PERFORMANCE OF THE MECHANICAL RICE THRESHERS IN DAVAO DEL NORTE

A. L. YAP
1
and R. C. MONTEPIO
2


1
Student Researcher, Bachelor of Science in Agricultural Engineering
University of Southeastern Philippines, Tagum-Mabini Campus
Apokon, Tagum City, Davao del Norte
Email: dallstar1@gmail.com
2
Adviser and Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering,
College of Agriculture and Related Sciences,
University of Southeastern Philippines, Apokon,
Tagum City, Davao del Norte
__________________________________________________________________________

ABSTRACT

A single drum throw-in type axial flow and a double drum throw-in through flow thresher with the same
drum lengths of 95 cm were tested to evaluate the performance under conventional practices of farmers and
operators. The rice variety of R-82 (60 cm length of paddy) which had 22.3% and 24.8% moisture contents were
used in the tests for the single drum and double drum threshers, respectively. PAES 205:2000, method of test for
mechanical rice threshers was followed to determine the performance of the test machines. Results showed that
performance of both threshers were below the standards given by the Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standards
(PAES 204-2000) for mechanical threshers. However, when the performances of the two threshers were compared
results was not significant.

INTRODUCTION

For thousands of years, grain was separated
by hand with flails which were very laborious and
time consuming. Mechanization of this process took
much of the drudgery out of farm labor. The
thrashing machine, or, in modern spelling, threshing
machine (or simply thresher), was a machine first
invented by Scottish mechanical engineer Andrew
Meikle for use in agriculture. It was invented
(c.1784) for the separation of grain from stalks and
husks.
(http://en.wikipedia.orgwikiThreshing_machine).
At present, farmers are widely adopting
mechanical threshers for their rice threshing practices
in the province of Davao del Norte. The mechanical
threshers used are almost throw-in type axial flow
(Chirnaksorn 1990). The use of rice thresher
increases the labor productivity (Sukharomana,
1983). It requires less labor input and threshing
period than through flow and traditional methods.
In Davao del Norte, the production reached
196,115.18 metric tons of wet palay (2009). Such
volume was equivalent to 111,170.29 MT of milled
rice at 65 percent grains recovery. This is ninety-one
percent (91%) sufficient on the total population in
Davao del Norte. (JMD Abangan, Philippine
Information Agency, www.pia.gov.ph)
Threshing is one of the vital stages of the
postharvest processing. Its timing, availability and
efficiency greatly affect the quality and quantity of
the grains produced. The pre-threshing condition of
the grains also determines the extent of damage
which the threshing process would exact on the
grains.
Various methods of threshing grains have
evolved through the years, ranging from simple
manual threshing to the more sophisticated engine-
driven ones. Studying these methods, NAPHIRE
field trials obtained higher losses from hampasan
ranging from 2.13 to 4.23% compared with
mechanical threshers with a loss range of only 0.14 to
1.57%. (Technical Reference Guide on Postharvest
Operations, NAPHIRE, 1994)
In the Philippines, the standard threshing
performance data were given by the Philippine
Agricultural Engineering Standards (PAES 204-
2000). Meeting with the standards could optimize the
results or output from the machine which added
income for the farmers. This could also be a basis of
the threshers owner to continue using the machine,
repair or replace the existing.
Determining the performance of the thresher
to be used in the farm is significant for both the
farmer and the owner of the machine. As a
consequence, the owner would be able to locate and
correct the defects that occur in the mechanical
thresher, so that the farmers can ensure that the paddy
2
rice is threshed efficiently and lower threshing losses.
This study may help them to become more efficient
farmers, increase profit through minimized threshing
losses and maximized threshing recovery. It may help
them to choose what type of threshing machine to
acquire.

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study is to
determine the performance of a single drum axial
flow and double drum through flow threshers locally
fabricated in Davao del Norte.

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. determine the specifications of the threshers.
2. determine the characteristics of the harvested
palay and the threshed grains in terms of a)
grain-straw ratio, and b) purity.
3. determine and compare the a) threshing losses,
and b) threshing efficiency and recovery with
the Philippine Agricultural Engineering
Standards

METHODOLOGY

Location and Duration of the Study

The study was conducted during the harvest
period of rice in the province of Davao del Norte in
the months of September to October 2010.

Minimum List of Test Equipment and Materials

The following equipment and materials used
in this study were the grain moisture meter (duly
calibrated using the standard method), tachometer,
timers, measuring tape, camera, weighing scale, and
graduated cylinder, canvas sheet (4m x 8m), nylon-
catch bag (1.5m x 1.5m x 0.5m), nylon net (1.5m x
1.5m), sample bags, and labeling tags which include:
date of test, machine on test, sample source, variety,
and trail number.

Test Conditions

Prior to the test, rice conditions and the
details of the machine were recorded. Cut plants for
the gathering of samples were taken from the
harvested paddy of the farmers. The length of how
the farmers cut the plants was used in the gathering
of samples. The samples for the single drum and
double drum threshers were taken one day after the
harvest.
When the threshers were started, the
measurements of the speed of the threshing drum
were carried out. The settings for the test of both
threshers were dependent on how the operators set
the machine.
In the test run, drum speed and a feeding
rate at no-load condition were predetermined. Then
rice bundles were fed at the predetermined rate
continuously.

Data Gathered

Measurement of Grain-Straw Ratio
Grain-straw ratio was determined by
dividing the weight of the grain over the straw
weight. Three (3) representative samples of
approximately five hundred grams (500 g) each of
cut plants for the test materials were taken. For each
sample, the grains from the panicle were manually
threshed. The weight of the grain and the straw were
determined separately. The grain-straw ratio was
recorded and calculated (Equation 1). The average of
the three samples was taken as the grain-straw ratio.

Where:
Wg is the weight of grain, g
Ws is the weight of sample (grain and straw)

Purity Determination

The purity was determined by the ratio of
the weight of clean grains over the weight of unclean
grains (Equation 2). Five hundred grams (500 g) from
the main grain outlet was taken. The grains were
cleaned to remove the impurities and other foreign
matters. The clean grains were weighed and recorded.



Where:
Wu is the weight of uncleaned grain, g;
Wc is the weight of cleaned grain, g

Determination of Losses

Blower Loss
Blower loss was determined by taking five
samples from the chaff outlet for duration of about
one minute per collection using nylon net with a
dimension of 1.5 m x 1.0 m held by two persons at
both ends. The samples were placed in appropriate
containers and labeled as blower loss.
3
For the outlet chute whose function is to
collect and recycle chaff materials, the amount of
grains being recycled and the blower loss were taken
separately. At the outlet chute, an appropriate
container was used to collect three (3) samples. These
samples were placed in appropriate containers and
labeled as recycled sample.
After the samples were taken, each sample
was cleaned and weighed. The total weight of the
clean grains and the total time of collection were
recorded. Blower loss (B
l
) can be determined using
Equation 3 and 4.

[

]

[

]


Where: Wtblcg =Wt of blown clean grain, kg
Tdoco =Duration of collection, h
Tdope =Duration of operation, h
Wtcthg= cleaned threshed grain, kg
All losses = sum of all losses

Separation and Unthreshed Losses
Separation and unthreshed losses were
determined by taking five (5) samples from the straw
thrower outlet with collection time interval of five (5)
seconds. During the test operation, samples were
collected at the straw thrower outlet using a
rectangular box-shaped nylon catch with a dimension
of 1.5 m x 0.5 m open at one end of the small side.
The free grains mixed with the straw and the grains
that were still attached to the panicle were separated.
They were put in a separate container and labeled as
separation loss and unthreshed loss, respectively.
Separation (S
l
) and unthreshed (U
l
) losses were
computed using Equations 5, 6, 7, and 8,
respectively.

[

]

[

]

100


[

]

[

]

100

Where: Wtsecg =Wt of separated clean grain, kg
Wtuthg= Wt of unthreshed clean grain, kg

Scattering Loss
Scattering loss was also gathered since they
are also part of the total grain input. Canvas sheets
were spread around the threshing floor area to catch
these grains after each test trial. The collected grains
were placed in an appropriate container and labeled
as scattered grains.
Provisions were provided for the collection
of scattered grains with maximum distance of 1.0 m
away from the base of the machine. Percent
scattering loss (SCl) was computed using Equation 9.

[

]


Threshing Efficiency and Recovery

Threshing efficiency and recovery can be
determined using Equations 10 and 11, respectively.

[


]

Or


[

]


Experimental Treatment and Statistical Analysis

The sampling was laid out using Complete
Randomized Design, replicated three (3) times. There
were only two (2) treatments. The treatments were
the following:
Treatment 1 (T
1
) Performance Evaluated from the
axial flow thresher
Treatment 2 (T
2
) Performance Evaluated from the
through flow thresher
T-test was carried out (Microsoft Excel
2007) to compare the means of the treatments.




4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Thresher Specifications

Both test machines are throw-in type, single
drum axial flow and double drum through flow
threshers. The major difference was that the double
drum thresher obviously had two threshing chambers.
In addition, the movement of the trashed rice straw is
parallel to the drum motion. Both threshers have the
same cylinder dimension and a way of how they are
operated (Appendix Tables 2 and 3: Type of Power
Transmission).
The dimensions of the feeding port on a
axial flow and through flow threshers are 200 mm x
290 mm and 120 mm x 630 mm, respectively. The
amount of paddy fed to the machine may affect the
efficiency of threshing. Still, moisture content and the
number of damaged tooth on the cylinders may also
affect the threshing efficiency.
For the blowers/cleaners, both threshers
have fan and sifters. The fan for the through flow
thresher is made of wood but could already have low
efficiency because of its aged. While the axial flow
thresher, the fan was made of metal sheets that could
be more efficient than double drum thresher.
The drum diameters of both threshers didnt
fall to the standard drum diameters of the IRRI type
threshers 30 cm, 40 cm, and 50 cm. The drum
diameters are above the specifications stated in the
related literatures.

Characteristics of Test Paddy

R-82 was the variety of rice used in the
evaluation of both test machines. This variety has an
average straw length of 60 cm (2 ft).
The average grain-straw ratio of harvested
palay fed during the test for the single drum thresher
and for the double drum thresher were 0.63 and 0.67,
respectively. These grain-straw ratios fall into the
usual range for harvested palay.
The moisture contents of the sample palay
for single drum and double drum threshers are 22.3%
and 24.8%, respectively. Both moisture contents are
within the standard moisture content.


Purity

The average purities were 95% and 92.67%
for axial flow and through flow threshers,
respectively (Table 1).
Both threshers have fan and sifter.
According to the PAES 204-2000, the minimum
standard purity of threshers with fan and sifter is
97%. Thus, both values were below the minimum.
Maybe the reason was the sieve could have not been
move enough and have not shaken enough the
unclean grains to be blown away on the axial flow
thresher. For the through flow thresher, it had been
observed that the fan of the machine is not efficient
to blow away foreign or unclean grains because of
the wood material which is not in a good shape. The
fan cannot supply enough volume and velocity of air
to clean the threshed grains. However, when the two
treatments were compared, the results were
insignificant.


Table 1. Mean performance of single and double
drum threshers.
Parameters
Single
Drum
Axial
Flow
Thresher
(T
1
)

Double
Drum
Through
Flow
Thresher
(T
2
)

Standard
Criteria
from
PAES
1. Purity
2. Losses
-Blower Loss
-Separation
Loss
-Unthreshed
Loss
-Scattering
Loss
3. Threshing
Efficiency
4. Threshing
Recovery
95%
a

1.75%
1.17%

0.97%

0.17%

99.03%
a

96%
a
93%
a

0.17%
2.27%

2.5%

0.23%

97.5%
a

95%
a
97%

1.2%
1.3%

0.2%

0.3%

99.8%

97%
a
The means of the same letter are not significantly different
at 95% confidence level.


Thresher Losses
Blower Loss
The average blower loss for the axial flow
thresher was about 355 kg of threshed grains or
1.75% of the total grain input to the machine. While
for the through flow thresher, it only had 18.5 kg of
blower losses or 0.17% of the total grain input to the
machine. The axial flow thresher has high loss due to
the high speed at the fan. The blower loss has an
implication with the purity of the threshed materials.
High blower loss could mean higher purity value.
The more volume and speed of air blown into the
threshed materials will result to a more clean grain. It
implies also that lower blower losses may cause low
purity value, which cannot blow away foreign
matters efficiently. The minimum standard
5
percentage of purity from the PAES is 97% (Table
1), therefore both threshers were below the standard.

Separation loss
The axial flow thresher had an average
separation loss of 243.6 kg or about 1.17% of the
total input of grains to the machine. While the
through flow thresher had an average separation loss
of 273.6 kg or about 2.27% of the total grain input.
The higher separation loss of through flow thresher
may be due the moisture content of the samples
which was 24.1%, higher than the test samples used
in axial flow. The threshed grains with high moisture
content have higher tendency to stick and do not
separate easily to the straw. The maximum standard
percentage of separation loss from the PAES is 1.3%
(Table 1), therefore only the single drum thresher
meets the standard.

Unthreshed Loss
The average unthreshed losses of axial flow
and through flow threshers were 0.97% and 2.5%,
respectively. This means that the double drum
through flow thresher had higher unthreshed losses
than the single drum axial flow thresher even with
two cylinder drums to thresh the paddy. This was
least expected because of its two threshing chambers.
But as was stated earlier, the amount of the paddy fed
size of feeding port, moisture content which made
it hard to separate the grains from the panicle,
arrangement of teeth, concave clearance, and the
cylinder teeth may affect the unthreshed losses (see
Appendix Figures 3 and 4). Another factor could be
the type of teeth fabricated in the drum. But still, both
threshers did not meet the standard maximum
unthreshed loss that is only 0.2% (Table 1) of the
total grain input.

Scattering Loss
For the scattering losses, the single drum
axial flow thresher had an average loss of 0.17%
while the double drum through flow thresher had an
average loss of 0.23%. The maximum standard
scattering loss for threshers is 0.3% (Table 1). Thus,
both threshers are within the standards. This also
indicates that both types had good based stability
with lesser machine vibrations.


Threshing Efficiency and Recovery

Threshing Efficiency
The double drum through flow thresher was
expected to have higher efficiency though it could
vary because of the factors mentioned earlier. The
average threshing efficiency of the single drum axial
flow thresher was 99.03% and for the double drum
through flow thresher had 97.5% efficiency. This is
in relation with the unthreshed loss of both threshers.
The difference of 100% minus the percentage of
unthreshed loss is the efficiency of the threshers. The
standard minimum efficiency of threshers is 99.8%.
Thus, both are below the standards. The threshing
efficiency of the machine will depends on its
unthreshed losses. However, when the two treatments
were compared, the results were insignificant. This
indicates that the efficiencies of both threshers were
the same but below the standards.

Threshing Recovery
The average threshing recovery of the single
drum axial flow and double drum through flow
threshers were 96% and 95%, respectively. This is
the total output of the thresher over the total input of
grains. The standard minimum recovery of threshers
is 97%. Therefore, both threshers did not meet the
standards. When the two treatments were compared,
the results were insignificant. This indicates also that
the total losses of both threshers were high at a range
of 4 to 5 %. This loss is comparable with the
conventional threshing method called hampasan.

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Based on the data gathered, the drum
diameters of both test machines are larger than or did
not fall within the IRRI type specifications. Most of
the parameters evaluated, both types of threshers did
not meet the minimum and maximum requirements
set standard in the PAES 204 - 2000.
The purity of threshers is not significantly
different and both did not meet with the standards of
97% for threshers with fan and sifter. For the single
drum axial flow thresher, adjustments on the sieve
speed can be applied to have more oscillation to filter
the threshed grains. For the double drum through
flow thresher, both the sieve speed must be adjusted
and the wooden fan/blower must be modified or
improved to increase the wind velocity.
Since the standard maximum percentage of
blower loss for threshers is 1.2%, therefore, only the
double drum through flow thresher meet with the
standard. For the single drum axial flow thresher,
adjusting the speed of the fan/blower could help
lessen the losses in this category.
Only the single drum axial flow thresher is
below the maximum standard separation loss set in
the PAES. The double drum through flow thresher
had greater losses in this category. Reducing the
moisture content of the palay to be fed to 20 24%
may decrease separation losses.
6
For the unthreshed losses and threshing
efficiency, both type of threshers had losses over the
standards and had efficiencies below the standards.
For the double drum through flow thresher, repairing
the damaged teeth of the threshing chambers and
decreasing the amount of paddy fed to the machine
can improve the threshing efficiency. Improvements
on the type, arrangement, and spacing of the drum are
recommended.
For the scattering losses, both threshers had
minimum losses for this category and passed the
standards from PAES.
The threshing recovery of the machine
depends on the threshing losses. Reducing the losses
of the threshers improves the threshing recovery.
In general observation of the machine, the
tested threshers were old and much adjustments,
repairs and modifications must be done. To meet with
the standard performance of the machine and to give
efficient, assurance of better services, all locally
fabricated mechanical threshers of different types,
designs, etc. must be tested by an authorized testing
center.


_________________________________________________________________________________________

LITERATURE CITED

PAES 204-2000 Agricultural Machinery Mechanical Rice Thresher Specifications
PAES 205-2000 Agricultural Machinery Mechanical Rice Thresher Methods of Test
JMD Abangan, Philippine Information Agency, www.pia.gov.ph
Technical Reference Guide on Postharvest Operations, National Postharvest Institute for Research and
Extension, CLSU Compound, Nueva Ecija 1994

Kasetsart J. (Natl. Science Supply) Vol. 25, 140-148, 1991
World Wide Web: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm.html. Accessed online on August 16, 2010.

World Wide Web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threshing_machine.html. Accessed online on September 10, 2010.

World Wide Web: http://www.da.gov.ph/Rice2002/Introduction.html. Accessed online on September 10, 2010.

World Wide Web: http://knowledgebank.irri.org. Accessed online on March 1, 2011.




















7

Appendix Table 1. Performance criteria for mechanical rice threshers.

Parameters Standard Criteria from PAES
1. Purity
2. Losses
-Blower Loss
-Separation Loss
-Unthreshed Loss
-Scattering Loss
3. Threshing Efficiency
4. Threshing Recovery
97%

1.2%
1.3%
0.2%
0.3%
99.8%
97%
*Allowable noise level for four (4) hours of continuous exposure based on Occupational Safety and Health Standards, Ministry
of Labor, Philippines. 1983. Source (Philippine Agricultural Engineering Standard 204-2000)


Appendix Table 2. Specifications for single drum axial flow thresher.

ITEM SPECIFICATION
General Information
1. Owner
2. Address
3. Manufacturer


Vista
Brgy. Katipunan, Kapalong, Davao del Norte
Dela Cruz
Dimension of Thresher
1. Overall Length
2. Overall Width
3. Overall Height

5,400 mm
1,475 mm
2,000 mm

Components Speeds (without
load)
1. Cylinder
a. Shaft Speed
b. Peripheral Speed
2. Fan or Blower Shaft
3.Oscillating Screen Shaft
4. Auger Shaft



700 rpm
9.42 m/s
1680 rpm
350 rpm
350 rpm
Type of Power Transmission
1. Engine to Cylinder
2. Cylinder to Oscillating Screen
3. Cylinder to Blower
4. Oscillating Screen to Auger
Shaft


Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Feeding Table
1. Length
2. Width
3. Height from the Ground
4. Dimension of Feeding Port
5. Mode of Attachment
6. Material

650 mm
1200 mm
1000 mm
200 mm x 290 mm
Bolts and nuts
Metal sheet



8


Appendix Table 2. Continuation
ITEM SPECIFICATION
Threshing Chamber
1. Cylinder
a. Type
b. Size, LxD
c. Straw-thrower paddles
- Number
- Material
2. Cylinder Teeth
a. Type
b. Size
c. Number
d. Distance
e. Arrangement
f. Material
g. Means of attachment
3. Cylinder Cover
a. Shape
b. Material
c. Louver
- Number
- Inclination w/ respect to vertical
axis
4. Concave
a. Lower Concave
- Material
- Spacing bet. Grills
- Clearance bet. Concave and
Cylinder Teeth
- Stripper Bars
Number
Location
Material
b. Upper Concave
- Material
- Spacing bet. Grills


Axial flow, Throw-in
950 mm x 600 mm

4 paddles
Steel

Peg Tooth
60 mm
39 teeth
110 mm
Helical, alternating
Steel
Weld

Semi-circular cylinder
Metal sheets

22
60 degrees



Steel
50 mm
10 mm


7
Inside the cylinder
Steel bar

Steel
180 mm

Oscillating Screen/Sieve
1. Length
2. Width
3. Size of Perforations
4. Length of Stroke
5. Angle of Inclination
6. Material

900 mm
600 mm
10 mm x 10 mm
40 mm
10 degrees
Welded wire mesh

Auger
1. Pitch
2. Length
3. Minimum Clearance from Housing
4. Material

20 mm
800 mm
20 mm
Finished steel


9


Appendix Table 2. Continuation
ITEM SPECIFICATION
Blower/Aspirator
1. Type
2. Total Length
3. Diameter
4. Number of Blades
5. Size of Inlet Port
6. Material

Fan
930 mm
300 mm
4
240 mm
Metal sheet



Appendix Table 3. Specifications for double drum through flow thresher.

ITEM SPECIFICATION
General Information
1. Owner
2. Address
3. Manufacturer


Lagang
Brgy. Katipunan, Kapalong, Davao del Norte

Dimension of Thresher
1. Overall Length
2. Overall Width
3. Overall Height

8,500 mm
1,500 mm
2,000 mm
Rated Capacity Range 1800 kg/hr

Components Speeds (without load)
1. 1
st
Cylinder
a. Shaft Speed
b. Peripheral Speed
2. 2
nd
Cylinder
a. Shaft Speed
b. Peripheral Speed
2. Fan or Blower Shaft
3.1
st
Oscillating Screen Shaft
4. 2
nd
Oscillating Screen Shaft
5. Auger Shaft


700 rpm
10.94 m/s
1680 rpm
1000 rpm
6.69 m/s
1,937 rpm
387 rpm
404 rpm
511.2 rpm

Engine
1. Brand
2. Model
3. Serial Number
4. Type (cycle and ignition)
5. Rated Speed
6. Rated Power

Kubota
Diesel Kiki
06308
Compression ignition, Diesel engine
2,200 rpm
8 hp

Type of Power Transmission
1. Engine to 1
st
Cylinder
2. 1
st
Cylinder to 2
nd
Cylinder
3. 1
st
Cylinder to 1
st
Oscillating Screen
4. 1
st
Cylinder to Blower
5. 1
st
Cylinder to 2
nd
Oscillating Screen
6. 2
nd
Cylinder to Auger Shaft

Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
Belt and pulley
10

Appendix Table 3. Continuation
ITEM SPECIFICATION
Threshing Chamber
1. Cylinder
a. Type
b. Size, LxD
c. Straw-thrower Paddles
- Number
2. Cylinder Teeth
a. Type
b. Size
c. Number
d. Distance
e. Arrangement
f. Material
g. Means of Attachment
3. Cylinder Cover
a. Shape
b. Material
c. Louver
- Number
- Inclination w/ respect to vertical
axis
4. Concave
a. Lower Concave
- Material
- Spacing bet. Grills
- Clearance bet. Concave and
Cylinder Teeth
- Stripper Bars
Number
Location
Material
b. Upper Concave
- Material
- Spacing bet. Grills


Axial flow, Throw-in
950 mm x 600 mm

None

Peg Tooth
60 mm
33 teeth per cylinder
110 mm
Helical, alternating
Steel
Weld

Semi-circular cylinder
Metal sheets

22 per cylinder
60 degrees



Steel
50 mm
10 mm


6
Lower Concave
Steel bars

Steel
None

Feeding Table
1. Length
2. Width
3. Height from the Ground
4. Dimension of Feeding Port
5. Mode of Attachment
6. Material

850 mm
1200 mm
1300 mm
120 mm x 630 mm
Bolts and nuts
Metal sheet

1
st
Oscillating Screen/Sieve
1. Length
2. Width
3. Size of Perforations
4. Length of Stroke
5. Angle of Inclination
6. Material

900 mm
600 mm
10 mm x 10 mm
40 mm
5 degrees
Welded wire mesh


11






Appendix Table 3. Continuation
ITEM SPECIFICATION
2
nd
Oscillating Screen/Sieve
1. Length
2. Width
3. Size of Perforations
4. Length of Stroke
5. Angle of Inclination
6. Material

2100 mm
600 mm
80 mm x 10 mm
40 mm
5 degrees
Welded round bars

Blower/Aspirator
1. Type
2. Total Length
3. Diameter
4. Number of Blades
5. Size of Inlet Port
6. Material

Fan
640 mm
300 mm
4
250 mm
Wooden blades

Auger
1. Pitch
2. Length
3. Minimum Clearance from Housing
4. Material

30 mm
640 mm
10 mm
Finished steel