>>>>>>>>> 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?
Bret Cahill
