Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

domesticatedprimate t1_itk3s1m wrote

Reply to comment by foundafreeusername in This new farming robot uses lasers to kill 200,000 weeds per hour by GonjaNinja420

That was an extremely stupid and ignorant comment then as well.

Ages is fine if you're running it 24/7 even without the lasers.

Source: spent a lot of time discussing automated farming with hardware developers. Also I farm rice.

Really, the simplest and cheapest solution is the best solution even if it's really slow.

31

VelveteenAmbush t1_itms67r wrote

> Really, the simplest and cheapest solution is the best solution even if it's really slow.

Also gets points for not putting exotic chemicals in our foods and groundwater

1

Alan_Smithee_ t1_itk5far wrote

If it’s that slow, then we don’t really want it running on fossil fuels, do we?

−6

ArandomDane t1_itkb1cp wrote

For energy consumption (whether green or fossil or somewhere in-between), speed doesn't matter. Energy consumption is dependent on work done not how fast it is done.

8

strcrssd t1_itkynev wrote

To some degree. Speed is inversely proportional to energy consumption due to air resistance. Slower is much more efficient.

−9

ChineseEntrepreneur t1_itl3334 wrote

This is the perfect Aktually comment. Something that's technically true but isn't a real consideration given the context.

10

pzerr t1_itlh191 wrote

To a certain degree. The engine resistance internally will be far greater at some point then the work at the wheels. The overall efficiency at slow speeds will be far worse.

Ie. A car traveling at 1kph while idling will only make 200km before the tank is empty. (20 hours). There always is a sweet spot. In farm equipment, tractor speeds are far lower and thus air resistance is negligible when compared to the work they do.

2

domesticatedprimate t1_itkwdwq wrote

Also, who said anything about fossil fuels?

4

Alan_Smithee_ t1_itl5yid wrote

I did. We don’t want to trade one Environmental issue for another.

0