Those green circles you see from the air are produced by a bridge like
structure called a "pivot" that rotates while irrigating the crop.

Up to 1/4 of a mile in length, the pivot could be jazzed up to do more
than irrigate: It could replace the tractor altogether.

Just set the timer for off peak hours and the next morning the outside
ring of the field is plowed. You move the plow attachment inward for
the next set of rows and add another attachment that plants seeds to
the recently plowed ring area. You set the timer and go to sleep.

It takes several days to plow the field but the electric motor is much
smaller than the tractor engine because it is geared down so low.

More important a lot of diesel can be saved this way. We won't starve
to death after peak oil.

But supposing you didn't want to use a pivot?

Is there any obvious way to grid power an 150 - 360 kW farm tractor on
a 1/2 mile X 1/2 mile field?

I've already thought about extension cords on reels and miles of
trolly lines.


Bret Cahill

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:26:54 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

> Those green circles you see from the air are produced by a bridge like
> structure called a "pivot" that rotates while irrigating the crop.
>
> Up to 1/4 of a mile in length, the pivot could be jazzed up to do more
> than irrigate: It could replace the tractor altogether.

Those center-pivot irrigation systems have no electic motors. They are
powered by water motors, driven by the pressure from the central well. A
system of purely mechanical control lines operates the valves that control
the water motor at each pair of wheels. There is enough power to move the
pipe and sprinkler assembly around, but I don't think you could pull a
plow with it without wasting an awful lot of water.

A better way to reduce dependence on petroleum would be to use the farm's
waste biomass to make methane and alcohols.

Bret Cahill wrote:
> Those green circles you see from the air are produced by a bridge like
> structure called a "pivot" that rotates while irrigating the crop.
>
> Up to 1/4 of a mile in length, the pivot could be jazzed up to do more
> than irrigate: It could replace the tractor altogether.
>
> Just set the timer for off peak hours and the next morning the outside
> ring of the field is plowed. You move the plow attachment inward for
> the next set of rows and add another attachment that plants seeds to
> the recently plowed ring area. You set the timer and go to sleep.
>
> It takes several days to plow the field but the electric motor is much
> smaller than the tractor engine because it is geared down so low.
>
> More important a lot of diesel can be saved this way. We won't starve
> to death after peak oil.
>
> But supposing you didn't want to use a pivot?
>
> Is there any obvious way to grid power an 150 - 360 kW farm tractor on
> a 1/2 mile X 1/2 mile field?
>
> I've already thought about extension cords on reels and miles of
> trolly lines.
>
Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
magic? Much of the electricity that's generated in the world is done so
by burning fossil fuels, and any extra electricity demand that you
create with electric tractors (or electric cars, for that matter) will
have to come from fossil fuels until we either develop effective solar
(don't hold your breath) or we go all nuclear (hold your breath,
particularly when the air is glowing).

--

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

Do you need to implement control loops in software?
"Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" gives you just what it says.
See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html

Circa Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:26:54 -0700 recorded as
<1186406814.657531.294790@g12g2000prg.googlegroups.com> looks like Bret
Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> sounds like:

>Just set the timer for off peak hours and the next morning the outside
>ring of the field is plowed. You move the plow attachment inward for
>the next set of rows and add another attachment that plants seeds to
>the recently plowed ring area. You set the timer and go to sleep.

Adding to the other answers: 1) the entire mechanism would have to be
replaced. The structure has only one purpose as designed, and that is to
deliver water. As such, it has an optimized design weight. Adding the
transformers, motors, plow hardware and control electronics would increase
the load on the structure far past the collapsing point.

2) Have you considered the cost and weight of just the copper conductors?

I do like the idea as a work of imagination, however.

Tim Wescott wrote:

> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
> magic?

'Bret Cahill' is a notorious idiot.

Graham

> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
> magic?

Well, we were hoping you guys could figger out some other way than by
voodoo.

> Much of the electricity that's generated in the world is done so
> by burning fossil fuels,

1/2 by coal.

> and any extra electricity demand that you
> create with electric tractors (or electric cars, for that matter) will
> have to come from fossil fuels until we either develop effective solar
> (don't hold your breath) or we go all nuclear (hold your breath,
> particularly when the air is glowing).

OK, that does it!

I'm getting together a team of oxen so _you_ can stagger around behind
a plow for awhile.

I bet you come back begging on your knees for coal and nuke plants.

"Puleeeeze, Mr. Cahill, I was just a callow young 'n foolish greenola
WAY back in 2007. The safety of those nuke plants is as certain as a
jury getting ready to convict Dick Cheney."


Bret Cahill

> Adding to the other answers: 1) the entire mechanism would have to be
> replaced. The structure has only one purpose as designed, and that is to
> deliver water. As such, it has an optimized design weight.

It's such a big structure, it would frighten little kids.

Moreover it is only going 1/2 rpd (rev per day).

> Adding the
> transformers, motors, plow hardware and control electronics would increase
> the load on the structure far past the collapsing point.

The thing already weighs 10 tons and spans 1/4 mile.

> 2) Have you considered the cost and weight of just the copper conductors?

The real concern is meth heads figgering out how to short / flip the
circuit breakers to steal the wire.

> I do like the idea as a work of imagination, however.

We're either going to get sustainable or die trying.


Bret Cahill

Circa Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:18:05 -0700 recorded as
<1186546685.495991.212300@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com> looks like Bret
Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> sounds like:

>> Adding to the other answers: 1) the entire mechanism would have to be
>> replaced. The structure has only one purpose as designed, and that is to
>> deliver water. As such, it has an optimized design weight.
>
>It's such a big structure, it would frighten little kids.
>
>Moreover it is only going 1/2 rpd (rev per day).
>
>> Adding the
>> transformers, motors, plow hardware and control electronics would increase
>> the load on the structure far past the collapsing point.
>
>The thing already weighs 10 tons and spans 1/4 mile.

None of that matters. As I said, the structure is only going to be strong
enough to support its intent. If it weighs ten tons and spans a quarter
mile, it weighs ten tons because it has to be strong enough to span 1/4
mile, and bear the weight of the irrigation water. Adding the weight of a
plow, the support hardware, and the massive torque load required to turn
dirt is going to crush it.

>> 2) Have you considered the cost and weight of just the copper conductors?
>
>The real concern is meth heads figgering out how to short / flip the
>circuit breakers to steal the wire.

Not all thieves bother to figure out how to trip breakers. Thieves are
killed each year trying to steal copper from substations.

>> I do like the idea as a work of imagination, however.
>
>We're either going to get sustainable or die trying.

That comment begs elaboration.

Circa Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:07:40 -0700 recorded as
<1186546060.254796.4430@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> looks like Bret
Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> sounds like:

>> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
>> magic?
>
>Well, we were hoping you guys could figger out some other way than by
>voodoo.

Many entities are trying to "figger" ways to generate energy other than the
burning of fossil fuels, or the splitting of atoms. Hydroelectric power is
an excellent alternative, but political pressure stifles hydro because of
valid concerns about declining salmon populations. Evidence may eventually
show that sea lions kill far more salmon than dam turbines, but in the
meantime dams may be destroyed and a fairly benign source of energy lost.

Other alternative energy solutions are killed by politics over concern for
aquatic wildlife, justifiable or not. For instance, tidal turbines are
political fodder over concerns about harming Orca and other wildlife. Wind
power is all the rage, but is unreliable and unable to generate spinning
reserve. Solar generation is hugely expensive both in terms of material
and real estate.

Your reply is disingenuous to the previous poster's comments. His point is
that your idea spends fossil fuel energy converted to electricity in the
hopes of saving fossil fuel energy converted to motive power (tractors).
One of the things that your idea overlooks is that the irrigation devices
are not designed to handle a tremendously increased load, and that the
supply of electrical energy needed to eliminate tractors from the equation
probably will be more costly in terms of spent fossil fuels than their use
to power the tractors. Then you have to add the engineering, materials and
construction costs to convert the use.

Like I said before, it's a good exercise of the imagination to envision
such a project, but the real world has to be confronted if such an idea is
to be put to profitable use.

So, are you sufficiently prepared to face the real world in the
presentation of your ideas on energy? Rationally and intelligently dealing
with the comments you receive here would be a good start.

On Aug 8, 6:23 pm, Charlie Siegrist <chamarsie.s...@spam.cableone.net>
wrote:
> Circa Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:07:40 -0700 recorded as
> <1186546060.254796.4...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> looks like Bret
> Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> sounds like:
>
> >> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
> >> magic?
>
> >Well, we were hoping you guys could figger out some other way than by
> >voodoo.
>
> Many entities are trying to "figger" ways to generate energy other than the
> burning of fossil fuels, or the splitting of atoms. Hydroelectric power is
> an excellent alternative, but political pressure stifles hydro because of
> valid concerns about declining salmon populations. Evidence may eventually
> show that sea lions kill far more salmon than dam turbines

Dams devastate salmon populations not so much by killing them outright
as by preventing the migrating fish from reaching their spawning
grounds and reproducing.
The salmon mortality stats of dams versus sea lion predation are a red
herring (snort, chuckle).

Tolstoy wrote:

> Charlie Siegrist wrote:
> > Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> sounds like:
> >
> > >> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
> > >> magic?
> >
> > >Well, we were hoping you guys could figger out some other way than by
> > >voodoo.
> >
> > Many entities are trying to "figger" ways to generate energy other than the
> > burning of fossil fuels, or the splitting of atoms. Hydroelectric power is
> > an excellent alternative, but political pressure stifles hydro because of
> > valid concerns about declining salmon populations. Evidence may eventually
> > show that sea lions kill far more salmon than dam turbines
>
> Dams devastate salmon populations not so much by killing them outright
> as by preventing the migrating fish from reaching their spawning
> grounds and reproducing.
> The salmon mortality stats of dams versus sea lion predation are a red
> herring (snort, chuckle).

'Salmon runs' seem to work ok in the UK.

Graham

> >We're either going to get sustainable or die trying.

> That comment begs elaboration.

It's actually a truism.

If we _don't_ get sustainable, then by definition . . .


Bret Cahill

> Your reply is disingenuous to the previous poster's comments. His point is
> that your idea spends fossil fuel energy converted to electricity in the
> hopes of saving fossil fuel energy converted to motive power (tractors).

But coal isn't going to double in cost in the next decade.

> One of the things that your idea overlooks is that the irrigation devices
> are not designed to handle a tremendously increased load,

They can be beefed up.

> and that the
> supply of electrical energy needed to eliminate tractors from the equation
> probably will be more costly in terms of spent fossil fuels than their use
> to power the tractors.

We'll have to go nuke. If the Bay Area can build an earthquake proof
bridge, then we can suspend a reactor and steam generator.

.. . .

> So, are you sufficiently prepared to face the real world in the
> presentation of your ideas on energy?

I'll get a team of oxen and a plow. If they start to whine about nuke
plants, I'll show them to a field and tell them to plow it.


Bret Cahill

On 2007-08-06, Bret Cahill <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote:
> Those green circles you see from the air are produced by a bridge like
> structure called a "pivot" that rotates while irrigating the crop.
>
> Up to 1/4 of a mile in length, the pivot could be jazzed up to do more
> than irrigate: It could replace the tractor altogether.
>
> Just set the timer for off peak hours and the next morning the outside
> ring of the field is plowed. You move the plow attachment inward for
> the next set of rows and add another attachment that plants seeds to
> the recently plowed ring area. You set the timer and go to sleep.
>
> It takes several days to plow the field but the electric motor is much
> smaller than the tractor engine because it is geared down so low.
>
> More important a lot of diesel can be saved this way. We won't starve
> to death after peak oil.
>
> But supposing you didn't want to use a pivot?
>
> Is there any obvious way to grid power an 150 - 360 kW farm tractor on
> a 1/2 mile X 1/2 mile field?

Don't. use a winch on a rail at either end.

Bye.
Jasen

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:40:11 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

>> >We're either going to get sustainable or die trying.
>
>> That comment begs elaboration.
>
> It's actually a truism.
>
> If we _don't_ get sustainable, then by definition . . .
>

I wonder who this "we" is supposed to be.

Thanks,
Rich

On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:57:01 -0700, in message
<1186628221.416286.15330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Tolstoy
<kellrobinson@billburg.com> scribed:

>On Aug 8, 6:23 pm, Charlie Siegrist <chamarsie.s...@spam.cableone.net>
>wrote:
>> Circa Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:07:40 -0700 recorded as
>> <1186546060.254796.4...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> looks like Bret
>> Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> sounds like:
>>
>> >> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
>> >> magic?
>>
>> >Well, we were hoping you guys could figger out some other way than by
>> >voodoo.
>>
>> Many entities are trying to "figger" ways to generate energy other than the
>> burning of fossil fuels, or the splitting of atoms. Hydroelectric power is
>> an excellent alternative, but political pressure stifles hydro because of
>> valid concerns about declining salmon populations. Evidence may eventually
>> show that sea lions kill far more salmon than dam turbines
>
>Dams devastate salmon populations not so much by killing them outright
>as by preventing the migrating fish from reaching their spawning
>grounds and reproducing.

That isn't accurate, at least according to the myriad of studies and
reports on salmon migration in the Northwest. AFAIK, most concerned
parties are satisfied with the performance of fish ladders. Lately, the
bogey man has become slow rivers, and consequently a too-slow movement of
the fish from spawning grounds to the ocean. This has resulted in court
orders to run water over spillways in the hope of decreasing the time from
spawn to ocean.

Another known fish mortality problem is pelicans and gulls. When young
fish get spit through turbines or hurtled over spillways, they are
momentarily stunned and easy prey for the birds. One solution to that
problem is posting a person with a wad-loaded shotgun at the dam, shooting
away at nothing in an attempt to scare the birds away.

>The salmon mortality stats of dams versus sea lion predation are a red
>herring (snort, chuckle).

The numbers in this game are skewed all over the map, depending upon which
special interest group is posting the numbers. I don't know if any of the
stats, from any source, can be cited as trustworthy.

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 09:01:46 -0800, Charlie Siegrist wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 19:57:01 -0700, in message
> <1186628221.416286.15330@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Tolstoy
>>On Aug 8, 6:23 pm, Charlie Siegrist <chamarsie.s...@spam.cableone.net>
>>> Circa Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:07:40 -0700 recorded as
>>> <1186546060.254796.4...@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com> looks like Bret
>>> Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> sounds like:
>>>
>>> >> Why do people always assume that electrons get pushed through wires by
>>> >> magic?
>>>
>>> >Well, we were hoping you guys could figger out some other way than by
>>> >voodoo.
>>>
>>> Many entities are trying to "figger" ways to generate energy other than the
>>> burning of fossil fuels, or the splitting of atoms. Hydroelectric power is
>>> an excellent alternative, but political pressure stifles hydro because of
>>> valid concerns about declining salmon populations. Evidence may eventually
>>> show that sea lions kill far more salmon than dam turbines
>>
>>Dams devastate salmon populations not so much by killing them outright
>>as by preventing the migrating fish from reaching their spawning
>>grounds and reproducing.
>
> That isn't accurate, at least according to the myriad of studies and
> reports on salmon migration in the Northwest. AFAIK, most concerned
> parties are satisfied with the performance of fish ladders. Lately, the
> bogey man has become slow rivers, and consequently a too-slow movement of
> the fish from spawning grounds to the ocean. This has resulted in court
> orders to run water over spillways in the hope of decreasing the time from
> spawn to ocean.
>
> Another known fish mortality problem is pelicans and gulls. When young
> fish get spit through turbines or hurtled over spillways, they are
> momentarily stunned and easy prey for the birds. One solution to that
> problem is posting a person with a wad-loaded shotgun at the dam, shooting
> away at nothing in an attempt to scare the birds away.
>
>>The salmon mortality stats of dams versus sea lion predation are a red
>>herring (snort, chuckle).
>
> The numbers in this game are skewed all over the map, depending upon which
> special interest group is posting the numbers. I don't know if any of the
> stats, from any source, can be cited as trustworthy.

I know one that is - the price of salmon at the store.

Cheers!
Rich