Dean Lofthouse

I thought Stevie had bought that one

That would be a better system, it's a right pain trying to hold a log in place whilst you get the knife in place to hold it. Trouble with grease Dave is it collects grit then acts as a grinding paste

Stripped down the logsplitter because when I was using it the other day it caught on something on the up stroke and ripped off two catches which hold up the hydraulic cylinder. It turned out the plastic wear sliders behind the knife had worn and the screws holding it on caught and dug in. You can use nothing to lube the post and sliders and replace when they wear but I use a dry film lubricant same as I use on the mewp boom. The good thing about dry lube is it doesnt gather grit and dust like grease does, it's similar to the graphite Whilst I have it down I have notice some brass side bushes have worn as well which I haven't ordered because when they are in situ there is a bit of slop so I'm going to modify them by replacing the brass bobbins with solid nylon sheet which will be an exact fit and will cover the whole surface instead of four little points like the bobbins and be an exact fit so taking out any side slop. While I have the thing in bits I am also going to modify it to operate one handed. After carrying out my own riskassessment I have come to the conclusion that it's safer holding an awkward log with one hand rather than trying to keep it in place with your knee or hip or belly I dont agree with two handed splitter operation

That'll look well sprayed up Dave

dean all I am saying is that if you make a comment like ive just ruined this thread by saying what i said then i am going to justifiably treat it with the contempt it deserves, by reflection, by Karma, you reap what you sow. YOU had a direct dig at ME !!!! Dean, you picked up on the ONE point that I made from a personal level, that stinks of pure antagonism as far as i am concerned because you stated you was interested in all UNTIL you read my ONE personal addition to my post! You had a go at me !! say what you like, wether you mean to or not, your post/s are often antagonistic rather than debate, otherwise you would back up your argument with something other than just your opinion, am i wrong? I do at least give a detailed response often with pictorial evidence to reiterate my point. I dont need pictorial evidence to state the obvious and state FACT, you obviously have to try and justify things with pictures, all of which BTW back up my points and once again I am trying to justify myself to a guy who cleary has no intention of discussing mans connection to trees throughout the ages even pre dating organised religion, why? why should i bother rplying when this is going to go on and on as a "personal thing" I aint interested in that, come and talk, but please keep it to thread and not personal. Tony you are obviously not reading my posts or you are choosing to ignore their content, I have very very clearly explianed myself on this thread and the other, you are obviously choosing to skip over the information not to your mindset, which is really concerning me If you wish to keep things from becoming personal dont make comment like this: I have implied in prior posts to ancient mans knowledge of trees which fell on deaf ears The above comment is detracting from your thread and very antagonistic, please dont try and swing the blame across to me when you yourself made the personal comment

Tony, it's irrelevant, totally irrelevant. I have explained above: Mattecks theory or not, compensating or not. Why have a compensated regrown limb the same size as the perfectly healthy one you have cut off 20 years previously. According to your thoery, it has a little hollow in which creates a habitat. My Point again: Why cut pollard a tree and then not manage it, if you manage it all well and good, but 19 times out of 20 you end up with a lapsed pollard, which is NOT a safe tree in an urbban enviroment which is what you say you are after and again....why pollard and multilate a tree, then le3ave it to grow back to its original size A well managed pollard is IMO a work of art, I know of one I can take a picture of in a 10 mile radius of my house, there are on the other hand hundreds upon hundreds of mutilated trees that have been passed off as pollards. I'm an engineer tony and look at things in black and white with a the laws of physics in mind. Tony I am obviously not getting my point across to you or you are just not listening so I'm backing out of your single minded thread mate

Christ Tony !! I'm not interested in the longevity of pollards, my argument if you are going to allow a pollard to regrow to that extent why pollard in the first place and the pollard cut as got to be weaker than if it were not touched in the first place What is the point of showing healed wounds on regrown pollards, all that is being argue is as above, they are weaker than if left alone

Tony If we are not "allowed" to contribute because I/we detract from how "you" see things and I'm not allowed to oppose your veiws then in my opinion that is extremism. You have iMO very extremist veiws with regards to trees, I dont agree with many of them, doesn't mean I right and your wrong, I just have slightly differing veiws.

What are you on about ?? What perfect world have I mentioned ? Co- exist ? I reduce trees, I have never said I dont.. ? Ensure a safer urban tree stock ?? Yes I agree I dont see what your arguing here ? I'll simplify My points: Trees manage perfectly well without us Pruning trees (unless you are trying to save an ailing tree ) is for our benefit and not the trees. Heavily pruning / pollarding / topping trees can create a MORE hazardous tree than leaving it well alone. My points are quite simple and not in a perfect world scenario

You have just ruined an otherwise interesting post with that comment. Trees were here millions of years before man Man came along and, in evolutionary timescale of around 5 minutes, with his "knowledge" devestated their numbers

In your role as an expert do you tell the customer that hacking their tree is good for the tree and is a benefit to the tree, do you explain to them the light benefits will only be temporary and they will end up wiuth an increased crown density should they choose not to stick to a rigid regieme of pruning and re-reducing, do you also explain to them the increase in wind loading once the tree reaches its previous crown size should they choose not to prune back Didn't think so We all do our reductions and we all do our toppings for the customer and very rarely because the tree is faulty or we wish to reduce the wind loading on a structural weak point. But I simply cannot grasp or get into my head your theory that it is for the benefit of the tree and we are ingnorant or lacking in knowledge to assume otherwise because we have been mutilating trees for thousands of years. Trees have been managing before humans even trod this soil and they haven't done too well since our introduction into the eco system

Hahaha

I personally found your statement insulting, it is put across in a way that says anyone who disagreed with your opinion on this thread didn't have an understanding of trees, your opinion is correct and anyone opposing your opinion simply has no understanding of trees. I can take pictures of tree round here that have been "reduced" an Ash in particular which looks like a dogs backside now, in two or three years what was cut off has regrown and it is now back to it's original size and shape but has now got ten times more outer foliage and branches so increasing it's surface area to wind forces The owner of that tree probably has no intention of having it reduced again because he's sat there thinking he paid all that money for a reduction and within short space of time the tree looks no different so hes not going to waste money and have it done again. Now we have got an Ash tree that looks horrible with epicormic sprouting in it's outer crown that now has a windloading factor far greater than it was previously and with weaker unions on the pruning cut which incidently have a lot more end weight to contend with. I dont like the way many seem to asume a "perfect world" is achievable, one where we leave trees to "get on with it" and be eu naturel, we dont live in this perfect world, we live in one where tree manangment is a vital part of keeping the interests of humans and trees in a state of compromise You are yourself assuming a perfect world in which everyone manages their trees to a schedule and maintains their trees to the book. Your wrong Tony, simple fact is they top and mutilate their trees then some poor sod has to come along in twenty years time and anchor into weak attachment points to try and bring it back into control. Pollarded trees in the past usually didnt need climbing because they didnt have targets underneath, they just laddered up into pollard head and crashed everything out, nowadays we have to acheive high anchor and lowering points and lower and rig things off in sometimes difficult situations.

Good point about a lockable control because accidently pressing the VOX button can be very embarrassing if you are having a private convo with 40 odd people listening like what happens on the shoot. I took the radio apart and put a peice of tape under the VOX button to disable it

I filled all mine 3/4 full with water and antifreeze, made a massive difference to stability

I had a spooky experience in some woodland about 4 years ago I was strimming bramble for a couple of hours in a woodland when I heard a bang. I stopped strimming and listened.......nothing I started again and heard another crack ! ..... I stopped the strimmer engine and took off my earmuffs and listened thinking someone may have been shooting. 5 seconds later a 70ft Oak silently started to fall over straight towards me and I had to run sideways out of it's way. Had I not heard the two cracks I would have been dead

Wow...that is a very arrogant, elitist and sweeping statement if ever I've seen one All anyone has said in this thread is that heavy pruning is worse for the tree than if it were left alone and that topping or HEAVY reductions are not good practice in an "Urban" enviroment simply because they produce weak unions and for that tree to be kept in a safe condition it MUST be managed, and you and I both know full well, they never are managed properly. I drove past a church yesterday with every one of it's roadside tree topped drastically, each had about 20 years new growth with big pockets of rot and hollows at the base of each new growth, please dont have the arrogance and audacity to tell me that is better for the tree than if the tree had been left alone or that it is safe to the public in an urban enviroment Trees do better left alone If we want a product out of them then we multilate them to force them to produce as in coppicing which is a way to force vigerous new low down easy to reach source of wood all for human benefit NOT the trees

i don't see what the problem is reg plates are visible anyway its not a private thing ? anything visible from google street veiw is visible to the public anyway

Put "Midland GXT" in to ebay search Bob. They are long range walkie talkies not available over here because they are above the wattage "recommended" I bought about 20 for the shoot from america, they dont have the 20 or 30 mile range claimed from valley to valley but have a hell of a range hill top to hill top, I was speaking to a friend about ten mile away but line of sight. Any of the GXT range are good but I have GXT 700's

Good interesting stuff Tom. Would be much better if you could stand infront of the camera like a news reporter giving a commentary rather than editing it on Trevor MacDonald live in the borders!!

Going off on a nurdy tangent here a bit Tony, but talking about mowing under trees. I noticed while mowing yesterday that under six small trees the grass was three times longer and has got a head start over grass out in the open. Thinking about it, rather than putting it down to leaf little around the tree, I summized it might be down to there being more Myochorzial Fungi around the roots than in the open areas therefore a more abundant supply of nitrogen ?? The new and vigorous grass growth seemed to be the exact shape of the root area in my minds eye of course Am I thinking on the right lines ??

Haaaaa, the 69............but a distant memory, dont have the energy nowadays

Thats were my superior marketing skills shine above yours

In an ideal world customers who ask for heavy reductions would manage their reduced tree, but never do, twenty years down the line a new owner may get us in to sort out the mess

I totally agree, if a tree is going to be butchered it should be butchered correctly But I never ever sell a reduction as good for the tree, I always make sure the customer knows it's only a temorary fix and that they are going to have to keep paying me to come back and re-reduce which next time will be slightly dearer because I will have a lot more to cut and take away