3 ms·

Guessing it makes it more flexible to use since it is self-contained, so it could be used on whatever size or configuration of field. It sounds like a gasoline

Guessing it makes it more flexible to use since it is self-contained, so it could be used on whatever size or configuration of field. It sounds like a gasoline engine? That seems an interesting choice.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Makes sense; (red) diesel is already in use on farm fields, one tank lasts for ages, loads of power, doesn't need to be quiet since it's in fields, it's lighter weight so less soil impact, and water doesn't affect it much. Downsides is of course pollution etc, even if diesel engines have gotten a lot cleaner over the years.
- berkes 3y ago
  If you think of it, though: all the pollutants, heavy metals, and other chemicals that are in the X liter of diesel a farmer burns per yet, ends up on, and in the crops. We eat that. (and thus need to wash it, to mitigate that)
  - lukan 3y ago
    There is usually worse stuff on the fields than diesel, but this is about flowers which do not get eaten. And the same design would likely work with a battery at some point in the future. But currently diesel is standard on the fields.
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    What heavy metals? Leaded fuels aren't used for decades. Diesel exhaust doesn't really leave anything worth caring about on the crops, "natural" pollution from rain, soil, bugs and birdshit is an order of magnitude more relevant than exhaust, and the things intentionally sprayed on fields - fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides - is much worse than those, even for organic farms manure and their range of approved pesticides are applied in huge quantities and will mean polluted crops that (obviously) need to be washed and will have all kinds of harmful residue anyway. If the device was solar instead of diesel, that wouldn't move the needle on the dirtiness of the crops. Even the pollution from wear&tear on tires and brakes is more relevant than fuel - we worry about fossil fuels due to the global effect of greenhouse gas emissions, we also care about people breathing in small particles from diesel exhaust, but it doesn't really harm food in farms.
  - Retric 3y ago
    > all the pollutants, heavy metals, and other chemicals that are in the X liter of diesel a farmer burns per yet, ends up on, and in the crops. It's really not that much. A combine harvester uses about 15 gallons / hour of fuel and harvests ~450,000 pounds of corn per hour ie more than a lifetimes supply of food. Various other equipment gets used but it's all trivial in comparison to what's directly sprayed on crops. Meanwhile your directly exposed to all the car fumes around you on a daily basis. Also, tulips aren't a food crop.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago

Makes sense; (red) diesel is already in use on farm fields, one tank lasts for ages, loads of power, doesn't need to be quiet since it's in fields, it's lighter weight so less soil impact, and water doesn't affect it much. Downsides is of course pollution etc, even if diesel engines have gotten a lot cleaner over the years.

berkes 3y ago
If you think of it, though: all the pollutants, heavy metals, and other chemicals that are in the X liter of diesel a farmer burns per yet, ends up on, and in the crops. We eat that. (and thus need to wash it, to mitigate that)
- lukan 3y ago
  There is usually worse stuff on the fields than diesel, but this is about flowers which do not get eaten. And the same design would likely work with a battery at some point in the future. But currently diesel is standard on the fields.
- PeterisP 3y ago
  What heavy metals? Leaded fuels aren't used for decades. Diesel exhaust doesn't really leave anything worth caring about on the crops, "natural" pollution from rain, soil, bugs and birdshit is an order of magnitude more relevant than exhaust, and the things intentionally sprayed on fields - fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides - is much worse than those, even for organic farms manure and their range of approved pesticides are applied in huge quantities and will mean polluted crops that (obviously) need to be washed and will have all kinds of harmful residue anyway. If the device was solar instead of diesel, that wouldn't move the needle on the dirtiness of the crops. Even the pollution from wear&tear on tires and brakes is more relevant than fuel - we worry about fossil fuels due to the global effect of greenhouse gas emissions, we also care about people breathing in small particles from diesel exhaust, but it doesn't really harm food in farms.
- Retric 3y ago
  > all the pollutants, heavy metals, and other chemicals that are in the X liter of diesel a farmer burns per yet, ends up on, and in the crops. It's really not that much. A combine harvester uses about 15 gallons / hour of fuel and harvests ~450,000 pounds of corn per hour ie more than a lifetimes supply of food. Various other equipment gets used but it's all trivial in comparison to what's directly sprayed on crops. Meanwhile your directly exposed to all the car fumes around you on a daily basis. Also, tulips aren't a food crop.