Critique of LifeTrac - Revision history

Syk0 saje at 08:08, 3 May 2011

2011-05-03T08:08:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:08, 3 May 2011
Line 26:		Line 26:
	'The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.' - This is applicable if one insists on relying on ICE paleotechnology choices- whose complexity does not meet the criteria for creating lifetime, post-scarcity design. Our opinion is that the post-scarcity economy goes to multiple-fuel engines such as the modern, high performance steam engine. This engine can be fabricated locally, and we are working on a modular, scalable Steam Engine Construction Set. This engine choice is compatible with solar power applications, combined heat and power applications, stationary power generation of all types, as well as automotive and other mobile applications.		'The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.' - This is applicable if one insists on relying on ICE paleotechnology choices- whose complexity does not meet the criteria for creating lifetime, post-scarcity design. Our opinion is that the post-scarcity economy goes to multiple-fuel engines such as the modern, high performance steam engine. This engine can be fabricated locally, and we are working on a modular, scalable Steam Engine Construction Set. This engine choice is compatible with solar power applications, combined heat and power applications, stationary power generation of all types, as well as automotive and other mobile applications.

	[[Category:~~Critique~~]]		[[Category:Critiques]]

Conor at 03:00, 17 November 2010

2010-11-17T03:00:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 17 November 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Category=LifeTrac}}
	=Critique=		=Critique=

Line 26:		Line 27:

	[[Category:Critique]]		[[Category:Critique]]
	~~[[Category:LifeTrac]]~~

Elifarley at 16:41, 12 September 2010

2010-09-12T16:41:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 12 September 2010
Line 19:		Line 19:
	'There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel.' - We aim to build a steam engine power unit in the second half of 2010. We're currently tooling up for this.		'There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel.' - We aim to build a steam engine power unit in the second half of 2010. We're currently tooling up for this.

	'The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas),'- sure, if you favor ICEs. We favor pelletized biomass in ECEs (external combustion engines), such as the steam engine.		'The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas),'- sure, if you favor ICEs. We favor [[pelletized biomass]] in ECEs (external combustion engines), such as the [[:Category:Steam Engine\|steam engine]].

	'so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel.' - Eactly. I think pelletized biomass is abou 10 times simpler to implement in practice, and it will have energy density approximately half of liquid fuels per volume.		'so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel.' - Eactly. I think pelletized biomass is abou 10 times simpler to implement in practice, and it will have energy density approximately half of liquid fuels per volume.

Jeb: /* Response */ fixed 2 minor typos

2009-11-28T18:52:17Z

Response: fixed 2 minor typos

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:52, 28 November 2009
Line 21:		Line 21:
	'The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas),'- sure, if you favor ICEs. We favor pelletized biomass in ECEs (external combustion engines), such as the steam engine.		'The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas),'- sure, if you favor ICEs. We favor pelletized biomass in ECEs (external combustion engines), such as the steam engine.

	'so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel.' - Eactly. I think pelletized biomass is abou 10 times simpler to implement in practice, and it will have energy density approximately ~~halp~~ of liquid fuels per volume.		'so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel.' - Eactly. I think pelletized biomass is abou 10 times simpler to implement in practice, and it will have energy density approximately half of liquid fuels per volume.

	'The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.- This is applicable if one insists on relying on ICE paleotechnology choices- whose complexity does not meet the criteria for creating lifetime, post-scarcity design. Our opinion is that the post-scarcity economy goes to multiple-fuel engines such as the modern, high performance steam engine. This engine can be fabricated locally, and we are working on a modular, scalable Steam Engine Construction Set. This engine choice is compatible with solar power applications, combined heat and power applications, stationary power generation of all types, as well as automotive and other mobile applications.		'The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.' - This is applicable if one insists on relying on ICE paleotechnology choices- whose complexity does not meet the criteria for creating lifetime, post-scarcity design. Our opinion is that the post-scarcity economy goes to multiple-fuel engines such as the modern, high performance steam engine. This engine can be fabricated locally, and we are working on a modular, scalable Steam Engine Construction Set. This engine choice is compatible with solar power applications, combined heat and power applications, stationary power generation of all types, as well as automotive and other mobile applications.

	[[Category:Critique]]		[[Category:Critique]]
	[[Category:LifeTrac]]		[[Category:LifeTrac]]

WikiSysop: /* Response */

2009-11-22T14:55:50Z

Response

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:55, 22 November 2009
Line 23:		Line 23:
	'so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel.' - Eactly. I think pelletized biomass is abou 10 times simpler to implement in practice, and it will have energy density approximately halp of liquid fuels per volume.		'so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel.' - Eactly. I think pelletized biomass is abou 10 times simpler to implement in practice, and it will have energy density approximately halp of liquid fuels per volume.

	'The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.- This is applicable if one insists on relying on ICE paleotechnology choices. Our opinion is that the post-scarcity economy goes to multiple-fuel engines such as the modern, high performance steam engine. This engine choice is compatible with solar power applications, combined heat and power applications, stationary power generation of all types, as well as automotive and other mobile applications.		'The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.- This is applicable if one insists on relying on ICE paleotechnology choices- whose complexity does not meet the criteria for creating lifetime, post-scarcity design. Our opinion is that the post-scarcity economy goes to multiple-fuel engines such as the modern, high performance steam engine. This engine can be fabricated locally, and we are working on a modular, scalable Steam Engine Construction Set. This engine choice is compatible with solar power applications, combined heat and power applications, stationary power generation of all types, as well as automotive and other mobile applications.

	[[Category:Critique]]		[[Category:Critique]]
	[[Category:LifeTrac]]		[[Category:LifeTrac]]

WikiSysop: /* Response */

2009-11-22T14:53:33Z

Response

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:53, 22 November 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	'and should have been split among different devices.' - that's contrary to the basic principle of multipurpose mahchinery. It is possible for a small community to maintain one tractor as such. It becomes an overbearing burden to support a large pool of machinery.		'and should have been split among different devices.' - that's contrary to the basic principle of multipurpose mahchinery. It is possible for a small community to maintain one tractor as such. It becomes an overbearing burden to support a large pool of machinery.

	'Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions.' - Quick disconnect motors allow immediate repair/replacement in the field. This is not possible with the other option, or geared transmission. Geared transmission is the number one failure mode of mechanical devices, from the standpoint of lifetime design. We eliminate the transmission, clutch, and differential and braking system by design - as hydraulics accomplish all these functions.		'Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions.' - Quick disconnect motors allow immediate repair/replacement in the field. This is not possible with the other option, or geared transmission. Geared transmission is the number one failure mode of mechanical devices, from the standpoint of lifetime design. We eliminate the transmission, clutch, and differential and braking system by design - as hydraulics accomplish all these functions. As such, LifeTrac has proven to be readily self-serviceable, and we no longer have to 'take the tractor to the shop' for repairs. This allows us much higher control of our lives.

	'They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide.' - We did. After we learned first hand that they break and require parts that are not available everywhere, we decided to build our own tractor. In particular, the transmission went out, we paid $2k, and a month later it failed again. This happened for our Allis and Massey Ferguson. The key is to use modern technology by moving away from mechanical transmission.		'They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide.' - We did. After we learned first hand that they break and require parts that are not available everywhere, we decided to build our own tractor. In particular, the transmission went out, we paid $2k, and a month later it failed again. This happened for our Allis and Massey Ferguson. The key is to use modern technology by moving away from mechanical transmission.

WikiSysop at 14:51, 22 November 2009

2009-11-22T14:51:58Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 This from [http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html Mutualist]:
 <blockquote cite="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html">The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.<blockquote>
 [[Category:Critique]]
 [[Category:LifeTrac]]

Olleolleolle: moved source to before article text

2009-11-21T18:38:26Z

moved source to before article text

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 21 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<blockquote cite="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html">The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.<blockquote> ~~Source: [http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html Mutualist]~~		This from [http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html Mutualist]:

			<blockquote cite="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html">The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.<blockquote>

	[[Category:Critique]]		[[Category:Critique]]
	[[Category:LifeTrac]]		[[Category:LifeTrac]]

Olleolleolle: Formatting with blockquote, for readability

2009-11-21T18:37:07Z

Formatting with blockquote, for readability

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:37, 21 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	*http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html		<blockquote cite="http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html">The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.<blockquote> Source: [http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html Mutualist]

	#The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.

	##

	#

	##

	[[Category:Critique]]		[[Category:Critique]]
	[[Category:LifeTrac]]		[[Category:LifeTrac]]

Jeremy at 23:37, 16 February 2009

2009-02-16T23:37:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:37, 16 February 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	*http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html		*http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2009/02/bleg-for-open-source-ecology-open.html

	"The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale."		#The Life Trac is trying to do too much in one machine, and should have been split among different devices. Also, they should not have gone for hydraulics, as it is too high technology for convenient construction and maintenance under field conditions. They should have taken interwar tractors like Ford's as their guide. There is no mention of the power unit or how biomass would be used as fuel. The only rational fuel approach in those circumstances is gasifying with a simple device like Georges Imbert's or the FEMA gasifier (see Gengas), so I hope they weren't thinking of fermenting and distilling liquids or making biodiesel. The only rational approach to power units is to use scavenged engines that can be adapted to the fuel and can be maintained (which means older style petrol engines, not diesel), or two stroke split piston engines which can be made and maintained at that scale.

	**		##

			#

			##

	[[Category:Critique]]		[[Category:Critique]]
			[[Category:LifeTrac]]