Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kubigjay t1_itj3sad wrote

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

You do realize that weeds need to be killed in a short time frame so they don't dominate the crops. Also, farms are not contiguous. You may have 80 acres here, then drive two miles, then another 8 miles.

We need to cover 2,000 acres in three weeks. So speed needs to increase.

I think we are getting there but the focus is on stopping chemicals, not efficiency or economics.

1

NolanSyKinsley t1_itj4qqo wrote

50 robots of the current format can cover that area in 3 weeks, these robots work night and day, rain, wind, or snow. They could travel over land to new areas much faster than they process fields, their AI could even self navigate given proper clearances, and other farms can use them after your fields have been treated for the season for different crops, don't you see???. You act like these people don't live and work in the area they are designing the robots for, you act like they are idiots. You act like I didn't already tell you that their current machines can replace enough labor and pesticides to pay for themselves in 3-5 years for the acreage each robot covers and that is for a monoculture field rather than co-op ownage optimizing use so they don't sit idle most of the year. Stop resisting progress.

2

kubigjay t1_itj86tc wrote

So 50 robots or one sprayer?

And co-op equipment doesn't work because we all want it at the same time.

Over my life we have completely changed methods. No-till was a big thing that takes 10 years to pay off. Genetically modified crops have doubled yields. Self driving equipment that reduce fatigue and reduce seed/fertizer/chemical use by targeting what we need.

I think the lazers have a future but I worry about fuel use. Chemical arose because the cost of fuel was more than chemicals. I can't believe lazers that can kill plants with short bursts are low energy consumers.

Honestly, self driving grain trucks would be a better investment. I can't find a CDL driver when I need them. I could hire it out of season for normal logistics.

3

NolanSyKinsley t1_itjao8b wrote

One sprayer and the cost of its pesticide, and person to man it, you conveniently neglect the savings of using electricity vs chemicals and automation vs manned. Yea, I know those massive john deer machines are automated, but they are still manned. These are FULLY automated.

​

Fuel use? THEY ARE ELECTRIC. Renting 50 electric robots for 3 weeks VS continuously spraying your fields with chemicals you have to pay for. HMMMM which is better??? If you are in a region that supports crop growth, it also supports solar and you could literally power the operation for free after paying for the equipment.

​

Oh, and switch from fieldwork to transport to support your position BECAUSE YOUR POSITION HAS NO SUPPORT.

​

You are the farmer with a team and horses and a plow saying the guy with a steam tractor will never match them. You are a relic claiming to be the pinnacle.

−3

kubigjay t1_itjfgdf wrote

I am interested in the tech but costs are never shown. Only they say it is cheaper. I want to see studies from independent review.

Solar is low energy density. I can't cover my fields with solar arrays and grow crops. Battery tech has a long way to go for letting me recharge 50 batteries each night.

You ask which is better, rent or spray. I don't know. Without numbers we are arguing about phantoms. The tech could be amazing or it could be vaporware like Theranos.

4

the_real_swk t1_itjiwgf wrote

the self propelled robotic unit was just a demo, the actual implement requires a CAT3 3 point. it has an option for generator or PTO power (I'm assuming the "generator" option means it has a small diesel engine to power the actual generator vs just getting power to spin the genny from the PTO.) thats going to increase fuel cost depending on what the electrical load is... and their produce spec sheet says 2ac/hr @ 1mph compared to covering say 40acres/hr with a conventional rig (I know that 40acres/hr is just me pulling numbers from thin air and will vary based on a number of factors)

1

the_real_swk t1_itjhv0h wrote

you do realize these things are PTO or generator powered. PTO being powered via the Tractors engine. this is a 3 point attachment not an autonomous robot.

1

NolanSyKinsley t1_itjqsjt wrote

The second gen was pulled by a tractor(not powered by the tractor), the first gen and their final product is full autonomous.

1

the_real_swk t1_itjztoo wrote

I guess they should update their website as that's not whats reflected there.

2

butterbal1 t1_itjdu2h wrote

At 5 acres/he that is 2520 acres in 21 days. Sound like a viable option at this point. Double the units and you either cut the time in half or double the amount of work able to be done.

1

kubigjay t1_itjfr50 wrote

Unfortunately that 5 acre / he doesn't include transit time.

But they are getting there. With battery swaps it helps.

3

wwj t1_itjhaa4 wrote

In 21 days a 1in tall weed is now an 18in tall weed. Speed is incredibly important.

3

dungone t1_itk7tkr wrote

According to the article, these are cost effective with an ROI of 2-3 years.

1

kubigjay t1_itkmqdl wrote

True. But they never post any numbers.

Costs vary a lot across different crops. Are they using certified organic prices or normal prices?

I get wary of claims without data.

3

dungone t1_itle1pd wrote

You can safely assume that the size of the market is not that different from the number they already sold.

Doesn't mean it's a bad thing, it certainly sounds like a game changer for the places where it works.

1