Bundle 2

That ISBN number is not valid...... Try this .......ISBN: 9780198549321

x2

...I am no scholar and like nothing better than to shoot the breeze and get a little bent out of scientific shape and accuracy, reaching for a madness so readily quashed by the pages of books and logic! Probably plain laziness! Wise words....(it would often serve to tether me donkey to a mulberry as a precaution ! ) I would like to take up a point in an earlier exchange however...I do not seek to undermine what has been said but simply challenge before we reach for the simplified... Breckland has been discovered to have a biodiversity that owes it's singular existence to agricultural practices. Of surprising complexity and individuality, without the practices of agriculture being sustained, it would simply dwindle and expire...according to the text. (ref: Concrete....Nov 2010) There are many surprises in nature it would seem....rules only obscure and dilute the will of an enquiring mind!

I used to paint the flying pigs for Pink Floyd mate....did n't convince me that pigs can fly though! It is a leap of evidence is all. And I guess funding for research Phd's and such is necessarily connected to usefulness. For me...the fact we do not know so much and a track record of unwitting blundering is reason enough to court caution in these things...proof though it isnt. Interesting excerpt btw!

Planning Portal - Cautious welcome for Localism Bill but questions on detail

Its all good and well for the current coalition govt totake this approach. It may well work. This idea of handing the power to the littlepeople may make more sense from a planning standpoint? Just cos I's a cynnical ol' git though....since when did governments start handing self determining powers to the electorate? And who., might I ask. is going to pay for all this development cos it sure as 'ell aint the govt.....? I reckon they want something for nothing me! The flip side to this is the obvious "austerity" we have seen discussed and debated in this very forum with some sentiments clearly expressing strong feelings from time to time! Less money around and more charges...not just professionals ( and I might add, I would not be surprised to see arbs bottom if not out for fiscal reasons)- Councils are currently consulting as to the nature, if any, of proposed tariffs for planning apps etc... I think we may see ecologists and landscape architects doing AIA/EIA's and BS5837....(or worse still, a complete failure to adequately monitor building developments....) I sincerely hope not...but this bottom up, top down bollox is political posturing and serves the semantic whip long before it has any real substance.. New politics my arse.......I wont go on!

Planning Portal - Localism Bill extends Community Right to Build across England

As it relates to the first part of your post Judge, I have just come from a update review of, amongst other issues planning related, the so called "consolidation" of secondary statements pertaining the TPO regs....( the proposed streamlining to thee & me!) I have to confess, despite having at first come down in favour of the exemptions ( now exceptions...semantic tosh imo..but what do I know? ) being refined to omit "dying" as 1 in 3 as we know it currently....It is important to realise that the OMISSION is the actual change. If Neville thinks he can rally support for some sort of travesty in legislation oversight, the dead already sits there in B&W as one of the three. Nothing new there . First let it be said that no primary legislation can be actioned from this review. It simply remains beyond the scope of the proposals. That said....whilst all this talk of streamlining workloads and bureaucratic red tape might seem to be the talk to tantalise our hopes...I wish in all I heard today, there could have been some kind of quantified appraisal as to the real measure of this particular refinement on the ground. Frankly, there remain more reasons to deny this refinement a flying permit as it serves what purpose(?) And yet....the deadwood habitat issue is as important and pressing as ever it was. The proposals are not nearly what is needed...I would have to agree! I would suggest that blocking the change to deny removal of dying is not worthwhile. I can see that many a misunderstanding may be avoided infact....Discussion as to deadwood habitat value is not the same issue atall. Its hard to see quite what point is being made in this post. Look to EU directives re: biodiversity if you wanna stick one on "big society " politics...I wouldnt blame you...I didn't vote for them...but then.....can any of us really say we did? And even now, we arn't getting what it said on the tin! People have until Monday 20 Dec to reply to the online consultation....Do it online.

You need to keep the file extension David...example: Renamed pic 1.jpg Make sure the jpg is in place and we will all see what you see! Magic!

Sweet ! (I like the annotation technique too.... )

Can not believe I can be arsed to reply to this post but really....what alot of bollox mate !

I'd politely rattle the LA's cage and get a heads up !

Sign up for digital newsletter.....A useful site. Planning Portal - The UK Government's online planning and building regulations resource

"Sitch" from (Picea) sitchensis aka Sitka ? Bruce from Spruce...?

Template is the way to go. The real test is in whether the woman who commissioned the inspection can understand a ten page stream of consciousness from an arborist, or even want to! As long as she gets what you deem necessary action in your conclusion, and the associated costs re: various options (if incl) Id say that's alls needed? The point about having the template ..it enables you to file the survey for future reference and such. No need for ten pages! Ill take a punt on your not having done your PTI with Treelife ! Tim Nice work, if you can get it btw....

Must have been a shed load....and a reasonably high profile tree..!

Cos its a matter of gearing frankly...And everytime you alter the length of your bar....it must necessarily run past the wood (chips per second!) slower. ( unless you alter power output by changing the saw perhaps) So..get a smaller bar! When you have bust your balls in the woods for a while you learn....short bar good (light)/ long bar = hit the dirt I gotta to timeout and sharpen it ! oh...And straighten my back awhile...... At the end of the day....you could disappear into the darkness you show the pan everyday in an effort to perfect a system...but why chuck out excellent in pursuit of perfect?

Nothing to do with gearing...its all relative to the system anyway being a closed loop I reckon. My theory is this....... The rivets are larger to allow for increased strength. This could be achieved by increasing guage but we dont want to cut a wide hole, we wanna cut down. Guage is not then the first choice for strength in this application. The rivet diameters are increased so as to improve tensile strength. This is a feature of the design. It requires a corresponding increase in pitch. Simples! Ive never actually measured rivet dimensions on cutting chain. I know motorcycle chain works this way. I also know the pitch of the sprockets must match...hence my assertion that gearing is not an issue of pitch, at least, not in of itself. But one of diameter (OD) of the sprocket. We count this in number of teeth because we can assume a given pitch..... Here's a little something to crash your grey matter with when you get a spare moment! Some may find it interesting......? Gearing Commander: Motorcycle Gear Ratio Calculator for Sprockets RPM Speed Chain

A few others describing the adaptive growth on the uphill side of what is actually,a steeper slope than the images portray! Tree's in a built up suburban area of Norwich.

The following images are of a Beech that is situated on a slope facing E/SE...Extensive groundworks are the cause of this change in levels. Impressive adaptations. The "traffic cone" model is as one piece of wood on the downhill side. This theme seems to repeat on downhill aspects of exposed root systems. First is to put the tree in context. The rest are taken showing the lower side. The last, a side view.

Good question Rob....Looks like a rather impressive heap of frass ! Frass - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Prey tell Tony, mate!

Here is what I hope will be a much closer view of the bark of the same tree...See what you's think!

OMG....Poor man!

I have not which is poor..... They are worthy of this thread for sure...I feel a visit coming on. Some of the most impressive beech for sure! Tim

oh....if those invertebrate species we count against a tree species are in anyway co-dependant with those we do not score as linked to one specific tree species; in this case we are discussing beech (& oak)- ( I am not sure what the exact criteria are here as it goes!) or the lifecycles crossover ( habitat creation incl wood substrate conversion either food stuff or density/oxygen/water content etc...in fact, the realm of combinations is considerable) I might take issue with the allocating of species with host.....Dont forget though that the data I set out in an earlier post does not make a point of describing invertebrate species that occur in both (or numerous) species. Im not too good at explaining I fear. Essentially, one species could prove pivotal in the lifecycles of species the number of which is greater than one....Perhaps we should describe this as a "weak link" but this is because of the fragility of niche conditions + the dependence of species (greater than one). Why I say disproportionate....Its theory based more on the logic of our discussion than anything.