Plant alternate rows with this:
and the steam tractor could harvest its fuel
as it performs its function. Candelilla burns
quite well because of its high wax content.
In Mexico, peasants harvest wild candelilla
and boil it to extract the wax. The leftover
stalks are then burnt as fuel for boiling more
Farmers are already paying people to sit in trucks 7.2 hours out of a
12 hour day to go through customs at the border.
Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
After all, the diesel costs $110/hour -- close to $200/hour in two
years -- so there is plenty of savings to pay the tractor operator.
Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page --
anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue
. . .
Who suggested it was?
Anyway you dodged the issue.
The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
Never heard of electrified rail? Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.
Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
You know that I appreciate your input in this newsgroup, but there is
something that I think you should take to heart :
You postulate an idea here on sci.energy, with the (probable) reason to get
comments and feedback from fellow newsgroup visitors.
When these people give you feedback or stipulate possible inefficiencies and
problems with your idea, there is no need to attempt to prove them wrong or
offend them if they simply slightly disagree with your exact thought
In fact, it starts to look like you simply are looking for conflict, which
eventually destroys some of the good parts in your ideas.
If you cannot handle any criticism at all, maybe it is better if you just
start a company that implements your idea, rather than bother sci.energy
visitors with it. Then you can prove everyone wrong.
The Russians use some conflict oriented approach to problem solving
but that's generally not my first choice.
I welcome critical feedback for several reasons:
1. I'm better prepared when I approach someone who might be
interested in actually doing something. Often you only get one
2. I often overlook real concerns that can be corrected.
3. Others can often help me work around my concerns, i. e., your
mentioning the high cycling battery.
4. I don't suffer from an idea block so there's no reason for me to
persue something that won't work.
But when the responses are utterly useless as feedback, i. e., a huge
current or battery is impossible or a loose wire could be a danger to
life and limb, and, even worse, the disreputable issue dodging -- I
have yet to get any reasoning on how the grid-battery tractor would be
fundamentally different than the Volt or any other series hybrid or EV
-- then there's no reason not to call a spade a spade.
The reality is there is no polite response to the suggestion that
furrows cannot be circular. Everyone in every industrial country with
photo magazines knows about terraced agriculture or contour plowing
because of their appeal to photographers. How dumb does a poster have
to be to _not_ understand that the curved furrows could continue to
curve into a circle?
In those cases you just call the moron a moron.
Eventually I get bored with the white noise but as a populist I must
at least initially encourage everyone to participate.
On 7/25/08 9:35 AM, in article
Do you mean to say "pursue" or "peruse" or something different?
Actually, several people have commented correctly on battery issues of
importance, which you choose to naysay. You would have people believe you
are very intelligent, but you aren't; you're narrow minded, refusing to do
any real study/research. From these threads and others I researched, I
perceive you to view yourself as an "idea man." I see much flim flam in
I doubt anyone would fail to see it, but you created a "you vs. them" issue
of it anyhow. Typical flim flam. The *real* question, the one you don't
like, is - Is it practical to farm in circles even when fields are extremely
large rectangles. With no research you have answered "yes," because a "no"
answer could be anathema to your project.
I imagine a farmer working his fields, including some hilly ridges, even
plowed a few circles. Some farmers are artistic and enjoy a bit of fun, and
have been known to create some clever patterns. And none of this has
anything to do with supporting your plans for circular fields. Do it or
don't but this still isn't the newsgroup to argue the non-issue.
Ok. Your a moron. Feel better now?
It has been obvious that you think yourself to be above the "common folk."
Adopting the populist title certifies it.
What is also clear is that you do not wish to do any of your own study of
the elements involved in your Grand Plan, so you blunder along hoping
everything will fall into place. It rarely works.
On 7/25/08 10:06 AM, in article
Same back to you...... No dodging. You raised the electric locomotive
variable, so tell us: When that (diesel) electric locomotive is towing a
train, how many horsepower is it generating? And tell us how many cars are
in the train, and is it on the flat or is there some grade.
Then we can consider the 1/30th as HP
Only specifics are useable. What is the charging voltage AND current. Is
the charge taking place via a cable or by the Tesla (inductive coupled)
On Jul 23, 10:57 pm, email@example.com wrote:
Diesel will not keep rising at 30%. The only reason that it is not
already falling is that the lead time on making synthetic diesel from
coal is long and the initial capital investment is high, so noone has
taken the plunge. However, if the costs threaten to keep rising, it
will be done, as there are still huge reserves of coal and someone
stands to make a huge pile of money supplying cheaper energy.
True. It will probably start increasing at 40% - 50% a year as the
big wells give out lowering world production by a third in 8 years.
Far worse than the supply curve is the demand curve. China's double
digit growth rate means it will pass the U. S. in as little as 6
years, probably earlier if Soros is correct about the permanent U. S.
recession. Toss in India and the U. S. share of the global oil pie
Unlike 1929 the entire country is wired. The media cannot deceive/
dumb down anywhere nearly as effectively as before. The Fed knows
this and will want to keep unemployment as low as possible to keep the
frog from jumping out of the pot. The dollar will get even weaker
which will cause the price of oil to spiral even more.
The state of denial about the peak oil + China + the U. S. economy is
It's a bleak situation.
How long will _this_ take?
What about the interim? Are we just going to "load shed" millions of
It would be more cost effective to burn the coal in a power plant and
power the tractors from the grid.
Even the electric tractor, much faster than coal liquification or even
bio diesel, will take several years.
I didn't come up with _any_ of the numbers here except the 6 - 10 mph
speeds for the tractor, numbers that have been confirmed by another
poster citing figures from a government web site.
I got the 400 hp along with the 22 gallons/hr from the local Case
dealership. The biggest savings come from the biggest slurpers of
Some vineyard selling overpriced wine is _not_ going to be my first
And I got the 0.5 mph from some too-clever-by-half poster claiming
that some farming operation would take an hour to go half a mile
running the 400 hp tractor wide open.
So you are boxed in.
If you claim that an operation requires a lot of energy, you are
arguing against the diesel tractor because the diesel will need to
consume so much $$$ to do an equivalent amount of work it's cheaper to
buy the laptop batteries.
If you claim that the operation doesn't require much diesel, then you
are also arguing for electric tractors because the battery pack will
be so small.
You don't need a spreadsheet to figger out the EV tractor will
_always_ be more cost effective than the diesel.
Take initial cost including whatever watt hour of batteries you think
it'll need. Take the time paying the tractor driver to pause 2
minutes at the end of the field
Then do the operating costs including grid costs and diesel fuel costs
_for the same operation_. I know you will try to dodge this one
because this is the reason diesel is no longer competitive.
Then compare the overall costs just like any sophmore IEOR student.
Ignoring the other glaring errors in your post and concentrating only on
this part, you are projecting the cost of hydrocarbon fuel to continue to
spiral up and at the same rate.
A few questions for you:
1) How many oil future contracts do you own? Surely if you believe what you
post here you must spend every spare penny you own in the crude futures
market buying up all that you can.
2) Where is your calculation on what the price of electricity will be when
everything switches over as you advocate? I haven't seen anyone address the
fact that when the demand for electricity far outweighs the supply then it's
price will skyrocket much much faster than hydrocarbon fuels.
3) If we are to power everything with electricity as you suggest here and
elsewhere, how will the power be generated? Do you advocate building more
fossil fuel power plants or do you advocate nuclear plants? Or do you have
some untried, unproven type of power?
Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.