Supreme Court CONSTANT POWER BY HYDRAULICS

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28952, 21 July 1959, Page 10

Supreme Court CONSTANT POWER BY HYDRAULICS

“Problem Not Yet Solved” The problem of proddting a hydraulic circuit which provided continuous transmission of power, with reasonable efficiency and at reasonable cost, had not yet been solved, a hydraulics expert said in the Supreme Court yesterday. He was giving evidence in the Pyramid mower dispute which is being heard before Mr Justice Adams. Francis Martin Henderson, senior lecturer in fluid mechanics and hydraulics at the University of Canterbury, said that manufacturers had been attempting to produce a hydraulic system which would drive tractors and motor-cars. The main problems were overheating, speed control and the cost of hydraulic components, he said. To Mr R. B. Shand he said that from 1954 to 1956 there was no person in Christchurch capable of giving advice on the construction of an oil hydraulic motor and circuit as a whole. But there might be some engineers capable of designing a satisfactory motor to definite specifications. If Price and Son had approached him in 1955 or 1956 for advice on hydraulic problems relating to the mower he would have been willing to give assistance, he told Mr R. W. Edgley. He was often approached for help on engineering problems. The defendant company had not, however, sought his assistance. Experience With Mower Jack Francis Tutton, a farmer and flourmiller, said he . had ordered a Pyramid mower in 1955 after seeing one on display at the Rangiora Show, but it had not been delivered to his Swannanoa farm until nearly a year later. When he called at his farm one day in November, 1956, he found that the mower had been fitted to his new tractor and was being used in a lucerne paddock. His farm manager and tractor driver were not satisfied with the machine, and when he drove it himself it stopped after about 20 yards.

Later two men were sent to the farm by Latimer (a director of Pyramid Machines) to make adjustments to the mower, said Tutton. Hoban (another director of the company) arrived, made adjustments to the tractor, and then drove the mower around the paddock at less than two miles an hour. It performed quite well then but when driven by the witness it blocked up about half-way round the paddock. “We were very patient; we tried the mower for about eight days,” he said. Driving it in low gear, as advised by Hoban, there was noticeably more vibration in the tractor and the mower, and after a time the mower “broke up badly.” The witness said he had not paid Pyramid Machines for the mower. He had arranged with Latimer, to pay cash for the machine if it was completely satisfactory. Subsequently he bought a new mechanical mower. In reply to his Honour Tutton said the Pyramid mower “really flew to bits.”

Cross-examined by Mr J. B Weir, he said Hoban told him the mower would only work in low gear. He had offered to give evidence for the defendant after reading newspaper reports of the hearing. The reports seemed to suggest that the mowers were unsatisfactory because tije welding done by Price and Sons fell to bits, and that had not been his experience.