Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open Source Farming Robot

farm.bot

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 369 posts

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#311

Post by throwthrowuknow »

quaintdev wrote: post #66
stale2002 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better.

> Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. Wow we have completely different world views. I think nature is perfect and it's us who have gone too far away from it to notice and hence we are far from perfection as well. Ideally we should not be comparing us to nature since we are part of it. But somewhere deep down we know we are not aligned with it so we end up comparing it to humans which seems pret…

How can nature be perfect when it is constantly changing? We alter our environment out of necessity, we would only be able to survive in a very small number of climates on Earth if we did nothing to change our surroundings. Lucky you if you happen to be somewhere with year round fruit to pluck from the vine and temperate climate in the winters but that leaves the other 8 billion people to die of starvation and exposure.

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#312

Post by robxorb »

The main criticism against this seems to be it doesn't kill weeds. But it's an open system, with standardised, autonomously selectable attachments. Can someone come up with an attachment or two for it that could control weeds?

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#313

Post by ein0p »

Nebasuke wrote: post #308
ein0p wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had the same thoughts when watching this. Cucumbers either require twine, in which case they grow quite tall), or each plant will take up half that raised bed. Tomatoes are not planted directly from a seed, you first need to grow seedlings, a very laborious process that’s hard to automate. Tomatoes can also get quite tall, with some plants exceeding 5 feet. You don’t need such elaborate setups for irrigation either…

I get maybe 50 or so tomato plants in about 1 square meter in my garden, just from the seeds that are left in the ground from last year's tomatoes. (Of course I don't let all 50 grow and instead give most away.)

Those are not going to bear impressive fruit. People who grow tomatoes for sale almost exclusively plant hybrids. Making hybrid seeds is even more involved, and they cost more, but the crop is much larger, so it’s worth the hassle.

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#314

Post by robxorb »

constantcrying wrote: post #118

Seems an interesting engineering project, but like a terrible product. Who is the customer? If you like gardening, why would you pay thousands of dollars so that you don't need to do it? If you don't like gardening, you obviously wouldn't be interested in having a robot do it for you. I just can't imagine who would buy this. Gardening can be done very cheap and I believe that most people do it because they like spend…

> Seems an interesting engineering project, but like a terrible product.

Couldn't you say that about half the stuff posted here?

To me that's the "product" - an interesting engineering project targeted at people like us; a starting point for learning that can be taken further and those advancements potentially fed back into it, like all good open source projects.

As that kind of product, similar to a large chunk everything else built around RPi's and arduino's posted here (and... celebrated), it looks great to me and I don't get the hate. I was really excited to see it.

> Why would such a person want to have a robot which does away with that?

The same reason they want the many, often entirely pointless automations posted here daily, only this is not just fun, but also useful?

If this actually produces enough consumable food reliably (idk if it does, and be nice to see criticism along that angle), maybe also the cost could be justified?

IIRC it's ~$3K for the base model, seems it could pay for itself in a year or so if it could supply a years worth of fresh veges to a couple of people, depending on the local cost (which can vary a lot).

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#315

Post by badcppdev »

prattatx wrote: post #164
Maxion wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is indeed a juicero of farming. It costs 4 grand for something that can handle a single garden bed. This is not suitable for even small commerical growers, they'd need hundreds of these things. All commercial growers in my latitude start by sprouting their plants indoors, using e.g. soil blocks. Very little is direct sown. If you practice no-till, weeding isn't even that big of a task. This thing definitely does n…

Value for me is to scratch the zombie apocalypse itch. One feature request is some form of animal and pest protection. Squirrels and cardinals eat a majority percentage of the veggies in my raised bed here in Austin. I think some bats eat the vegetables as well but that’s difficult to validate.

Some kind of high tech squirrel protection like mesh?

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#316

Post by NilMostChill »

throwthrowuknow wrote: post #309
NilMostChill wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. That's assuming that we are somehow outside of nature. > We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better. We don't have to , no , but we do , because that's how we learn. Nobody was claiming the "natural" way was better, just that it migh…

Saying something like rain serves a purpose is backwards. Plants have evolved to survive in conditions that include rain, rain has not been deployed to serve a purpose for plants. There may be other conditions that are easier for plants to thrive in.

I was referring to the leaves in this case but i agree with what you are saying.

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#317

Post by freedomben »

quaintdev wrote: post #66
stale2002 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. We don't have to invent ex post facto explanations for why something is the case in nature or why there is some un-intuitive reason as for why the natural way is better.

> Nature isn't perfect and has disadvantages compared to us. Wow we have completely different world views. I think nature is perfect and it's us who have gone too far away from it to notice and hence we are far from perfection as well. Ideally we should not be comparing us to nature since we are part of it. But somewhere deep down we know we are not aligned with it so we end up comparing it to humans which seems pret…

I'm sincerely fascinated by your perspective. I haven't heard this viewpoint before.

Why do you think nature is perfect? I.e. what is your "gold standard" against which you measure?

Something that immediately comes to mind for me is all the death and suffering that is abundant through nature. If the only thing that matters is propagation of life, then nature does seem pretty good at it, but as a being that operates some layers above the selfish gene, it seems far from perfect.

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#318

Post by efilife »

samatman wrote: post #297
efilife wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think this is the case. 1. If you accidentally say There is and want to use a plural after, (for example, a lot ), you can just say a number in between. The sentence stays correct, you just have to say 2 additional words. I personally never had this problem 2. This is internet. You are free to edit your comment and reread it a million times before posting Hope you understand what I'm trying to say, not being…

You have very strong opinions about correct English for someone who doesn't speak it as a native language.

Those are not opinions, I am handing you literal facts

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#319

Post by yndoendo »

torlok wrote: post #225
schleck8 wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The rotary tool features a 24 volt DC motor, interchangeable implements, and an adjustable motor angle allowing FarmBot to perform light duty weed whacking, soil surface milling, and drilling operations.

I'd expect either a camera setup to find and kill weeds, or at least a basic weeder that sweeps the soil and avoids the vegetables the bot planted, same as you'd do on an organic farm. Instead what you get is an attachment you have to fiddle with and manually point towards the weeds. It's a toy.

Wouldn't sweeping the soil be the equivalent of tilling? Thought the farm industry was moving to no-till to prevent nutrient run off from water and wind. I know University of Iowa has done a number of studies that show tilling is long-term harmful to the soil composition.

*fixed typo

Re: Open Source Farming Robot

#320

Post by bal00ns »

mapt wrote: post #87
getpost wrote: post #30

It sill looks like the software is written by people who don't know how to care for plants. You don't spray water on leaves as shown in the video; you'll just end up with fungus infestation. You water the soil and nourish the microorganisms that facilitate nutrient absorption in roots. But, I don't see any reason the technology can't be adapted to do the right thing.

Probably? But spraying water on leaves is not only the way water naturally gets to plants, it's often the only practical way to water crops at scale. Center-pivot irrigation has dramatically increased the amount of and reliability of arable cropland, while being dramatically less sensitive to topography and preparation than flood irrigation. The advice to "water the soil, not the leaves" is founded in manual watering…

You seem like you very much actually know what you’re talking about. Do you have any recommendations for books for laypeople for understanding modern agriculture?
Post reply on HN