knob. That switch energizes the separate Autolite exiter which is v-belt driven from the Electrall dynamo.

The belt pulley is in no way connected to the Electrall. It is totally possible to run both a side-mount Electrall and the belt pulley as separate power sources. Doubt if it has ever been done but I could do it because my 400 has both units attached.

I should actually modify that last sentence. I did have both on the tractor. I removed the belt pulley and swapped in a Cotton Picker PTO drive. It runs another Electrall on the left side of the tractor. It runs other stuff (creeper drive and air compressor) as well because the gearboxes were made with pulleys on both sides of the tractor.

Others posters' reasons for the Electrall's failure in the market are all valid. Here are couple more (again strictly opinion):

- Cost. The Electrall generator and motor(s) would not have been cheap. (Check the current price on a 20 HP, 3 phase electric motor vs the cost of a PTO shaft).

- Safety. An Electrall's 208 volts is safe when the generator, motor and interconnecting wiring (cables) are new. However as insulation deteriorates, the equipment becomes dirty/wet, etc. a lethal shock hazard can develop.

----

A somewhat analogous situation existed in the late 1950's when LeTourneau/Westinghouse tried to market a diesel/electric elevating scraper (earthmover). The machine used electric motors instead of mechanical and hydraulic drives.

The design worked well on paper. However in the field the scraper was a colossal failure.

THanks, I was under the impression it was constant mesh. My other constructs hold (at least for me) thanks, interesting discussion. I saw the baler and SMTA at RPRU this summer, Awsome in every way. Jim

Jim,

Did my name come up at the RPRU while viewing the Electrall? I helped Don Olsen with a side-mount belt guard and prints/pictures for the baler motor mount. He did a nice job and has a rig to be proud of.

I'd like to find a #55 baler and convert it. I have a motor. Don would be more than willing to help me with some of the details.

It did by me with several attendees while ogling the superb combination. I was able to visit some with Nebraska Cowman (very interesting Gent.) I took about 200 Hires pictures. Send a envelope with postage and address and i will make a CD for you (or anyone) Have a great evening, Approaching the midnight hour now, I teach tomorrow CAD (ProE)then Electronics (Basic power and circuits), then Communications Technology (Lasers and fibreoptics) good night, Jim

What address do I need to send my stamped envelope to Jim???

All that, and 10KW is not a lot of power. At 746 Watts per HP, you could only hope to transmit about 13-1/2 HP to the implement at most.

When you've got around 50 HP at the PTO shaft, the Electrall motor doesn't really make a lot of sense.

My uncle used to fill silos with a big 3-phase electric motor to run the blower. I think the first one was 40HP and the second one was 50HP. These motors would run the blower like a tractor with twice the HP, but they were HUGE.

Can you imagine the kind of wart that a 40KW generator would put on the side of a tractor? Imagine the cables you'd need to run the motor, at today's copper prices? Then the motor on the implement?

A piece of cold formed bar, matching tube, and , a couple of universal joints... much more practical.

James A. Nicholson
205 Headley Hall
St. Cloud State University
720 4th Ave. S.
St. Cloud, MN 56301

Always seemed to me IH should have made a floodlight system to go with the electrall. Standing tripod lights and wiring could have been set up to illuminate stationary jobs such as unloading ear corn, shelling, blowing into the silo, or unloading bales at night. Tractor would provide the PTO/Belt power and the ability to work at night.