On Aug 23, 9:43�pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote:> >On Aug 23, 12:35=A0pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > >> >On Aug 20, 9:53=3DA0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >>http://tinyurl.com/3zcjk7e > > >> >> Jerry > >> >> -- > >> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can > get= > >. > > >> >Interesting thought, but it relies on the notion that nature employs > >> >the most efficient methods. I know when growing fruit trees, that to > >> >increase production one actually trims out the central top core of > >> >branches to allow more light to reach the fruit bearing wood and > >> >increase fruit production. I see peach growers doing this all of the > >> >time. > > >> I don't think feeding the maximum fruit to humans is what the tree > design > >> is optimised for. > > >> Steve > > >I was referring to the kid's modeling of his solar array to be like > >that of plants in order to maximize received energy. Plants use a lot > >of their energy towards reproduction and I was just pointing out that > >optimal solar reception is not what nature choose for trees. > > You pointed to deficiencies in food production, not reproduction. Can you > support the argument that the leaves do not support the *tree's* interests > in a near optimal way? Cutting out wood to get light to places that > optimise fruit production may or may not be of maximal benefit to the tree. > As far as I know, for hardwood production, where maximising tree growth is > basically the goal, branch trimming is only about minimising knots and > other scaring of the wood. > > Steve- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -Fruit is for reproduction. I.e., it contains the seed(s). And asking about the leaves not supporting the tree in an optimal way is driving away from the assumption that the leaves are optimal at collecting sunlight. Recall we are discussing the kid's solar array modelled after a tree's leaves. A tree has much more to contend with than just light collection. So what I'm saying is a tree's physical leaf structure involves much more that maximizing sunlight collection. So assuming that a tree's answer (the tree's leaf structure) is optimal in terms of all of the conditions under which the tree must survive is not necessarily optimal in terms of light collection as evidenced by pruning of fruit trees increasing their yield. Clay
OT: Why didn't I think of that?
Started by ●August 20, 2011
Reply by ●August 24, 20112011-08-24
Reply by ●August 24, 20112011-08-24
>On Aug 23, 9:43=A0pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: >> >On Aug 23, 12:35=3DA0pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org>wrote=>: >> >> >On Aug 20, 9:53=3D3DA0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: >> >> >>http://tinyurl.com/3zcjk7e >> >> >> >> Jerry >> >> >> -- >> >> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things youcan>> get=3D >> >. >> >> >> >Interesting thought, but it relies on the notion that natureemploys>> >> >the most efficient methods. I know when growing fruit trees, thatto>> >> >increase production one actually trims out the central top core of >> >> >branches to allow more light to reach the fruit bearing wood and >> >> >increase fruit production. I see peach growers doing this all ofthe>> >> >time. >> >> >> I don't think feeding the maximum fruit to humans is what the tree >> design >> >> is optimised for. >> >> >> Steve >> >> >I was referring to the kid's modeling of his solar array to be like >> >that of plants in order to maximize received energy. Plants use a lot >> >of their energy towards reproduction and I was just pointing out that >> >optimal solar reception is not what nature choose for trees. >> >> You pointed to deficiencies in food production, not reproduction. Canyou>> support the argument that the leaves do not support the *tree's*interest=>s >> in a near optimal way? Cutting out wood to get light to places that >> optimise fruit production may or may not be of maximal benefit to thetre=>e. >> As far as I know, for hardwood production, where maximising tree growthi=>s >> basically the goal, branch trimming is only about minimising knots and >> other scaring of the wood. >> >> Steve- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >Fruit is for reproduction. I.e., it contains the seed(s). > >And asking about the leaves not supporting the tree in an optimal way >is driving away from the assumption that the leaves are optimal at >collecting sunlight. Recall we are discussing the kid's solar array >modelled after a tree's leaves. A tree has much more to contend with >than just light collection. So what I'm saying is a tree's physical >leaf structure involves much more that maximizing sunlight collection. >So assuming that a tree's answer (the tree's leaf structure) is >optimal in terms of all of the conditions under which the tree must >survive is not necessarily optimal in terms of light collection as >evidenced by pruning of fruit trees increasing their yield.I agree that the tree's interests are best served by a balance of behaviours that may not maximise the collection rate. What I am taking issue with is your evidence that tries to support that assertion. Fruit which best serves the tree's interests is not the same as fruit which serves ours. We want a huge edible yield. Those who can afford to also demand great taste and texture. The tree only needs what it takes in its fruit to get the animals, wind, etc, to distribute the seeds in the fruit to places with a good chance of successful germination and growth. When we prune for maximum fruit yield we often hack huge amounts of foliage away. I find it hard to believe that maximises light yield. Gardening books actually say its being done to focus the tree's energy on the fruiting areas, and may have a negative effect on the body of the tree. Steve
Reply by ●August 24, 20112011-08-24
On Aug 24, 1:15�pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote:> >On Aug 23, 9:43=A0pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> wrote: > >> >On Aug 23, 12:35=3DA0pm, "steveu" <steveu@n_o_s_p_a_m.coppice.org> > wrote= > >: > >> >> >On Aug 20, 9:53=3D3DA0am, Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> wrote: > >> >> >>http://tinyurl.com/3zcjk7e > > >> >> >> Jerry > >> >> >> -- > >> >> >> Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you > can > >> get=3D > >> >. > > >> >> >Interesting thought, but it relies on the notion that nature > employs > >> >> >the most efficient methods. I know when growing fruit trees, that > to > >> >> >increase production one actually trims out the central top core of > >> >> >branches to allow more light to reach the fruit bearing wood and > >> >> >increase fruit production. I see peach growers doing this all of > the > >> >> >time. > > >> >> I don't think feeding the maximum fruit to humans is what the tree > >> design > >> >> is optimised for. > > >> >> Steve > > >> >I was referring to the kid's modeling of his solar array to be like > >> >that of plants in order to maximize received energy. Plants use a lot > >> >of their energy towards reproduction and I was just pointing out that > >> >optimal solar reception is not what nature choose for trees. > > >> You pointed to deficiencies in food production, not reproduction. Can > you > >> support the argument that the leaves do not support the *tree's* > interest= > >s > >> in a near optimal way? Cutting out wood to get light to places that > >> optimise fruit production may or may not be of maximal benefit to the > tre= > >e. > >> As far as I know, for hardwood production, where maximising tree growth > i= > >s > >> basically the goal, branch trimming is only about minimising knots and > >> other scaring of the wood. > > >> Steve- Hide quoted text - > > >> - Show quoted text - > > >Fruit is for reproduction. I.e., it contains the seed(s). > > >And asking about the leaves not supporting the tree in an optimal way > >is driving away from the assumption that the leaves are optimal at > >collecting sunlight. Recall we are discussing the kid's solar array > >modelled after a tree's leaves. A tree has much more to contend with > >than just light collection. So what I'm saying is a tree's physical > >leaf structure involves much more that maximizing sunlight collection. > >So assuming that a tree's answer (the tree's leaf structure) is > >optimal in terms of all of the conditions under which the tree must > >survive is not necessarily optimal in terms of light collection as > >evidenced by pruning of fruit trees increasing their yield. > > I agree that the tree's interests are best served by a balance of > behaviours that may not maximise the collection rate. What I am taking > issue with is your evidence that tries to support that assertion. > > Fruit which best serves the tree's interests is not the same as fruit which > serves ours. We want a huge edible yield. Those who can afford to also > demand great taste and texture. The tree only needs what it takes in its > fruit to get the animals, wind, etc, to distribute the seeds in the fruit > to places with a good chance of successful germination and growth. When we > prune for maximum fruit yield we often hack huge amounts of foliage away. I > find it hard to believe that maximises light yield. Gardening books > actually say its being done to focus the tree's energy on the fruiting > areas, and may have a negative effect on the body of the tree. > > Steve- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -Peach growers prune the trees to get more peaches and not bigger peaches. One peach = one seed, so more peaches = more seeds hence more chances for more peach trees.
Reply by ●August 30, 20112011-08-30
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 11:27:24 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:>On Aug 20, 4:31�pm, Rick Lyons <R.Lyons@_BOGUS_ieee.org> wrote: >> On Sat, 20 Aug 2011 06:53:09 -0700 (PDT), Jerry Avins <j...@ieee.org> >> wrote: >> >> >http://tinyurl.com/3zcjk7e >> >> >Jerry >> >> Hi Jerry, >> � That was neat. �I wonder who wrote the >> text: >> >> � "People see winter as a cold and gloomy time >> � �in nature. The days are short. Snow blankets >> � �the ground. Lakes and ponds freeze, and animals >> � �scurry to burrows to wait for spring. The rainbow >> � �of red, yellow and orange autumn leaves has been >> � �blown away by the wind turning trees into black >> � �skeletons that stretch bony fingers of branches >> � �into the sky. It seems like nature has disappeared." >> >> It seems impossible that a 7th grader could >> write that. "Snow blankets the ground", what 7th >> grader talks like that? �ha ha. > >Rick, > >It doesn't seem impossible to me. In seventh grade, I would have >avoided such language as excessively hackneyed. (I learned to >appreciate it later.) My interests were more down to earth. By that >age, I had made two pistols and a carbine, all rifled with tools I had >made myself. I don't remember it, but I've been told that when I was >nearly two, I was sitting crosslegged on the ground holding open a >screen door and repeatedly twanging the closure spring. When our host >came over to get me to close the door to keep the flies out of the >house, I ignored her words and said with some excitement, "Listen to >the vibrations!" She quietly walked away. > >The design of my guns was imitative. I have no doubt that the >paragraph you quoted is also. > >JerryHi Jer, well it's too bad we can't place a wager on whether or not a 7th grader wrote those words. I'd be willing to make wager you, Richard Dobson, and steveu. But alas, I see no way to learn who was the true author of those words. See Ya', [-Rick-]
