Re: [mowbot] mowbot itenary - my plan

robin nospam at
Tue, 8 Oct 1996 15:59:07 +0100

Mike Ross wrote:
> I'd also like to put in a vote for some type of mechanism which can also
> chew through pine cones and sticks. That's what I do with my current
> lawnmower :-)
Too dangerous for my liking. If Mowbot is unsupervised, I definitely
don't want it capable of chewing up something the size of a pine code.

I don't actually have any pine cones, but I do get nuts and sticks
falling from trees. I think Mowbot should just ignore such debris.
Maybe if we are feeling ambitious, Mowbot could manage to collect them,
but that's not a priority for me.

> Finally, has anyone heard of a small, quiet, gasoline-powered generator?
> Gasoline has an energy density hundreds of times that of batteries. A
> yard the size described by Mr. Autry would take a significant amount of
> energy.
It will take quite a bit of energy, but not so much that we can't use
batteries. As proof by example, the Husqvarna uses solar power and seems
to work pretty well! Batteries have several advantages (cheap, silent,
no manual maintenance) that generators lack, so without a compelling
requirement for more power I vote we stick to battery.

> Here's a data point. I bought a Ryobi self-propelled electric lawnmower.
> It has a 24V sealed lead-acid battery the size of a standard car battery.
> It can do a small suburban yard (about 1/4 acre) before it needs
> recharging all night.
Efficiency is the issue here. This lawnmower is designed to do the
job *fast*. It isn't anywhere near as efficient as Mowbot can be,
since Mowbot can work continuously and slowly over several days to get
the job done.

Anyway, under the divergent design scheme that some people seem to favour,
it will be possible to design a high-power, high-impact cutting machine
alongside the low-power nibbler. I don't think this would be a good
thing, but I'll go along with it.


Copyright (C) 1996 R.M.O'Leary <robin nospam at>  All rights reserved.
For licence to copy, see