"Furrows Cannot Be Concentric Circles or Spirals"

[Don Bowey]

On 7/22/08 3:06 PM, in article
8f8386fe-9021-4bf4-b06c-b745464acedd@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "tg"
<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jul 22, 4:11 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:
On 7/22/08 12:41 PM, in article
23a0d16b-04da-47d7-b9f5-1821ca834...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "tg"



tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
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?

Why would you do that when the object is to work circular fields as
indicated by others' posts?

Give it more thought, it might come to you.



If I were younger and a sociologist or psychologist I could make a
career out of analyzing this kind of response. Correlates nicely with
listening to talk radio.

-tg

Ok.......

Plots of land are probably rarely square, accommodating a perfect circle,
and they may even be irregular rather that rectangular. If one insists on
circular plots to farm, I imagine they would determine the optimum circle
sizes and quantities to best fit the size of the original plot.

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.

 

[tg]

On Jul 22, 4:27 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.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?

Then the four chords of the circle outside of the square would be on
someone else's property.

Pivots or circular crop farming does indeed fallow 21.5% of the land
with a rectangular grid and 10% with hexagonel close packing.

But 10% - 22% "wasted" isn't an issue if they are fallowing land
anyway because of the drought.

 I've yet to see any pivot farming on a hexagonal close packing grid..
Watch next time you take a flight.  They don't seem to be trying to
pack them very densely at all.  The only conclusion the overall
production / cultivated land is so much greater with a pivot that the
corner patches aren't worth it.

Maybe the farmer can put his nanosolar PV or sandia dish Stirling in
the corner patches to power the pivot.

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?

Only some smelly types out west to save water.

And if we are, why not have one big irrigation/
planting/weeding �gizmo that does each task in one pass?

I don't want to frighten the Luddites but that's the way we're going.

Farmers need something more systematic and predictable than a guy in a
tractor.

You wouldn't try to make a CD ROM by hand, would you?

My wife took away the knitting needles when I did that.

-tg




> Bret Cahill

 

[tg]

On Jul 22, 4:11 pm, Don Bowey <dbo...@comcast.net> wrote:

On 7/22/08 12:41 PM, in article
23a0d16b-04da-47d7-b9f5-1821ca834...@59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "tg"



tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
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?

Give it more thought, it might come to you.

If I were younger and a sociologist or psychologist I could make a
career out of analyzing this kind of response. Correlates nicely with
listening to talk radio.

-tg

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.

 

Plots of land are probably rarely square,

In some places they are almost all perfect quarter squares.

accommodating a perfect circle,
and they may even be irregular rather that rectangular. �If one insists on
circular plots to farm, I imagine they would determine the optimum circle
sizes and quantities to best fit the size of the original plot.

Flying overhead at 50,000 feet and looking down the circles never
seems to be close packed to optimize the amount of land under
cultivation. With hex close packing the land wasted would only be
10%. Since even dove tailed fields need some "wasted" space to
maneuveor . . .

Apparently that's not all that big an issue.

Now a water war . . . _that's_ a Big Issue.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:51:57 -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. ?

Why not outward?

You still don't get it, do you?

Certainly not with all your issue dodging.

---
I see. When you're stuck and you want to get the heat off of yourself
you dodge the issue by calling those who challenge you
"Issue dodgers." Not really clever, but then that's just you, isn't
it?

Now, since you seem to be bereft of the resources required to
understand spirals I'll smart you up, even though I know you'll say,
"I knew that already" later on and hate me for showing you up as
having limited spatial perception.

Oh well...

First, if you can, visualize a single motorized plow tethered to a
line which is located some distance away from a pivot point and is
taut.

Next, assume that when the plow moves forward the line will shorten
(like a rope wrapped around a tree) and the plow will spiral inward,
toward the pivot point, until the entire field is spirally plowed.

You've offered no remarkable insight, BTW, as to what mechanism might
be used to guarantee that the groove, much like that on a phonograph
recording, will maintain its proper spacing as it winds itself inward,
but that's to be expected since you're a "big picture" guy and really
can't be expected to get in the trenches and bother with the details.

Note that since the plow is located at the end of the tether and the
tether is extended it'll make no difference whether the plow goes
clockwise or counter-clockwise with respect to the axis of the pivot
point, it'll always wind up, at the end of the exercise, at the pivot
points' structure.

So now the field is plowed and probably planted and here's this plow
in the middle of it, and if it's going to be used somewhere else it'll
have to be moved across the freshly plowed and seeded field.

Starting from the center and spiraling outward eliminates that problem
in that when the field is plowed the plow will be out of the field.

Duh.
---

Here, let's try again:

What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?

---
The waste in the corners?

Oh, but wait...

the waste in the corners is good because Mr. Farmer, Brat Cincaid, has
decreed that, under his tutelage, waste which he considers to be
acceptable is OK and should lay fallow regardless of what the folks
farming the land think.
---

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.

---
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what they _need_ to do?

I _need_ to do neither, I can make any claim I choose to and, BTW,
where did you come up with that $100 billion?
---

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.

---
If you're pretending to be stupid you're doing a good job.
See above.
---

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.

---
Of course it is.

Obviously one you didn't want to hear, but an answer nonetheless.
---

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.

---
Us???
---

"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."

- Nietzsche

---
Nietzsche: "God is dead."

God: "Nietzsche is dead."

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 06:49:34 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

the waste in the corners is good because Mr. Farmer, Brat Cincaid,

---
Brat Cahill.

JF

 

[tg]

On Jul 23, 7:49 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:51:57 -0700 (PDT), 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.

---
I see.  When you're stuck and you want to get the heat off of yourself
you dodge the issue by calling those who challenge you
"Issue dodgers."  Not really clever, but then that's just you, isn't
it?

Now, since you seem to be bereft of the resources required to
understand spirals I'll smart you up, even though I know you'll say,
"I knew that already" later on and hate me for showing you up as
having limited spatial perception.

Oh well...

First, if you can, visualize a single motorized plow tethered to a
line which is located some distance away from a pivot point and is
taut.

Next, assume that when the plow moves forward the line will shorten
(like a rope wrapped around a tree) and the plow will spiral inward,
toward the pivot point, until the entire field is spirally plowed.

You've offered no remarkable insight, BTW, as to what mechanism might
be used to guarantee that the groove, much like that on a phonograph
recording, will maintain its proper spacing as it winds itself inward,
but that's to be expected since you're a "big picture" guy and really
can't be expected to get in the trenches and bother with the details.

Note that since the plow is located at the end of the tether and the
tether is extended it'll make no difference whether the plow goes
clockwise or counter-clockwise with respect to the axis of the pivot
point, it'll always wind up, at the end of the exercise, at the pivot
points' structure.

So now the field is plowed and probably planted and here's this plow
in the middle of it, and if it's going to be used somewhere else it'll
have to be moved across the freshly plowed and seeded field.

Starting from the center and spiraling outward eliminates that problem
in that when the field is plowed the plow will be out of the field.

Duh.
---

Here, let's try again:

What doesn't sound reasonable about plowing from a rotating structure?

---
The waste in the corners?

Oh, but wait...

the waste in the corners is good because Mr. Farmer, Brat Cincaid, has
decreed that, under his tutelage, waste which he considers to be
acceptable is OK and should lay fallow regardless of what the folks
farming the land think.
---

This particular point is what got me to respond to Don Bowey. You get
all indignant with Bret but you are being just as arbitrary by
deciding that 'corners' are wasted. The corners are just your
construct---land is land; on the whatever day God didn't lay out
rectangles and squares complete with deeds so rigid thinkers like you
would be comfortable.

As Don figured out, you can maximize/optimize the plowed area by
assembling circles of varying sizes---this has been worked out a long
time ago by various mathematicians and engineers.

As I said in the other post I don't see a concrete argument in either
direction but maybe I missed some other thread. Unless you are using a
rigid semi-fixed all-purpose tilling/planting device, as I suggested
earlier, I don't see how you gain if the linear distance plowed is the
same. Get out that old topology book, Bret.

-tg

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.

---
Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what they _need_ to do?

I _need_ to do neither, I can make any claim I choose to and, BTW,
where did you come up with that $100 billion?
---

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.

---
If you're pretending to be stupid you're doing a good job.
See above.
---



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.

---
Of course it is.

Obviously one you didn't want to hear, but an answer nonetheless.
---

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.

---
Us???
---

"You are vexed, therefore I am right about you."

-  Nietzsche

---
Nietzsche: "God is dead."

God: "Nietzsche is dead."

JF

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 05:43:21 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenning@earthlink.net>
wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:49 am, John Fields <jfie...@austininstruments.com> wrote:

---
The waste in the corners?

Oh, but wait...

the waste in the corners is good because Mr. Farmer, Brat Cincaid, has
decreed that, under his tutelage, waste which he considers to be
acceptable is OK and should lay fallow regardless of what the folks
farming the land think.
---


This particular point is what got me to respond to Don Bowey. You get
all indignant with Bret but you are being just as arbitrary by
deciding that 'corners' are wasted. The corners are just your
construct---land is land; on the whatever day God didn't lay out
rectangles and squares complete with deeds so rigid thinkers like you
would be comfortable.

---
LOL, you must have gotten confused somewhere downstream.

What I was doing was throwing a little sarcasm at Cahill (not Cincaid,
that was an error) because of an earlier statement of his which
advocated letting the corners lay fallow in order to justify his
spiral cultivating scheme.

JF

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jul 21, 10:47 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.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?

Anyway, all this dodges the issue:

What idiot suggested that furrows cannot be circular or spiral?

Bret Cahill

A pivot is a collection of A-frames supporting a pipe,with electric
motors to drive the wheels mounted on the frames to turn pivot it
around one end. Beefing up the structure to drag a plow will require
many more frames to support a much heavier beam. The monstrosity will
need wheel trucks on each frame that is worth a tractor, in pulling
power; unless there are so many of them that they are close enough
together to allow two, or more, to pull on the implement, without
bending the beam. Even when its section is not pulling the implement,
each wheel truck will still require energy to drive it around the
field.

As you are beefing up the structure, anyway, you may as well take your
idea to its logical absurdity and make the pivot rotate on its center
and make it a self supporting structure, on its central pier-- your
plow drawing pivot is now a swingbridge. It is hugely expensive, but
does not need all of theose powered wheel trucks to carry and move it.

How is this scheme better than a single tractor, when you will stiil
need a tractor to get seed and fertiliser to the field and bring the
harvest out.

What problem were you hoping to solve with this contraption?

 

I can't speak for the OP, but the existing framework of the center pivot
irrigation device could easily provide the electrical power needed to
supply a tractor,

An electric tractor.

The only additional stresses on a conventional pivot would be from the
weight of the insulated electric cable, much lighter than the
irrigation pipe and water.

The force from the plow is only applied to the tractor.

In the long run, it might not even be a complete tractor, just some
wheels and an electric motor with the same critical attachment points
to connect conventional impliments. Again, all stresses are only on
the wheels. The pivot structure only carries the line.

which would normally plug into the supply cable on the
frame but could have enough battery reserve to maneuver from one field to
another.

Or it could be a series hybrid. A small diesel or gas generator would
get you to the next field.

If the framework were high enough, the tractor could maneuver
under tethered electrical power freely enough to do its work in a variety
of patterns. The pivot arm structure would best support circular planting
patterns, but there could be enough slack to allow the tractor to work in
the areas between the circles.

The conventional pivots are indeed monstrosities with over 7 acres in
each "corner." A longer line might not be practical but a
conventional battery would do just fine.

A linear type irrigation system could be used to supply electric power to a
tractor for more conventional square or rectangular fields. There are many
benefits of electric tractors over fossil fueled, including better
efficiency, lower maintenance costs, zero emissions, no fuel spills, and
easier implementation of programmed and automatic or remote control
operation.

I think it's worth some effort to build a prototype and demonstration
system. This entire discussion seems to have become repeatedly sidetracked
by arguments about the original "hybrid grid battery" idea, which does have
serious technical problems.

Capacitors charge and discharge fast but have low energy densities
and, at least until recently, batteries charged and discharged too
slow.

Batteries were grandfathered in on the assumption that batteries would
someday be a substitute for a 300 mile range _motor_ vehicle fuel tank
so, up until recently, the emphasis has been on slow discharge, low
power with a hope that some new high energy density battery would
appear.

Farming, however, is entirely different from motor vehicle
applications. If the electric motor + battery set never strays more
than a mile from the charger, then a fast discharge battery with the
same _or even less_ energy density will do just fine.

We already know how to make fast discharge fast recharge batteries:
make the cells smaller.

Why has this only been persued recently? Because they've been
focusing on high energy density, something of no consequence to an
electric farm tractor.

But mechanized operations within limited areas
are ideally suited to a motorized tool connected by a tether to a fixed
power source, and it is not that difficult to transfer that tool (tractor)
to subsequent connection points.

Ever watch them lay out irrigation pipe in a lettuce field? That's
10X more work than everything I'm suggesting.

The farmer wants to reduce or eliminate risk. He wants his field to
be as precisely controlled as the manufacture of a CD ROM. The field
needs to be part of a machine.

The idea of a human out there driving a tractor listening to Pairie
Home Companion needs to come to an end.


Bret Cahill

 

The monstrosity will
need wheel trucks on each frame that is worth a tractor,

Why would any of the force applied to the plow ever reach the frame?

The wheels apply the force between the ground and to the plow. Only
the additional force applied to the pivot structure comes from the
weight of the power cable, much lighter than the irrigation pipe.

.. . .

As you are beefing up the structure, anyway, you may as well take your
idea to its logical absurdity

Why not take the spiraling price of diesel to it's logical absurdity,
since that's what we are doing now?

The cost of liquid fuel is conservatively increasing by 30% a year.

In 2 years, before the first electric tractor prototype could be
demonstrated, diesel will be $8.50 a gallon or $200/hr or $2000/12
hour shift for the 400 hp articulated tractor.

In 6 years, before electric tractors could start to be a significant
market share, diesel will be $25/gallon or $6000/day.

That's $150 billion / year just fuel for agriculture.


Bret Cahill

 

[rlbell.nsuid@gmail.com]

On Jul 23, 2:44 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

The monstrosity will
need wheel trucks on each frame that is worth a tractor,

Why would any of the force applied to the plow ever reach the frame?

The wheels apply the force between the ground and to the plow. Only
the additional force applied to the pivot structure comes from the
weight of the power cable, much lighter than the irrigation pipe.

Did something get lost when the thread split? It seemed that the idea
was for the pivot to be dragging the plow. Electric tractors only got
mentioned rather recently.

 

[tg]

On Jul 24, 2:56 am, "rlbell.ns...@gmail.com" <rlbell.ns...@gmail.com>
wrote:

On Jul 23, 2:44 pm, BretCah...@peoplepc.com wrote:

The monstrosity will
need wheel trucks on each frame that is worth a tractor,

Why would any of the force applied to the plow ever reach the frame?

The wheels apply the force between the ground and to the plow.  Only
the additional force applied to the pivot structure comes from the
weight of the power cable, much lighter than the irrigation pipe.

Did something get lost when the thread split?  It seemed that the idea
was for the pivot to be dragging the plow.  Electric tractors only got
mentioned rather recently.

You guys keep talking about 'tractors' and 'plows' when you need to
consider what you are actually trying to accomplish first. Do you
have to 'plow' in the traditional manner? See no-till agriculture, or
some form of (electric) rototiller that is lighter.

Also 'wheel truck', which has this connotation of weight. How about
nicely spaced electric wheel-motors? Let's remember that we can fly-by-
wire very nicely these days so synchronizing the motion of a long
structure is not that big a deal.

-tg
-tg

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tg wrote:

You guys keep talking about 'tractors' and 'plows' when you need to
consider what you are actually trying to accomplish first. Do you
have to 'plow' in the traditional manner?

Do you really think farmers would stil be plowing any field they
didn't have to?

See no-till agriculture, or
some form of (electric) rototiller that is lighter.

Rototiller? We aren't talking about a quarter acre garden. A farm
is a hell of a lot bigger.

Also 'wheel truck', which has this connotation of weight. How about
nicely spaced electric wheel-motors? Let's remember that we can fly-by-
wire very nicely these days so synchronizing the motion of a long
structure is not that big a deal.

Build it, and prove it.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

tg wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tg wrote:

You guys keep talking about 'tractors' and 'plows' when you need to
consider what you are actually trying to accomplish first. Do you
have to 'plow' in the traditional manner?

Do you really think farmers would stil be plowing any field they
didn't have to?


Of course they would. People are afraid of change and afraid to invest
and take risks with new technology. Extractive industries are
particularly conservative.

Do you really beleive that the Ag business would contunue to use a
method when they can reduce labor and save money? Is your tinfoil hat
corroded to your head, again?

See no-till agriculture, or
some form of (electric) rototiller that is lighter.

Rototiller? We aren't talking about a quarter acre garden. A farm
is a hell of a lot bigger.

I guess you're one of those people who don't quite get basic physics
or geometry. A furrow is the same size on a 'farm' as in my garden.
Also, you might look up no-till or minimum-till farming.

Yawn. There a re a number of research farms around here, testing new
methods, as has been done for decades. What works is folowed up. What
doesn't is abandonded.

Also 'wheel truck', which has this connotation of weight. How about
nicely spaced electric wheel-motors? Let's remember that we can fly-by-
wire very nicely these days so synchronizing the motion of a long
structure is not that big a deal.

Build it, and prove it.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/24/08 11:55 AM, in article
3ba38845-d770-4306-93cb-f517a6e32b97@v26g2000prm.googlegroups.com, "tg"
<tgdenning@earthlink.net> wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tg wrote:

You guys keep talking about 'tractors' and 'plows' when you need to
consider what you are actually trying to accomplish  first. Do you
have to 'plow' in the traditional manner?

   Do you really think farmers would stil be plowing any field they
didn't have to?


Of course they would. People are afraid of change and afraid to invest
and take risks with new technology. Extractive industries are
particularly conservative.

See no-till agriculture, or
some form of (electric) rototiller that is lighter.

   Rototiller?  We aren't talking about a quarter acre garden.  A farm
is a hell of a lot bigger.

I guess you're one of those people who don't quite get basic physics
or geometry.

You have a wild imagination.

A furrow is the same size on a 'farm' as in my garden.
Also, you might look up no-till or minimum-till farming.

You have a very strange "garden."

-tg


Also 'wheel truck', which has this connotation of weight. How about
nicely spaced electric wheel-motors? Let's remember that we can fly-by-
wire very nicely these days so synchronizing the motion of a long
structure is not that big a deal.

   Build it, and prove it.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

[tg]

On Jul 24, 2:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tg wrote:

You guys keep talking about 'tractors' and 'plows' when you need to
consider what you are actually trying to accomplish  first. Do you
have to 'plow' in the traditional manner?

   Do you really think farmers would stil be plowing any field they
didn't have to?

Of course they would. People are afraid of change and afraid to invest
and take risks with new technology. Extractive industries are
particularly conservative.

See no-till agriculture, or
some form of (electric) rototiller that is lighter.

   Rototiller?  We aren't talking about a quarter acre garden.  A farm
is a hell of a lot bigger.

I guess you're one of those people who don't quite get basic physics
or geometry. A furrow is the same size on a 'farm' as in my garden.
Also, you might look up no-till or minimum-till farming.

-tg

Also 'wheel truck', which has this connotation of weight. How about
nicely spaced electric wheel-motors? Let's remember that we can fly-by-
wire very nicely these days so synchronizing the motion of a long
structure is not that big a deal.

   Build it, and prove it.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

 

On Jul 24, 4:16 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

tg wrote:

On Jul 24, 2:10 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
tg wrote:

You guys keep talking about 'tractors' and 'plows' when you need to
consider what you are actually trying to accomplish  first. Do you
have to 'plow' in the traditional manner?

   Do you really think farmers would stil be plowing any field they
didn't have to?

Of course they would. People are afraid of change and afraid to invest
and take risks with new technology. Extractive industries are
particularly conservative.

   Do you really beleive that the Ag business would contunue to use a
method when they can reduce labor and save money?  Is your tinfoil hat
corroded to your head, again?

See no-till agriculture, or
some form of (electric) rototiller that is lighter.

   Rototiller?  We aren't talking about a quarter acre garden.  A farm
is a hell of a lot bigger.

I guess you're one of those people who don't quite get basic physics
or geometry. A furrow is the same size on a 'farm' as in my garden.
Also, you might look up no-till or minimum-till farming.

   Yawn.  There a re a number of research farms around here, testing new
methods, as has been done for decades.  What works is folowed up.  What
doesn't is abandonded.

Depends on how one defines 'what works'. As I said, people in the
extractive industries tend to be conservative, and with the gummint
providing 'subsidies' (welfare), everyone can play at farming with
inefficient methods for a long time.

-tg

Also 'wheel truck', which has this connotation of weight. How about
nicely spaced electric wheel-motors? Let's remember that we can fly-by-
wire very nicely these days so synchronizing the motion of a long
structure is not that big a deal.

   Build it, and prove it.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.

--http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account:http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.