Albedo

I've got the same thing with numbers, don't know why I picked on that particular thing. I'm just a bit bored at the moment as I'm using the cold spell to rest all my rips and tears. So I'm not dragging my tired old frame up trees at the moment. So its me that should be saying sorry really. For the derail of the thread too:001_smile:

Hi Tom Please don't think I'm picking on you, and there's nothing more hated on the internet than the spelling police but you keep writing 'dident' It might help if I take you through it step by step. Dident is short for 'did not' so if you want to shorten it the apostrophe replaces the 'o' so it becomes 'didn't'. I make at least one spelling mistake in every post I make, and I'm sure there will be mistakes in this post. But if nobody helps you don't improve. If you take this the way it's intended you'll make other mistakes, but you won't do dident again. All the best mate - Paul

My Spanish cat was half way through the PETS passport scheme when I brought him back from Spain and he had to do 3 months quarantine. The most expensive bit was the approved customs van that picked him up from me at port of entry and took him to Kennels 300 miles away in Cheshire. It cost about a grand in all. He was due to cost another grand to get him to NZ but that fell through in the end and he didn't go. We spend our money on what is important to us. There is no amount of money that will seperate me from my cat or you from your dog. Good on you mate:thumbup1:

In New Zealand I saw little Isuzu trucks piled high with logs, literally to the point of falling off, parked by the side of the road. There would be a sign saying $180 for this load (currently about 2.2 dollars to the pound). I have no idea of the volume of such a load but it looked liked a pretty good deal to me. Quite often its seasoned Macrocarpa by the way.

Having taken on board all the different views expressed , I see nothing wrong with selling by the load as long as the customer is happy. Where a volume is specified, however I believe that if its sold loose, the customer should be made aware of the final stacked volume. There is air in the stacked volume, but less than in the loose volume. The only way to make a stacked cube free of air would be to sell a solid lump. If people want less or more than a cube, or if they want it in imperial or by number of logs, or by some method that I have not listed, then this is just a matter of maths for each individual to work out for themselves. My original intent was not so much to insist on a cube being the standard, but to ensure that the customer gets as close to the specified amount of wood as is possible. My measured cube was intended as an example of one way of achieving this.

Hi Peckerwoo, I would be very interested in your views on the stuff outlined below as you are the most informed person on this matter that I have ever been able to ask. I appreciate that weather is what happens on a day to day basis and that climate is longer term and have chipped the question out of stone a bit, as you will know this stuff but others may not. It has long been predicted by climate change scientists that we may lose the Gulf Stream due to the effect on major ocean currents of melting ice caps. They have said that if this were to happen, that we could be plunged into Canadian type winters as we are on roughly the same latitude as them. It is for this reason (and other cold related effects around the world) that climate scientists prefer the term ‘Climate Change’ to ‘Global Warming’. It is a popularly held view that these cold winters we have been having make a nonsense of ‘climate change theory’. I would advance the view that these and other extreme events could actually back up and validate ‘climate change theory’ even though there is no evidence that we have as yet lost the Gulf Stream. So my question is…. Would the loss of the Gulf Stream have this effect? And perhaps .. Do you have a view on whether this is likely? I don’t want to derail your thread into a general debate about climate change so whilst I would be very interested to have your view on this, I would respectfully ask other members not to go off on a general climate change denial or acceptance theme. It is for this reason that I am asking this specific question here and NOT starting a climate change thread, as you mention the Gulf Stream in your original post. Best Regards Paul

I don't know mate, I could guess, but if there's one thing I've learned in three years on this forum, its not to answer what can be 'leading questions'. Not that yours is, but i have no way of knowing where its going:001_smile: I appreciate that its harder to get a measure if thrown in loose and that a drawn line on the greedy boards might be different every time and end up looking like something by Salvador Dali:001_smile:

While I have posted the above picture and having clearly failed in ending the what is a cubic metre of firewood conundrum, which was my original intent.... Can I highlight a couple of inovations on my truck of which i am rather proud. Note the window for reversing the chipper in, which neatly closes shut for chipping into. This works as you arrive empty and reverse, then leave forwards in most cases:001_smile: The other inovation is the split hose pipe on the greedy boards, which slows water down a bit and makes them last longer. They are now three years old and just beginning to get a bit shabby.

Here's a load on my truck, 2m wide 0.5m high and 1m deep. I appreciate that not everyone has the time to stack like this, I don't do a lot of firewood:001_smile:

Thanks Mark. I didn't expect such a hostile response as I got and was about to write that I perhaps worded the title very badly and invited some heckles rising.

How much sugar is there in a pound of sugar?

A cube of firewood: The client does not care about the size of a loosely stacked pile of wood, he wants a cubic metre of wood when stacked in his pile. This to me is a fair assessment of what a cube of firewood should be. A good way to deliver this is to stack a pile of split wood in your yard until it measures 1 cubic metre square. Throw this wood into your truck and draw a line with a marker pen around your pile. Or throw it into builders bags and see if it is 1.5 bags or whatever. What I did with my LDV is draw a line up the greedy boards and mark of a height which worked out as a cubic metre. I stack the front row neatly and infill behind to the mark I made when I threw in a measured cube. Then for ever more fill to the line in the safe knowledge that your customer is getting 1 cubic metre of wood . If I bought wood off you guys by the cubic metre and didn’t get a cubic metre when stacked, I would not come back for more. There are variations on this but you can work it out for yourself – fill your vessel, be it a truck or a bag, then stack that amount and measure it. If all of you firewood people devised a similar way of ensuring that when your clients buy a cube of wood, they actually get a cube of wood there would be no need for any more ‘size of builders bag’ threads on arbtalk…… what a happy thought:001_smile:

For me this pic demonstrates how the pattern is formed. The lichen at top centre is radiating out in a circular pattern and when two of these meet they form a straightish line. The lead tips meet, then the ones next to them and so on. The black dots (and this is just a guess based on looking at this pick) could be another form of lichen which is able to colonise the borders which is the only remaining site for it, where a small amount of light would be available. It seems to like living on these borders as it doesn’t take advantage of the empty space available to it, suggesting that there is a relationship going on of some kind. I think this pick is quite good evidence that its not snails because it shows the lichen at different stages. I do have a picture somewhere of a snail eating a fungal fruiting body and I’m sure they graze lichen too. Just saying its not a bad theory, but the photo evidence is against it.

A little reading tells me that lichens take most of their nutrients from the air and moisture around them and that they photosynthesise, so they grow in wet and light conditions and not so much when dry and dark. So based on this limited knowledge I am going to hazard that the colouring may be down to the growth stage of the lichen. The compartments with dark boundaries are a mystery, could this be individual 'plant' boundries. The flaking can't be seen closely and may just be these dark boundries. Here's a close up I found somewhere of lichen on ash, perhaps, Monkey D could use his renowned drawing on photos skills to add a snail:001_smile:

I blew the original image up in size last night but there ainty enough pixy dots in it to see anything. Bundles link didn't go anywhere picture wise either.

I think they would work on canvas as with a mat finish they look like they are sort of painted. The third one would be my favourite. I like the way that you experiment as thats the only way you find out if something will work or not. I think your perseverance is paying off and you are getting some really good results across the board and that you have a good comination of talent and hard work:thumbup1:

Don't forget that in the snow you can end up with blues and yellows and unatural snow colours. You can just set your camera to 'snow' in scene mode or spot meter the white balance to the scene itself in manual white balance. I might dig up a link on this if folk are interested, or someone that understands it better might come along and explain.

I nearly didn't post the leaf one so glad it was liked. It was natural sunlight on an autumn morning. This is a canvas I had printed of one of my efforts playing around with indoor reflection stuff.

When I worked on the buildings in Spain, one of the German brickies, would come in occasionally and declare it 'Save the hands day' and dish out the E45 for our hands which would be cracked and bleeding from the cement. He found it amusing to dish out kiddies sticky plasters that had teddy bears and the like on them too (not a bad sense of humour for a German).

I get your point now Bundle. It says somewhere in the credits that this research has guided the new British Standard. If it - the standard - ever appears (or has appeared) it will be interesting to see the advice that ends up in there.

After the big bit that you quoted Bundle which sort of says ... for the 1% that might be a problem, which we have no way of telling anyway... blah blah It goes on to say... "The aim of this project was to improve the understanding of how isolated amenity trees use water,and to determine whether reduction in canopy leaf area and root-restriction are sustainable ways to control growth and reduce water uptake from soil". This thread has some of the arbtalk big guns in it and I'm cackking it here:001_smile: but isn't the whole point of this research an attempt to address the statistics and problems etc outlined in its own preamble? Whether it has suceeded in this or not, I'm not sure, but it is without doubt a bloody good effort. edit: the last bit of this post is not a challenge or anything, more of a what do you think question type thing

According to the research posted by Ben, which is very well carried out and states all its methods etc. For managed reduction etc to be effective in stabilising soil moisture content, as Ben pointed out the initial reduction has to be significantly greater than 50% i.e the 70 to 90% quoted - much more than I would have thought - then it goes on to say 'To ensure a continued decrease in canopy leaf area and maximise the period of soil moisture conservation, crown reductions should be repeated on a regular managed cycle with an interval based on monitoring re-growth'. So reduction and management appears to be acceptable, but the initial reduction is pretty heavy. Just add here that knowing how tricky it is to judge tone and intent by the written word, my tone is just enquiring and learning is my intent. I am very happy to be wrong and have no axe to grind. The report says a lot of other stuff too and others may interpret its findings differently to me:001_smile:

That is a steamingly good link, what a fine bit of research. Its even influenced the new British Standard and made a lot of people including the AA sit up and take notice. I haven't had time to fully study it but the bit you quoted does seem to be the important bit. If you reduce by less than this the leaf area is recovered after one or two growing seasons depending on species. It also backs up what Lee was saying. I avoid mature trees on clay soils near buildings anyway, but will read this properly when I've got a bit more time. Thanks for posting:thumbup1:

Thanks for the thoughtful response Lee, some stuff to ponder, we have a lot of clay soils around here and in the final analysis it is indeed my arse that most concerns me:001_smile:

Thanks for elaborating on the shrub thing lee, that makes sense. Tree biology next. I would have thought that a reduced tree with less foliage would remove less water by evapotranspiration. And does your comment on tree law mean that we are immune from claims arising from the removal of trees on clay soils causing heave? All with due respect, I know you know what your'e talking about:001_smile: