Amelanchier

Its actually an official nature reserve now with special designation!

If we want them to be the same then we should apply an irrational 12.566370614359172953850573533118... to BS5837 data.

The small difference is because both seek to calculate the same area but based upon different dimensions of the tree. Because the circumference is obtained by multiplying the diameter by pi (3.14...) you can reverse the equation by dividing your BS5837 multiplier by pi (or 3 which gives a more usable round number)! Diameter (or circumference / 3.14) x 12 = circumference (or diameter x 3.14) x 4 The variation occurs because pi has been rounded down to three - just like in the bible.

Hama, it has been said that any scientist who cannot sufficiently explain what he is doing to an eight year old is a charlatan. This is obviously a simplification but there is great merit in it. The problem with postmodern language like this is that it appears to say a lot but doesn't actually say anything. Or when it does say something, the point is often obvious or banal. Take, for example, the famous Postmodern Generator: http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ In fact, this old debate - between "Science" and "Postmodernism" was raging up to 2001 when all of a sudden it went quiet. Fashionable ideas die so quickly; even more so when openess, inclusivity and cultural relativism requires that you defend the world view of the bloke in the cockpit with the box opener. Instead of making the discussion more complicated, make it simpler. If this Inclusional Theory still hangs together when the language is blunt then lets see it without the frills. Give us the ladybird book version! I suspect there will be some problems in doing so .

I suspect a pint would make it worse!

Good thread. There's the classic Cedar trick, comparing the branch form with the first letter of the species... Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica) = A = Ascending branch tips Cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libani) = L = Level branch tips Deodar (Cedrus deodara) = D = Descending branch tips

I'm afraid not. Recent case law has upheld the principle that even seedlings are protected within a Woodland Order. You could submit a detailed scheme as part of an application indicating what will go back in after your removals - this allows your scheme to be conditioned and everyone should rest easy knowing that consideration has been given to the sustainability of the site. Otherwise - like the knowledgable folks have already said, hunt down your TO.

Guilty as charged. Us science dudes are legion. Now, take a deep breath - noone is bullying Alan. You'd be suprised how much I can see from my boxed in perspective.

And so it is named! It's quite often a triple skyhuck though! :congrats:

So, given such an open position - what happens when you try to include two or more incompatible ideas? Presumably there are limits to what you intend to include, or is 2+2=6 fair game?

With respect guys, it could mean that - but it doesn't say that. "It says that [Fungi provide] a communications interface for energy transfer from... living to dead...". Now we can infer another meaning but that is sympathy rather than practicality. Granted, its a small point Paul, I never suggested anything otherwise. The problem with dense complicated language, is that often the content of the communication is lost.

On a wider point, and without causing too many waves, I find much of this style of academia supplementary. Now that may be my WASP heritage or my dogmatic hegemonic scientific education but hey. It just seems to me Hama, that a lot of these theories rely on groundwork done by McScience. (I'm speaking generally rather that directly at Rayner). These modes of investigation need the very framework that they despise.

No insult taken . I'll pass on changing my perspective at the moment. I find these things twist and turn with time and besides, if it ain't broke... I don't have a problem with being made up of molecules from dead stuff and understandably grasp the fundamentals of the role of saprobes in the nutrient cycle but the quote says "...from living to dead". Simply put, my point is that Rayner is wrong to suggest that energy is transferred from living to dead by fungal interfaces. Dead to living, certainly, but the cycle is non reversible.

So if you can't imagine a way it could have happened, then it can't have happened? I'm familiar with the example - I was of the recollection that the complete life cycle required the gut of a ruminant (generally a cow) and therefore poor little parasitised ant trapses up to the tip blade of grass where it stays til morning. If it isn't eaten it returns again every night til it is. Strange place this world but remember Orgel's rule... Lets use the platypus as an example. Why shouldn't it evolve? Because it's weird looking? Take its feeding adaptation away (big shovel on its face) and its defence toxin (unusual in mammals but common everywhere else) and what do you have? A fairly unimaginative variant on the basic mammalian blueprint. We could chuck weird and wonderful beasts around all night, and in some parts of the world that's probably a good night in, but the point is subjective. I say if you start with a shared ancestor, there is a limit to the variation. No mutation is going to evolve an internal combustion engine or a piece of art deco architecture. You work with what you've got. Trees can't breakdance and they never will (I know, its a shame). My point about the Rayner quote was that regardless of who transfers the energy, the dead don't need it / can't use it. So any energy transfer from living to dead is futile.

I disagree Hama. There is a rule coined by a chap called Orgel that simply states "Evolution is cleverer than you are". Essentially this is an option C to your dichotomy of "either this or that". Diversity is well explained by the profusion of niches - they don't necessarily overlap as much as you think. And I don't consider nature to be as unlimited in its imagination as you do. As an incremental process, evolution works with what it has. Which is why I have an appendix, whales have lungs and no animals have developed wheels. Perhaps this is also a good point to ask what on earth does Rayner mean when he says in your quote "...which provide a communications interface for energy transfer from neighbour to neighbour, from living to dead, and from dead to living" - How do the dead use energy? And presuming that they have their own (so that the living can take it) why do they need to transfer (somehow) that energy from the living. Are they zombies?

Bump

Indeed I am - chipdonkey duty. Forgot about that! Couldn't have been my first job though cos I remember getting sent up the second one, not enjoying it at all, swearing at everyone and felling the top third(?) out cos I didn't want to go any higher!

Its also worth noting that a TPO can be made at any time even if you don't recieve a response. It's not uncommon for an LPA to let the S211 notification lapse and then serve an TPO a couple of weeks later when they finally get round to having a look, realise that the tree is still standing and that it's quite nice. So it might pay to check for constriants prior to commencement - ignorance of an Order is not a defence.

Six weeks for a CA and eight for a TPO. If you don't hear anything back after those periods you assume consent for CA and refusal for TPO. You will of course be able to prove you gave the notice/made the application!

Also, unless you've used true static line to ascend on, when you step off the line and into the tree, the recoil from the rope and tree can pull your ascender away from you / into forks etc. Very annoying and adds complications to an already technical stage of the climb. I used to leave the pantin til last as a third hand to control the line.

I would add to this excellent advice that if the LPA (or NP for that matter) refuse to validate your application on the grounds that the evidence submitted is not sufficient, then you also have the right to appeal to the Planning Inspectorate for non determination if you consider that the application was adequate to determine. There is also provision in the guidance for the LPA to waive the requirement (in writing) for such information if the problem is obvious and undisputed. From the LPA point of view there are two main motives behind this strategy described by the OP - 1) Visiting every tree that someone might want to do work to is heavy on resources. Many people simply want a site visit in the hope that they can better argue their point. Often this can involve more people than are strictly necessary - like the concerned neighbours, contractors, solicitors, hitmen etc. Normally an application will have to be made anyway, and determined on its own merits. Given that this application might arrive 6 months after the visit, the TO might have to go out to the site again - especially when the spec has been "tweaked". The policy of "no app = no visit" is not people friendly but might simply be a result of an overworked department. 2) Damage limitation - exempt works are often ill defined. "Reduce a limb to make it safe". By waving the big stick of prosecution around, the LPA attempts to ensure that minimum works are undertaken outside of the controls of the application/consent/conditions system. We all know how professional opinion can differ, one mans prune is anothers fell. As the tree managers of a district, city or park; the TO (for better or worse) has to (try to!) consider the wider picture.

If its dangerous, its exempt from the regs. So you can take it out. If its not then you're in the queue. And take it from me, the number of people who try and scam an exemption in bad weather is phenomenal. Its not personal, its just the way it is. There is also the problem of excessive works - it pays to be able to give a precise definition of what the TO considers exempt to avoid confusion, if the TO is ambigous on the phone, he'll have little room for enforcement. Not your style I realise but I know of reductions being done to adjacent trees to reduce the risk of exposure after the arbo felled a split tree sheltering them. The reductions were good sense, but not exempt and poorly done (v. windy). Which means of course they constituted an offence. Messy situation caused by a misunderstanding between Arbo & TO on the interpretation of the extent of exempt works in a emergency situation. They won't provide you with written responsibility any more than you would if a punter asked you to! Bottom line is, if it can wait til someone comes to have a look at it, then its probably not dangerous enough to be exempted over the phone!

Predictably, and perhaps comedically, I disagree. If you look at my last right hand figure, Fig 10 and compare setup C with the prussik line its a complete match for your first diagram - but its a 3:1 because the prussiked pulley isn't fixed - its not simply redirecting the load, its magnifying it because is moving within the system. I've superimposed it on your diagram and flipped it to match. It doesn't matter that we're only tensioning a zipline, its the same principle.

I'm a lover not a fighter. And the MA is 3:1 because the second pulley is not fixed - no cats this time.

I question what you present to me - does that count? Look, if it helps I've spent a couple of hours drawing a fancy diagram. I even included a small cat.