Albedo

An optimum height for a pile is around 2.5 to 3m. When it gets much bigger than 3m the process doesn't work so efficiently. So your 3m is an optimum height rather than a minimum.

In a moment of madness I gene spliced a couple of them with an orange......Squirrel a l'orange kind of prepacked...but they escaped:001_smile:

In 100 years time we will all be a light shade of brown and the grey squirrels will probably be orange Nobody will give a damn:001_smile: Hundreds of thousands of Brit's go to Australia and introduce the winging gene to their population, tens of thousands of immigrants are re-introducing the working gene to ours.

No wuckers mate...I was torn on the link thing as it's long, So I'm guilty of not editing it to make a point.... But as you say I'm claiming 'not guilty' on the 'linkfest' thing:001_smile:

Strong cold winds can blow your brains out your ears which is bound to hurt. It helps if you have no brains like me....hope this helps:001_smile:

A random google from t'internet...enjoy:001_smile: Like many, I find it strange and disturbing that the language used to describe grey squirrels is so frequently filled with bile. Phrases usually reserved for society's most unpleasant elements – "marauding", "raiders", even "terrorists" – is somehow thought acceptable for these small, agile, exceptionally clever wild mammals. Have we become so distant from the natural world that we see other species doing no more than finding food and rearing young in a safe place as a threat? This may be true, but there are more selfish elements at play, too. There are many influential people who have a vested interest in demonising grey squirrels and demanding a nationwide cull (a term that hides the horrors reserved for squirrels – bleeding to death over many days after ingesting poison, being bludgeoned or trapped then shot). The voices shouting most loudly include those with forestry interests, supporters of field sports and gamekeepers, each of whom believes that killing grey squirrels can boost their businesses and save them a few pounds. And each seems to subscribe to the fallacious argument by assertion – that if something is said enough times it becomes true. It's the same with the belief that grey squirrels oust the red squirrels. The reality is that red squirrels suffered badly from deforestation, severe winters, disease epidemics and human persecution long before grey squirrels arrived in the UK. Despite their decline to near-extinction in the 18th century, hundreds of thousands of red squirrels continued to be killed for bounty right up until the 1930s. But fashions change and – thanks, perhaps, to nothing more than a children's book – Squirrel Nutkin is not only back in vogue but also fiercely protected, no matter the cost to other living beings. There is no doubt, however, that if red squirrel numbers were to grow rapidly they too would be killed for their impact on forestry and shooting interests. And the hateful language is spreading. Some, but by no means all, "conservationists" also demand the deaths of grey squirrels for no greater crime than adapting better than their red cousins to an ever-changing landscape. Despite mass building development, habitat destruction, climate change and pollution, grey squirrels have managed to find a niche and thrive. We should applaud their versatility. Killing them because they are doing well flies in the face of Darwinism: persecution of the fittest is wholly unnatural. Of course, true conservationists recognise that changing environments bring about shifts in wildlife patterns and numbers. They do not seek to impose their own whimsical, idealised version of how the countryside should look by doing away with the way it actually is. It's not surprising that squirrels irritate gardeners. They dig up freshly planted bulbs and then create holes in the lawn to rebury them. But it is only our control-freakery that makes us demand a specific plant in exactly the place we have put it. Can't we accept – as nature does – that unpredictable things can happen, and sometimes the self-set plant is more beautiful than any other in our perfectly sculptured backyard? It is the same drive to control everything that leads us to complain bitterly when a squirrel eats nuts she has found in our gardens! Since they are delicious and have been left within her reach, why would she not take them? It's a perfectly sensible thing to do. Quite simply, if we don't want squirrels in our gardens, we shouldn't entice them with bird feeders. Ah, but we want pretty little birds but no squirrels and, while we're at it, no big, squawking crows or magpies either, right? Well, that's tough, because the natural world is varied and beautiful, unpredictable and wild. We should cherish it and learn to live alongside these wonderful creatures. And, above all, we should be grateful for our wonderfully fascinating and incredibly benign wildlife. They have bears in Canada, you know.

I think it’s a good idea to shoot something and eat it, it’s natural and a cycle of life thing. In NZ most folk can shoot, and you can go get a deer or something out of your back yard in many cases with no licence for shooting the deer or anything. Others will grow a cow, then have someone qualified do the slaughter and butchering. My discomfort and I think Stumpgrinders’ discomfort is with the wanton killing of things, for fun, under the guise of “it’s a pest”. I think that Dean and foresters and the like are not doing this for fun, they are controlling a real problem in a humane manner. Perhaps this distinction should be the focus of the debate.

I believe homeless people are quite high in Nitrogen so adding them to the pile could work out well:001_smile: Edit: a mate of mine used to sleep in the pile when between squats, can't remember the name of the firm now but in SW London...it'll come to me later.

Regarding the extraction of heat and continued supply of heat we have a chicken and egg situation. It would help to understand exactly where the heat comes from as the bacteria don’t arrive after the heat… they produce it: “The rise in temperature in a composting mass is caused by thermophilic bacteria as they break down (Nitrogenous) material for food and use the nutrients gained for reproduction they release energy as heat.” “The bacteria, responsible for raising the temperature in the pile, feed on microorganisms found on high nitrogen organic materials so a C: N ratio of around 30:1 (high nitrogen) is recommended.” (Source is some old notes of mine) So if you maintain optimum conditions for the bacteria, the extraction of the heat they produce should not be a problem. The bacteria feed on high Nitrogen material and woodchip is high Carbon so you can feed them by adding green matter or manure. They need aeration (02) and moisture so turning the pile every couple of weeks will aerate it and cycle nutrients from the outside to the inside. You don’t want it too wet or you get anaerobic conditions, which is the end of your good bacteria. The idea of pipes under the pile extracting the heat along with the above maintenance of the pile to keep the bacteria going should work in theory. My guess is that it will slow down the composting as the bacteria will slow down a bit as a result of the heat extraction. This is fine as the goal is production of heat rather than production of compost.

I’ve worked with the type of Kiwi described here. Yes they are scary to look at, they are rough and ready. Even redneck, and maybe not the brightest of sparks. I’d certainly be careful using irony around them as they will take it literally. But they are not thugs, in that they don’t engage in wanton violence. They tend to burn with a long fuse, I know because I’ve tested one or two of them myself. You can work with these guys quite safely with no need to fear them in the way that you might fear a bunch of Milwall fans. The English thug will attack for no reason or very slight reason…These guys will never do that.

Damn...Thought I might get a knot named after me:001_smile: Must clean that blotch off the scanner now before I forget:001_smile:

Thanks Guys...Killick hitch rings a bell but I'm not 100% sure. Here's a crap sketch Rigging knot.pdf

I'm not going there mate, can't remember the way anyway:001_smile:

No worries mate...Any time:sneaky2: Edit : Sorry... missed your thank you on previous page...that's what I was hinting at...but not necessary:thumbup1:

I have a rigging question. You know when you are rigging a big lump and you use a half hitch with a timber hitch a couple of feet down. What's it called?...I can't remember...but would know it if I heard it:001_smile:

I just had a quick look at your vid Tuttle but didn't get through it. Just because it's not really an area of interest of mine as well as the fact that I don't like to get my science from utube. I like referenced sources. Most of the debates on here about environmental stuff are just a progression of links to vids or great long articles....I am a campaigner against this. Given my way I would ban internet links in forum discussion on environmental issues. I would insist that all posters edit their own links and post the salient points to back up their own argument. The link should just be a source of reference, which in turn has no value if it does not declare its source. I do find your own comments well informed, but am not a fan of the 'linkfest' that all environmental debates on here descend into.

I should leave this to Adam really. I still take wraps round a tree and use forks etc for the small amount of rigging I do these days. Sounds like you had it well under control and I'm liking your 'progressive snatching' In a pure snatch, I forgot to say, that not only does the groundy need good timing but the climber does too as he has to go through the rest of the hinge at precisely the same moment so that the branch just goes flying free in the direction you want. I haven't used it for a while but my first boss used to do it a lot about 20 years ago

So you were kinda lucky to get it clear then. I reckon I'd maybe prefer to snatch it with a very alert hefty groundy doing the snatchin. Does depend on the size of the branch and other factors. Possibly with your rigging in place but snatched as well...if that makes sense. Maybe even get the phone line down, as it can be expensive if you break it. But this is more of a rigging conundrum than an obvious safe alternative conundrum. For anyone who doesn't know what snatching is (or calls it something different) its when you have a line on it, so the groundy yanks it clear at the moment it starts to go the way you want.

It seems to me WW that it relied on the hinge holding for a while which is a bit hit and miss, unless you had built up confidence in the wood from previous cuts. I've done some dead eucs but can't remember, off hand, how well they held on the hinge. In trying to think of an alternative, other than the obvious MEWP etc....would it have been less of a gamble to have just 'Snatched' it. Still a gamble though.

By the way, your links in this thread are pure.. lost it mystic meg stuff, the one above is not worthy of a click. You were on the right track in the other threads. By on the right track...I don't mean you have to agree with me on proper environmental issues. You have a right to your opinion. At least you were looking at Cod Science internet links. Like I say...you need to read some books.

You didn’t do anything that bad Tony. It’s obvious from the last three threads you put up in a similar vein that you just became aware of some of these things. No harm in flagging up these issues, but not in the way that you’ve been doing it. You say things like we must all wake up to these things, when some of us have been aware of them for the last twenty years. I’ve been actively studying some of these things for twenty years so I can tell straight away where you are in your own understanding of them. Flag em up but without the drama, and the preachy stuff. You may like to start at the beginning yourself with Rachel Carson’s book ‘Silent Spring’ Use of really nasty chemicals in agriculture started, in earnest, after the Second World War and had catastrophic consequences. Rachel Carson, who was an eminent scientist, wrote a book about it first published in 1960. This is a seminal work widely regarded as an important precursor to all modern day environmental movements. You are on the right track with your threads relating to the food chain. In my view the greatest crimes of our time have been committed in this arena, and the general public are yet to wake up to it. This is far worse than climate change and does involve miss-use of GM. Which is not to say that GM is inherently bad. Monsanto is indeed a big bad boy in terms of use of agrochemicals, miss-use of GM technology, and sinister manipulation regarding control of the food chain. Feel free to bash them as much as you like.

Has it occured to you lot that the other species on this planet may not be here purely for our convenience. They may be in a queue waiting to take the helm after we have well and truly cocked up......we qualified in that department a long time ago. Food for thought...Vive La Fluffy Bunny

Good pics John...you have the eye and I don't say that lightly. You'll find AT's more chilled these days...everyone's being nice to each other for some reason:001_smile: Always good to have someone pop back in after a rest:thumbup1:

According to HCR's post....it seems that we may have left the Reds decimated through deforestation and culling, before the Greys got a peep. So we...as usual....may be to blame and not the cute fluffy tails. Not that blame is the issue, but you reap what you sow. Love the Froggy squirrel by the way:001_smile:

I massively agree with you on the slavish native thing, and easyness of assigning 'pest' to things which I have always found a bit sheepish. As soon as I think of an argument to prove me and you right and everyone else wrong, I'll be on it. Meanwhile I think you're doing quite well yourself:thumbup1: