300 kW EV Tractor vs 400 hp Diesel
BretC...@peoplepc.com
200 kW.
A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
IEOR calculations.
Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.
In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a
year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.
In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.
And that's just for one field.
Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas --
include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be
$350,000/field in 6 years.
The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and
even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the
batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.
Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt.
conspiracy and post there.
Bret Cahill
Paul E. Schoen
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:c3f1f4ca-b8e6-4ed8...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Here is some detailed information on the cost and return for field corn
farming in the Sacramento Valley, in 2004, when diesel was about
$1.60/gallon.
http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/cornsv2004.pdf
It also lists costs of equipment and hours per acre for various farming
operations. It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since
then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to
spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough
methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the
required farming operation.
I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see
how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling
indicates that something needs to be done, *soon*. But this proposal is not
as simple as electrifying one tractor and having it run continuously. There
are many farming operations requiring different implements at different
times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others
where very little needs to be (or can be) done.
The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor.
The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for
instance, going 0-60 in 4 seconds. So that is 800 kW-Sec of energy, and it
uses capacitors for surges like this. Most of the time it will be cruising
at normal speeds where a small car needs only about 10 HP to overcome wind
resistance and rolling friction. So that is 7.5 kW, and its range is given
to be about 200 miles, or about 3.5 hours at 60 MPH. So its total energy is
about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250
kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes. Then it would need to be
recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged
efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes. So you would need to
run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the
battery pack. That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a
day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times
bigger than the Tesla's.
I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one
way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude
reality check.
Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic
alternatives that will work.
Paul
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > 200 kW.
> > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
> > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
> > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
> > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
> > IEOR calculations.
>
> > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
> > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
>
> > It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
>
> I think your numbers are off.
>
> Extrapolating from table 2 at this URL,
>
> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/farmmgt/05006.html
>
> I guestimate it'll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a
> square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do
> it using a 244 hp tractor.
In that case we can get by with a much smaller battery.
My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that
was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and
require 400 hp.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> http://coststudies.ucdavis.edu/files/cornsv2004.pdf
My numbers were based on what a too-clever-by-half moron posted. He
was claiming that there was a farm operation that it would take an
hour to go half a mile for a 400 hp tractor running wide open.
While that situation is probably very rare if it ever exists, even if
it is common it does _not_ change the argument for battery-electric
tractors. The moron was simply too stupid to figure out that the more
electrical energy that the he claims the electric tractor will need,
the more the diesel is going to cost to do the same operation and the
stronger the argument for battery electric tractors.
> It seems like there was not much ROI at that time, and since
> then fuel costs have risen and the economy is worse, so people have less to
> spend. Elsewhere there may be reports on the costs to manufacture enough
> methanol or ethanol from an acre of corn to provide the energy to run the
> required farming operation.
> I have not analyzed these figures, but that is what needs to be done to see
> how much of a crisis we may be heading toward, and just gut feeling
> indicates that something needs to be done, *soon*. But this proposal is not
> as simple as electrifying one tractor and having it run continuously. There
> are many farming operations requiring different implements at different
> times, and there are seasons where there will be intensive use, and others
> where very little needs to be (or can be) done.
> The specifications of the Tesla do not directly translate to the tractor.
> The Tesla will consume its rated 200 kW or 268 HP only when it is, for
> instance, going 0-60 in 4 seconds. So that is 800 kW-Sec of energy, and it
> uses capacitors for surges like this. Most of the time it will be cruising
> at normal speeds where a small car needs only about 10 HP to overcome wind
> resistance and rolling friction. So that is 7.5 kW, and its range is given
> to be about 200 miles, or about 3.5 hours at 60 MPH. So its total energy is
> about 25 kW-Hr. For a tractor that really needs a continuous output of 250
> kW, it would only run for about 6 minutes.
About the time a 400 hp tractor running wide open will need between
passes for most real life farming operations.
Need 12 minutes @ 400 hp? Spend a few thousand from the EIGHTY
THOUSAND DOLLARS in fuel savings to double the size of the battery
pack.
Need 60 minutes for the hypothetical 0.5 mph scenario? Then it's
_still_ cheaper to 10X the battery pack.
What am I saying? That's where the greatest savings are!
> Then it would need to be
> recharged, and I don't know of any laptop batteries that can be charged
> efficiently and safely in less than about 30 minutes.
Go window shopping at the Home Depot. Makita sells an 18 volt Li Ion
battery pack that recharges in 10 minutes.
No one in the industry or in tech will deny that recharge times will
continue to decrease.
It'll be five minutes before the first prototype E tractor can be
built.
It'll be 2 minutes before E tractors are in full production.
It doesn't take a genius to figure this out. They know that the
smaller the cells, the faster the charging time.
Guess what they'll do? They'll make smaller cells.
> So you would need to
> run this system at a duty cycle of about 20%, no matter how large the
> battery pack.
Just wire 4X more batteries in parallel.
We're talking $150,000 in fuel savings in 2 years for _one_ square.
> That means the best you could do would be about 5 hours a
> day, and a 19 hour charge, and that would require a battery pack 30 times
> bigger than the Tesla's.
> I think I did my math correctly. Some of my assumptions might be off one
> way or the other. But I think this is a reasonable order-of-magnitude
> reality check.
> Math and science can poke holes in a dream, but there are realistic
> alternatives that will work.
There is no question that all kinds of custom tailored electric
systems will appear and work for almost all farmers. There's no
question the diesel thingy is over.
To speed things up I've proven a much bolder claim than that:
In a few short years the _least_ cost effective electric tractor
system is or will soon be wildly more cost effective than any diesel
in _any_ situation, _long_ before many E tractors are in production.
And this is with off the shelf technology.
Someone in the field should have said something before now. I've
upstaged everyone so now I should be able to request what is really
needed now:
A tractor pull.
Bret Cahill
phil hays
> The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
> 200 kW.
For short periods of time.
> A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)
Would be a failure as a tractor. One to two hours working time followed
by several hours of recharge time? The Tesla is probably more at than 8
hours of recharge time.
> Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would
> take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour
(about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW..
Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that
would usually be done that slow, but there are crops I know little about,
like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and
that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20
cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different
machinery.
Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23853730-3102,00.html
Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200
acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in
the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?
--
Phil Hays
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > 200 kW.
> For short periods of time.
The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a
field back to the recharger.
> > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)
> Would be a failure as a tractor.
Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
> One to two hours working time
Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.
At today's prices.
In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.
In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:
Everytime you start talkin' energy, I'm gonna pop you on your fanny
with the diesel equivalent.
You'll then need to show how the batteries are _more_ expensive.
This, of course, ain't gonna happen.
> followed
> by several hours of recharge time?
You need to get out sometime. If you cannot afford gas try cycling to
the Home Depot. Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
minutes.
There isn't a soul in the industry or academia who will deny that this
time will drop.
> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
> hours of recharge time.
At the typical 10 kW household current.
Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple
of minutes with off the shelf technology.
> > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph would
> > take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
> Never drove a tractor, I see. If you are working at 0.5 miles per hour
> (about a km per hour), then you are not using anything close to 300 kW..
I guess we can forget about paying all that money for a lot of extra
batteries.
Hey, wait! That's an argument _for_ battery tractors.
You could knock me over with a feather!
> Soil resistance times speed equals power. I don't know of anything that
> would usually be done that slow,
Hey, it might become necessary someday! There's all kinds of
situations! Maybe they'll eventually try to clear Joshua Tree for
farming! The sooner they do _something_ with that hideous place the
better.
But yea, I agree. It ain't an everyday operation. Some too-clever-by-
half moron came up with that nonsense hoping it was an argument
against battery tractors.
It wasn't
> but there are crops I know little about,
> like cotton and peanuts. More usual speeds are 5 to 20 km per hour, and
> that is pulling a disk harrow 6 to 8 meters wide or wider, and working 20
> cm deep. Planting takes less power. Harvesting is done with different
> machinery.
> Ah, here is a bit of amusement for you.
>
> http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,23853730-3102,00.html
>
> Converting units is such a pain, but if I did it correct 905ha is 2200
> acres or 3.5 square miles planted in 24 hours. How wide is that rig in
> the picture? I'd guess 16 meters. How fast were they pulling that?
CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas.
If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately!
Bret Cahill
phil hays
> Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
> equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
Show me. Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery
replacement costs and such what costs. Build a recharger, and find out
what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but
And don't forget:
The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels.
> In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?
--
Phil Hays
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
> Show me.
Buy two Teslas for $100K each then scrap them for the motors and
batteries.
Already you've saved money compared to the diesel, maybe even in
initial cost alone!
> Get one in the field for long enough to find out battery
> replacement costs and such what costs.
Every cost is _already_ well known and can be easily calculated by any
IEOR.
> Build a recharger,
What next? Reinvent the wheel?
> and find out
> what sort of power the REA will deliver. No offense, but
> And don't forget:
> The alternative isn't just diesel, it is also biodesel and other biofuels.
And you're whining about about battery technology being unproven?
? ? ?
We _know_ everything about the batteries. They already exist. We
only have _claims_ for the algae.
> > In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
> So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?
Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping
the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2
mile of fire tubing.
What's wrong with burning bio at a utility power plant set up to burn
bio?
A pizzeria is set up to make pizza.
A farm is set up to cultivate fields with grid power.
And a stationary power plant is set up to make power from bio.
Read the _Republic_ where each person does a specific task.
Bret Cahill
John Fields
wrote:
>Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
>minutes.
---
So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
I think even you can figure out the answer to that one, LOL!
---
>> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
>> hours of recharge time.
>
>At the typical 10 kW household current.
---
10kW is power, not current.
---
>Out in a field the 1 MW line would charge up the tractor in a couple
>of minutes with off the shelf technology.
---
Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
JF
John Fields
wrote:
>> > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
>> > 200 kW.
>
>> > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
>> > turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
>> > way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
>> > education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
>> > IEOR calculations.
>>
>> > Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
>> > would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
>>
>> > It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
>>
>> I think your numbers are off.
>>
>> Extrapolating from table 2 at this URL,
>>
>> http://www.ext.colostate.edu/PUBS/farmmgt/05006.html
>>
>> I guestimate it'll take roughly 1,075 gallons of diesel to plow a
>> square mile 8 inches deep, and take approximately 64 hours to do
>> it using a 244 hp tractor.
>
>In that case we can get by with a much smaller battery.
---
How much smaller?
I've already shown you how to find the capacity of the battery you
need, so why don't you run the numbers and see whether what you have
in mind is realizable instead of just running your mouth?
---
>My numbers were based on those provided by some "expert" claiming that
>was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and
>require 400 hp.
---
Hey, Brat, you were the one who came up with 400 HP, so if you
disagree with the numbers, change them to something you're comfortable
with and then post what capacity battery will be needed for that job.
And show your work, please.
---
JF
Don Bowey
0ca72681-b687-47b9...@c2g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
"BretC...@peoplepc.com" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> CBS needs to stop trying to steal my electric farming ideas.
>
> If anyone sees Katie in a tractor pull, Email me immediately!
>
>
> Bret Cahill
IMO You have been less than ethical in your posts. Why would anyone care if
CBS beat you to something/
rlbell...@gmail.com
> > > The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
> > > 200 kW.
> > For short periods of time.
>
> The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a
> field back to the recharger.
>
> > > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)
> > Would be a failure as a tractor.
>
> Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
> equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
>
> > One to two hours working time
>
> Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.
>
> At today's prices.
>
> In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.
>
> In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
>
> Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:
>
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.
Mark Thorson
>
> So how much will the wood for a steam tractor run?
Plant alternate rows with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euphorbia_antisyphilitica
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
candelilla.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> >was a farming operation that would take an hour to go half a mile and
> >require 400 hp.
>
> ---
> Hey, Brat, you were the one who came up with 400 HP,
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
diesel.
Some vineyard selling overpriced wine is _not_ going to be my first
customer.
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.
Bret Cahill
Mark Thorson
>
> Not nearly negative enough to pay for the time you'll spend scraping
> the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2
> mile of fire tubing.
There's nowhere close to that much tubing.
And all of that stuff would be burnt off
at the operating temperature.
You originally tried to dismiss the steam
tractor with the spectre of boiler explosions,
which are a non-issue for firetube boilers.
When that failed, you retreated to this
equally bogus argument. You don't know the
facts, and try to dismiss what you don't know
with hand-waving.
Steam has been practical for powering tractors
in the past, and with modern materials it
could be even more competitive. Best of all,
it is the ultimate flex-fuel vehicle, because
the fuel doesn't need to burn at a precise
rate under confinement. It doesn't even need
to be a liquid. It could even be coal (our
most abundant fuel), or wood (our most abundant
renewable fuel).
It's far more practical than hauling 10 tons
of batteries around. It's also more efficient
because it only converts chemical energy into
mechanical work. The battery-powered tractor
requires converting chemical energy into
mechanical work (at the power plant), converting
mechanical work into electricity (at the power
plant), transmission line losses, converting
electricity into chemical energy (charging the
tractor's battery), converting chemical energy
into electricity (discharging the battery),
and converting electricity into mechanical work.
You lose energy at every conversion step.
Game over. Not practical.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> > > > 200 kW.
> > > For short periods of time.
> > The same short period of time it'll take a tractor to get across a
> > field back to the recharger.
> > > > A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries)
> > > Would be a failure as a tractor.
> > Has already been proven to be more cost effective than any diesel
> > equivalent, not just in operating costs but overall costs as well.
> > > One to two hours working time
> > Means the diesel equivalent has burned $110 -- $220 worth of diesel.
> > At today's prices.
> > In two years the diesel will cost $190 - $375 for that time.
> > In 6 years the diesel equivalent will be $3000 - $5500/hr.
> > Everyone seems to be having difficulty larning the lesson:
> Diesel will not keep rising at 30%. �
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
will plummet.
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
understandable.
It's a bleak situation.
> 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. �
How long will _this_ take?
What about the interim? Are we just going to "load shed" millions of
people?
> However, if the costs threaten to keep rising, it
> will be done, as there are still huge reserves of coal
It would be more cost effective to burn the coal in a power plant and
power the tractors from the grid.
> and someone
> stands to make a huge pile of money supplying cheaper energy.
Even the electric tractor, much faster than coal liquification or even
bio diesel, will take several years.
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
> >minutes.
> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
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
field instead?
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
to drop.
. . .
> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
> >> hours of recharge time.
> >At the typical 10 kW household current.
> 10kW is power, not current.
Who suggested it was?
Anyway you dodged the issue.
The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
farm application.
> >Out in a field the 1 MW �line would charge up the tractor in a couple
> >of minutes with off the shelf technology.
> Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
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?
Bret Cahill
BretC...@peoplepc.com
If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret
Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread.
Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well.
Bret Cahill
Don Bowey
630f9eaa-b166-4df4...@z6g2000pre.googlegroups.com,
"BretC...@peoplepc.com" <BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
Take your topic to an appropriate newsgroup and quit spamming this one with
your nonsense. It appears to me from a brief search that this trashing is
something you do often.
Bret Cahill
> > the creosote, slag, ash, tar and other carcinogic crap off the 1/2
> > mile of fire tubing.
> There's nowhere close to that much tubing.
Then it ain't 400 hp.
> And all of that stuff would be burnt off
> at the operating temperature.
That's a pipe dream.
. . .
> It's far more practical than hauling 10 tons
> of batteries around.
That's the point of the trolly wire. The size of the battery can be
reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
A Tesla equivalent battery will work in most applications, very light
for a tractor.
The capital cost would in the long run be even lower.
> It's also more efficient
> because it only converts chemical energy into
> mechanical work. �
Not nearly as efficient as a real power plant burning bio.
Bret Cahill
John Fields
wrote:
>> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
>> >minutes.
>
>> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
>> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
>
>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.
---
That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck, and isn't the
point, the point being that if 5 hours loss of productivity is due to
having to wait for batteries to charge up, Then the cost per hour for
the machine gets to be about 1.7 times what it would be if it were
running continuously.
---
>Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
>field instead?
---
Why not just admit that your pipe dream is fatally flawed and stop
trying to wriggle off the hook?
You're well and firmly hooked you know, and so does everybody else,
---
>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.
---
Yeah, if your scheme was viable, but it isn't.
---
>Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page --
>anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue
>to drop.
---
Meaningless prattle since there's no doubt that charging times will
drop if demand so dictates.
The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to
charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires
huge currents. That makes your device impractical.
---
>> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
>> >> hours of recharge time.
>
>> >At the typical 10 kW household current.
>
>> 10kW is power, not current.
>
>Who suggested it was?
^
--- |
Short attention span? You did-----
---
>Anyway you dodged the issue.
---
What issue?
---
>The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>farm application.
>
>> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
>> >of minutes with off the shelf technology.
>
>> Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
>
>> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
>
>Never heard of electrified rail? Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
>tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.
---
Apples and oranges.
---
>Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
---
Neither.
You, however, seem to get yourself into these little messes where you
have to squirm and slide in order to try to slime yourself out of
them.
Kind of like watching someone who's been shitting into a cesspool for
years falling in and realizing there's no ladder.
JF
John Fields
wrote:
>This thread is about electric v diesel tractors.
>
>If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret
>Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread.
---
If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors and you
object to off-topic posting, like why another thread should be started
if it's about your posting style, then you should have started
another thread in which to post that comment.
---
>Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well.
---
Since you can't seem to find your own ass with both hands, I don't see
why anyone would consider that much of a danger.
Also...
No context?
Hmm... AOL, Google groups, I understand.
Mommy won't spring for a _real_ USENET provider???
JF
Rob Dekker
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message news:58cfec07-a606-4c22...@w39g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> That's the point of the trolly wire. The size of the battery can be
> reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
> the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
wider than 440 feet.
Is that a reasonable assumption ?
If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
Rob
Bret Cahill
> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
> > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
> Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so,
Some moron put the 0.5 mph figure. According to some government or
industry site posted here, for almost all operations, the tractor is
moving 6 - 10 mph.
> and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
> wider than 440 feet.
> Is that a reasonable assumption ?
> If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
>
> Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
The cheapest system is a 1/2 mile long wire and a Tesla sized battery.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret
> > Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread.
> > Of course, you'll get your fanny handed to you on that issue as well.
> Take your topic to an appropriate newsgroup
That explains why you can't do basic electronics calculations.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
> > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
> Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
> wider than 440 feet.
> Is that a reasonable assumption ?
No. As one poster citing government and industry material pointed
out, tractors generally go much faster.
> If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire?
> Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
Losses aren't an issue.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> >minutes.
> >> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
> >> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
> >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.
> That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck,
Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time.
. . .
> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
> >field instead?
> Why not just admit that
That you are dodgin' 'n dodgin'?
OK, now that you twisted my are, I admit it.
You are dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
. . .
> >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.
> Yeah, if your scheme was viable,
Is there any reason to believe it isn't?
. . .
> >Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page --
> >anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue
> >to drop.
. . .
> there's no doubt that charging times will
> drop if demand so dictates.
Then we'll need to start building prototypes as soon as possible to
accomodate the new batteries.
> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to
> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires
> huge currents. �
"Huge?"
Science has been quantitative since Galileo
Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric
locomotive.
. . .
> >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
> >> >> hours of recharge time.
> >> >At the typical 10 kW household current.
. . .
> >Anyway you dodged the issue.
> What issue?
The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
farm application.
> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
> >farm application.
Notice the dodge?
> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology.
> >> Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
> >> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
> >Never heard of electrified rail? �Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
> >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.
> Apples and oranges.
Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference?
> >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
> Neither.
Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you
were wrong.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors, i. e. Bret
> >Cahill's posting style, feel free to start another thread.
> If you want to discuss something besides electric tractors
Then start another thread.
This thread is about electric tractors. I thought I made that clear.
You need to get some medication for your attention deficit disorder.
Bret Cahill
Rob Dekker
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message news:6bd255d2-77d4-4f5b...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
..
> > If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
>
> Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire?
More like two winches with 1 mile wire each (connected in series). One winch unrolls along the side of the field, The other unrolls
over the field towards the tractor.
Just need a system to make sure the field wire stays high above the tractor (so it does not accidentally get cut).
> > Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
>
> Losses aren't an issue.
>
As long as they stay withing reasonable limits. Which should be OK for (standard) 11kV AC distribution power line and a few miles of
cable.
Rob
Rob Dekker
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
process.
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.
Rob
Frank Ketchum
<BretC...@peoplepc.com> wrote in message
news:c3f1f4ca-b8e6-4ed8...@h17g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a
> year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.
>
> In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.
>
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?
Frank
> And that's just for one field.
>
> Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas --
> include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be
> $350,000/field in 6 years.
>
> The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and
> even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the
> batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.
>
> Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt.
> conspiracy and post there.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
>
John Fields
---
Non-sequitur and, LOL, PKB?
JF
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>Losses aren't an issue.
---
So, you don't know anything about electrical power distribution
either?
Buffoon, losses are_always_ an issue.
Why else do you think long-haul transmission lines use high voltages
to move electricity around?
JF
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
>> >> >minutes.
>
>> >> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
>> >> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
>
>> >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.
>
>> That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck,
>
>Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time.
---
If all that results in a net gain for the farmer, then it's hardly
wasted.
---
>> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
>> >field instead?
>
>> Why not just admit that
>
>That you are dodgin' 'n dodgin'?
>
>OK, now that you twisted my are, I admit it.
>
>You are dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
---
Seems to me that you're the one doing all the clipping so you don't
have to deal with the issue then inserting some inane comment in order
to muddy the water.
---
>> >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.
>
>> Yeah, if your scheme was viable,
>
>Is there any reason to believe it isn't?
---
Many, as I've pointed out earlier, and more than once.
---
>> >Anyways I'm still waiting for one single authority, any web page --
>> >anything -- that claims that battery recharge times will not continue
>> >to drop.
>
>. . .
>
>> there's no doubt that charging times will
>> drop if demand so dictates.
>
>Then we'll need to start building prototypes as soon as possible to
>accomodate the new batteries.
---
"We"????
If you're so sure it'll work get off your lazy ass and do it.
---
>> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to
>> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires
>> huge currents. ?
>
>"Huge?"
---
Yes, and the more quickly you want to charge the battery the larger
that current becomes.
---
>Science has been quantitative since Galileo
---
Red herring
---
>Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric
>locomotive.
---
Ignoratio elenchi
---
>
>. . .
>
>> >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
>> >> >> hours of recharge time.
>
>> >> >At the typical 10 kW household current.
>
>
>. . .
>
>
>> >Anyway you dodged the issue.
>
>> What issue?
>
>The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>farm application.
>
>> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>> >farm application.
>
>Notice the dodge?
---
Yes. you refused to address the issue, which was that you don't know
the difference between current and power, and changed the subject in
order to divert,
---
>> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
>> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology.
>
>> >> Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
>
>> >> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
>
>> >Never heard of electrified rail? ?Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
>> >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.
>
>> Apples and oranges.
>
>Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference?
---
It's Ignoratio elenchi
---
>> >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
>
>> Neither.
>
>Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you
>were wrong.
---
You can't even refute the arguments I made, mathematically, which
proved the folly of your position, nor can you refute, logically, any
statements I've made, so you resort to your little bob and weave
routine in order to attempt to impugn my veracity.
I think most everyone is on to you and your chicanery by now, but
carry on if you must, chimps can often be entertaining.
JF
John Fields
---
If this thread is about electric tractors then why are you posting
about attention deficit disorder?
JF
Bret Cahill
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
chance.
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.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> >> >minutes.
> >> >> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
> >> >> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
> >> >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.
> >> That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck,
> >Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time.
> If all that results in a net gain for the farmer, then it's hardly
> wasted.
So you are now arguing _for_ farm electrification?
> >> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
> >> >field instead?
> >> Why not just admit that
Still dodging?
Here, we'll try again:
Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
field instead?
> >> >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
> >> >to drop.
> >. . .
> >> there's no doubt that charging times will
> >> drop if demand so dictates.
Then what was all the whining about wasting time recharging out in the
field?
. . .
> >> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to
> >> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires
> >> huge currents. ?
> >"Huge?"
> Yes, and the more quickly you want to charge the battery the larger
> that current becomes.
That's your "mathematical" argument?
It's "huge?"
> >Science has been quantitative since Galileo
> Red herring
You don't even know what "quantitative" means.
Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
> >Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric
> >locomotive.
> Ignoratio elenchi
Here, we'll try again. Those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an
electric locomotive.
This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
. . .
> >> >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
> >> >> >> hours of recharge time.
>
> >> >> >At the typical 10 kW household current.
> >. . .
> >> >Anyway you dodged the issue.
> >> What issue?
> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
> >farm application.
Notice the dodge?
Here we'll try again:
The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
farm application.
> >> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
> >> >farm application.
>
> >Notice the dodge?
>
> ---
> Yes. you refused to address the issue,
The issue was the Tesla charger is for household wiring.
You tried to dodge it.
. . .
> >> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
> >> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology.
> >> >> Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
> >> >> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
> >> >Never heard of electrified rail? ?Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
> >> >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.
> >> Apples and oranges.
> >Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference?
Notice the dodge?
Here we'll try again:
Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference?
> ---
> It's Ignoratio elenchi
> >> >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
> >> Neither.
> >Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you
> >were wrong.
> You can't even refute the arguments I made, mathematically,
A "huge" current is a mathematical argument?
Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
Bret Cahill
Don Bowey
e7aba415-7d84-4f0a...@p10g2000prf.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
> 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
> chance.
>
> 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.
Do you mean to say "pursue" or "peruse" or something different?
>
> 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.
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
your actions.
>
> 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?
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.
>
> In those cases you just call the moron a moron.
Ok. Your a moron. Feel better now?
>
> Eventually I get bored with the white noise but as a populist I must
> at least initially encourage everyone to participate.
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.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
Don Bowey
db4fae41-e50a-4396...@u6g2000prc.googlegroups.com, "Bret
Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
(snip)
>
>>> Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric
>>> locomotive.
>
>> Ignoratio elenchi
>
> Here, we'll try again. Those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an
> electric locomotive.
>
> This time no dodgin' 'n dodgin'.
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
>
> . . .
>
>>>>>>>> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
>>>>>>>> hours of recharge time.
>>
>>>>>>> At the typical 10 kW household current.
>
>>> . . .
>
>>>>> Anyway you dodged the issue.
>
>>>> What issue?
>
>>> The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>>> farm application.
>
> Notice the dodge?
>
> Here we'll try again:
>
> The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
> farm application.
>
>>>>> The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>>>>> farm application.
>>
>>> Notice the dodge?
>>
>> ---
>> Yes. you refused to address the issue,
>
> The issue was the Tesla charger is for household wiring.
>
> You tried to dodge it.
>
> . . .
>
>>>>>>> Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
>>>>>>> of minutes with off the shelf technology.
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)
charger?
(snip)
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> >> >Makita sells a lithium ion pack that recharges in 10
>> >> >> >minutes.
>
>> >> >> So sitting at a charger for 7.2 hours out of a 12 hour workday is
>> >> >> acceptable for a 6 minute work period across the field?
>
>> >> >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.
>
>> >> That's just cost per hour for a driver and a truck,
>
>> >Wasted money unnecessarily tying up the driver's and truck's time.
>
>> If all that results in a net gain for the farmer, then it's hardly
>> wasted.
>
>So you are now arguing _for_ farm electrification?
---
Nope, I'm saying that your argument is specious.
---
>> >> >Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
>> >> >field instead?
>
>> >> Why not just admit that
>
>Still dodging?
---
Never have been; are you still trying to obfuscate the issue by
clipping?
---
>
>Here, we'll try again:
>
>Why not save money by having them sit in electric tractors in the
>field instead?
---
You really are thick, aren't you?
You don't save money by having the tractor idle while the battery's
charging, you're still paying for the tractor, the fuel that's being
used while the battery's being charged, the operator's salary, and the
loss of revenue from whatever work that should have been done but
wasn't because the battery was being charged.
---
>> >> there's no doubt that charging times will
>> >> drop if demand so dictates.
>
>Then what was all the whining about wasting time recharging out in the
>field?
---
ISTM that you're the one who's doing the whining;
I just stated a fact which is pertinent at the present time, not one
which will have any consequence when superconducting batteries will be
able to charge instantaneously at infinite current.
---
>> >> The problem you don't seem to be able to grasp is that in order to
>> >> charge the batteries quickly, once they've become depleted, requires
>> >> huge currents. ?
>
>> >"Huge?"
>
>> Yes, and the more quickly you want to charge the battery the larger
>> that current becomes.
>
>That's your "mathematical" argument?
---
Nope the argument I'm referring to, (as you're well aware, you phony)
was the one where I showed you that current required to charge a
battery to C varies inversely with the charge time, and then some.
---
>It's "huge?"
---
Sure.
---
>> >Science has been quantitative since Galileo
>
>> Red herring
>
>You don't even know what "quantitative" means.
---
Sure I do.
---
>Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
>
>> >Anyway those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an electric
>> >locomotive.
>
>> Ignoratio elenchi
>
>Here, we'll try again. Those "huge" currents are 1/30th those of an
>electric locomotive.
>
---
Really? At what current and voltage do externally powered locomotives
run?
---
>> >> >> >> The Tesla is probably more at than 8
>> >> >> >> hours of recharge time.
>>
>> >> >> >At the typical 10 kW household current.
>
>> >. . .
>
>> >> >Anyway you dodged the issue.
>
>> >> What issue?
>
>> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>> >farm application.
>
>Notice the dodge?
>
>Here we'll try again:
>
>The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>farm application.
>
>> >> >The Tesla charger was for the typical household, not an industrial or
>> >> >farm application.
>>
>> >Notice the dodge?
>>
>> ---
>> Yes. you refused to address the issue,
>
>The issue was the Tesla charger is for household wiring.
>
>You tried to dodge it.
---
On the contrary, I replied that it doesn't make any difference because
in order to charge a battery you still have to fill it up with
electrons, (you know, those teeny little bits that whiz around the
nucleus of an atom) and if you want to fill it up twice as fast you
have to use twice the current. Or words to that effect, anyway.
Now you may have been thinking I was trying to dodge the issue because
you couldn't understand what I was talking about, but then that's a
failing on your end, not mine, wouldn't you agree?
---
>> >> >> >Out in a field the 1 MW ?line would charge up the tractor in a couple
>> >> >> >of minutes with off the shelf technology.
>
>> >> >> Woulda, coulda, shoulda...
>
>> >> >> Got a real-world example? (Schematic, bill of materials, etc.)
>
>> >> >Never heard of electrified rail? ?Compared to a 10 minute 400 hp
>> >> >tractor recharge that would be 30X more power just for one locomotive.
>
>> >> Apples and oranges.
>
>> >Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference?
>
>Notice the dodge?
---
Yes, you dodged by not even attempting to refute my irrefutable
"apples and oranges" critique but by changing the subject.
---
>Here we'll try again:
>
>Can you tell us what you think is a pertinent difference?
>
>> ---
>> It's Ignoratio elenchi
>
>> >> >Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
>
>> >> Neither.
>
>> >Maybe you just jumped in on the wrong side and now cannot admit you
>> >were wrong.
>
>> You can't even refute the arguments I made, mathematically,
>
>A "huge" current is a mathematical argument?
---
It can be, if "huge" is quantified and used in an expression, but you
know very well, you phony, that wasn't the context in which it was
used.
---
>Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
---
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tawdry
JF
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be
---
Ah, you finally took enough rope... :-)
JF
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be
---
Really?
Let's say you need 400HP out of a motor which is 90% efficient and
that the input voltage to the motor comes from a PWM controller which
is also 90% efficient and which is driven with a battery with a
charge-to-discharge efficiency of 90%.
That means the efficiency, from battery to motor shaft will be:
Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73%
One horsepower is equal to 746 watts, so our 400HP converts to:
746W * HP 746W * 400HP
P = ----------- = -------------- = 298 400W ~ 300 000 watts,
HP HP
which is 300 kilowatts.
Now, since the efficiency is running at 73% we'll need to put in:
Pout 300kW
Pin = ------ = ------- ~ 411 kilowatts,
E 0.73
which means we've wasted 111 kilowatts to get 300.
But wait... It gets worse.
Let's say the battery charger is 90% efficient and the transformer
feeding it from the HV transmission lines is also 90% efficient.
as before:
Et = E1E2 = 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.81 = 81%,
so to get 411 kilowatts out of the charger we have to put:
Pout 411kW
Pin = ------ = ------- ~ 507 kilowatts
E 0.81
into the transformer primary.
Using the 17kV lines someone earlier posted were standard, the current
in the primary and the HV lines will be:
P 5.07E5W
I = --- = --------- = 29.82A ~ 30A
E 1.7E4V
Now, just for grins, let's say that the battery charges for a minute
and that on that charge the tractor runs for six minutes (your
numbers, as I recall) and then recharges and discharges again, ad
infinitum. Under that kind of duty cycle the current on the HV side
will have to increase by a factor of six in order to fully charge the
battery in the tome allotted. That means that the primary current
must rise to:
Ip = 30A * 6 = 180 amperes.
Here's the best part...
Let's say that we have 10 miles of #0 AWG wire strung from the
substation to our transformer.
#0 AWG wire has a resistance of about 0.52 ohms per mile, so that 10
mile stretch will have a resistance of:
R * Dt 0.52R * 20mi
Rt = -------- = -------------- = 10.4 ohms,
D 1mi
will drop:
E = IR = 180A * 10.4R = 1872 volts,
and will dissipate:
P = IE = 18A * 1872V = 33 696W ~ 33.7kW.
Our total losses, then will be
P = Pin - Pout = (507kW + 33.7kW) - 300kW = 240.7kW ~ 241kW
So, for 300kW out we've had to put in 541kW, which is an efficiency
of:
Pout *100 3E5W * 100
E = ----------- = ----------- ~ 55.5%
Pin 5.41E5W
Which translates into that for every dollar you're paying for energy
you're throwing away about 45 cents.
Losses aren't an issue, huh?
JF
disgoftunwells
> The Tesla is powered by 7,000 Li-Ion laptop batteries for an output of
> 200 kW.
>
> A similarly powered 300 kW electric tractor (10,500 batteries) would
> turn a 400 hp articulated 22 gallon/hour diesel tractor every which
> way but loose in a tractor pull which apparently is vitally necessary
> education as well as entertainment for those too ignorant do basic
> IEOR calculations.
>
> Running either tractor wide open to work a square mile at 0.5 mph
> would take 3 months of 7 day work weeks at 8 hours / day.
>
> It would also require 17,000 gallons of diesel.
>
> Today the cost is "only" $80,000 for the diesel.
>
> In 2 years, with the price of hydrocarbon fuel spiraling by 30% a
> year, that cost will be $150,000/yr.
>
> In six years the cost of the fuel will be half a million dollars.
>
>
> Maybe if we have massive truck and bus conversion to natural gas --
> include farm tractors in Pickens plan -- the price will "only" be
> $350,000/field in 6 years.
>
> The battery tractor would be cheaper even if grid power tripled and
> even if you went to your overpriced Apple Inc. store and bought the
> batteries one by one and wired them together one by one yourself.
>
> Now, if you don't believe laptop batteries exist, please go to alt.
> conspiracy and post there.
>
> Bret Cahill
I've read that over time, crop fields suffer from the compression of
tractor wheels.
Would it make sense, for heavily utilised fields, to lay down a rail
track?
Whatever the tractor / harvester is doing, it could be a 20m wide
vehicle necessitating a single track spaced every 20m.
The track could also be used to provide electric power.
A few details to work out about how the tractor changes track at the
end of the rails.
John Larkin
Why not monorails in all the cornfields? Then the electric power
could be provided by the rail, and there would be zero unnecessary
contact with the soil. And you could give tourists rides in the off
season.
Or just use nuclear powered helicopters for plowing; as a bonus,
they'd blow the bugs away, and irradiate the produce.
I you bury superconductors under the crop rows, you could use a maglev
tractor. Put Luke Skywalker back on the farm.
Or the San Francisco farming technique, cable-car tractors. No power
needed at all!
We'll teach all those dumb farmers how to do it right.
John
Day Brown
A team of oat burners will pull a moldboard plow at 5mph, covering about
7.5 acres/day. Mite try 3 oxen with a double bottom at 3mph, but get
10 acres/day. And oxen dont need oats.
If the proverbial schitt hits the fan, I'm gonna walk into a pasture
with a hatfull of corn, and walk out with oxen following me cause they
dont mind me stroking them while they eat, and they want more.
There are also horses that still have the full set of instincts to be
worked as draft animals. Right now, one farmer grows enuf food for 100
people. With draft animals, one feeds 25. That's still not that bad, and
its a system that has worked for thousands of years.
With diesel and petrochemicals, they expect 155 bu corn/acre. Farmath,
in 1885, got only 21 bu corn. But, I was born on a farm, and remember
draft animals getting 45-48 bu/acre with what we now call 'organic'
methods using better hybrid seed. And it aint that hard to produce the
hybrid seed with organic methods.
BTW: a problem with the high density NiMH is that you can fuck them up
if they are not charged at the right rate and then turned off. The
technology with draft animals could be looked into to dramatically
improve production.
Worth considering also is using 3.5 gallons of tractor fuel to grow
sorghum, which will produce 100-120 gallons of ethanol, which can then
be converted into butanol. Which will run any gas engine without any
modification at the same power output.
Bret Cahill
. . .
> Why else do you think long-haul transmission lines use high voltages
> to move electricity around?
Because they are long haul, over a hundred miles in many cases. The
quarter square tractor trolly line only needs to go half a mile.
Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
Bret Cahill
John Larkin
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >Losses aren't an issue.
>
>. . .
>
>> Why else do you think long-haul transmission lines use high voltages
>> to move electricity around?
>
>Because they are long haul, over a hundred miles in many cases. The
>quarter square tractor trolly line only needs to go half a mile.
Half a mile from where? An electrical outlet conveniently located in
the middle of 800 acres of corn field?
>
>Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
>
Please refresh us on your background in electrical engineering, and in
farming.
John
Bret Cahill
> >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
> >> > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
>
> >> Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
> >> wider than 440 feet.
>
> >> Is that a reasonable assumption ?
>
> >No. �As one poster citing government and industry material pointed
> >out, tractors generally go much faster.
>
> >> If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
>
> >Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire?
>
> >> Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
>
> >Losses aren't an issue.
>
> ---
> Really?
>
> Let's say you need 400HP out of a motor which is 90% efficient and
> that the input voltage to the motor comes from a PWM controller which
> is also 90% efficient and which is driven with a battery with a
> charge-to-discharge efficiency of 90%.
>
> That means the efficiency, from battery to motor shaft will be:
>
> � � �Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73%
Not that your numbers are any good -- electric motors are 95%
efficient and don't need to "idle" at the end of the field for 15
minutes while the farmer gets ready for the next pass -- but what is
the conclusion when the cost of diesel goes up 30% a year, more than
enough to wipe out the 27% loss?
Are you suggesting we should wait another year before designing the
system?
Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
> >> > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
>
> >> Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
> >> wider than 440 feet.
>
> >> Is that a reasonable assumption ?
>
> >No. �As one poster citing government and industry material pointed
> >out, tractors generally go much faster.
>
> >> If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
>
> >Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire?
>
> >> Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
>
> >Losses aren't an issue.
>
> ---
> Really?
>
> Let's say you need 400HP out of a motor which is 90% efficient and
> that the input voltage to the motor comes from a PWM controller which
> is also 90% efficient and which is driven with a battery with a
> charge-to-discharge efficiency of 90%.
>
> That means the efficiency, from battery to motor shaft will be:
>
> � � �Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73%
Why doesn't this apply to hybrid road motor vehicles?
You keep dodging that issue and you expect to get better results.
If you are incapable of reasoning and facing the reality that hybrids
exist, then all the "calculations" in the world are useless.
You were doing just as good using the word "huge."
Are you just acting stupid or are you really this dumb in real life?
Bret Cahill
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be
>> >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
>> >> > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
>>
>> >> Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
>> >> wider than 440 feet.
>>
>> >> Is that a reasonable assumption ?
>>
>> >No. ?As one poster citing government and industry material pointed
>> >out, tractors generally go much faster.
>>
>> >> If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
>>
>> >Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire?
>>
>> >> Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
>>
>> >Losses aren't an issue.
>>
>> ---
>> Really?
>>
>> Let's say you need 400HP out of a motor which is 90% efficient and
>> that the input voltage to the motor comes from a PWM controller which
>> is also 90% efficient and which is driven with a battery with a
>> charge-to-discharge efficiency of 90%.
>>
>> That means the efficiency, from battery to motor shaft will be:
>>
>> ? ? ?Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73%
>
>Not that your numbers are any good -- electric motors are 95%
>efficient and don't need to "idle" at the end of the field for 15
>minutes while the farmer gets ready for the next pass -- but what is
>the conclusion when the cost of diesel goes up 30% a year, more than
>enough to wipe out the 27% loss?
---
I've given you the method which will allow you to figure it out for
yourself, so plug your numbers into it and figure it out and stop
asking stupid questions.
Plus, you have no idea where diesel will go or if it'll be replaced by
other liquid fuels, so all you're doing is pissing in the wind,
pretending to know what you're talking about.
---
>Are you suggesting we should wait another year before designing the
>system?
---
I'm suggesting nothing but that your system is flawed.
---
>Are you just acting dumb or are you really this stupid in real life?
---
Hmm... That's not much of a mantra.
JF
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> > That's the point of the trolly wire. ?The size of the battery can be
>> >> > reduced by 1 - 2 orders of magnitude because, unlike an EV or plug in,
>> >> > the tractor charges up every 6 - 10 minutes, after each pass.
>>
>> >> Bret, if the tractor goes (what was it?) 1 mph or so, and it needs 10 minutes for one pass (5 min each way), then the field is no
>> >> wider than 440 feet.
>>
>> >> Is that a reasonable assumption ?
>>
>> >No. ?As one poster citing government and industry material pointed
>> >out, tractors generally go much faster.
>>
>> >> If so, why not just use a high-voltage extension cable ?
>>
>> >Another moveable wire off of the stationary wire?
>>
>> >> Actually, a 10kV line can be miles long without too many losses (for the 300 kW that you need).
>>
>> >Losses aren't an issue.
>>
>> ---
>> Really?
>>
>> Let's say you need 400HP out of a motor which is 90% efficient and
>> that the input voltage to the motor comes from a PWM controller which
>> is also 90% efficient and which is driven with a battery with a
>> charge-to-discharge efficiency of 90%.
>>
>> That means the efficiency, from battery to motor shaft will be:
>>
>> ? ? ?Et = E1E2E3 = 0.9 * 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.729 ~ 73%
>
>Why doesn't this apply to hybrid road motor vehicles?
---
What makes you think it doesn't?
---
>You keep dodging that issue and you expect to get better results.
---
LOL, I'm not the one who keeps changing the subject.
---
>If you are incapable of reasoning and facing the reality that hybrids
>exist, then all the "calculations" in the world are useless.
---
What makes you think that I think that hybrids don't exist?
---
>You were doing just as good using the word "huge."
---
Just as _well_, and the way I used it was appropriate in the context
in which it was being used. You, of course railed against it just to
buy some time and to throw a little more shit into the game.
---
>Are you just acting stupid or are you really this dumb in real life?
---
Neither, of course, which escapes you because you're obviously
afflicted with the latter.
JF
disgoftunwells
and low cost. They'd run on wheels - just be pulled from a fixed
motor, instead of from an oxen.
Besides, there's nothing new about engineers teaching farmers (dumb
one and smart ones) how to do it right. If they didn't, farmers would
still be using oxen.
John Larkin
So instead of putting an engine on the tractor, you'd have it located
at the end of each (perfectly straight) row, pulling on a cable
attached to the tractor, somehow not tearing up the rows and the crops
between. And every time the tractor turns, the engine vehicle has to
move down one row, with nothing getting tangled. We'd make all the
rows somewhat shorter to allow for the extra machinery and maneuvering
room. Of course, the plowing patterns couldn't be a serpentine any
more - the cable doesn't allow that - but a comb shape, with a
plow-and-backtrack pattern for every row. That will take a little more
time (like, 2x), and will work fine as soon as you figure out how to
make a cable push as well as pull. [1]
We all know that farmers have a lot of spare time, so won't mind
increasing their plowing time by, say, 6:1 or so.
>
>Besides, there's nothing new about engineers teaching farmers (dumb
>one and smart ones) how to do it right. If they didn't, farmers would
>still be using oxen.
The aggies of the nation thank you. [2]
John
[1] San Francisco's cable cars only go in one direction over each
slot. Maybe you could help them, too.
[2] Are you an engineer?
Mark
see "center pivot irrigation"
If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
tractor.
Mark
Mark Thorson
>
> So instead of putting an engine on the tractor, you'd have it located
> at the end of each (perfectly straight) row, pulling on a cable
> attached to the tractor, somehow not tearing up the rows and the crops
> between. And every time the tractor turns, the engine vehicle has to
> move down one row, with nothing getting tangled. We'd make all the
> rows somewhat shorter to allow for the extra machinery and maneuvering
> room. Of course, the plowing patterns couldn't be a serpentine any
> more - the cable doesn't allow that - but a comb shape, with a
> plow-and-backtrack pattern for every row. That will take a little more
> time (like, 2x), and will work fine as soon as you figure out how to
> make a cable push as well as pull. [1]
It's called a "ploughing engine". They were used
in the days of steam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traction_engine#Ploughing_engine
They were used in pairs, one on each side of the field.
Paul E. Schoen
"Mark" <mako...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f6d3e4f1-5159-4e42...@25g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
I agree. I posted some specific figures to prove the basic practicality of
using a "low voltage" 480 VAC 3 phase service cable that can drive at least
a 100 HP electric motor on a 250 ft pivot arm, and with a bit of
"Enginuity" a system could be rigged up where the tractor could have more
degrees of freedom than a circular path, if needed.
Figuring out the details, building a prototype, and doing some actual field
testing would be a fascinating and worthwhile challenge, probably well
suited to a college with agricultural and engineering departments. But I
think this entire discussion has degraded to the point of uselessness.
Paul
disgoftunwells
The optimum way to plough a field is influenced by the relative values
of fuel costs, labour costs, equipment costs, yield levels.
Fuel has been rather cheap over the last 100 years or so. as it gets
more expensive methods may change.
The technique above would work best with longer rows, with the plough
or harvester running between two movable points. No reason why it
can't be just as fast as normal ploughing, with less room required for
the wheels.
Probably works best on large prarie fields.
> We all know that farmers have a lot of spare time, so won't mind
> increasing their plowing time by, say, 6:1 or so.
>
6:1? Why not make it 100:1?
I would have thought sitting in a control centre controlling multiple
units would be faster. Actually, farm labour must be cheap otherwise
most of this would have automated long ago. Or at least remote
controlled.
>
>
> >Besides, there's nothing new about engineers teaching farmers (dumb
> >one and smart ones) how to do it right. If they didn't, farmers would
> >still be using oxen.
>
> The aggies of the nation thank you. [2]
>
> John
>
> [1] San Francisco's cable cars only go in one direction over each
> slot. Maybe you could help them, too.
>
They're a tourist attraction, not an efficient people mover.
> [2] Are you an engineer?
Yes
Bret Cahill
>
> > see �"center pivot irrigation"
>
> > If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
> > tractor.
> I agree. I posted some specific figures to prove the basic practicality of
> using a "low voltage" 480 VAC 3 phase service cable that can drive at least
> a 100 HP electric motor on a 250 ft pivot arm, and with a bit of
> "Enginuity" a system could be rigged up where the tractor could have more
> degrees of freedom than a circular path, if needed.
Farmers seem to be competent at dealing with all kinds of Rube
Goldberg impliments.
Even so KISS should prevail. A pivot could run unattended at night
moving the drive wheels and impliments radially for a spiral furrow.
> Figuring out the details, building a prototype, and doing some actual field
> testing would be a fascinating and worthwhile challenge, probably well
> suited to a college with agricultural and engineering departments.
An ag extension center.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
> tractor.
I posted the "super pivot" on sci.energy last summer. The idea was to
get rid of the tractor altogether, just keep the wheels motor and the
impliments.
A conventional pivot moves pretty slow so the super pivot could have
several concentric areas so the tangential velocity wouldn't vary too
much from the outer "tip speed" to the inner "boss."
A poster claiming to be from Nebraska said a conventional pivot sells
for $45,000, a pretty good deal considering the distance it spans. In
something like a berry field it would pay for itself in a matter of
months.
A pivot, however, requires flat land and some of the square field is
"wasted." Moreover, a grid-battery tractor is the cheapest way to get
the foot in the E feld door.
One wire.
One battery.
One tractor with the diesel replaced with an electric motor.
Do that first _then_ you can get fancy.
Bret Cahill
Dean Hoffman
There's a world of difference in the power requirements. Center
pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. The older ones used either
a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. The newer
ones use motors half that size. The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. The newer ones
can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.
Tractors in my area are probably in the range of 150 to 200
horsepower or so. Front wheel assist with duals rather than the four
wheelers Brett talks about.
Take a 100 horsepower irrigation well motor with a pivot. A
quarter mile run from the power supply to the center point where the
well might be. That would take 250 or 350 MCM aluminum wire depending
on the voltage drop one wants.
You'd have to double the distance and double the amperage to make a
200 horsepower tractor run at the far end of the pivot.
Then there would be the problem of getting the power to the fields
in the first place. Power companies probably wouldn't be all that eager
to put up lines that would be needed only part of the time.
Most of the irrigation wells in my area are on interruptible power.
The suppliers can shut them off by remote control if the load gets
too heavy from other uses. Thats fine for irrigation but probably not
for field operations that need to get done in a timely manner.
Dean
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Dean Hoffman
> Mark wrote:
>> re cables to power electric tractors...
>>
>>
>> see "center pivot irrigation"
>>
>>
>> If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
>> tractor.
>>
>> Mark
>
> There's a world of difference in the power requirements. Center
> pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. The older ones used either
> a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. The newer
> ones use motors half that size. The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
> span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. The newer ones
> can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.
pivots usually have 7, 8, or sometimes 10 towers for a 1300 foot
machine. More drive units are needed for rougher ground.
Bret Cahill
> > see �"center pivot irrigation"
> > If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
> > tractor.
> � � � There's a world of difference in the power requirements. �
The real concern is how to manage the cable. The appeal of straight
grid is undeniable: Grid is only _one fourth_ the cost of diesel and
"dropping."
Grid-battery is now about 3/4ths the cost of diesel but it's dropping
just as fast.
On the other hand, while farmers are pretty good at dealing with Rube
Goldberg contraptions -- some of the impliments need to be in horror
movies -- I look at a field and think, "no way I'm gonna pry a farmer
from his water wars to adopt Etch O Sketch kinematics."
> Center
> pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. �The older ones used either
> a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. �The newer
> ones use motors half that size. �The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
> span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. �The newer ones
> can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.
A heavier gauge cable isn't going to crush the pivot.
> � � �Tractors in my area are probably in the range of 150 to 200
> horsepower or so. �Front wheel assist with duals rather than the four
> wheelers Brett talks about.
> � � �Take a 100 horsepower irrigation well motor with a pivot. �A
> quarter mile run from the power supply to the center point where the
> well might be. �That would take 250 or 350 MCM aluminum wire depending
> on the voltage drop one wants.
They still use diesel irrigation pumps here. A crop insurance
adjuster assures me that they use diesel pumps in Florida as well.
Saturday I was out cycling and passed a field irrigated with miles of
aluminum pipe and a gazillion sprinklers being pumped by a diesel 30
feet from a power line.
Now _that_ would be easy.
> � � You'd have to double the distance and double the amperage to make a
> 200 horsepower tractor run at the far end of the pivot.
OK.
> � � �Then there would be the problem of getting the power to the fields
> in the first place. �Power companies probably wouldn't be all that eager
> to put up lines that would be needed only part of the time.
I can't even get UP to save $2.5 billion a year in diesel by
electrifying their main line in the desert.
Railroads are a much more obvious candidate than farms.
> � � Most of the irrigation wells in my area are on interruptible power.
> � �The suppliers can shut them off by remote control if the load gets
> too heavy from other uses. �Thats fine for irrigation but probably not
> for field operations that need to get done in a timely manner.
Place Sandia dishes or PV in the "corners" clipped off by the circular
field.
Bret Cahill
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> see ?"center pivot irrigation"
---
So get off your fat, lazy ass and do it instead of running your mouth.
JF
Mark
wrote:
> Mark wrote:
> > re cables to power electric tractors...
>
> > see "center pivot irrigation"
>
> > If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
> > tractor.
>
> > Mark
>
> There's a world of difference in the power requirements. Center
> pivot motors are three phase 480 in the U.S. The older ones used either
> a single one horsepower motor or a horse and a half motor. The newer
> ones use motors half that size. The older ones had 10 AWG Cu in the
> span cable to power the pivots that were 1/4 mile long. The newer ones
> can get by with 12 AWG Cu to power the motors.
I'm sorry you missed my point.
My point is not about the amount of power needed to run the
irrigators vs a tractor... My point was, if a machine can be
designed to distribute WATER through a PIPE to a large circular area
like that, then a similar machine can be designed to distribute a
power cable to a tractor over a similarly large area.
Mark
Bret Cahill
That was exactly my reasoning last summer when the all-in-one pivot
idea was first introduced.
If they _already_ have the structure in place then they might as well
go all the way.
Then someone posted the speed is only 2 revolutions per day. Big
irrigator structures don't move very fast so either you buy or rent a
lot of tractors or you take your time.
This might not be an issue if it's automated. A radial drive
mechanism could plow a spiral field 24/7 or off peak/7. The illegal
crackdown is affecting farm labor costs in the SW, now $9.50/hr +
overtime.
The pivots will lose some land in the center but since they are
fallowing land anyway, they might as well go to an efficient irrigator
and fallow the land they cannot reach with a super pivot. Then
airline passengers will see a lot of green rings at 50,000 ft.
The linear irrigators would solve the lost land problem but would
require a control system to prevent binding or jamming.
To determine the size of the inner circle the spread sheet would have
to take into account any higher productivity and water savings/
cultivated land and labor savings if automated.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Cite?
Show your calculations.
Totally huge.
John Fields
<BretC...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> see ?"center pivot irrigation"
>>
>> >> If they can do this, they can figure out how to get a cable to a
>> >> tractor.
>>
>> >I posted the "super pivot" on sci.energy last summer. ?The idea was to
>> >get rid of the tractor altogether, just keep the wheels motor and the
>> >impliments.
>>
>> >A conventional pivot moves pretty slow so the super pivot could have
>> >several concentric areas so the tangential velocity wouldn't vary too
>> >much from the outer "tip speed" to the inner "boss."
>>
>> >A poster claiming to be from Nebraska said a conventional pivot sells
>> >for $45,000, a pretty good deal considering the distance it spans. ?In
>> >something like a berry field it would pay for itself in a matter of
>> >months.
>>
>> >A pivot, however, requires flat land and some of the square field is
>> >"wasted." ?Moreover, a grid-battery tractor is the cheapest way to get
>> >the foot in the E feld door.
>>
>> >One wire.
>>
>> >One battery.
>>
>> >One tractor with the diesel replaced with an electric motor.
>>
>> >Do that first _then_ you can get fancy.
>>
>> ---
>> So get off your fat, lazy ass and do it instead of running your mouth.
>
>Cite?
>
>Show your calculations.
>
>Totally huge.
---
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apoplexy#Non-medical_usage
LOL!
JF
Bret Cahill
Huge.
Cite?
Show your calculations.
John Fields
Bret Cahill
Sevenhundred Elves
>Quite funny, but actually cable car tractors could be quite feasible
>and low cost. They'd run on wheels - just be pulled from a fixed
>motor, instead of from an oxen.
Hear, hear! Best idea for electrifying agriculture so far!
<Followups set to sci.energy. Required to, by my news provider.>
S.
Dean Hoffman
I should've written more about what I was getting at.
The amount of power required would be a design consideration. The
weight of the necessary wire to allow for the voltage drop could be an
issue. The system would have to be strong enough to support both the
cable and the water if one wanted to use the system to irrigate. The
cost of the wire would be a big issue.
250 MCM is about $8/foot. 300 MCM is about $9.60/foot. 4/0 is about
$6.75/foot. Prices are for THWN 2 which isn't suitable for the use, but
the price was fairly easy to find.
Using 3 runs of 300 MCM plus one run of 250 MCM would total about
$48,000. Irrigation systems are a lot higher than I thought. I guess
they cost around $70,000 for a standard 1300 foot 7 tower system. That
comes to about $968/acre if I pushed the right buttons on my elcheapo
calculator.
That wouldn't include some sort of flexible cord and plug to
actually get the power to the tractor. I wonder if such a thing as a
250 amp plug in actually exists or would be safe to use if it did.
I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.
Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. Put
the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. The 7th tower would
have to travel at 35 mph. Thirty five miles an hour in a field?
Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? Uh, no.
The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
planting. Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. They
probably would be too for this application.
Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot
to get through or stop at. Odd shaped fields would also create problems.
The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed
to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot. I suppose some
bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.
BretC...@peoplepc.com
I was acutely aware of prices of electrical wire at the time which is
why I wasn't too keen on trolley wiring the entire field, although
quite frankly, that couldn't cost any more than all those miles of
aluminum irrigation pipe they lay down and take up just for one crop
of lettuce.
> � � Using 3 runs of 300 MCM plus one run of 250 MCM would total about
> $48,000. �Irrigation systems are a lot higher than I thought. �I guess
> they cost around $70,000 for a standard 1300 foot 7 tower system. �That
> comes to about $968/acre if I pushed the right buttons on my elcheapo
> calculator.
A berry field brings in at least an order of magnitude more money in
just one season.
This is getting ridiculous.
> � � That wouldn't include some sort of flexible cord and plug to
> actually get the power to the tractor. � �I wonder if such a thing as a
> 250 amp �plug in actually exists or would be safe to use if it did.
Years ago I worked in a machine shop making circular 1" diameter
single pole "lugs" for ships.
They'ld take 250 amps.
> � � I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.
> Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. � Put
> the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. �The 7th tower would
> have to travel at 35 mph. �Thirty five miles an hour in a field?
Break it up into concentric circles. I mentioned this last summer.
But if you need a controller to prevent binding, you might as well go
to the linear irrigator.
> Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? �Uh, no.
> � � The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
> planting. � Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. � They
> probably would be too for this application.
> � � Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot
> to get through or stop at. �Odd shaped fields would also create problems.
Supposing it would be worthwhile to eliminate all the obstacles
first?
Someone needs to do a spreadsheet on capital costs, operating costs
including diesel . . .
Do farmers use spread sheets? That may be the problem right there.
The farmers in one valley have a unique situation; near zero
uncertainty. They just read up on whatever is selling at a high price
and the next day they are planting it. It's impossible for them to
not make a killing.
That's really what gave me the idea for the super pivot. Every farmer
should have complete control.
> � � The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed
> to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot. �I suppose some
> bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.
Billions are at stake.
I'm not a spread sheet type myself but with peak oil, we'll all have
to work harder. Maybe it's time to do some work on X Cell.
Bret Cahill
John
be plowed would require less energy than any of the proposals so far
made, which is to say yer all full of shit.
Bret Cahill
Tell your case worker you need the dosage increased on your ADD drugs
because you cannot stay on topic for 2 seconds.
Bret Cahill
Dean Hoffman
Farmers are getting rid of it in favor of pivots or sub surface
irrigation. Running water down a row is too inefficient. The pipe you
see was probably purchased long ago when aluminum was cheaper and there
was no better way of irrigating. There are still places where it is
practical due to slope and cost.
Aluminum pipe really didn't have to meet much in the way of
standards. Electrical wiring does.
>> � � Using 3 runs of 300 MCM plus one run of 250 MCM would total about
>> $48,000. �Irrigation systems are a lot higher than I thought. �I guess
>> they cost around $70,000 for a standard 1300 foot 7 tower system. �That
>> comes to about $968/acre if I pushed the right buttons on my elcheapo
>> calculator.
>
> A berry field brings in at least an order of magnitude more money in
> just one season.
>
> This is getting ridiculous.
So what is the net profit?
High dollar specialty crops are pretty well limited to California
and the Southwest, I think. The Midwest is mainly corn, soybeans,
wheat, and some milo. Try corn at $2.50 and 200 bushels/acre. The
average yield is somewhere around 145 bu./acre nationally. Think about
wheat at $4.50/bushel with a yield of 55 bu/acre.
>
>> � � That wouldn't include some sort of flexible cord and plug to
>> actually get the power to the tractor. � �I wonder if such a thing as a
>> 250 amp �plug in actually exists or would be safe to use if it did.
>
> Years ago I worked in a machine shop making circular 1" diameter
> single pole "lugs" for ships.
>
> They'ld take 250 amps.
Terminal lugs are made for permanent wiring. Wiring and
unwiring constantly would take its toll. Someone in a hurry would be
apt to make bad connections or a possibly lethal mistake. You'd
probably need some super dooper version of a lamp plug.
>> � � I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.
>> Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. � Put
>> the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. �The 7th tower would
>> have to travel at 35 mph. �Thirty five miles an hour in a field?
>
> Break it up into concentric circles. I mentioned this last summer.
>
> But if you need a controller to prevent binding, you might as well go
> to the linear irrigator.
Which brings up the cost issue again. Linear machines cost
somewhere around one and a half times as much as a circle pivot or more
if memory serves. Linears are mainly sold in California and other
places with high dollar specialty crops.
The only linears I know of in this area were purchased by seed corn
companies. They companies use them on their research farms. The
linears do a lot better job of water application than circle pivots.
The company I work for has sold hundreds of circle pivots and exactly
one linear.
Linears don't have a fixed point. How would you get the power to it
so it could power the tractor? Most use a generator mounted on the
unit powered by a diesel engine. The very few that don't are cord drag.
The one in my area uses a four conductor cord with #8 copper, I think.
You'd have to go to a very heavy cord to power the linear to power the
tractor.
The last difficulty is lateral moves are limited to fairly flat
ground. I don't remember the slope limitations but there are a lot of
places they won't work.
>
>> Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? �Uh, no.
>> � � The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
>> planting. � Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. � They
>> probably would be too for this application.
>> � � Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot
>> to get through or stop at. �Odd shaped fields would also create problems.
>
> Supposing it would be worthwhile to eliminate all the obstacles
> first?
There are probably places where it would be. Other places would
be abandoned if tractors were exclusively all electric. Small patches
might not be viable due to lack of power. Our friends in the government
might object in some cases.
It doesn't take much of a water way to get the EPA or the Corp of
Engineers involved from the stories I've heard.
>
> Someone needs to do a spreadsheet on capital costs, operating costs
> including diesel . . .
>
> Do farmers use spread sheets? That may be the problem right there.
Yeah, they do. One farmer I know mentioned that he runs separate
ones for each
farm. They have accountants and bankers to help them with such things.
They don't get operating loans if the cash flow projections aren't
favorable. There is also specialized farm accounting software.
These guys are businessmen in jeans and seed corn hats.
>
> The farmers in one valley have a unique situation; near zero
> uncertainty. They just read up on whatever is selling at a high price
> and the next day they are planting it. It's impossible for them to
> not make a killing.
What crops? What's unique about that valley that people in other
parts of the world can't do the same?
>
> That's really what gave me the idea for the super pivot. Every farmer
> should have complete control.
How so?
Farmers actually have less and less control as time goes on. There
are a lot of people like me that do the technical stuff for them. I fix
pivots. Tractor mechanics, well men, truck mechanics, grain handling
people, spray and fertilizer applicators, and others keep them going.
Farmers of my grandparent's generation were a lot more self
sufficient. Farms had chickens, hogs, cattle, and gardens.
Farmers still needed outsiders to get by but not to the degree modern
farmers do.
Nowadays the only livestock on a farm might be the dog.
>
>> � � The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed
>> to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot. �I suppose some
>> bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.
>
> Billions are at stake.
>
> I'm not a spread sheet type myself but with peak oil, we'll all have
> to work harder. Maybe it's time to do some work on X Cell.
>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
Rod Speed
Yes it does. And it wouldnt be hard to design even if it didnt.
> or would be safe to use if it did.
Corse it can be designed to be safe.
> I can't picture how the actual working of it would be practical.
Yeah, its completely silly.
> Let's say the farmer will plant in a circle to match the pivot. Put
> the tractor at the first tower traveling at 5 mph. The 7th tower
> would have to travel at 35 mph. Thirty five miles an hour in a field?
Yeah, its viable for water distribution but not for a tractor.
> Through the gullies and over ridges or an occasional washout? Uh, no.
Its easy enough to landform so those are gone. Thats done for rice etc routinely.
> The pivot would have to make a lot of circles to complete the
> planting. Pivot wheel tracks are an issue during irrigation. They probably would be too for this application.
Nope, not if the pivot is used for irrigation.
> Another consideration would be mud holes or obstacles for the pivot to get through or stop at.
Irrigation pivits handle that fine, basically with very large wheels.
> Odd shaped fields would also create problems.
That just means that the odd shaped bits dont get used.
> The last problem that comes to mind is coordinating the pivot speed to the tractor speed over the length of the pivot.
> I suppose some bright college boy could do that but it wouldn't be cheap.
It wouldnt add much to the total cost.
Makes a lot more sense to use biodiesel in the conventional tractors tho.