Jure Sah wrote:


The difference with dependence on fossil fuels is the rate of replenishment. Phosphorus is returned to nature when human (and any living being) decomposes, which does not take that long compared to accumulation of fossil fuel. Unless the rate of our consumption is faster than the rate biowaste decomposes, then it will become a problem.


Jure Sah wrote:

I think i have to reconstruct the 'organic material cycle flow' (can you suggest a better name for the diagram? i think it does not sound quite right). I'll update the diagram.

Edit: I've updated the diagram.

I think it's time to brainstorm self-maintaining automation. Since we want to exclude human labour from the system (and of course, plants will not harvest its produce for us by themselves) this is another key element of the automated agriculture.

So, let's identify the work involved in this automation.
1. Harvesting and processing produce
2. Maintenance (the plant and the infrastructure itself)
3. Planting
Anything else?

2nd Edit: Eh, what do you mean by 'implement'? I think i misunderstood you.

Ahmad Deedat Ibrahim wrote:


This is bound to become one of the most notorious inside jokes ever.

But no, I think you understood me about right.



I see your point (forgot that human biomass would also contain part of the resources). However in this case we must also ensure that the surrounding environment can actually handle the level of input / output that we need and assist it where needed.

It seems to me that in the system we live in today, humanity taking care of their sources of food and energy is a much smaller problem than that of humanity taking care of their waste.

Jure Sah wrote:


The term "cycle" combined with the name of the resource is quite common, e.g. carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, etc. Try to start with the big picture and then fill in the details afterwards.



The "planting" option seems somewhat simplistic, I think there is a way to integrate plant and mechanisation which makes operation easier for both. For nutrient preparation with micro-organisms this is trivial (fill the pot, clean the pot), but for more complex organisms such as plants we probably need to pick a plant first and then see what we can do.

For example, in hydroponics, no re-potting is necessary as there is a constant supply of nutrients, but some plants do not grow well in hydroponic settings. Using artificial illumination (in combination with solar cells obviously) and heating, one can overcome the need to replace the plants over the winter seasons, of course still depending on the plant's lifespan.

Even on a solid substrate, the need for "re-potting" might be completely unnecessary if we can think of a better way to inject nutrients.


Regarding the idea to automate maintenance I have my doubts, as if it were easy to do so using existing technology, I would have long since replaced my day job work with a collection of scripts and instead spend my time doing something better (like writing additional scripts).

But that is quitter talk. Perhaps the best bet would be to construct the system out of replaceable modules with ample built-in diagnostics. Then all we need is a sustainable way to recycle each module (not necessarily grind it to a fine dust along the way). Obviously making the modules somewhat fault-tolerant or self-correcting would be a good way to prevent random minor malfunctions incapacitating the system.

LP,
Jure

Ahmad Deedat Ibrahim wrote:


I think there will be way too many details here to keep everything on a single graph in that layout. We need to specify in the diagrams what changes to what when, so that we can check if our inputs and outputs are of the correct types.

Something like this should be the foundation for each diagram:


...I will try to put together some ones with useful information to spell out the complexity of the task at hand.

P.S.: I am pondering a file format that will let us collaborate on the diagrams easily. Any ideas? I am using Dia to draw the graphs, but perhaps circular GraphView files would be easier, assuming something usable exists and we both know how to write them.

For now I'm thinking wiki, can't make them circular but it's that much easier to fill in the blanks

LP,
Jure

I thoroughly enjoyed the whole video but immediately thought of this thread when the speaker described a close-loop food system that focuses on waste as nutritients:



The related info starts at roughly 4:00 and ends roughly 6:59. Though I encourage a full view!

Peter Alberto wrote:


Thank you. That was illuminating. ^^

Peter Alberto wrote:


Basically: wiki.eoslife.eu/index.php/Sustainability...1_-_Concept_diagrams

Or:

...vs...


LP,
Jure

Jure Sah wrote:


The only waste we need to take care in this process is human waste which is difficult to be treated and returned to nature. Nevertheless, current wastewater treatment is acceptable for the time being, if we are to create any proto-technate soon.

Jure Sah wrote:


The first plant that should be our first concern is i think grain plants such as wheat and rice, because i think it is the most basic type of food, and the physical form is 'universal' (i.e wheat is more prevalent in western countries while paddy is more common in the east, but their apparent structures are similar; other grain plant includes oat and rye).

I was thinking of using hydroponics, but i'm not sure if grain plants can grow on them. They have fibrous root, so i think it should be okay. If this is true, we can remove the need for re-potting.


Jure Sah wrote:


Yes, built-in diagnostics is the key. Have you went through my 'total automation design philosophy'. I was thinking of ant-like community structure applied on robots. We have many small mobile units that serve the farming complex. If any robot diagnoses itself to be malfunctioning, it will automatically shut themselves down and other functioning unit will bring it to repair dock, where the repairing units are also robots.

I've tried writing the process flow for the robots, but i think there's a loophole. I will post it up later.

Edit: there are a few concerns also. I think small scale electronic production (not simple assembly, the whole production) and small scale electronic recycling process also must be made available before we can actually really make this possible. I've identified printed electronics as a promising candidate for small scale electronic production, which i think can be miniaturized, at least to the size of, maybe, a room to serve the complex. However, it is still a fledgling technology. For the small scale recycling process, i'm clueless.

Jure Sah wrote:

Yes, that's the basic foundation of the idea. The difference is the level of detail. I tried to make it as detailed as possible because i think it is necessary if we are to create a realizable design.

Peter Alberto wrote:

Yes, that is what we strive to achieve here. Thank you for the sharing.

> I don't know its effect on conventional PVC piping though.

I am aware that human pee travelling through PVC pipe will eventually leave a deposit and clog up, not what I expected it to do!

I imagine the larger the diameter of piping, the easier it would be to robotically clean.


> has anyone considered consumers involved in a more active manner?

I might imagine waste from large scale food production could more easily be input the system. (eg. restraunts for the masses instead of everyone home having a cooker/etc.)

There is also the issue of the dead, cycling of those might be needed.


Public toilets may also make a comeback I can imagine.

(If you have a tourist trade/etc., one might see a net import of waste this way.)


Question, would crop rotation offer any solutions to what is being talked about here ?


> Underground water

One also needs to be aware not to take it out faster than it is naturally replensed, as I hear this is a growing problem these days of overextracting water.


> The reason i withdraw the idea of using human biowaste is, as you
> suggested, it may contain heavy metals which is detrimental to human.

I wonder if they have solved that already or not as human biowaste is currently being spread on farmland:

www.thisiswesternmorningnews.co.uk/news/...-detail/article.html

> biosolids have been used safely in agriculture in the UK and
> elsewhere for more than 40 years.


> Regarding the idea to automate maintenance I have my doubts

As someone who often has to fix things, and get their hands/arms/etc. dirty in the process, I would imagine aiming to reduce human involvement would be the ultimate goal, but one should be realistic that for now, we could only expect to reduce the number of hours slowly over time as technology develops.

Though myself with farming already being highly automated, I would have thought it would have come down low in the list of priority things to automate.

Though I can see the value in security of a food supply system provided by hydroponic means rather than hoping the weather will see a good harvest this year for crops out in the field and exposed to natural elements.


> small scale electronic production

Something I'm also keen on.

transmaterial.net/index.php/2010/04/16/feather-circuit-boards/

One could also consider going back to old fashioned mechanical computing solutions (Analogue for example.) and forward to smaller versions (nano sized, or at least microengineered size.) which may require simplier material choices.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_computer

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moniac rather took my interest.

www.diycalculator.com/sp-mechcomp.shtml

hardware.slashdot.org/story/04/05/29/172...Mechanical-Computing

www.meccano.us/differential_analyzers/robinson_da/index.html

Nanos wrote:


Hmmm... I'm starting to think that perhaps we don't need piping at all. Why not the robot gathers and brings the water to the plants instead? Easier to maintain (if robot can maintain each other). In nature, there are no such thing as piping, maybe biomimicry helps here? Want to brainstorm on this, or should we forgo it?
Questions to be asked:
1. Can robot assembly be totally relying on automation? If this is true, we can forget piping since (in my mind) it is much more difficult to ask robots to maintain piping (say in the event of broken pipes), rather than ask robots to build another robot and send the broken robot to recycling process...
2. If the piping is broken, it will be a big mess, but if one of the water carrying robot is broken, it will not affect the entire system, and neither will the mess be too catastrophic to the complex.


Nanos wrote:


Recycling the dead...
I wouldn't go as far as that. We have to respect people who believe that bodies should be buried or cremated. Burying is also beneficial to the environment, because we return all of our organic material back to nature, so i don't think we have to go that far. Maybe we should research which method of burial can be most beneficial to the nature (how deep should the grave be, should the body really be enclosed in hardwood casket and lined with silk etc etc).

Since this idea involves a lot of robot usage, i don't think planting on the soil would be viable. Crop rotation requires that we plant on soil.

> In nature, there are no such thing as piping,

Isn't that how trees get water from bottom to top of their trunk ?


> Why not the robot gathers and brings the water to the plants instead?
> Easier to maintain

Is an interesting thought.

Perhaps piping for today and robots for tomorrow ?

On the basis that we it is better to build something that works now, than to spend too long developing something that may not get built for years/decades. (And would help us develop those robots faster if we can reduce our current living expenses with our own systems.)


> We have to respect people who believe that bodies should be buried
> or cremated.

Agreed.

But an ever increasing number of people I imagine do not really care about such things these days.


> Burying is also beneficial to the environment, because we return
> all of our organic material back to nature

Depends on how long before the coffin rots away

And also the issue that too many bodies in one place may cause pollution.

There is also the issue of land use for cemetaries:

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/late...e_shortage_1_2237859

environment.about.com/od/greenlivingdesi...native-To-Burial.htm

www.psats.org/cemeteries.doc

> I note also that there is at least one disease organism
> (Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, which is the human version of mad cow
> disease) that is probably able to survive the heat of cremation and
> live on in the remaining ashes and pose a risk to anyone who might
> happen to come in contact with the cremated remains.

Makes me concerned about human waste/body recycling and that all risks can be elimated/reduced.


> Maybe we should research which method of burial can be most beneficial
> to the nature

It is a thought yes. (I'm reminded due to having done an archaelogical study once on graves. (The outcome was that, the taller the person buried, the more grave goods and wealth discovered within.))


> Crop rotation requires that we plant on soil.

Why is that ?


> i don't think planting on the soil would be viable.

Could one not have indoor planting using soil and large scale automation along hydroponic lines, eg. artifical lighting/etc.

Nanos wrote:
Rotating crops, traditionally, is to remove plants that have depleted certain nutrients from the growing medium (foam, soil, etc) and replacing it with a plant that relies on different nutrients - optimally replacing the previously depleted nutrient (or other conditions congruent with peak yields).

To suggest crop rotation would suggest that the growth medium is fixed. If the growth medium is water the nutrients can be injected into the water mixture, thus rotation is unnecessary. If plant irrigation is in a solid medium with guided irrigation then the nutrients can simply be incorporated as a slow drip or infusion. The water lines could be set up with slow drip and even monitor the 'waste' water for actual consumed nutrients, etc.

Peter Alberto wrote:


In other words it is a batch-based nutrient replacement process. Research around mychorriza shows this to be inefficient due to the need for the plants (and their fungal symbionts) to re-grow the root structures required to harvest the nutrients from the soil.

A continous process would be much more efficient, which is what I suggested by intermixing the useful plants with the nutrient-replenishing ones and interconnect their root structures with mychorriza.

LP,
Jure

Nanos wrote:


Usually this would be accomplished by using multiple stages in the "recycling" process. Where a harmful organism or substance may become abundant at one stage of decomposition, these usually create nutrients for another organism to utilise, which when conditions become suitable for it prospers and exterminates the former. This is what normally happens in nature and is far more efficient at eliminating unwanted organisms than any other process, synthetic in nature or not.

Prions are protein, their decomposition is a trivial matter of using a microorganism capable of digesting it (instead of just feeding it back to animals with nervous systems).

The only real problem are heavy metals, as when you grow one organism on a substrate which contains heavy metals, they will be absorbed and remain within the organisms' biomass -- thus when you wish to recycle this organism by feeding it to another lifeform, the heavy metals are passed along and concentrated, until to you get to the "top of the food chain" where they accumulate to toxic levels.

LP,
Jure

Ahmad Deedat Ibrahim wrote:


In India (if I got this right) people leave the bodies of the dead down the river and burn them. This concentration of waste in the form of corpses transforms the rivers they currently use for this into black streams of toxic sludge, far devoid of any aerobic life.

My point: However natural it may seem, in high population counts / densities it won't work. It needs to be managed to make sure that the natural processes can take the load... and if they can't, they should be assisted.

LP,
Jure

Ahmad Deedat Ibrahim wrote:


That is ignoring the somewhat obvious point that these plants are single-year lasting as the entire plant is destroyed upon cropping.

Hydroponics doesn't sound too difficult with these and also they are said to be textbook examples of plants which work well with mychorizza.



Well I wouldn't claim to be able to speak from experience... perhaps Andrew who has actually built small mobile robots before would know to tell you more, but the idea you present sounds like adding unnecessary complexity and I speak of it in a negative tone because I think it offers just so many more things that can go wrong.

As far as I can see, the advantage of natural organisms is their nanotech approach to problemsolving, their ability for self-expansion and self-correction as well as facilitating chemical processes which would be hard to achieve otherwise. Mechanical parts on the other hand are better at being large, robust, resistant and generally more predictable/reliable. I would not think of reversing their roles as a better solution to anything, thus I am still thinking of plants growing in mechanical shells.

I would think of implementation as showing how some of these things can actually be achieved, but I have yet to muster up the willpower to draw a resource cycle in any reasonable detail.

LP,
Jure