Jiangsu Nanyuan HydraulicTwo archived Q91Y shear rows can show the same cutting frequency and different production-rate ranges. The frequency column therefore cannot be used by itself to rank tonnes processed or to claim that the machines have equivalent output. Read the two fields separately before carrying either into a current quotation.
A concrete comparison from the archived table
Nanyuan’s historical Q91Y hydraulic scrap shear table lists 3 times/min in the cutting-frequency column for both Q91Y-315 and Q91Y-1250B. Their production-rate entries are different: 3–5 and 25–30 respectively under the tons/hr heading. These are archived catalogue entries, not present-day test results or promised output for a buyer’s scrap.
| Archived model row | Cutting frequency, times/min | Production rate under tons/hr heading |
|---|---|---|
| Q91Y-315 | 3 | 3–5 |
| Q91Y-1250B | 3 | 25–30 |
This comparison supports a narrow conclusion: identical entries in the frequency column do not make the production-rate entries identical. It does not explain all the conditions behind either range. The archive does not provide a corresponding material-trial record that would establish the buyer’s expected result.
Frequency counts events; production rate describes mass over time
A frequency expressed in times per minute describes a count over a time interval. A mass-production rate describes material quantity over a time interval. They are different measurements. The frequency value alone contains no measured mass corresponding to each counted event.
Multiplying the archive’s 3 times/min by 60 would only convert the stated time basis. It would not establish a shift’s completed cuts, accepted output or tonnes processed. The archive does not say that a machine sustains the listed frequency throughout every hour of the buyer’s operation. Do not use that arithmetic as a production commitment.
Do not reverse-engineer a mass per cut from the two columns
A tempting comparison divides the stated tonnes-per-hour range by a frequency converted to events per hour. That would combine two catalogue fields without establishing that they were measured together, on the same material, over the same boundary. It would create an apparent mass per event that the source has not actually documented.
Keep the original fields intact. If a purchasing model needs a mass-per-event assumption, ask for evidence that defines the counted event, corresponding output mass and observation period together. Do not label a calculation from disconnected brochure fields as a measured Q91Y result.
Ask what the current frequency statement includes
When a proposal uses a frequency figure, ask the supplier to define its meaning for that configuration. Is the figure a stated machine-motion frequency, a recorded cutting-event count, or another specifically defined quantity? The archive’s short column heading does not answer that question in sufficient detail for a project calculation.
Also keep the time boundary explicit. A selected cutting interval and a complete operating period are not automatically comparable. Handling and interruptions belong in the process discussion, but their actual duration cannot be invented from a catalogue row. This is a request for existing evidence and definitions, not instructions for running a machine trial.
Compare relevant output evidence rather than a shared number
For a current offer, connect the proposed configuration to the material description, output definition and recorded or estimated production basis. Distinguish measured results from an estimate, and retain any conditions stated by the supplier. If the available evidence concerns different material, keep that difference visible instead of treating a matching frequency as a substitute.
The historical rows can help identify the question to ask. They cannot show that the larger production-rate range applies to your material or that either model is the appropriate purchase. Neither should the comparison be used to infer energy use, cutting force requirements or approved feed geometry.
Send a focused Q91Y comparison inquiry
Start with the Q91Y-315 reference listing and identify the alternative configuration under discussion. Include the actual scrap description, target output and operating context. Ask the supplier to state separately what cutting frequency means and what supports the proposed mass-output estimate.
Contact Nanyuan for a current Q91Y specification review. Preserve the archive as a historical reference, while leaving frequency definitions and application-specific production unresolved until the current proposal supplies the necessary evidence.