Bundle 2

No real targets that I could see....and anyway, I thought you were saying you kept seeing trees with basal decay in early stages that probably didnt need to come down yet....! I agree, hundreds of years in the making, minutes for its demise.......

I like the idea of thermal investigation as an informative process as it is alot less invasive than an airspade investigation which will inevitably disturb soilroot matter, messin' with the mojo of the delicate balance maintained as an ecosystem under duress between tree and fungus.....?( I think I can say this here as the Collybia is likely taking advantage of stressed tree....? ) Does the airspade infact introduce embollism to the vascular system? Perhaps grit blasting can be somewhat damaging to the rootsystem physically also?

I have been trying to establish what the deal is with this product......and others from the Donaghy's stable. My brother lives in Melbourne and has looked it up for me.....This is not an imported price you understand but the comparative price of obtaining the product in Melbourne...... Interestingly perhaps, the word was that even folk working at Donaghys were unaware of the product and had to be pushed and coerced into looking it up. On so doing. once a knowledgeable member of the workforce was found, we were told that Donaghys were finding they have quite a good response for the cord and were expecting a strong market for it. Good sign. Maybe demand in Melbourne is not kicking just yet as it was not by any means to found in all retailers in Melb' . Anyhoo, after being told you could only obtain it on the reel, other outlets were investigated.....same deal. It seems then it is as yet only available on the reel in Australia....additionally it seems the reels are also going to be 100m for Armor-Prus and not 25m as indicated on the website..... SO...100m of Armor-Prus will set you back @ £211- in Melbourne.

Yes indeed...post away!!

Basic Electrical Safety Competance

Not true unfortunately mate...Occupiers/Owners Liability Act 1957/84 ( in which provision is made as to liability even to those tresspassing ) Crazy world!!!

Certainly would like to see the stats...I wouldnt mind bettin' you can count the no' of H&S accidents that arise from this practice on one hand....and the of number claims arising from them for sure.....Blatant civil rights nonsense...who are trying to kid?

Spot on mate......

I agree but it comes down to discipline and method when the scenario involves subbies who dont work together on regular basis...and method is a minefield for disagreement ime and unneccessary discussion which goes round and round and doesnt achieve anything much, certainly not the job in hand....And how do you get away from this as so many " bosses" again, from experience, either dont specify method, (usually a good thing) or specify impractical solutions as to how to proceed...but again what to do, as the workplace is aways gonna have trainees who know no better frankly and probably need tellin' cos they either gonna have an accident ( no-one needs it ) or they will simply learn nothing new. Nobody is suggesting that the premadonnas who perceive their work to involve climbing and nothing else are desirable...you need to be adaptable and versatile.....actually, you really need to be willing to work! It also comes down to the issue of pay....if you gonna pay piss poor,( Im not saying you do you understand...) you wont get no respect from me in all liklihood but there would need to be other compensations, such as a progressive training potential perhaps, properly organised work with adequate equipment, a progressive and decent attitude to the longterm issues of method re wear and tear on bodies ( MSD) the list goes on. Its a hard enough business already as has been stated...this b******t about 80' dead Beech trees done in a day.....Not a very impressive advertisement for the industry...I'll just no read too much into it eh!!

I know what you are saying ..up to a point mate...but your argument is flawed...do you want them to learn the craft of climbing or grounding...if its climbing, then why put them on the floor when they will be too busy to observe the climbers in action...if your all so good that you move like greased lightening, a mere blur up the tree! or is it grounding you want them to learn...in which case a stint up the tree would be an invaluable insight as to needs of climbers and the work involved.... I sympathise with what seems to be a somewhat depressing aspect to our working environment...namely that the industry is something of a training ground with alot of youngsters still wet behind the ears an'all.....but then I have found it just as frustrating when working with mature operatives who simply refuse to consider newer/different methods cos its a wee bit uncomfortable or summat.....they should know better:confused1:

Actually...they dont fit my head either:closedeyes:...the adjustment is a wee bit limited if you got a small head....a silly oversight imo as increasing adjustment scale would be easily affected without any real redesign dramas....not like motorcycle crash lids that can be limited in their size spec...typically a variation of 1-2 cms max...which often means a small size but massive( relatively) shell.... Whats the point in harping on about side impact protection blah blah if the helmet is a bad fit...it will rotate on impact perhaps, even glancing contact resulting in who knows what, or it simply wont be where its needed as it has moved or should that be flopped into something more comfortable....like under your chin...worse than useless for those of us who wish to upgrade from the pathetic attempts by husqvarna to supply a climbing helmet ... Comeon Petzl, sort us out±±±

of interest here is the dynamic whereby space is recharged..... Clearly this is not an issue above ground unless physical restraints impede growth patterns but underground this is a different story. If you can picture the scenario, continual incremental growth on the undersides would, and can infact, gradually lift a tree from its setting, literally picking itself up.....Its got to go somewhere! A continual removal of dead material and its digestion by fungi is essential to maintain a soilroot environment that is both fertile and able to accommodate an expansive mass " growing" whilst maintaining an equilibrium ( I allude to compaction here....)

I think Tony posted re: stats from the HSE....If I remember right, it is a recent thing...supposing to inform policy....We dont stand a chance what with them jus cottonin' on so to speak...Just dont imagine HSe will drive sensible policy for a while yet!! So that thread of horific looking arm maiming was way back then eh Jason...and I was gonna ask how your arm was healing up!!!

I thought that..but didnt want to say owt:closedeyes:.....rude awakening??

Now I look like a numpty...cheers Tony... YES ,I know the link is working thank-you!

Yeah...I have issue with this concept also...believing as I did that forces acting against cell division in quite a very local dynamic were responsible for the asymmetric coss section associated with roots..... Additionally however, looking at the diagrammatic profiles offered by Andrew , I cant see the system beyond a certain point. Shigo tells us ( bless him) that the "rams horns" as he coined them, rarely grow together...a compression fork( fork is not the right word here) is then formed....I also dont believe the buttress can be as strong once the transverse section has become shallow in the way suggested.... These processes are undoubtedly observable in tree root systems but remain something of a contradiction in terms.....except I suppose that the footprint is enlarged and as far as the root profiles continue, there is no real change....renewal....! ( Also replacement as the tap root is no longer active or present presumably) But contradictions appear elsewhere also...the buttress, as it becomes the flare, these too can become eccentric and no new wood is formed successionally between them.....curious.

2nd link not working......

This would depend I think Im right in saying on the species and age of the roots in question...if you mean "should they?" This is because sapwood is converted to heartwood ( whu) at varying timescales related to species....oak is suggested 20-30 yrs...not a very concise answer but to a complex question in some ways.....? And seeings as how I've piped up again already when I just know I'd be better off reading and digesting at this point.... Are you suggesting that the mechanical models popularized by Mattheck , Smiley & Coder re stabilty are incompatible with assessment or are there other issues to do with root function/fungal lifecycles that render the models unreliable? Tim.

Nice one.....

It is very hard indeed to play the wood farmer in the uk these days I'm afraid....The only oak farmer I know sources all stock from France...It seems to be a capacity thing where competition is fierce.the key must be in finding a niche for the wood production...rebranding a product so restructuring its comparative value....?

(or wherever the forces run at that particular situation)? As you correctly point out, the compound rigging dynamic has enabled you concerntrate values....which is why rigging is so interesting...or perhaps why peoples common misconceptions about the forces and unknown " bucket chemistry" can lead to some frankly dodgy practices..... I frequently find myself taking wrong turns... Essentially, as long as the values you are using in the equations are input correctly then optimisation becomes a process of compromise...as it is clearly more effective to achieve a goal going a-b...but not necessarily desirable.....If you set out to spread loads as efficiently as poss, then this will be true as you apply mech advantage...I think! at leasttheir value is known, so adjustments can be made to fine tune a set-up..... It is faintly ridiculous to think that whilst applying green log weights to a system, calculating loads/forces whu, we essentially load a system on a grcs eg, introducing unknown values about an access of unknown static resistance/capacity....scary huh...at least it should be!!!

ok...Optimisation is the key here...

You seem confused as to whether you need to safe guard against wood( tree ) failure because it is an unknown quantity or your gear... Gear= the only value you can take away with you & know to what extent U have used your eqpt Tree failure could result in damage &/or injury upon failure....right. To answer your question..weight is not the issue again, here, it is force ( ft/lbs )...yeah..? Curently reading Ken James papers on Mass damping......the forces involved to breaking point are of interest to arborists by way of understanding the dissipation of energy within crown mass and harmonic frequencies re: failure.

Thats mech adv'...and weak spot....touche