4 ms·

I think one of the reasons to get bigger and bigger is to save human time. If we get to a place where it's all AI, is there a chance that many smaller machines

I think one of the reasons to get bigger and bigger is to save human time. If we get to a place where it's all AI, is there a chance that many smaller machines will become more effective than a few enormous ones?

tda 4y ago
I would think so. There is a lot going on in this area, see e.g. https://pixelfarmingrobotics.com/robot-one/ https://pixelfarmingrobotics.com/robot-one/ and https://www.odd.bot/ https://www.odd.bot/
- TomJansen 4y ago
  Doesn't the economy of scale teach us that one big apparatus is cheaper than many smaller ones?
  - danaris 4y ago
    The soil doesn’t care how much it costs. Stop thinking with your wallet; our times demand a more holistic approach.
  - SnowHill9902 4y ago
    Scale is not size.
  - jessaustin 4y ago
    "Economy of scale" is not a universal law as CEOs (and some economists) like to pretend.
- twobitshifter 4y ago
  That first one is incredible and the second looks like a more cost effective option. Most don’t realize that organic farming isn’t pesticide free but this gives farmers that option without resorting to hand-weeding.
bluGill 4y ago
In fact no. Bigger heavy machines do less damage than smaller ones overall. You have to look at the whole field, not just where the tires touch. Where the tires touch the ground the heavy machine is worse, but the smaller machines touch the ground in a lot more places and so do more damage. Farmers are now using GPS to ensure all the tires that touch the field drive exactly the same place every pass, every year. Where the tires touch the ground is hardly worth farming, but the rest of the ground is undisturbed and so much healthier.
- dahart 4y ago
  > smaller machines touch the ground in a lot more places an so do more damage. That’s certainly possible but not a given, and I think the somewhat obvious implicit suggestion was to use smaller machines with a lower weight to surface area ratio, no? Damage isn’t a function of how many places the ground is touched at all, it’s only a function of weight per unit area. Is it possible we could design small robots that weigh less per unit area than the large tractors? Sure, why not? We could have smaller machines with bigger tires, we could design machines with weight reducing features like propellers, we can choose to use lighter weight materials & designs for machine frames & engines. It seems like there a plenty of possibilities that are not in fact impossible.
  - bluGill 4y ago
    The function multiples weight by a very small factor though, so area dominates. (I have no idea what the function is, I've just had conversations with soil experts who tell me this)
    - dahart 4y ago
      What area? What weight? We need specifics in order to make claims one way or the other. It’s not just possible, but easy to design machines with lower weight to surface area ratio, so it’s just wrong to conclude the answer to the question can do we better is somehow no.
      - 4y ago
usrusr 4y ago
There's also the trade-off between width of the worked area and the treaded surface made unusable for the season. If you have any tractor work steps between seeding and harvesting, you want all those runs done in exactly the same tracks to minimize waste. A "small robots" revolution might still come, on the coat-tails of agrovoltaics: if/when someone in the right position begins thinking the panel scaffolding as dual use, doubling as a "rail network" for robotic tools. I believe this could become a feature of agrovoltaics installations as unremarkable as overhead cranes on factory floors.
- hommelix 4y ago
  This is the idea of controlled traffic. Use the same track over and over again to not compact the soil where the plants grow. An example of a large machine doing so is the Nexat. There are videos on youtube and some detail on their website https://www.nexat.de/controlled-traffic-farming/ https://www.nexat.de/controlled-traffic-farming/ Going larger there increase the percentage of growing soil vs track soil.

tda 4y ago

I would think so. There is a lot going on in this area, see e.g. https://pixelfarmingrobotics.com/robot-one/ https://pixelfarmingrobotics.com/robot-one/ and https://www.odd.bot/ https://www.odd.bot/

TomJansen 4y ago
Doesn't the economy of scale teach us that one big apparatus is cheaper than many smaller ones?
- danaris 4y ago
  The soil doesn’t care how much it costs. Stop thinking with your wallet; our times demand a more holistic approach.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Scale is not size.
- jessaustin 4y ago
  "Economy of scale" is not a universal law as CEOs (and some economists) like to pretend.
twobitshifter 4y ago
That first one is incredible and the second looks like a more cost effective option. Most don’t realize that organic farming isn’t pesticide free but this gives farmers that option without resorting to hand-weeding.

bluGill 4y ago

In fact no. Bigger heavy machines do less damage than smaller ones overall. You have to look at the whole field, not just where the tires touch. Where the tires touch the ground the heavy machine is worse, but the smaller machines touch the ground in a lot more places and so do more damage. Farmers are now using GPS to ensure all the tires that touch the field drive exactly the same place every pass, every year. Where the tires touch the ground is hardly worth farming, but the rest of the ground is undisturbed and so much healthier.

dahart 4y ago
> smaller machines touch the ground in a lot more places an so do more damage. That’s certainly possible but not a given, and I think the somewhat obvious implicit suggestion was to use smaller machines with a lower weight to surface area ratio, no? Damage isn’t a function of how many places the ground is touched at all, it’s only a function of weight per unit area. Is it possible we could design small robots that weigh less per unit area than the large tractors? Sure, why not? We could have smaller machines with bigger tires, we could design machines with weight reducing features like propellers, we can choose to use lighter weight materials & designs for machine frames & engines. It seems like there a plenty of possibilities that are not in fact impossible.
- bluGill 4y ago
  The function multiples weight by a very small factor though, so area dominates. (I have no idea what the function is, I've just had conversations with soil experts who tell me this)
  - dahart 4y ago
    What area? What weight? We need specifics in order to make claims one way or the other. It’s not just possible, but easy to design machines with lower weight to surface area ratio, so it’s just wrong to conclude the answer to the question can do we better is somehow no.
    - 4y ago

usrusr 4y ago

There's also the trade-off between width of the worked area and the treaded surface made unusable for the season. If you have any tractor work steps between seeding and harvesting, you want all those runs done in exactly the same tracks to minimize waste. A "small robots" revolution might still come, on the coat-tails of agrovoltaics: if/when someone in the right position begins thinking the panel scaffolding as dual use, doubling as a "rail network" for robotic tools. I believe this could become a feature of agrovoltaics installations as unremarkable as overhead cranes on factory floors.

hommelix 4y ago
This is the idea of controlled traffic. Use the same track over and over again to not compact the soil where the plants grow. An example of a large machine doing so is the Nexat. There are videos on youtube and some detail on their website https://www.nexat.de/controlled-traffic-farming/ https://www.nexat.de/controlled-traffic-farming/ Going larger there increase the percentage of growing soil vs track soil.