I hate it when I use the string trimmer to try and get down to the water's edge....it always throws debris out into the pond. I've tried a pushmower, but this means I'm probably walking in mud trying to push it, and the blade doesn't like to cut water very well.
I use herbicide where appropriate to do so, but there are still areas where I would prefer the manicured look over a barren, dead landscape.
So, the first prototype. It fastens on a straight shaft trimmer, in this case an Echo, and it should give me an extended reach while rolling along, 4" above the ground. It cuts a 21" swath, or at least it did during the proof of concept phase. The cutting attachment is finished, just waiting on a part or two for the trimmer itself. Hope to test next weekend.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
When I was a kid, we had a mechanically wheel driven 6' sickle mower that you pull behind a horse, or in our case, a smaller IH tractor. That thing worked really well, but it just looked like it could remove body parts really quick.
Getting close. Time to start working out the design changes and shortcomings, hopefully over the weekend.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
Dave, Tim has a beach house on Lake Michigan, which is a tad north of here. It's not as big as the Lawyers and Judges places up here, but I doubt he mows his own lawn
Tony, I hope you are keeping track of all the parts required, and of your time to put it together. I can see you going into limited production runs in 2015.
To be fair, pole mounted hedgetrimmers existed well before this, and some of the nicer ones even articulate. But every unit I looked at suffered from an inherent design issue....they are meant to be used at chest height or above. They are after all, hedgetrimmers, not mowers. I envisioned one that would allow the operator to hold it in a normal fashion, while still rolling along cutting ground based vegetation.
I can already see where the boom handle will need alteration, and I'm liking the idea of two, larger wheels with the cutter bar in between, rather than the single roller located underneath.
I'm also half jokingly toying with the idea of an outboard pontoon for the cutter bar. During proof of concept it did a number on cattails.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.
Put it to the test this afternoon, many thanks to my wife for volunteering herself for camera duty.
Definitely needs a better wheel/roller setup. I'm thinking of removing the roller, and installing a floating, dropped axle in its place. Equipped with larger diameter wheels on each end of the axle, it should roll much easier.
Also need to come up with a better handle arrangement. Since the debris simply lays over when cut, you have to travel through it to get to uncut weeds. I believe the improved carriage should help in this regard also however.
Action:
Last edited by sprkplug; 10/26/1402:54 PM.
"Forget pounds and ounces, I'm figuring displacement!"
If we accept that: MBG(+)FGSF(=)HBG(F1) And we surmise that: BG(>)HBG(F1) while GSF(<)HBG(F1) Would it hold true that: HBG(F1)(+)AM500(x)q.d.(=)1.5lbGRWT? PB answer: It depends.