|
Colby, Kansas | Tom,
The key difference is how the two systems treat the response of flow rate vs. impact force on the sensor. AgLeader uses a polynomial response, Deere's is linear. This is why for calibration purposes Deere requires two flow points and AgLeader requires a minimum of 5 to complete a full calibration. Basically it's a trade off between accuracy and and ease of calibration. The truth of the matter is however, that in reality it's indeed a polynomial response, not a linear.
My concern with a linear type system (Deere) is your accuracy is going to vary a great deal in relation to where you set your calibration points. With a polynomial system you are going to have accuracy over a wider range of field conditions (if you calibrated properly).
For example this fall our combines will pick corn that ranges from 15 to 220 bu. / acre. Thats a large range to cover with a linear type response and expect any type of accuracy, maybe its too large for a polynomial but I'll say I've never had problems with that route.
My first multi-day experience with a GS system was this summer. The calibration procedure and resulting data did not leave me with a warm fuzzy feeling. In the interest of full disclosure however I have been a user of AL monitors for quite some time.
All through wheat harvest I just kept telling myself that fuzzy data was better than no data, I don't know I would either like to install an AL in that machine or convince the combine operators to alternate every other pass so that I could make a map with the one machines data.
Does the difference in yield monitors make a difference when your using the data for something. Possibly not, it depends on how you are using the data. My biggest concern is that the potential errors in a linear system are at really high and low flow rates, the areas that I have the most interest in.
I've rambled a lot here, I look forward to other's comments.
Lucas | |
|
GS vs AL comparison test for yield estimation
