arboriculturist

SENT - How many Forums can you go on and the Owner of the Forum offers to help out for free - Champion !

That's generous - I shall locate something suitable.

Sound advice there thanks - what spec Mac and which dual document monitor would you advise?

Well, I certainly did not expect such speedy informative replies from people who clearly are well informed and 100% know exactly what they are talking about - so thanks for those spot on replies. Wether going for the top end spec. i9 is perhaps open to discussion. I do like the idea of having a large desk based monitor in the office to visit, plug in when needed and work. The laptop pretty much stays with me, so a separate monitor for those tasks needing space and clarity, makes a Laptop so much more versatile. The boy has got dual full size monitors in his bedroom, but as you can imaging they do not relate to anything approaching work!

Good point, just thinking about a future proof device. Having spent a lifetime waiting and waiting and waiting for every single laptop I have ever had to do what I want immediately, an i9 processor was the obvious choice. Mmm maybe a large monitor at a desk, that will display 2 x A4 pages side by side by side would be a good addition, that I could just take the laptop to and connect up as and when required would be great, Still having the portability of a Laptop. Thanks.

Those comments are encouraging. A major concern was will all the spreadsheets, templates etc. etc. I have spent literally 100's of hours designing, import onto a Mac ?

After years of using Windows based Laptops and despite Macs being circa. 3 times the price - I have decided to bit the bullet and change to a Mac. Going for a 16" i9 for about 2K. The main issue I understand I will encounter, is the transition from the Windows platform to the Apple based one. Everything I do at present is using MS Word and Excel and I use Word for designing adverts etc. and have really got to grips with how versatile it is. Being able to program Autocorrect using acronyms is a godsend. Also the ability to program cells in Excel was a game changer. I have a feeling this is going to be a major learning curve to attain the level of understanding I have built up over the year using MS and windows. Has anyone here on here made the change and if so how did you fair? I know Steve B. is a great fan, but perhaps he started on a Mac. Any feedback would be great.

Just need an alternative to plastic - not an easy task.

100 % agree. I used to use the multi angle Oregon sharpener, which to be honest was good, then tried the offerings from Husky, Stihl and other oregon ideas. For the last how many years I have done everything freehand and replace chains when as above 1-2 cutters break off. File rakers when chips start to look small - that's it. Wear a glove on left hand, tighten chain, chalk 1st cutter and tap cutters with back of file when I finish to shear the burr - an old cutter showed me that tip years ago. Adjust chain tension. Lots of practice and I would argue all you need is the correct size round file, if you have spent your life working practically - talking professionals here of course.

As always - you generally get what you pay for. I would recommend dealing with a company who can supply every single component of the system you require. If you are looking to stay put for many years and would like a quality trouble free concealed system - this is it: Frog | CAME UK WWW.CAME.COM

Nice as it is - I expect as it is, is of no use to you. If it were mine and I was in no mad panic to use it until next year, I would prefer save myself a lot of money. In September treat the complete area with Grazon Pro, 2 with an adjuvant, then 2 weeks later treat with Glyphosate with an adjuvant. Leave until late March / early April and treat the whole area again with Grazon Pro, 2 with an adjuvant when any re-growth is actively growing, then 2 weeks later treat with Glyphosate with an adjuvant. This will leave the complete are practically bare. You will be able then clearly see any features, hazzards etc. etc. Or you can try and shortcut the process and you will still have Nettles, Brambles, Docks and possibly Ragwort appearing for several years to come. If there is anything special you wish to retain, you can take precautions to protect before commencement of course.

That approach will work to a small extent, however all the magazines, woodburner manuals, media etc.etc. will be telling the consumer ' only buy - ready to burn - certified wood below 20%. So everyone will be looking for the logo and then they will be out with their moisture meter they just bought at Lidl checking the firewood that has just been delivered is below 20%. So in short, unless you are able to meet the criteria, I think people will just have to diversify into another line of business. It will be just like CORGI / SAFE etc. - unless you have the sticker you're dead in the water.

Exactly what he said - ( but join the que - he's porting 3 of my saws 1st - being an MS 200, 346xp and 357xp - all golden age saws) ?

There is not enough airflow through ventilated bags to achieve an average 20%MC in one season from freshly felled roundwood.. Unless the ventilated 1m3 bags were on top of a hill, raised off the ground, well spaced apart, 1 high, with a roof over with the prevailing wind blowing through there is absolutely no possibility - even then I am very skeptical, there just isn't enough airflow. As I have said on previous posts, the gravity of the proposed legislation has been gravely underestimated. 25% MC as we all know produces no more emissions than 20% MC once you factor in all the addition emissions required to achieve the 20%. Its a done deal so rather than wait until last minute panic buying as was seen with C19, we all need to start planning to diversify right now. Stick with what you know and have experience in and work from there. To be frank, there are a lot of Gardeners out there operating from a private house on a housing estate, making a better living that many firewood retailers ever will. Move with the times - always ?

I would get yourself a good reference book on trees, as every Arboriculturist should have a good reference library. It will teach you how to identify tree species by keys, then you will be able to advise the next person who posts a picture of a Beech that the tree is a Common or European Beech.

We use Stihl chains 3/8 on the Stihl 661 and Rotatec 3/8 chains on other saws. Up until now I have always used Oregon 5.2mm files and very occasional Stihl files (which are a little fine) when stock out of Oregon. Well when I bought the Rotatec 3/8 chains they said to buy 5.5mm Rotatec files as they were far less than Oregon files and just as good. They said 5.2mm files were too small for Rotatec. I always thought 5.5mm were for .404 chains. So I bought a box and tried them on a not too dull Rotatec chain. What a waste of time, they hardly looked at the cutters on the Rotatec chain. Quickly tried an Oregon 5.2mm file just to try and the difference was like chalk and cheese! Maybe the RT has insanely hard case hardening, but the Oregon performed with no issues. So am I correct in saying 5.5mm for 3/8 Rotatec chains and have others found Rotatec files to be absolute rubbish on Rotatec chain? Perhaps they are great on Oregon or Stihl chain? Any replies appreciated.

In this neck of the woods 100% hardwood Air dried is £ 120 and 100% hardwood Kiln dried is £ 140. Up to now, in the majority, the general public have been educated to burn Kiln dried firewood below 20% MC. A 5 minute search online today backs this statement up by various claims such as: Other firewood will tar up your chimney, kiln dried gives double the heat of air dried logs, various graphs that show the expected kWh from kiln dried in comparison to other firewood, often shown on graphs as being at of 30 - 40 % MC ! Having spoken to many end users, several definitely think that kiln dried is best as it is very dry, its 20% MC and doesn't tar up your chimney. They rarely even think about value for money. They clearly believe just what they have read and been told by the woodburner installer and what it says in the manual that came with the stove. When we all have to comply with 'Ready to burn' legislation and all timber of whatever type hard or soft, or of whatever species has to be at 20% MC, all the marketing attached to retailing kiln dried as a premium product will be invalid. Up to now, in the majority, the general public have been educated to burn Kiln dried firewood below 20% MC. That 20% figure is ingrained in people's minds and unless government sees sense, takes stock and takes a step back to a rational MAX. 25% MC threshold - that 20% figure will be there in perpetuity - period. In addition, all the woodburner manufacturers would also have to fall in line to get it to stick and print Max. 25% MC naturally air dried or kiln dried softwood or hardwood or a mixture of both is suitable for burning in this appliance. Is this likely to happen? We shall see. I personally think that even though it will destroy thousands of smaller firewood retailers who will be unable to meet the threshold, due to their geographical location, Planning requirements, insufficient site space or lack of funds to put in place the infrastructure to naturally air dry / kiln dry the timber, it is inevitable that the proposed legislation is coming in its current form within 9 months and tightened further in the following 12 months. Which is better value for money - Air dried Firewood @25% MC or Kiln dried @ 20%MC ? Based on all the available data - there is clearly very little in it. However the fuel burning process to force dry - kiln dried firewood without doubt, produces 100% more pollution, which is harmfull to the environment we live in and the air we all breath.

Some interesting replies coming in. As I mentioned, assumed values will have to be used, such as assuming we are comparing quantities like for like, species like for like etc. Maybe if someone is really keen to stick their head above the parapet, they will set out the maths behind the science. The general trend is leaning towards Air dried to 25% MC is better value than kiln dried. However the public have been educated for so long that kiln dried circa. 20% MC is what they should burn, that they actually believe that kiln dried is better. Nevertheless I have managed to persuade 100's and 100's of customers that this is actually not the case, so it is possible to get people to change their thinking over time.

Apologies, a few typos and errors - corrected now (always get a 3rd party to proof read before posting ? )

This is a question I have spent some time over trying to determine an accurate answer given the variables. Yet again, never, ever have I seen a credible financial comparison between the 2 fuel types. I have compared the 2 fuel types below to illustrate the main differences to facilitate calculating the cost differences: Air dried Firewood @ 25% MC Lower cost Lower kWh / kg Burns for longer Less logs per kg - therefore as firewood bought by volume, less logs needed to be burnt to give the estimated kWh / kg Kiln dried Firewood @ 20% MC Higher cost Higher kWh / kg Burns for less time More logs per kg - therefore as firewood bought by volume, more logs needed to be burnt to give the estimated kWh / kg I have left out all my specific data for each of the above Firewood type characteristics, so not to muddy the water and allow other to give their own independent views. Of course the values for the above fuel type differences will generally be assumed values for the purpose of this post. Possibly some people will have had experience of Kiln dried @ below 20% MC, but in my experience by the the time it is burnt on average the majority of Kiln dried will be circa. 20%. Openspaceman will surely be a main contender to provide eloquent conclusions, if he has the time to reply. Any replies most appreciated from those interested.

Well said - Forest destruction as a direct result of the timber supply chain from overseas is often overlooked and forgotten about.

Thanks, I enjoyed reading that and learning a lot on the way. Have you a view on burning naturally air dried firewood @ 25% MC versus kiln dried @ circa 20% MC and the trade off between the amount of additional particulates burning at 25% versus burning fuel to force dry and /or fuel to transport to achieve the 5% lower MC?

Yes, I have this graph ingrained in my memory - it is what they love to use and it is not very accurate in my view. I could not say with certainty why @10% MC emissions are claimed to be higher than at 20% MC, that would be down to the University that produced this. What I would like to see is an 'evidence based' graph that plots the financial economics comparing burning Kiln Dried versus Naturally Air Dried Firewood @ 25% MC ! This time of hardship and the proposed legislation on 'Ready to burn' is going to have a huge impact on our industry and I will do all I can to fight our corner.

That is a 100% excellent addition to the argument, of course !!! - sold by crated meterage as always quoted. Well that observation has really added fuel to the fire ! I have been working for years to inform customers why not to waste money on Kiln Dried, when there is plenty of people around selling good quality naturally air dried firewood which is so much better value in reality. I have always noticed you talk good sense, but this post of yours today is the icing on the cake for me. All the best.

Another other point that fails to get a mention is this : 'Most' Kiln dried firewood may produce a higher value kWh / kg when burnt due to having been force dried - for arguments sake lets say 4.5 kWh / kg - compared to naturally air dried firewood. However what is never, ever mentioned is the fact that although kiln dried firewood, that has been cooked in a large oven, may produce a marginally higher kWh / kg than naturally air dried firewood, kiln dried firewood burns away far faster than air dried, so in reality burns for less time per Kg ! This fact completely changes the economics of burning kiln dried. In addition, it is also overlooked that during the force drying process, a percentage of the volatiles within the timber that are lost due to heat being applied to dry it. I would suggest that if these facts were common knowledge, the general public may well take a different view on buying kiln dried firewood. Any comments?