"Arnold Walker" wrote in message
...

"Wayne.B" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 00:59:19 GMT, Dale Eastman
wrote:

Counter- intuitive answer because the consumption was labeled as 1
gallon per acre. More distance is traveled with a narrower plow to
cover the same acre (area).

Presumably a narrower plow will require less horsepower however, which
will equate to a lower gph burn rate.
Of course,if you were burning biomass in a steam tractor that number would
be 0gph.
And a 10 horsepower steam tractor would not only pull the 30 ft ,but has
done 50ft plows
as well, in tractor meets.(10 horse at 200rpm)But then that is why
steamers are banned from
most tractor pulls........they can often start with a fully extended
sled.The inconvenience of the
firebox may not be so bad after diesel gets up high enorgh price.
The most powerful steam plowengine ever built was in 1959 by a German
company ......the Ottomeyer
up for sale at Preston steam website ,clocks 310horsepower at
100RPM.(translates out to a 3100hp diesel
tractor on plowdragging traction effort performace.....) Worked about
1000arces a day.on a Sugar cane plantation
burning stalks in the 250psi boiler....if I remember correctly.


This has been a very enlightening thread. I'm planning to put in a few acres
of kelp this spring, and I've been trying to figure out how much it'll run
to plow the bottom. Now I know. ;-)