>> I think this could also be accomplished by stringing a grid of wires over
> >> the field, and using a trolley that rides on the wires.
> >That's certainly possible -- the "trolly tractor" was last summer's
> >idea -- but requires a lot of wire. It's actually cheaper to use a
> >battery.
> >> It's not as simple
> >> as a locomotive or streetcar, where a single hot wire can bu used, and the
> >> return current through the tracks. But I think a system could be devised to
> >> provide electricity to a tractor by means of a controlled tether. It could
> >> definitely be done with a set of tracks that would move the supply line to
> >> be in-line with the movement of the tractor, and then have a trolley with a
> >> power cord that supplies the tractor. It would involve some engineering,
> >> initial investment, and maintenance, but should be about 95% efficient for
> >> energy conversion.
> >Another option is to eliminate the tractor altogether and drag the
> >plow and other impliments off of a "super pivot," the common "crop
> >circle" irrigation structure beefed up for the heavier load.
> >The impliments would move inward for a spiral furrow.
> Um, you might reconsider any plans you have to be a farmer.
Using crutch words like "you know" or noises like "um" is bad enough in speech. It text it is even worse, a sure sign of a nobody with nothing to say.
Bret Cahill