Abstract
THE loss of cane during the harvesting process is estimated to cost the Australian sugar industry $50 million per year. Development of a monitor, that would measure cane losses during harvesting operations and allow the operator to make adjustments required to improve recovery of cane, could benefit the industry by between $12.5 million and $25 million annually. Various cane loss monitors have been researched, with the sensor being located either on the extractor hood or extractor fan hub. This paper compares the performance of the hood and fan mounted sensors and investigates alternative methods for sensor calibration. The study has shown that both the hood and fan sensor were unable to distinguish actual billet hits and no relationship could be found linking sensor signal output to number of billet hits. Signal response to trash and tops dominates response due to cane billets. The study has, however, shown that both systems predict mass material flow and therefore cane loss through the extractor fan very well. This is because both sensors give a good measurement of total cane and trash flow through the primary extractor and cane loss is directly related to this total material flow. Calibrating the cane loss monitor by identifying ‘billet hits’ from the monitor when billets are thrown at the hood, which has previously been recommended, is not considered a good procedure. Derivation of a calibration equation based on an integration of sensor signal over time is considered more appropriate.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 7
Claim · model-written summary
Neither sensor distinguished actual billet hits.
Verbatim
e0“both the hood and fan sensor were unable to distinguish actual billet hits”
t0“CANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Sensor signal output was unrelated to the number of billet hits.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“no relationship could be found linking sensor signal output to number of billet hits.”
t0“CANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Trash and tops dominated sensor response relative to cane billets.
Verbatim
e0“Signal response to trash and tops dominates response due to cane billets.”
Claim · model-written summary
Both systems predicted mass material flow and cane loss through the extractor fan very well.
Not reportedComparatorValue
Verbatim
e0“both systems predict mass material flow and therefore cane loss through the extractor fan very well.”
t0“CANE”
Claim · model-written summary
Total cane and trash flow measured by the sensors was directly related to cane loss.
Not reportedDirection
Verbatim
e0“both sensors give a good measurement of total cane and trash flow through the primary extractor and cane loss is directly related to this total material flow.”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors advise against calibration by identifying billet hits thrown at the hood.
Verbatim
e0“Calibrating the cane loss monitor by identifying ‘billet hits’ from the monitor when billets are thrown at the hood, which has previously been recommended, is not considered a good procedure.”
t0“CANE”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors prefer a calibration equation integrating sensor signal over time.
Verbatim
e0“Derivation of a calibration equation based on an integration of sensor signal over time is considered more appropriate.”
t0“CANE”