Agricultural equipment with the strength of the calves!

[Grelinette]

... and I add a layer, thanks to Leonard!

A wheel with inertia like the one our venerable Leonardo da Vinci had imagined, and placed on a tool (with pedals of course) such as the one presented by Did67, would not bring such an improvement for the performance, and the performance?

Video: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ywheel.ogg

The kinetic inertia accumulated by the moving wheel makes it possible to provide additional energy during recurrent jolts in agriculture, and the rotary movement is directly and naturally produced by pedaling! QED


PS: Who can help me to make a specification and plans? ...

[chatelot16]

the word performance is disastrous: it has several different meanings which renders incomprehensible certain phrase when one can not guess at what yield thinks the author

"energy efficiency": ratio between the useful energy at the output and the energy consumed at the input

"agricultural yield": number of quintals per hectare produced: it has nothing to do with the energy yield because we only count what it produces, not what it costs

if we calculated the "energy yield" of a crop by measuring the energy expended including the embodied energy of fertilizers and treatment products, we would find that the "energy yield" of a high yield crop agricultural "is completely bad

conversely, if we let grow without doing anything we have a "poor agricultural yield" but an enormous "energy yield"

"new efficiency to the con": we see in wikipedia a new definition of efficiency which renames "efficiency" the "energy efficiency" that everyone knows

with this new vocabulary a steam engine which has a theoretical carnot efficiency of 0,2 and a real efficiency of 0,1 will have a "new con" efficiency of 0,5 or 50%

this way of modifying the vocabulary known to everyone is lamentable: those who leave the school are found with a vocabulary incompatible with the previous generation

but I'm going to open another topic for this debate, and not pollute the one
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post272883.html#272883

[chatelot16]

to return to culture: we can calculate the yield of a tractor pulling a plow

useful power = force x plow speed
power consumed = fuel flow x fuel cost
and we can calculate the "energy yield"

but this is not the total return of the operation since the purpose of the operation is not an energy: it is to have a plowing done!

so we have to measure the energy consumed by m2

it's easy to measure the power of a tractor that plows

what is the power of a gardener who beaks? it is much weaker because the gardener is more intelligent than the plow: when we plant the beak and it does not sink, we do not force like a donkey we move it slightly so that it sinks more easily ... then we return without friction ... unlike the plow or it rubs a lot

it is this intelligence of the gardener that makes me think that we will do more work with 10 gardener who bechent with 9 gardener who pedal on a winch, to pull a plow driven by the 10eme

and do not talk about the galley side of the 9 solution that pedal and one that drives! it's still more sympathetic to work with each other with his tool, which allows to see the techniques of one and the other: to see the difference in efficiency between the one who starts, is very tired, and the one who knows well and who miraculously gets tired a lot months

and when you have to hoe to weed, the advantage of intelligence is even greater! the gardener sees the grass to be removed and does not tire scratching everywhere or there is nothing to do as a tool trailed behind a tractor

and the tool behind the tractor ratiboizes useful plants that come out of the row: the intelligent gardener is better

of course the trailed plow is useful when there is a horse that alone will do a power equivalent to a lot of gardener who pedal

but if you compare the expense of feeding and housing the horse with fuel oil from the tractor, the tractor is more economical!

another comparison: if we wanted to pull a plow with a hitch of gardener, who shoot stupidly like beef, we would do better with less gardener pedaling to operate a winch ... and even better with each his beche

[Did67]

if we calculated the "energy yield" of a crop by measuring the energy expended including the embodied energy of fertilizers and treatment products, we would find that the "energy yield" of a high yield crop agricultural "is completely bad

Here, I'm just going to mention it at the end of my long speech while you were writing.

Yes, the energy efficiency of our agriculture is very low. What we eat comes as much from fossil fuels as from solar energy.

And it is besides the 1st threat which will shake the "intensive" model, more than the laws, the ecologists, the movements this ...

That the price of energies doubles durably and we will speak of plowing, nitrogenous fertilizers, 130 quintals pr hectare, etc ...

[Remundo]

Moderate by Remundo

Discussions about the cultivation of land with and without tillage have been transferred here

Agriculture / Garden-and-agriculture-plant-direct-vs-plowing-t13234.html

[Grelinette]

Hello and good Sunday to all,

This afternoon we have an operation Shaping a new shared garden.
This project is interesting, it is the SNCF which proposes to create a shared garden in the Aix en Provence station (and finances the expenses). The idea is to create a small corner of greenery in a square of land within the station and allowing travelers waiting for their train to relax by discovering a multitude of plants and new cultivation methods ... and 'encourage the population to also come and visit the "ancillary activities" at the station.

(You will have understood that behind this project, there is a "strategy" to bring the population to the stations for something other than taking the train ... Like the airports which have already embarked on the process, the sncf wants to make the stations real centers of life and animation ... and consumption, with shops, bistros, gardens, etc ....
As with many commercial activities today, ancillary products represent a significant profit, or even more profitable than the main activity!)

To go back to the last comments and the initial subject, and the scientific approaches, I do not necessarily agree with everything that has been written:

... we will do more work with 10 gardener who bechent with 9 gardener pedaling on a winch, to pull a plow driven by the 10eme

But 10 gardeners with a spade will only be able to dig! The advantage of a versatile tool is precisely that it can be adapted to other tasks: rather than having 10 spades, 10 weeders, 10 hoes, 10 hooks, 10 specific tools ... a single tool is shared and made more productive, and "overall efficiency" becomes competitive.

... but if you compare the expense to feed and house the fuel horse as comsomé by the tractor, the tractor is more economical!

For a small-scale use, the purely economic approach is not so obvious because there are many parameters which are difficult to compare (tractor / horse): fuel / hay, maintenance / grooming, revision / care, CO2 / dung, noise engine / hoof, ... and without forgetting an even more abstract parameter: when you work with a horse, you talk to it, it reacts, it responds in its own way, it learns, it anticipates. With a tractor the link and less "alive"!

I'm a bit of a flyer, but it's to emphasize that a reasoning purely encrypted and pushed to the extreme ignores more subtle arguments. Without wanting to troll the subject, it is like the economic indicator of the GDP which will quantify and quantify the production and the growth of a country but will ignore important aspects (human, social, ...) of the activity of the country.

[Remundo]

for the one who makes the garden a hobby, a moment of social life, why not the animals or pedal oneself ...

But when it becomes serious, the fuel is made to speak, and the mechanical force that flows from it. But already you'll see, Grelinette and your friends, how to pedal to weed will get bored quickly, unless you just scratch the surface for 15 minutes ... you will bruise your thighs and touch the cardiovascular limits of your lungs quickly

I believe that the urban masses would have more filled bowls if it took the envy to the farmers to leave their tractor under the shed and to solicit again the horses Ardennes or percherons, and other Francomtois ...

Knowing that about 3 / 4 fuel is burned in town in futile traffic jams, frankly I do not feel much peasant farmers who grow their field with a blow of diesel for useful purposes, especially that some are already trying biodiesel.

@+

[Did67]

for the one who makes the garden a hobby, a moment of social life, why not the animals or pedal oneself ...

But when it becomes serious, the fuel is made to speak, and the mechanical force that flows from it.

1) Thank you for having detached the part on the "garden in a deckchair with a good book in the right hand and a glass of beer in the left hand"!

2) I think the debate on agriculture should be dismissed. It would take books, and we would not be addicted!

In any case, as I said above, do not jump to hasty conclusions from the jadrinage for agriculture and vice versa.

The "dimension is not the same at all:

On the one hand, about 2% of people feed the other 98; Exports of surpluses more than offset imports of what is not produced ...

The "dimension" is about a hundred ha; the quantities of energy are evaluated in hundreds of thousands of kWh!

[a man who would pedal without stopping, for a year, at a good pace, it is an order of magnitude of ... 2 500 kWh]

My square treated in BRF, it is 40 wheelbarrows, on approximately 40 m². At this rate, a "100 ha farm" would be ... a million wheelbarrows.

So we can not put both in the same bag.

3) Even in front of jadrin, the goal should always be recited.

Few people feed on their gardens. At most it brings more or less of our food!

For many it is caring.

For some, it's having "the biggest" - I'm talking about tomatoes or squash.

Depending on that, obviously, the strategy, the priorities, "the emphasis on ..." will not be the same at all!

In my case, it is:

a) high quality production; I aim for "more than organic" (therefore limit the use of products (pesticides, fertilizers) even if they are labeled "organic"; if it is to have a treated salad, I prefer not to tire myself and buy it !

b) I aim for an "appreciable" part of our consumption: autonomy on certain products (bulbs, aromatics); "all season" for others (raspberries, strawberries, salads, radishes, tomatoes ...)

I am preparing for my retirement, with a drop in income. The aim is to significantly reduce our vegetable purchases in the budget. Without spending as much (or more!), In inputs (seeds, plants, products, fertilizers ...). The objective would be "zero inputs" - if we mean by objective "tend towards".

(c) intellectual research; for now personal; it's about observing, reading, reshaping, trying and ... sharing (hence the other thread).

So I do things that are not always reasonable, "to see"!

d) without it being a chore (hence the "transat" - the book, so many universes that I did not take the time to read and the glass of beer - in Alsace, it is synonymous with friendship].

Without that, and a few other things that I have probably forgotten, that would not be understandable, eminently criticizable ...

Suddenly, the dialogue will be limited with the one whose objective is to have the biggest ... but also with the one who has seen a "square vegetable garden at Botanic" ... Without them being wrong!

Let's avoid the dialogue of the deaf - simply because we are not talking about the same thing, or because we are not pursuing the same goal.

[Did67]

... and I add a layer, thanks to Leonard!

A wheel with inertia like the one our venerable Leonardo da Vinci had imagined, and placed on a tool (with pedals of course) such as the one presented by Did67, would not bring such an improvement for the performance, and the performance?

The kinetic inertia accumulated by the moving wheel makes it possible to provide additional energy during recurrent jolts in agriculture, and the rotary movement is directly and naturally produced by pedaling! QED: Mrgreen:

Hard to escape from a physics course ... I'll try to make it simpler: such a wheel, in larger, of course, would allow you to:

a) "throw" it with "some effort", for example by "pedaling" or "cranking"
b) with a clutch, advance a "tool" a small distance

JJust as much as what the "pedals" or "cranks" would have done without the wheel!

I do not want to dissuade you, simply, your tillage tool will require an almost constant traction, a little more if the hoe meets an obstacle, a little less if this part is more loose, more sandy ...

The wheel will just allow you to "smooth out" those little "snags ...

In short, when the plot has been "worked", the effort produced - or the fatigue felt - will be the same, with or without a wheel; the only difference having been to avoid any "snags" which would have required a "boost" from which the inertia wheel will dispense the pedal ... It will not have created any energy. She will have consumed a little, because of friction ...

Good luck. In terms of phyic courses, nothing beats the TP. Without spreading on principles of physics, that's all I can say in the hope of being understandable!

PS: by looking well, we must find "inertia wheels"; in time, for example, certain balers which made the small rectangular bales were equipped with it [there was a reciprocating movement: compression = need for energy; then return of the piston = no need for a lot of energy; the effort required of the tractor was therefore smoothed] Go around the "agricultural scrapyards" / machine cemeteries ...

[Did67]

our venerable Leonardo da Vinci

.

Just that there is no misunderstanding, venerable Leonard or not: the flywheel does exist and it has a kinetic energy storage function (not to create), useful in certain circumstances: the collectors presses of which I spoke at the moment, the single-cylinder engines which turn thus to millions of copies! And probably in many others!

In the use you envision, I see a real but very limited interest: avoiding "snags" ...