Pete Bannister

Steve, would it not be more fair to remove the posts that offend, rather than the whole thread?

Must be the change in the weather! I posted a comment last week on an earlier video from Dadio. I knew my post would provoke comment. I had expected my reasoning to be questioned..fine..that's what an open forum is for. Was genuinely suprised at some of the response; and I note the thread I started was removed (?) Good to see that Im not alone in recognising that variety can add value. Still, some here will be pleased to know that I cant find my engineering calculator right now! Thanks for video.

Matty, I accept your safety first premise. Its a very good principle. I couldn’t fully assess the condition of that stem from the movie; who could? and the calcs can’t do that either. That's best done hands-on, by an experienced Arborist, and even then, there might be major unknown factors. So I agree with you on that The thing is, I don’t think the landing of that stem was a fluke. Maybe it was foolhardy..but I’m not trying to argue that point. I took exception to some of the posts because they hadn’t taken on board all of the judgements that had clearly been taken by the man on the ground cheers

Skyhuck, you may well be right about the easy and speed issue. But the movie wasn’t really trying to demonstrate ease or speed...or safety for that matter If the rope broke at its design capacity, yes I agree, big twang! and you wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end. But the point I was making was that it couldn’t have been loaded anywhere near its max capacity and I think Mr Murphy knew that. There was safety factor of at least about 7x that's pretty good in engineering terms. cheers

Matty, I think you are absolutely right when you say there's many factors to consider. But I don’t know if there were too many factors. Mr Murphy was there and I wasn’t so all I can do is go off what I can see in his movie. I don’t have your experience and so have looked at the job from my experience in structures. Its a different perspective and maybe the American perspective is different too. Doesn’t necessarily make it wrong. That was my point. Cheers

This is a belated response to the closed thread ‘Dadio throws a big top’ posted 05-09-11. I‘ve considered the posted criticisms of the techniques used in the movie from an engineering perspective, using structural mechanics as a guide. Seems to me that several of the hurried criticisms don’t stand up to much scrutiny at all. Whereas, if one takes the time to absorb the content of the movie and all information the maker clearly provided, the mechanics can be analysed using basic structural mechanics and a basic knowledge of rigging The geometry of the stem and the cuts (the hinge and the step) are all clearly there at the end of the movie and the text. Looking at the images, I have estimated the position of the hinge and I’ve also estimated the distance between the hinge and the pull line anchor point as maybe 6m (20’) from the fact that the stem above the cut is stated as 40’ I’ve estimated the offset (step cut) will provide a theoretical resistance of about 2kN (cleavage resistance) before the hinge starts to load. That’s the ‘safety valve’ preventing a barber’s chair (that’s my assumption anyway). This was a major issue for some Arbtalkers The moment of resistance of the hinge wood can be calculated given the information in the movie. Admittedly, some engineering knowledge is a grasp of maths is required here. A basic cantilever calculation can then be applied to find the approximate load required to make the hinge yield. That’s the maximum force that could develop in the pull line because above that, the hinge will fail. Do the calcs as I have and you will find the hinge provides a moment of resistance (to rupture in bending ) of not more than 30kNm. So, with a lever arm of 6 m it will take a force of 5kN to break the hinge. That’s the theoretical max possible force in the pull line and I’ve probably conservatively estimated the moment of the hinge wood (I’ve used 80 N/mm 2 as the modulus of rupture which is probably high). That’s well within the permissible stress for the line. Dadio also gives information about the pull line ‘True Blue’ and clearly knows something of its properties. Its manufacturer states a breaking strength of about 32.3kN (I’ve assumed it was 12mm) There has been a statement that this line could have been dangerous if it had snapped: well if it were steel then maybe. But it’s not; look at the rope manufacturer’s published data on its elastic properties. There might have been a danger to the cameraman from the block catapulting towards him but is it not possible that the cameraman was out of range? Dadio discusses the size of the notch and the vectors evolved as the stem is pulled. No calculations needed really; you can see his assumptions were broadly correct: the stem landed where he engineered it to land! So what have I learned from this exercise? 1. Absorb all of the information available before proceeding to criticise. I know its a hazard of instantaneous communication, but ignorance is still no excuse 2. Just because a technique is unfamiliar does not necessarily make it unsound 3. Conversely, those who may believe that because they have ‘always done it like this’ they are necessarily always correct, should perhaps reflect on the principal at 2 above 4. Having raised my head above the parapet I should now expect to receive incoming fire!

Gerrit 1. Understood, thank you ... 2. In woodland/ forest environments surely you find evidence of similar habits amongst saprotrophic fungi?

Hama, well its a bonus to find something pretty every now and again! But I'm not sure it entirely repays the utter toil of crawling around the roof voids and subfloors of filthy buildings Much rather be in the woods or up a tree any day..

1. Gerrit: I knew I should have examined it properly (microscopically) but I didn't. So sorry I cant answer that. How is the difference significant? 2 Yes, I’m familiar with the work of Jennings et al. on hyphal water transport. However, I’m not convinced that the 'foraging' tendency observed in S.Lacryman is unique to it. I think it is a common habit amongst 'necrotrophic' fungi

Hi Gerrit, many thanks for your opinion. I also thought A. seriallis from the mycelium but the FB can't be? The yellowish brown exudation (guttation) is striking and interesting. I’ve seen if before with Antrodia but I don’t understand why the mycelium 'needs' to do this. Confusion with condensate droplets is of course very easy. I think it’s very difficult indeed to say with certainty that this is guttation and not condensate (dew)

Sloth, Yes I was impressed too(but then Im odd like that.) The building owner (a county council) and its several hundred users were probably less impressed as the outcome was demolition of the buildings! Just too many faults to make repair viable..

I couldn’t agree more:thumbup1: That is perhaps the best example of utter cr#p journalism I’ve seen in a long time. Can always rely on the Mail for that I guess. She was jailed for contempt of court: its rightly a serious offence and those individuals convicted rarely escape a jail sentence. Bear in mind that to be in contempt you have first been 'warned off' a course of action by the court

Here's a few pretty pics from my man-made woodland collection. I thought Antrodia spp. probably A. xantha ?? I’ve mislaid the FB I collected and I did'nt really study it properly so its my best guess at the ID. Its about 150 mm diameter Interesting pendulous mycelium formations. All from extremely humid (unventilated) sub- floors in recently built and occupied timber- framed building built on poorly drained ground in North West England on the edge of urban/rural development. All European processed conifer and manufactured composites (OSB). These photos were taken mid -summer last year.

Gerrit, ahh. I see what you mean now. Many thanks.

Gerrit, many thanks for your valued comments. I didnt know about the nomenclature so thanks. 'Coniferous dead wood' I know a little about but I would welcome elaboration on what you mean by 'free range' in this context? and its significance 4/5 Yes. Good observation. The development of the C.marmorata was probably rapidly arrested when someone put a roof back on the building! The host timber moisture content being well below fibre saturation point when I took those photos. Ive only ever found it inside buildings

Just to be different: 1,2& 3 my 'woodland' workplace this week..Paxillus panuoides? on processed softwoods within a very wet 19th century building. Central Scotland 4 & 5: last week: 19th Century building central Lancashire Coniophora marmarata(?) on substrate over decayed Pinus sylvestris structure

Yes, fascinating stuff. Check out what Trichoderma spp. does to S lacrymans.

1.Me too, but almost always associated with masonry or plaster. 2. Ah yes, I thought so, and off course you are correct Gerrit; the ID is more often than not entirely 'academic' (OK 'fanatical') However, it is occasionally mis-identified by building surveyors etc. as S.Lacrymans, so I earn my wages on those occasions! 3. I think A ochroleucum most likely. I didnt take a sample for micro. Pity, as the shape of the mycelium is exceptionally beautiful Tony..check this one out microscopically if you get a sample

Great photos Tony: thanks. Its exceptionally rare to find such fresh sporophores of Coniophora in buildings. I think Gerrit is very probably right on the spp. What a good call. I'd agree about the difficulty speciation. As I recall, there is visual difference in the morphology and colour of the spores of C. arida, C. puteana and C. olivacea Here's one that 'got away'. Found in a very wet 19 century Chapel in N.Wales couple of years ago. I dismissed it as Asterostroma spp at the time, but not so sure when I look back

Not down that neck of the woods often; but will surely give you a shout if and when. Maybe you'de like to see one of our Rothounds at work?

Interesting question. I think this is analogous to rock climbing on public land. Climbers (of rock that is) have over the years taken care to negotiate access to climbing crags. Any hint of a risk of damage to property or to third parties and hard won concessions may be lost forever. Although rec tree climbing is far safer for climbers than trad rock climbing is for climbers, climbing trees in public places probably engenders more risk of damage to the trees and to third parties than rock climbing does. So you're probably unlikely to receive permission! However, don't let that stop you finding out. Do rec tree climbers carry third party insurance? That might make all the difference to an owner

Tony. I not only owe my livelihood to S. lacrymans but I also owe my happy marriage to this wonderful fungus. My wife had a house with active dry rot; she's a medical micro-biologist with a specialist interest in fungi. I was experimenting with non-chemical means of treating dry rot fungus in building material. Thats how we met and that was our first interest in common. well apart from sex that is..twenty years on and hey.. were still both really interested in fungi..ha ha

Thats very true Gerit; about fruiting ..we can often tell folk that when they see fruiting its a good sign..the worst is over and if you still have a floor to stand on; well praise be. I do like your Dutch common names, wonderfully descriptive Tony, I too admire S.lacrymans..its provided me with a living for best party of 25 yrs! so not all bad. In my experience Ive come to understand that S. lacrymans is more often a psychological problem for the owners and occupants of buildings than it is a physical problem. The physical issue are actually not difficult to cope with. Its no more of a problem than ‘athlete’s foot’ not really a fungal problem but a footwear problem A very wise man told that decay organisms (building pathogens) such as dry rot fungus are telling us something about the building..the fungus is a symptom of the real problem and not a cause. When you are responsible for public safety, for major expense and for potential claims in law, its easy to over-react to fungal decay in buildings. However, experience shows that little is often required to tip the balance away from the fungus. This is analogous to some of the situation you encounter in living systems, and has been so well elucidated on this site. For me its easier though, Im only dealing with one living thing; the fungus ( that is, if you don’t count the client! )

Hi Gerit, Ive been enjoying your posts on this site. Thanks for your comments and superb photos re 'domesticated rots'. I too don’t believe Iv’e ever found S. lacrymans in the woods. However, I spend very little time in conifer forest, so maybe that's why! Others have reported it in conifer forest ( Bech-Andersen)but I think it’s either extremely rare or not verified. It’s interesting that you say S. himantiodes doesn’t occur in buildings; earlier this year I came across a viable FB which at first I thought to be S. lacrymans but on close examination I came to the view that it was more likely S. himantioides because I could detect no gelatinous layer in the trama. Otherwise it looked like lacrymans!) We find Phellinus contiguus quite frequently on exterior joinery products here in the UK. I’ve spent most of my working life looking for and at fungi in buildings (sad but true). One quickly develops a sense for the type of habitat favoured. S. lacrymans is widespread and very common : so it is fascinating to me to come across a northern European manmade habitat ( 19th century building in the Outer Hebrides) where it should be present but is reportedly not found. I should have found S lacrymans but mostly found C arida . Even our search dog (trained to detect S. Lacrymans) struck out and that is very unusual. I have been thinking that C arida (photos 2 &3) is outcompeting S lacrymans in this building regards Pete Bannister H+R Environmental Investigation Ltd.

Rob, nice photos thanks. I should start a new thread so my appols but.. Nooie, interested to hear you're on the Outer Hebrides. I was on Lewis a couple of weeks ago looking a various Coniophora species ( mostly arida) in 19 century buildings. Over the past decade I have visited Lewis looking at structural damage in building timbers. On this last visit I heard a 'legend' that there's no 'dry rot' fungus (Serpula lacrymans) in the buildings on Lewis, and not being able to see why there shouldn’t be any dry rot there, I looked back at our few surveys. Interestingly and unusually I found no positive i.d.s for dry rot (these are done in the field often without FB's). I’ve 25yrs experience of investigating and repairing timber decay in historic buildings and structures in the British Isles and this 'legend' is intriguing. So...nooie do you know of anyone on Lewis or elsewhere in OH you has come across 'dry rot' fungus and especially if they took any photos! Gerrit I would be very interested if you have any comment here.. many thanks Pete Bannister