Albedo

Pete B's been a long time at the pub....

Have I posted on your thread after 2 bottles of red wine - yes Sorry for the tone of last nights post tone, bit aggressive

Hi tony. I respect you, always have. I owe you, as you suported me in my time of need. Of all the people on arbtalk, I do not want to make an enemy of you. Have I derailed your thread – yes Have I been a bit flippant on your thread – yes So I’m sorry for that, but where are we going with this, what do you want to hear? I’m a grubby tree lopper of nigh on 20 yrs a loppin and I didn’t start till I was 30 odd. I can do wordy if you want and I hold a BSc as you know, but it comes down to what I said …. clean hands paid more … the user name of another arbtalker. I spent half my life overseas and I’ve seen the english class system from the outside, maybe you should take a look.

If you wear clean clothes at work they'll treat you as an equal, if you wear stretch airs they won't... simples Tony, next question please:thumbup1:

Glad you found it interesting Pete but no eating of words will be necessary, as everything youv'e said is backed up by all my own researches so far. All the water content stuff and the sameness of CV for hardwoods is there. The impression I've got from this thread so far is that the voices of experience carry some weight. I feel a bit dumb as I'm doing my learning in the open, but if it weren't for this thread I wouldn't have done it and I wouldn't learn at all. If you google 'calorific value of wood kj/kg science direct' it comes at the top of the list. The full abstract is there but you have to subscribe to get the article. (forgot how to post a link)

For those that have mentioned BTU as their prefered measurement unit, heres some conversion info I found. •1 kJ/kg = 0.4299 Btu/ lbm = 0.23884 kcal/kg •1 Btu/lbm = 2.326 kJ/kg = 1.8 kcal/kg Assuming we haven't lost the will to live, let me know if I'm boreing you all to death:blushing:

Whilst my googling backs up the knowledgeable comments by the two Peters and other posters I’m sticking with this calorific value thing to see what I can find. I’m interested to find if there is a significant difference between species and if the CV is a useful bit of info or not. Below is a bit of info from 'science direct' where you can get abstracts from published bits of science. Here the values for willow and pop are almost the same by species, but there is a difference of 8- 10 thousand kJ/kg between the younger and the older trees. Does this mean that younger coppice wood could be better firewood than older arb arrisings for example? Abstract The higher heating values of oven dry poplar wood were from 15,787 (cl. I-214 1-year old) to 24,275 kJ/kg (cl.I-214 2-year old). The average calorific values of willow wood (whole tree with bark) were from 16,169 (14-year old) to 22,572 kJ/kg (2-year old). It should be pointed out that the calorific value of wood is more favorable than that of bark, and the highest calorific values refer to 2-year-old trees.

A quick glance at the BASIS website later. Pretty sure that they don't claim to have this authority. They are a charity and a regulatory body recognised by the government, but don't make this claim. In fact, not all pesticide dealers are registered with them according to their own website. this thread is about herbicides by the way:001_smile:

This is quite a complex subject isn't it. I think I get this bit though. The species of pine referred to is probably less dense than ash therefore if youre gonna put a few grams in the calorimeter (the same weight for the pine and the ash) you'd need a bigger piece of pine than you would for the ash, .... thus making the ash more efficient by volume assuming that its CV was the same or greater than that of the pine. That made my head hurt

I've been doing a bit of googling on this to see what can be found. It seems that the method for obtaining calorific value is to stick a dry sample in a calorimeter and measure the heat emited when burned and as you say this is done by mass so you get an answer in kj/kg The problem for the original poster seems to be that a bomb calorimeter is an expensive bit of kit. There are other types and I'm looking to see if it can be done more cheaply. I'm quoting you because: A. Its not done by equation (initially), its done by a procedure - prep of sample and use of calorimeter... then perhaps some equations. B. Just wonder why you say the use of mass is useless and that it must be done by volume. As to do the procedure with a calorimeter its done by mass. Also whether the info is deemed useless or not its what the OPs question was.... "Anyone know how to calculate CV?" If he can get on and do it he can get the information which he wants on his own which seems to me to be quite a good idea, hence my interest. smile just added for safety as I have no axe to grind, just interested

I used to have a reference for something like this and can't find it. Just on C02 sequestered, not on 02 emitted by the tree. From memory, it takes about 100 mature oaks to sequester the C02 from one persons average car use for a year. There is apparently some research on this on the US Env Agency web site but I've looked and can't find that either. So from my rough ballpark, vague memory of a statistic, equivalent chainsaw use and travel to site etc might be calculated, in terms of trees needed to balance it. The problem is that the C02 sequestered is released at the end of the trees life so we need another 100 trees growing somewhere to lock up the same C02. There aint enough space for enough trees, is the problem (in terms of soaking up our own emissions). I had the research on this too but can't find that either. I looked thru the thread to see how this C02 stuff might be relevant to the OP and it seems that it arose from Hama's 'lungs of the world' comment. My view is that urban trees won't solve the problems of the world, but they do help, and are also nice to look at.

Hama old chum, skyhuck is essentially correct. As you know this is part of my subject which I've looked into quite a bit - climate change. He's made well informed posts on this subject before. Its basic carbon cycle stuff - Short cycle carbon - trees not effecting net carbon balance when used as fuel etc. - Long cycle carbon - Fossil fuels locked up on geological time scale, dug up and burned - adding to net carbon balance.

Have you thought about that one of oldsnake in general tree pics, where he's headfirst down the branch on an oak reduction. I had a look but can't find it. I'm just nominating it by the way (if its in silhouete?), if you like it he gets the prizes.

Thats what I've been thinking mate, 'wait and see', they may be thinking it was a flashfire, to which they are adapted. The one I killed was comeing out anyway.

I feel that this is one of the more important threads we’ve had on here lately as it raises standards for our industry. Wherever anyone stands on this opinion wise, I think you have planted a seed here which will grow. You have my respect, which you had anyway for sharing your experience with others as a founder member of the SE climbing meets. Credit where credit is due. Paul.

Funny that the quote came from James Dean, there has to be some irony in there somewhere, perhaps in his case it was true.

Fine words Frank, not heard that one before.

Guilty:blushing: Sorry tone, are your ears ringing?

He's probably not up yet, I phoned him up last night and we chatted till very very late, in fact early hours. Long time since I've heard my home accent, made me homesick. The world of arb and the world in general has now been set to rights:001_smile: Much easier using speaking than writing, and thanks for your input Tony on all the things we discussed.

Just a quickie on the weather. North wales is not far from me and round here we don't look at the local weather report as its often a bit out for the village that your'e in. We just look out the window in the morning, then look at the sky, ---- then decide not to work today and go back to bed.

Good on yer Tom. Thats the go getting attitude we need, knew you had it in you really mate Edit: Oh and cheers arbclimber. I always try to thank people who say nice things.... they might do it again

Tom. Following the helmet thread, now the college is responsible for you not attending this event. Just a word of advice from an old dog. I am sure you are a self reliant and promising young arb, but these type of posts give the wrong impression to future employers. A more impressive thing to have said would have been. The college has cancelled its trip, so a group of us are trying to club together to get down there independantly. Just a thought that you might bear in mind for future posts that I'm sure will demonstrate the initiative and independance that is just fighting to get out:thumbup1:

Bit of anecdotal evidence. The eucy I took out this week. Knocking the tops out with wee directional fells onto a pocket hanky lawn went ok for a euk, as in not excessively brittle. But splitting rings with an axe, they shattered a bit more than is usual like they were part seasoned already. So I'm leaning towards more dead than alive.

Thanks for going to the effort H. Here's a bit I lifted from mushroom expert.com...... Stereum hirsutum is a hardwood-loving crust fungus that develops fairly substantial, medium-sized cap structures that often fuse laterally with one another. It is smaller and more frequently fused than Stereum ostrea; it is larger than, and not as orange as Stereum complicatum. It does not "bleed" a red latex when injured, like several other Stereum species do. Under the microscope, it features "normal" hyphidia that are not adorned with projections or spikes. However, the name "Stereum hirsutum" is generally applied by mycologists to a group of species (or, perhaps, forms of a species) that tend to blend into one another; as one Stereum expert (Welden, 1971) writes, forms of Stereum hirsutum "are defined by external morphological features, and these are not dependable." Thus Stereum hirsutum, Stereum complicatum, and Stereum gausapatum, at a minimum, might best be seen as positions along a continuum, and would-be Stereum identifiers should probably be prepared for collections that don't quite settle themselves neatly into one or another position.

Cheers Hama, in fact your last one reminded me of it, so I dug it out.