3 ms·
> 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 impl
by 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 agoThe 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 agoWhat 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.
- bluGill 4y agoYou can get a phd answering this question, something I do not have. What I have done is talk to such phd's - 5 years ago. I'm not giving more details because I don't remember more. I remember this much because it stood out to me as so non-obvious.