.jpg.e78d23f57b029caf0a7282c8ab545f75.jpg)
scotspine1
-
Posts
3,899 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
14
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Classifieds
Tip Site Directory
Blogs
Articles
News
Arborist Reviews
Arbtalk Knot Guide
Gallery
Store
Freelancers directory
Everything posted by scotspine1
-
The reason we "quote" and not fix the price
scotspine1 replied to Dean Lofthouse's topic in Picture Forum
It's a called a pedestal Dean, have seen that before on a similar sized conifer we removed, got pics of that job somewhere, might try and dig them out sometime. A pic of the Dunkeld Pedestal Larch near Perth -
do you have any pics of the tree and it's surrounding situation? targets, hazards, obstacles etc If your concerned about lowering then rig small and spread the load thoughout the crown using two pulleys, letting everything run to the ground (where possible). If the base is suspected weak DO NOT remove one side of the crown in it's entirety in one go, remove the tree in sections keeping the crown balanced as you go, having two pulleys will allow you to remove a branch from one side using the pulley/block on that side then switch to lowering with the other pulley on the other side of the tree and so on and so forth. This way your not putting too much pressure on one side of the root plate....your keeping the tree almost perfecty balanced as the crown is dismantled.
-
both.
-
Remember DbRT is essentially SRT, just that the single rope is doubled over the anchor point, we've been doing it for years. IRATA?..... Those clowns anchor into rusty bits of metal and loose gutters, no wonder they need two ropes.
-
been using hitches on SRT for 15 years, choking the flipline on a side leaning stem when blocking down, switch the hitch to my centre D, have the bight of the flipline at the topside of the lean (it only works one way, like parbuckling a big log). Would need to show in a pic, but its a fairly common thing to do, most people will have seen it, it works very well for finding a safe work position to make your cut (usually the directional notch as your having to lean round the leaning stem to make this cut, working from the centre D with a choked flipline allows for this). You have to make sure the hitch is rock solid though, I mean tied tighter than usual.
-
last one.....promise [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-WJO0YQLOs]Billy Connolly on Christians and Christian Rock - YouTube[/ame] Caution, Billy Connolly swears an incy wincy little bit in this
-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwooM4yhiiY]Connolly on religion - YouTube[/ame] caution, contains strong language, as you'd expect from Billy Connolly.
-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TSbALZPm6k&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL90083BD80D65BBB1]Billy Connolly on Prophets - YouTube[/ame] Be aware some swearing involved.
-
I once saw a strange glowing orange orb in the sky above Glasgow
-
you could try a xtc spilt tail instead of the Edilrid, of all the combinations I used when working off blakes it was XTC line with XTC split tails that was the best. Although the Edilrid is 13mm it wont have the same shape characteristics under load as the XTC. Other than that just try adjusting the blakes when its raining, could just be it needs slightly re-set/re-dressed - maybe the coils need wrapped tighter, this is probably all that's wrong.
-
yeah.......and their mothers, bright idea Big J
-
Worked on a blakes thousands of times in the rain, never had a problem with it. What rope are you using? are you just doing a basic 4 turn blakes? you could put and extra turn in the top for more friction. So 3 at the top then two at the base of the hitch.
-
By following a religion you place your mind in a prison.
-
For the record, I think the Ropewrench is a great idea, only started this thread to clear a few things up.
-
Most climbers in the UK climb with their own hitches and long may it stay that way.
-
Kevin, re CE marking - didn't mean selling as a kit, just tested with a friction hitch and micropulley/hitchclimber as you would use it on a single line. What Peter quoted probably cover things from an EU directive point of view? directive 89/686/EEC on Personal Protective Equipment 3.4 Equipment for climbing, rock climbing, speleology etc. (ice-axes, hammers, descenders not fitted with a built-in speed-regulating system, rope-climbing equipment, etc.) Category 0 (ie not PPE)
-
Hi Kevin, from your point of view was the Ropewrench purely designed as a descending device? like a figure 8? cause as Peter says this may help with what constitutes PPE and the European Directive side of things. As Peter and myself have pointed out the Directive can imply the Ropewrench is in fact PPE and not PPE. Just out of interest would you like it CE marked as part of a climbing system?
-
The Ropewrench is not just an descender though is it. As a Loler examiner my initial post was to find out if the Ropewrench would fall under Loler regs. I dont have a problem with the device, I like the idea of it. But on balance and regardless of the EU legislation it seems it should be examined as part of a Loler test as it could easily be argued it's more than just a climbing aid. Just out of interest - why would the industry not want this device to be CE tested? Why shouldn't we test the robustness of a new device or system? surely we owe it to ourselves to do this?
-
Not my style Carl. It's not up to me to call HSE, its the dealer's responsibility to ensure the equipment being sold meets the current industry legislation regarding PPE.
-
Regardless of the maker's warning 'Not for primary life support' explain how the Ropewrench would not fall into this category - 3. Any system placed on the market in conjunction with PPE for its connection to another external, additional device shall be regarded as an integral part of that equipment even if the system is not intended to be worn or held permanently by the user for the entire period of risk exposure.
-
Just found this - according to the relevant European Directive relating to PPE for climbing - 3. Any system placed on the market in conjunction with PPE for its connection to another external, additional device shall be regarded as an integral part of that equipment even if the system is not intended to be worn or held permanently by the user for the entire period of risk exposure. the Ropewrench should be classed as PPE, but isn't it CE Marked? Why are UK arb dealers selling a non CE Marked product which falls into the PPE category?
-
Would the Ropewrench fall into the category of PPE? or is it just a climbing aid similar to the idea a set of climbing spikes are a climbing aid - you wear them to aid you in your climbing but they dont fall within the category of PPE? What confuses things for me is the Ropewrench seems similar to a Figure 8 belay device, in that it is belaying (or adding friction to) the rope albeit in a different way. But a Figure 8 would be classed as PPE. Where does all this leave a Loler examiner when they see a Ropewrench in a climbing kit bag? cheers
-
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enzNmWHLGhY&feature=related]Fear is not reality - YouTube[/ame]
-
Atheism is so last week. Even the sound of it is boring. Seriously all you atheists........Atheism is the last move in a game set by believers, it's a condition defined by what it denies, it can only exist in a world full of believers, remove religion from the world and atheism becomes redundant. Its a redundant belief system. It's only notable for it's obvious emptyness.
-
With normal negative block rigging, you can at times put immense pressure on the stem of the tree, a few climbers have been killed rigging vertical sections because the stem had failed beneath them as the section of timber dropped into the block. with vertical speedlines there's minimal pressure on the stem/trunk of the tree, the rope running down the side of the stem is only acting as a guideline for the section and to stop the piece bouncing away from the tree into a house etc.
