Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
---What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---We're on the honor system.
What doesn't sound reasaonable?What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
---What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
Or outward.What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? Maybe the shadows of theAnyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Basis?Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
---What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 07:13:14 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:
What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. You still don't get it, do you?
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. If it moves inwards it does.
---
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
I won't hold my breath though...
---
Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
Why not outward?What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ďż˝
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.You still don't get it, do you?
What about both ways? Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. �If it moves inwards it does.
That's not an answer.Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? �Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. �After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; �no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
You are doing a good job of yanking legs, or you are really dense. IWhat idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ?
Why not outward?
You still don't get it, do you?
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.
Here, let's try again:
What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. ?If it moves inwards it does.
What about both ways? Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? ?Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
That's not an answer.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
. . .
Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. ?After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; ?no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."
- Nietzsche
Why not outward?What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ďż˝
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.You still don't get it, do you?
What about both ways? Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. �If it moves inwards it does.
That's not an answer.Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? �Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. �After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; �no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
FYI, some potato farmers do work circles.
You could knock me over with a feather!
?They compromise land use in favor
of cost saving by doing circle watering.
Then you'll gonna see more and more pivots and circles out west as the
drough fallows more and more land anyway.
Bret Cahill
"Either be there or be square."
Give it more thought, it might come to you.On Jul 22, 2:59 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 7/22/08 10:51 AM, in article
0e0e2462-d1c8-404c-8823-7bb768c68...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
"BretCah...@peoplepc.com" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ?
Why not outward?
You still don't get it, do you?
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.
Here, let's try again:
What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. ?If it moves inwards it does.
What about both ways? Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? ?Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
That's not an answer.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
. . .
Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. ?After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; ?no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."
- Nietzsche
You are doing a good job of yanking legs, or you are really dense. I
suspect the latter, and John's leg pulling has done a fair job of showing
it.
Let's assume you have a field that is 5000 feet on a side; a conservative
assumption for a serious farmer.
For practical reasons lets also assume the crop is wheat, barley or corn.
Working the field in the conventional manner provides 25 million square feet
of workable field.
Working the field in a circular pattern gives you only 19.635 million square
feet.
Well now you've got me interested. Are you suggesting that we are
restricted to inscribing all circles inside a rectangle? Why don't we
start with a circular field and then inscribe the square?
So far, there hasn't been a serious analysis from anyone. Why are we
still plowing fields in the first place---aren't people switching over
to no-till agriculture? And if we are, why not have one big irrigation/
planting/weeding gizmo that does each task in one pass?
-tg
FYI, some potato farmers do work circles. They compromise land use in favor
of cost saving by doing circle watering.
"$100 billion a year wasted on diesel" ain't a number?What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ďż˝
Why not outward?
You still don't get it, do you?
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.
Here, let's try again:
What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. �If it moves inwards it does.
What about both ways? Â Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? �Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
That's not an answer.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? Â Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
-------------------------
You've offered no numbers
WHAT hypothesis?or reasoning to support your hypothesis
Bret Cahill
You could knock me over with a feather!FYI, some potato farmers do work circles.
Then you'll gonna see more and more pivots and circles out west as the�They compromise land use in favor
of cost saving by doing circle watering.
Well it _does_ take time to get the uneducated general public toWhat idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ?
Why not outward?
You still don't get it, do you?
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.
Here, let's try again:
What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. ?If it moves inwards it does.
What about both ways? �Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards..
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? ?Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
That's not an answer.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? �Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
. . .
Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. ?After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; ?no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."
- �Nietzsche
You are doing a good job of yanking legs,
In that case they'ld want to use something based on the linearLet's assume you have a field that is 5000 feet on a side; a conservative
assumption for a serious farmer.
For practical reasons lets also assume the crop is wheat, barley or corn.
Working the field in the conventional manner provides 25 million square feet
of workable field.
Working the field in a circular pattern gives you only 19.635 million square
feet.
Well now you've got me interested. Are you suggesting that we areOn 7/22/08 10:51 AM, in article
0e0e2462-d1c8-404c-8823-7bb768c68...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com,
"BretCah...@peoplepc.com" <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
What idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ?
Why not outward?
You still don't get it, do you?
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.
Here, let's try again:
What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. ?If it moves inwards it does.
What about both ways? Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? ?Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
That's not an answer.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
. . .
Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. ?After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; ?no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."
- Nietzsche
You are doing a good job of yanking legs, or you are really dense. I
suspect the latter, and John's leg pulling has done a fair job of showing
it.
Let's assume you have a field that is 5000 feet on a side; a conservative
assumption for a serious farmer.
For practical reasons lets also assume the crop is wheat, barley or corn.
Working the field in the conventional manner provides 25 million square feet
of workable field.
Working the field in a circular pattern gives you only 19.635 million square
feet.
FYI, some potato farmers do work circles. They compromise land use in favor
of cost saving by doing circle watering.
Then the four chords of the circle outside of the square would be onWhat idiot suggested this?
And _no_ you cannot key word search to identify the moron.
---
Seems the idiot posted:
"Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow."
What doesn't sound reasaonable?
---
Inward?
Or outward.
---
No, inward. ?
Why not outward?
You still don't get it, do you?
Certainly not with all your issue dodging.
Here, let's try again:
What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
---
The plow moves in a + or - radial direction as the pivot turns.
---
If it moves outward, then when it's finished plowing it doesn't have
to move back through the furrows. ?If it moves inwards it does.
What about both ways? �Clockwise is outwards and CCW is inwards.
Anyway, all this dodges the issue:
What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?
---
No one ever suggested that they can't, just that they're not as
efficient as straight furrows.
Does it somehow affect the photosynthesis? ?Maybe the shadows of the
plants on the SE side shade more neighboring plants than those on the
W side?
---
As well as being an annoying gadfly, you really are thick, aren't you?
That's not an answer.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? �Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
. . .
Circular, in any case, is a bad idea.
Basis?
Numbers?
Reasoning?
Circular may be preferrable to spiral. ?After each cycle the pivot
stops, the plow lifts up and moves in the radial direction for the
next concentric circle.
More work but it's more fool proof; ?no need to coordinate the radial
and tangential velocities as with a spiral.
---
It's _all_ bullshit.
"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."
- �Nietzsche
You are doing a good job of yanking legs, or you are really dense. �I
suspect the latter, and John's leg pulling has done a fair job of showing
it.
Let's assume you have a field that is 5000 feet on a side; a conservative
assumption for a serious farmer.
For practical reasons lets also assume the crop is wheat, barley or corn.
Working the field in the conventional manner provides 25 million square feet
of workable field.
Working the field in a circular pattern gives you only 19.635 million square
feet.
Well now you've got me interested. Are you suggesting that we are
restricted to inscribing all circles inside a rectangle? �Why don't we
start with a circular field and then inscribe the square?
Only some smelly types out west to save water.So far, there hasn't been a serious analysis from anyone. Why are we
still plowing fields in the first place---aren't people switching over
to no-till agriculture?
I don't want to frighten the Luddites but that's the way we're going.And if we are, why not have one big irrigation/
planting/weeding �gizmo that does each task in one pass?
They use a linear version of the pivot out west to grow cotton.FYI, some potato farmers do work circles.
You could knock me over with a feather!
?They compromise land use in favor
of cost saving by doing circle watering.
Then you'll gonna see more and more pivots and circles out west as the
drough fallows more and more land anyway.
Yes, for potato crops only;
Pivots save water. Supposedly there was some issue about waterbeen growing that way for years.
Even square fields "waste" some land as staging or storage areas.What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?
You need to establish that it cannot be done physically and when you
fail at that then you need to come up with some numbers that show is
cheaper to spend $100 billion a year on diesel.
Think about whether it's easier to harvest grain, or corn, or whatever
with a combine in a field with straight or spiral furrows and it might
dawn on you.
Well? �Don't keep us settin' on the edges of our chairs.
I have posted links in the other (original) thread about circular fields.
This is already being done for irrigation using a center pivot, and I'm
fairly sure the ground is tilled and crops planted the same way. The total
amount of land unused compared to square fields is something like 15-20%,
Plenty of room for the wind turbine, PV or dish Stirling to power theand I contend that the unused areas can be beneficial, as a windbreak,
erosion control, or for planting other crops that can be cultivated by
hand.
No one suggested abolishing every last diesel tractor this verySome crops may be more suited to circular planting and harvesting
than others, but it is more a matter of getting used to it, and adopting
new technology.
Now we are really talking cost and weight savings. Farmers don't likeWhat is the problem with, essentially, attaching an electric tractor to the
pivot arm, which will have a power cable on a reel, and have it traverse
the field in a circular pattern? If the tractor needs to be moved to
another location, there can be a path to a grid of roadways outside the
swing of the pivot arm. The tractor could have a small battery pack to
allow it to move to a new location where it can pick up mains power. If the
tractor is not working, the power requirements to move to a new location on
a flat road are minimal.
Also, a 300 HP diesel tractor can be replaced by a 100 to 200 HP electric,
because the diesel is rated at maximum, while the electric motor has a much
better HP/torque curve, and is also capable of short time overloads of 2x
to 3x if needed.
The bio mass needs to be hauled down the road to a _real_ power plant.For a large farm, it should be possible to build a biomass-powered
electrical generator that can run more efficiently and cleaner than the
equivalent diesel tractor.