> On Jul 22, 4:11Â pm, Don Bowey
comcast.net> wrote:>> On 7/22/08 12:41 PM, in article
>> 23a0d16b-04da-47d7-b9f5-1821ca834...@
59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "tg"
>>
>>
>>
>>
earthlink.net> wrote:>>> On Jul 22, 2:59Â pm, Don Bowey
comcast.net> 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? 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.
>>
>>>>> . . .
>>
>>>>>>>> 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."
>>
>>>>> - Â Nietzsche
>>
>>>> You are doing a good job of yanking legs, or you are really dense. Â 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? Â 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. Â They compromise land use in
>>>> favor
>>>> of cost saving by doing circle watering.
>
