On Jul 22, 4:27Â pm, Bret Cahill
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.
>
> Â I've yet to see any pivot farming on a hexagonal close packing grid.
> Watch next time you take a flight. Â They don't seem to be trying to
> pack them very densely at all. Â 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
