Semi-mounted reversible plow

Christoph Warnecke, Bad Essen (DE); Martin Wilken, Oldenburg (DE); Pascal Rehnen, Melle (DE)

USPTO: us-12628718 · published 2026-05-19 · patents · A01B 3/464· A01B 15/145

Semi-mounted reversible plow

Pascal Rehnen, Melle (DE) , Christoph Warnecke, Bad Essen (DE) , Martin Wilken, Oldenburg (DE) This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 07:02 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification patents A01B 3/464A01B 15/145

keywords reversible plowsemi-mounted plowfurrow positionon-land positionoffset actuatorturning mechanismplow frame

0 comments

The pith

A reversible plow uses dual actuators on offset and furrow rockers to switch between furrow and on-land positions while also enabling a compact turning stance with less overhang.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The patent describes a semi-mounted reversible plow whose plow frame attaches to the tractor headstock through a stabilizer and turning arm. Between the turning arm and frame sit an offset rocker and a front furrow rocker driven by two separate actuators. One actuator sets the plow for either furrow or on-land work; the second actuator independently shifts the transverse distance of the foremost body and, when needed, pivots the frame into a turning position that reduces side overhang. A stroke limiter further restricts actuator travel once the plow is in the on-land setting. This arrangement is presented as a way to give the operator more flexible positioning without requiring changes to the basic turning geometry.

Core claim

The semi-mounted reversible plow is configured to selectively assume a furrow working position and an on-land working position by movement of the rockers via an adjustment actuator, and the offset actuator can move the rockers to different transverse distances regardless of the adjustment actuator stroke while also enabling a turning position with reduced transverse overhang and a stroke limitation mechanism in the on-land position.

What carries the argument

Dual rockers (offset rocker and front furrow rocker) moved by independent adjustment and offset actuators to control transverse offset and turning angle.

If this is right

The plow can be set for on-land work without changing the stroke range needed for furrow work.
Turning can be performed with a smaller side reach, reducing the space required at field ends.
The stroke limiter prevents over-extension damage once the on-land position is selected.
Independent transverse adjustment remains available at any point in the adjustment actuator's travel.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Tractors with narrower headlands could use this plow where older reversible designs would require extra maneuvering room.
The same rocker geometry might be adapted to other semi-mounted tillage tools that need both offset and compact-fold modes.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanical linkage of the two rockers and two actuators will maintain structural rigidity and free movement under field loads without binding or interference between components.

What would settle it

A field test in which the plow is driven through multiple full reversals on uneven ground and the offset actuator either binds, loses rigidity, or collides with a plow body.

read the original abstract

1 . A semi-mounted reversible plow comprising: a headstock for attachment to a tractor; a stabilizer which is connected to said headstock and on which a plow frame carrying two rows of plow bodies is mounted by way of at least a front turning arm in a manner rotatable about a horizontal turning axis, wherein an offset rocker connected in a rotatable manner to said turning arm and a front furrow rocker (connected in an articulated manner to said offset rocker and in a rotatable manner to said plow frame, are arranged between said plow frame and said turning arm, and wherein the rockers are movable by an adjustment actuator to positions causing different transverse distances between said headstock and in the direction of travel of the foremost plow body, such that said semi-mounted reversible plow is configured to selectively assume a furrow working position and an on-land working position; and an offset actuator by way of which said offset rocker and said front furrow rocker are movable to positions causing different transverse distances between said headstock and in the direction of travel of said foremost plow body, regardless of the stroke position of said adjustment actuator; wherein said plow frame is pivotable for turning by way of said offset actuator about a pivot axis transverse to the turning axis to a turning position with reduced transverse overhang; wherein said offset actuator, in the on-land working position, is associated with a stroke limitation mechanism.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

A patent claim for decoupled offset and turning kinematics on a reversible plow, with no supporting analysis or prior-art comparison.

read the letter

The core of this patent is a linkage using an offset rocker, front furrow rocker, adjustment actuator, and separate offset actuator plus stroke limiter. It lets the plow switch between furrow and on-land positions while also allowing the offset actuator to set transverse distance independently of the adjustment stroke and to pivot the frame for a tighter turn with less overhang. That combination is presented as the advance. The description is clear on component relationships and intended motions, which is useful for anyone who actually builds or inspects these implements. It directly targets practical problems like frame interference during turning and the need for different working widths without reconfiguring the whole headstock. The text stays consistent with its own geometry and does not rely on hidden assumptions or circular definitions. Still, nothing in the document shows that the variable four-bar chain stays free of lock-up or collision when the adjustment actuator is at either extreme and the frame rotates. There are also no force calculations, prototype measurements, or side-by-side comparison with existing reversible-plow linkages, so the degree of improvement over prior art remains untested from the given material. This is a mechanical design filing, not a research result. Agricultural-machinery designers or patent examiners might find the specific actuator arrangement worth noting for prior-art purposes. It does not contain the kind of evidence or analysis that would justify sending it to scientific peer review.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a patent application for a semi-mounted reversible plow. It claims a configuration with headstock, stabilizer, plow frame carrying two rows of plow bodies mounted via a front turning arm rotatable about a horizontal turning axis, offset rocker and front furrow rocker between frame and turning arm, an adjustment actuator to achieve furrow vs. on-land working positions by varying transverse distance to the foremost plow body, and an offset actuator that independently repositions the rockers for different transverse distances regardless of adjustment-actuator stroke, enables pivoting to a reduced-overhang turning position, and incorporates a stroke-limitation mechanism active only in the on-land position.

Significance. If the claimed geometry functions without binding or loss of rigidity, the design would provide a practical advance in reversible-plow versatility by allowing on-the-fly position changes and tighter turns. The absence of kinematic verification or load data, however, leaves the performance claims untested.

major comments (1)

Claim 1 (offset actuator paragraph): the assertion that the offset actuator repositions the offset rocker and front furrow rocker 'regardless of the stroke position of said adjustment actuator' is load-bearing for the central independence claim, yet the description supplies no kinematic analysis, instantaneous-center calculation, or range-of-motion envelope demonstrating that the variable four-bar chain remains free of lock-up or frame interference when the adjustment actuator is at either extreme.

minor comments (1)

The single claim paragraph is dense; breaking the functional relationships into separate numbered sub-claims would improve readability and enable clearer examination of each asserted degree of freedom.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the detailed reading of our patent application. The single major comment raises a valid point about supporting disclosure for the independence claim. We respond below and note that, as a patent specification, the level of detail required is that which enables a person skilled in the art to practice the invention without undue experimentation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: Claim 1 (offset actuator paragraph): the assertion that the offset actuator repositions the offset rocker and front furrow rocker 'regardless of the stroke position of said adjustment actuator' is load-bearing for the central independence claim, yet the description supplies no kinematic analysis, instantaneous-center calculation, or range-of-motion envelope demonstrating that the variable four-bar chain remains free of lock-up or frame interference when the adjustment actuator is at either extreme.

Authors: We agree that the independence of the offset actuator from the adjustment-actuator stroke is central to the claimed versatility. The specification already describes the geometric arrangement of the turning arm, offset rocker, front furrow rocker, and the two actuators in sufficient detail for a skilled plow designer to construct and verify the mechanism. However, we acknowledge that explicit kinematic verification is absent. Because this is a patent application rather than a technical paper, we do not believe full instantaneous-center calculations or motion envelopes are required for enablement, but we are prepared to add a concise paragraph describing the non-interference envelope at both extremes of the adjustment actuator if the examiner considers it necessary for clarity. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: direct mechanical claim without derivations or self-reference

full rationale

The document is a patent claim describing component geometry and actuator functions for a reversible plow. No equations, fitted parameters, predictions, uniqueness theorems, or citations appear. All statements are direct assertions of kinematic relationships (offset rocker, front furrow rocker, dual actuators, stroke limiter) that do not reduce to any input by construction or self-definition. The central claim therefore remains non-circular by the stated criteria.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the unstated premise that standard tractor three-point or semi-mounted attachment geometry and typical soil reaction forces are compatible with the described rocker kinematics.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The plow frame and rockers can be manufactured and assembled to the geometric tolerances implicitly required by the turning and offset motions.
Invoked by the functional description of positions and stroke limitation without supporting tolerance analysis.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5799 in / 1164 out tokens · 35309 ms · 2026-05-20T07:02:08.689172+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

IndisputableMonolith.Foundation.DimensionForcing alexander_duality_circle_linking unclear

?

unclear
Relation between the paper passage and the cited Recognition theorem.

plow frame is pivotable for turning by way of said offset actuator about a pivot axis transverse to the turning axis to a turning position with reduced transverse overhang

What do these tags mean?

matches: The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports: The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends: The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses: The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts: The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear: Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.