No Thread for Tweakers

I don't run into anyone that stupid on the street. �Maybe I scare away
most the idiots in real life.

� �That's because you are the village idiot, for at least six states.

We're still waiting for you to tell us about those pivots used on
contour plowing terrain.

� �� No, you're not. �

I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for you to try to dig your way
out of that one.

That is your ignorant idea. ďż˝

My idea was pivots which are necessarily used on flat terrain.

_You_ are the one who tried to change the issue to agriculture on more
rugged terrain.

� �Fool. �You can't believe that a LOT of farming isn't done on hilly
land.

Are you _still_ trying to dodge the issue, circular or spiral plowing
from pivots which a necessarily used on _flat_ land?

What part of "flat land" do you _not_ unnerstand?

Plowing on hillsides requires the use of grid-battery tractors, not
pivots.

�It is more energy intensive than a Kansas wheat field. Visit
Kentucky & Tennessee and see it for yourself.

Then they'll _really_ benefit from grid-battery tractors.

TVA has gigawatts to spare at 7 cents/kW-hr, about a quarter of the
cost of diesel power.


Bret Cahill

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/22/08 12:47 PM, in article
cc46197f-c80a-441b-85cb-bbd0c936b72e@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

When I was in high-school I bucked wheat for part of a summer, and as an
adult I lived in eastern Oregon, which is a major farming area, so I'm
somewhat aware of farming.

You fall short of having a clear idea of the process.

It's a pity that you are too inarticulate to explain what your vast
experience has to do with electrification of agriculture.

It's unfortunate you don't have the capacity to understand what you are

criticizing, before you attempt to redesign it's processes. The pattern
seems to define you.

I don't like to become too technical with you, but you really suck at
following accepted posting practices.

Bret Cahill

 

Pivots in general don't move.

The impliments can be detached and moved as necessary.

� �You still don't get it. Instead of a small fleet of tractors,

Which cost hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece . . .

the
farm would need thousands of your stupid and inefficient pivots.

Which only cost $45,000 apiece for the irrigation versions.

Also a pivot covers 130 acres. Thousands of pivots would be a big
farm indeed.

Of course, a big farm would mean lots of income to pay for the pivots.

Every hear of "normalized" parameters or "specific" quanties?

They save a lot of time in comparisons.

�A hell
of a lot more labor and time will be wasted moving things around.

But think of the time saved eliminating the tractor ride.

The tractor mentality was grandfathered in/from/with oxen and other
livestock.

Tractors belong on hill sides, not pivot country.

Repairs would have to be done on the spot, which would require a TRACTOR
to drive through the crop to retrieve the damaged equipment, to take it
to the machine shop. ďż˝

The machine shop is downtown where they only allow pick ups with lift
gates.

With your idiotic circles, yo would destroy a lot
of food every time you have to repair something. ďż˝

Why would repairs be any more of a problem with a pivot?

With straight line
farming, you can bring parts & tools easily to the site, or use a cable
to tow the tractor or harvester to the end of the row. �You would need a
well equipped shop to maintain the crap you suggested, with millions of
dollars worth of tooling & spare parts.

How would a super pivot be any more complicated or cranky than any
other farm machinery?

Last fall one local would get off his tractor, run out back with a
wrench and adjust something after every pass.


Bret Cahill

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/22/08 12:57 PM, in article
d62a8d8e-0a0c-4b58-809f-4230b9333e1d@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

?That is why crops are laid
out in fairly straight lines,

"Fairly" straight?

   yes, where they follow the contour to prevent soil damage.

Are you trying to change the issue to farming on rugged terrain?

If so you'll need to start discussing the grid-battery "hybrid"
tractor again, specifically, how it is fundamentally different than a
plug in hybrid.

?  ?  ?

They use lasers.  Farmers are _very_ particular.

   That's ok where the land is completely flat.  Try it on hilly land,
like Kentucky.

Then they'll have to use the grid-battery "hybrid" tractor.

TVA has gigawatts available at 7 cents/kWHr.

. . .

When they switch to concentric circles they'll want the roundness will
be +/- 0.00001%.

  Yeah.  Right.  In your perverted dreams.

We got a poster below _right here on this thread_ who claims

1. he's an expert on farming, and,

Don't be such an ass. You sound as though you are losing an argument, not
discussing the issues.

2. some farmers _do_ indeed already plow in circles.

Potato farmers do......

I'll bet those circles are as circular as your arguments.

because there is more than plowing
involved.

That's exactly what gave me the idea.   Take hay.  First they waste
gallons of diesel to plant the hay.

   Hay is GRASS.  Hay fields are not planted,

How did the hay start growing there in the first place?

Who initially planted the fruited plains?

Are you acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?

Are looking into a mirror?

Bret Cahill

Learn to do a proper post.

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/22/08 1:48 PM, in article
65938c65-ef0b-4db2-ba3c-927a34259d8f@34g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

(snip) This is in-line posting.

Bret

This is in-line posting too.

Cahill

I'm sure this will be difficult for you, but please try to follow. You may
ask questions, but they must be placed in the manner outlined below or I
won't reply and others may not reply.

1, Notice that my reply is posted *below* your text, or is in-line with the
text. See the example above. People who post their reply at the very top
of the post are called top-posters, which is a denigrating term. They are
not nice people, wishing to fly in the face of suggestions, and showing a
belligerent attitude.

2. See how the post is attributed to the person to whom I am responding?
It's the three lines at the top. Please do try hard to do likewise.

3. See how irrelevant text is removed in order to focus on relevant issues?
Nothing you posted was relevant.

Thanks

 

[Bret Cahill]

When I was in high-school I bucked wheat for part of a summer, and as an
adult I lived in eastern Oregon, which is a major farming area, so I'm
somewhat aware of farming.

You fall short of having a clear idea of the process.

It's a pity that you are too inarticulate to explain what your vast
experience has to do with electrification of agriculture.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

�That is why crops are laid
out in fairly straight lines,

"Fairly" straight?

   yes, where they follow the contour to prevent soil damage.

Are you trying to change the issue to farming on rugged terrain?

If so you'll need to start discussing the grid-battery "hybrid"
tractor again, specifically, how it is fundamentally different than a
plug in hybrid.

?  ?  ?

They use lasers.  Farmers are _very_ particular.

   That's ok where the land is completely flat.  Try it on hilly land,
like Kentucky.

Then they'll have to use the grid-battery "hybrid" tractor.

TVA has gigawatts available at 7 cents/kWHr.

. . .

When they switch to concentric circles they'll want the roundness will
be +/- 0.00001%.

  Yeah.  Right.  In your perverted dreams.

We got a poster below _right here on this thread_ who claims

1. he's an expert on farming, and,

2. some farmers _do_ indeed already plow in circles.

I'll bet those circles are as circular as your arguments.

because there is more than plowing
involved.

That's exactly what gave me the idea.   Take hay.  First they waste
gallons of diesel to plant the hay.

   Hay is GRASS.  Hay fields are not planted,

How did the hay start growing there in the first place?

Are you acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

Another day, another bluff called.

When I was in high-school I bucked wheat for part of a summer, and as an
adult I lived in eastern Oregon, which is a major farming area, so I'm
somewhat aware of farming.

You fall short of having a clear idea of the process.

It's a pity that you are too inarticulate to explain what your vast
experience has to do with electrification of agriculture.

It's unfortunate you don't have the capacity to understand what you are
criticizing, before you attempt to redesign it's processes. ďż˝

Like I predicted, he is too inarticulate to explain what his vast
experience has to do with electrification of agriculture.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bret Cahill]

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

� �You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. �

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.


Bret Cahill

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/22/08 2:55 PM, in article
ae3846fd-7657-4c59-a2e3-1640610b7a61@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com,
"BretCahill@peoplepc.com" <BretCahill@peoplepc.com> wrote:

(snip)

The issue is plowing in circles, and I'm always on issue:

2. ?some farmers _do_ indeed already plow in circles.

Potato farmers do......

Aren't potato farmers "some farmers?"

Clearly, no. They are a single type of farmer. Other types of farmer might
have serious difficulties with circular fields.

(snip)

Bret Cahill

 

[Don Bowey]

On 7/22/08 3:11 PM, someone wrote:

See how irrelevant text was removed in order to focus on relevant issues?

Yes, excellent idea!

Definitely.


(Snip)

 

[m II]

BretCahill@peoplepc.com wrote:

That is why crops are laid
out in fairly straight lines, because there is more than plowing
involved. �

And?

If a circle of land is 3.1415927 acres, then a square with the same
width as that diameter is 4 acres. How do you cultivate the corners of
each radially ploughed plot? It's roughly a 20 percent loss of land area.

This loss is in addition to all the other disadvantages brought on by
radial ploughing/planting/harvesting.

Straight lines are the most efficient. Think about it.



mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

 

?That is why crops are laid
out in fairly straight lines,

"Fairly" straight?

� �yes, where they follow the contour to prevent soil damage.

Are you trying to change the issue to farming on rugged terrain?

If so you'll need to start discussing the grid-battery "hybrid"
tractor again, specifically, how it is fundamentally different than a
plug in hybrid.

? ďż˝? ďż˝?

They use lasers. �Farmers are _very_ particular.

� �That's ok where the land is completely flat. �Try it on hilly land,
like Kentucky.

Then they'll have to use the grid-battery "hybrid" tractor.

TVA has gigawatts available at 7 cents/kWHr.

. . .

When they switch to concentric circles they'll want the roundness will
be +/- 0.00001%.

� Yeah. �Right. �In your perverted dreams.

We got a poster below _right here on this thread_ who claims

1. �he's an expert on farming, and,

Don't be such an ass. ďż˝

OK, I'll change it:

"He's not an expert on farming but he's lived in some agricultural
areas and probably isn't making up the stuff about how they grow
spuds."

You sound as though you are losing an argument, not discussing the issues..

The issue is plowing in circles, and I'm always on issue:

2. �some farmers _do_ indeed already plow in circles.

Potato farmers do......

Aren't potato farmers "some farmers?"

. . .

� �Hay is GRASS. �Hay fields are not planted,

How did the hay start growing there in the first place?

Who initially planted the fruited plains?

The issue is how was the hay field planted after it was rotated.

The answer is with diesel.


Bret Cahill

 

[m II]

Bret Cahill wrote:

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields because that's how the
irrigation system works. Watering crops is easier in a circle than in a
rectangle. If they could find a way to water a rectangular field as
easily, they would do it. Saving water has nothing to do with it, each
plant uses the same water regardless of what shape field they are
planted in.



mike


--
Due to the insane amount of spam and garbage,
this filter blocks all postings with a Gmail,
Google Mail, Google Groups or HOTMAIL address.
It also filters everything from a .cn server.

http://improve-usenet.org/

 

See how irrelevant text was removed in order to focus on relevant issues?

Yes, excellent idea!

The relevant issue is why can't fields be electrified, either by a
"super pivot" plowing in circles or by a grid powered battery -
electric tractor?

If you don't like the idea of dragging equipment from behind a
rotating structure then _explain_ your problem with that solution.

And if you don't like an electric tractor with a relatively small
battery that discharges over a few minutes before it gets recharged
again at the end of the field, then _explain_ your problem with _that_
solution.


Bret Cahill

 

That is why crops are laid
out in fairly straight lines, because there is more than plowing
involved. ďż˝

And?

If a circle of land is 3.1415927 acres, then a square with the same
width as that diameter is 4 acres. How do you cultivate the corners of
each radially ploughed plot? It's roughly a 20 percent loss of land area.

With hexagonal close packing it's only a 10% loss.

And to power the pivot the farmer needs a place for his wind turbine,
PV, Sandia dish Stirling . . .

If Al Gore can reduce his massive carbon footprint, so can farmers.


Bret Cahill

 

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields because that's how the
irrigation system works. Watering crops is easier in a circle than in a
rectangle. If they could find a way to water a rectangular field as
easily, they would do it.

And they have. They have translational structures much like linear
pivots.

Saving water has nothing to do with it,

You obviously have never been in a water war.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:55:33 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
<BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

---
I disagree. He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

However, the 'often' in your: "Potato farmers often work in circular
fields to save water." seems to imply that you had some a priori
knowledge about it, which you didn't.

That's positively fourth street stupid.

And what's with snipping the poster to whom you're responding's ID?

JF

 

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

I disagree. �He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

Every last issue of _National Geographic_ every tourist brochure in
every seat pocket on every airliner show photos of curved furrow
agriculture for it's scenic value.

How dumb do you have to be to not know the curve could go into a
complete circle?

It's one thing to say you don't think something can be done when you
are knowledgeable in the field and it hasn't been proven and you have
a reason to believe it cannot be done.

It's quite another to dogmatically claim something cannot be done when
you are ignorant of that field.


Bret Cahill

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:21:04 -0700 (PDT), BretCahill@peoplepc.com
wrote:

You go out on the street and try to find someone who will agree with
you that furrows cannot be circular or spiral.

? ?You go to a farm and find a farmer who agrees that it can. ?

A self described expert on agriculture on one of the related threads
just stated exactly that.

Potato farmers often work in circular fields to save water.

Now you _really_ look stupid.

I disagree. ?He was merely ignorant of that fact, as were you.

I didn't know it had already been done but that was hardly necessary.
It was trivially obvious that it _could_ be done.

---
The point was that while you didn't know that it was being done, you
sneakily implied you did with your wording.

I pointed that out in my last post, but of course you've snipped it
out so that you can pretend to lily whiteness.

You also insert question marks where none were before, ostensibly to
create confusion.

Quite a nasty little piece of work you are.
---

Every last issue of _National Geographic_ every tourist brochure in
every seat pocket on every airliner show photos of curved furrow
agriculture for it's scenic value.

---
It's not 'it's', cretin, it's 'its', and my last issue of National
Geographic shows no plowed fields at all. Nor did I see any in any of
the tourist brochures I perused while on my last flight so, as usual,
you're all bluster.

Or, perhaps more accurately, bullshit.
---

How dumb do you have to be to not know the curve could go into a
complete circle?

---
Since you didn't seem to know that's how some potatoes are grown, I
guess the answer is: "As dumb as you are."
---

It's one thing to say you don't think something can be done when you
are knowledgeable in the field and it hasn't been proven and you have
a reason to believe it cannot be done.

---
Being knowledgeable in the field of batteries, that was precisely the
case since I _proved_ that your hare-brained scheme of operating a
300KW tractor on batteries is impractical.
---

It's quite another to dogmatically claim something cannot be done when
you are ignorant of that field.

---
Indeed, and after you've been shown why your folly is, well, folly,
your persistent dogmatic claim that it's practical to run the tractor
electrically is the bleat of a sheep begging to be shorn.

I'm reminded of an old joke...

You, and President Bush, and Usama Bin Laden are the only passengers
on a DC-3 with no parachutes, and one of the engines dies.

The message from the cockpit, over the PA, says: "One of our engines
has died and in order to keep us all from being killed, one of you is
going to have to jump out."

So, Bin Laden says: "Why don't you jump out and make half of the world
happy?"

Bush counters with: "Why don't _you_ jump out and make the other half
of the world happy?"

Then, after a couple of seconds, they both look at you and say, in
unison: "Why don't _you_ jump out and make _everyone_ happy?"

JF