Acer Forestry

Blimey, thats some cool shaving gear. Can't have been cheap? To my mind the move blades there are in these latest fad Gillettes etc., the more skin comes off ya face..not so good

Should add the rest of it's not good news for the log trade.

 

By Michael Le Page

 

Last week, air pollution in London soared to heights not seen since 2011. The usual suspects were named and shamed, including traffic fumes and a lack of wind. But joining them was a surprising culprit.

 

“We think about half of the peak was from wood smoke,” says Timothy Baker, part of a team at King’s College London that monitors air pollution.

 

The trendy log-burning stoves producing much of this pollution are marketed as a source of renewable energy that can cut fuel bills while helping reduce global warming. But recent findings suggest they pose a serious threat to the health of their owners, and are also accelerating climate change in the short term.

 

If nothing is done to discourage log burning in homes, it could become the biggest source of air pollution in cities like London. In the UK as a whole, wood burning is already officially the single biggest source of an especially nasty form of air pollution.

 

“I love sitting by a log fire as much as the next person but maybe we need to think again before it’s too late,” says climate scientist Piers Forster of the University of Leeds, UK.

 

Air pollution is awful for our health. The smallest particles get into our blood and even our brains, increasing the risk of many disorders including heart disease.

Natural killer

 

Children are especially vulnerable: high pollution levels impair their lung and brain development. Air pollution from all sources is estimated to cause some 10,000 premature deaths a year in London alone, where it frequently exceeds legal limits.

 

Wood smoke may be natural, but it contains many of the same harmful substances as cigarette smoke. It’s a massive killer worldwide, causing as many as 4 million premature deaths every year through indoor air pollution.

 

In the UK, however, the problem with pollution from wood fires was thought to have been solved by clean air laws introduced in the 1950s, which banned wood burning in open fires in cities. “The official view is that residential wood burning is a thing of the past,” says Gary Fuller of King’s College London.

 

Yet logs can still be burned in officially approved stoves in cities. Sales of these stoves have soared in the past decade, rising to nearly 200,000 a year. They are marketed as a way for people to drastically reduce their carbon emissions and save on fuel costs.

 

Even modern stoves described as “low emission” are highly polluting. And in an echo of the diesel car emissions scandal, measurements during actual use in homes show that the stoves produce more pollution than lab tests suggest.

 

In the “smokeless” fumes coming from the chimney of a house with a modern “eco-friendly” wood burner, Kåre Press-Kristensen of the Danish Ecological Council has measured 500,000 microscopic particles per cubic centimetre. The same equipment finds fewer than 1000 particles per cm3 in the exhaust fumes of a modern truck. The wood stove was certified as meeting Nordic Swan Ecolabel emission standards, which are stricter than the ones stoves in the UK have to meet.

Big in London

 

What this means is that a small increase in wood-burning stoves can produce a big increase in pollution. In Copenhagen, a city of 600,000 people, just 16,000 wood stoves produce more PM2.5 pollution – the most dangerous particles, smaller than 2.5 micrometres – during winter than traffic does all year round, says Press-Kristensen.

 

Wood burning is becoming a big problem in London, too. In 2010, when Fuller analysed particulate pollution to discover its source, he found that 10 per cent of all the city’s wintertime pollution was from wood.

 

There are many reasons to think that figure is higher now. A 2015 government survey found that domestic wood consumption in the UK was three higher than previous estimates, with 7 per cent of respondents reporting that they burned logs. “Wood consumption is increasing substantially,” says Eddy Mitchell at the University of Leeds, UK.

 

When he, Forster and others fed the data on wood consumption into a computer model of air pollution, their conclusion was disturbing: PM2.5 pollution from residential stoves is soaring in the UK (see diagram, below).

 

“There is a real risk that if we have a lot more residential wood burning then it could undo our other efforts to control air pollution,” says Fuller.

 

The harm far exceeds traffic pollution, he says. While people are exposed to high levels of traffic pollution mainly when travelling on busy streets, wood burning produces huge amounts of pollution where people live, when they are at home.

Indoor smog

 

Press-Kristensen has been measuring that pollution inside homes in Copenhagen. In three out of seven tests done so far, he has found very high levels. In one home with a modern log-burning stove, he found particulate levels several times higher than the highest ever recorded outdoors there (see diagram, above).

 

So do the health impacts outweigh any climate benefits? Astonishingly, there might not be any climate benefits, at least in the short term.

 

Burning logs is often touted as being carbon-neutral. The idea is that trees soak up as much carbon dioxide when growing as they release when burned.

 

In fact, numerous studies show that wood burning is not carbon-neutral, and can sometimes be worse than burning coal. There are emissions from transport and processing. Logs are often pre-dried in kilns, for instance.

 

Burning wood also emits black carbon – soot – that warms the atmosphere during the short time it remains in the air. Most studies ignore this, but Mitchell and Forster calculate that over 20 years – the timescale that matters if we don’t want the world to go too far above 2°C of warming – soot cancels out half the carbon benefits of all wood burning.

 

For home wood burning, the figures are even worse. “On a 20-year timescale, wood stoves provide little or no benefit, but they do on the 100-year timescale as they remove some of the long-term warming effect of CO2 emissions,” says Forster.

 

Press-Kristensen’s calculations show much the same thing. And both sets of findings almost certainly underestimate the problem, because they assume wood burning is carbon-neutral.

 

Defenders of wood stoves point out that there is a lot of uncertainty about how much black carbon is emitted when wood is burned and how large its effect is. Patricia Thornley of the University of Manchester, UK, thinks we need more real-world measurements before coming to conclusions.

 

But the uncertainties cut both ways. For instance, the effects of black carbon can be amplified if it is deposited on snow and melts it, exposing dark land that absorbs more heat. It’s possible soot from wood burning is contributing to the fall in spring snow cover in Europe, but it’s very hard to study.

 

More research is needed to pin down the precise climatic effects of wood burning, which can vary hugely depending on factors such as the source of wood and where the pollution goes. What is clear, however, is that burning logs in homes in towns and cities is not the best use of the wood we have.

 

It produces more pollution than wood-burning power plants that can be fitted with expensive filters, it produces that harmful pollution where lots of people live, and it has the least climate benefits, if any. “If we are going to burn biomass to meet climate targets, then we ought to do it in big, remote power stations,” says Martin Williams of King’s College London, who is studying the health impacts of the ways the UK could meet its climate targets.

 

Most researchers say it isn’t their role to make policy recommendations, but it would be best if cities like London discourage private wood burning before it becomes an even bigger health problem. At the moment, all the focus is on diesel vehicles.

 

Press-Kristensen doubts governments will ban wood-burning; France recently backtracked on a proposed ban on open fires, for example. Instead, he proposes installing heat sensors in chimneys and taxing people when they burn wood, with the level of tax depending on how polluting the appliance is.

 

Most importantly, governments must not ignore health impacts when deciding climate policies, says Press-Kristensen. “I like fires, but I have to say they are as polluting as hell,” he says.

 

Thinking of getting a wood-burner?

 

Wood-burning stoves are touted as an eco-friendly way to heat your house cheaply. But tests now show that even new, properly installed stoves can produce dangerous levels of outdoor and indoor pollution (see main story). What other options are there?

 

Consider instead

Stick with gas or oil for heating, and spend your money on insulation. Get a heat pump if you can afford it

 

Fake it

You can get the same cosy feeling from a log-effect electric or gas fireplace, the best of which are hard to distinguish from the real thing

Already have a wood-burner?

 

Here’s how to minimise its effects:

Don't burn scrap wood

Scrap wood or painted wood can release highly toxic substances such as arsenic when burned

 

Burn wood that's just right

Burning dry wood with a moisture content of about 20 per cent minimises pollution. But if wood is wetter or drier than that, pollution increases

Absolute ballbags, all this about wood smoke levels about to have us keeling

over. Why the hell do they have to keep complicating things?? Ah, because we should be using a government endorsed product with heavy taxes entailed..bloody hell

Subject breached already...and I missed it. FREE WOOD sign etc.

Know anyone with jack russells?

2 jack russells can clear a barn in half an hour...amazingly brutal to watch

I have Jacks and I know its natural for them to hunt or take rats, but it makes me want to heave watching videos of them doing so- I'd sooner see them shot, its the cleanest method, really.

Country crime is bad down here in Kent, and we all know who's responsible for most of it.

Their 'minority status' seems to make them think they are above the law.

Y:thumbdown:ep,quite

Have you taken the recoil off and tried turning the flywheel with the nut in the middle ? Motor over tight on the recoil just sounds like good compression if it runs o.k. and saying it's probably knackered bearings is a bit of a shot in the dark. Send it back and get a bid on another if you think you can do better for the money. Make sure you go and see before you buy if you don't want to take any chances.

Yes, have tried turning manually as said in earlier post. Motor is not just over tight, I need to stress that- it actually stops half way on the pull. Good compression is one thing, but that's obviously not right.

Ok. I'll take the flywheel off when I get chance and see if there is any obvious obstruction. But as either you or Spud said earlier, a. It is not as described and b.if there is any bottom end issues, it is a basket case

The year Matty, I don't know- where on the unit is it? If a saw looks in good shape and not bashed / abused and obviously commercialled to hell, I'll take a chance, within reason. to my mind it's overall hours worked, and not just the YOM

A new rim sprocket will cost you less than a tenner, and it's a 5 minute job to replace it. It's a consumable item, so not too unreasonable to have to replace it on a well used saw.

 

Stuff like this quickly mounts up though, taking the overall cost out of bargain territory.

Yes- any reasonable 18 bar and the sprocket, and there's at least 45 quid gone.

Overall stats don't actually reflect regional crime levels. I'm in the south east, where I would imagine statistically it is going to be higher, because of population density. We were in Devon earlier this year, Sidmouth neck of the woods and asked a local what crime levels were like; he suggested that serious theft, (as in, not shoplifting- loss of the kind of stuff we discuss on here) for example was practically nonexistent. Some on here may disagree!? The UK is always going to have quite major issues, I don't know how we are supposed to correct that.

Anybody touches my dogs, there will be bloodshed...

I paid 250, the going rate for a second hand, up and running 560 is def that or more, so had it actually been ok and with a bar, it'd be perfectly acceptable at that money. Thing is, we all knock ebay but you can get some cracking stuff at sensible money and some very good saws (going by feedback left) have sold on there recently.

But as far as Skyland's post goes, fair comment about the possibility of a minor problem that is easily fixed, but how about the knackered sprocket- how much would you charge to replace that too? It's all time and grief sorting this out when I should be working

Try "560 replacement piston" or similar on the arbtalk search bar, I asked recently i'm sure if replacement parts were economically viable, and they are- you just to need to have a look on here with that search criteria

Is it the recoil jamming or the engine being tight? I usually remove the clutch, sparkplug and flywheel then turn the engine over with the crankshaft stub and see if there is any hindrance, it should be smooth.

 

Your flywheel may be just catching on the coil but without it on my bench, it is difficult to say.

 

It may be the mains, the stuffers can become loose or a light seize!

Yeah the old post suggests that the flywheel can catch the coil, but frankly by the time i have bought a bar and sprocket it will already be owing me more than it should, i reckon the seller should just take it back

In that case its VERY NOT AS Described ! Should be spares or repairs . Ebay usually side with the buyer ( weather they are deserving or not ) . Open up a case with ebay Item not as described stating the faults . You have a certain amount of time . Also you can file a case with paypal if you used that to pay with . They have a longer time period in which to file .

Already done, mate. Return case already filed, I'll probably end up with paypal making the decision. Bloody people, insinuating we are are crooked by initially asking "where's the bar it's supposed to come with??", among other issues. If I had the £600 plus for the new unit from Jones, I'd have gone with that, but not right at the moment

Worth noting is a prior post (google "560XP crank bearing failure") about a similar sounding problem, and apparently bearings sit in a plastic casing, as unlikely as that sounds. Plastic casing cracks, and can cause jamming

It's all helpful advice as I am learning something here, so no, not academic- seller conveniently doesn't accept returns, it will only go back if paypal force him to accept it. A bar and sprocket replacement won't be peanuts alone, let alone any more major issue. Yes, we are talking crank bearings. If you take the recoil off, and turn it over there is a distinct area of the stroke that is stiffer, and with the 550 alongside for comparison, it is as you'd expect (my 550 is fine),fairly smooth

Yes, i know. Unfortunately 100% feedback only works if any negs are not older, digging deeper this character has had issues with a prior buyer. However, that isn't really helping with the question?

I had a Mk3 Hilux pickup nicked in broad daylight about 5 years back- same deal, CCTV everywhere but old bill not remotely interested. That was a cracking truck, sorry your mate has lost this. No doubt driven straight to a container at Tilbury, for sure

I have bought a 560 off ebay from some clown who has misdescribed it to a massive degree, as follows..."starts, runs and revs out fine. Comes with bar but no chain."

Actually arrived with no bar, pop the chain brake off and it looks like it hasn't been cleaned, or run, for at least six months. My mate is a garden machinery mechanic and has looked it over, and it's evident it will actually run and even sounds ok, but the motor is over-tight on the recoil and quite often you struggle to even get the cord to go half way without it jamming (the biggest concern), and the drive sprocket is knackered. There is some wear to the recoil assembly, but what isn't clear is the jamming / tightening on the pull, the mechanic has suggested it's probably the bearings are knackered. If the recoil was just not working on every pull, surely it would slip, not tighten? Any suggestions here please, internally from what we can see with muffler off it all looks ok.

Obviously as it is it has to be returned anyway, but I still need to explain fully to paypal what is wrong- plus I'd like to know what is happening with the jamming issue.

God, what a load of faff all this sounds. The idea that because I passed my driving test in 1987 somehow makes me less of a liability with something on the back of my truck is ridiculous. This whole business of trailer tests is exactly that, another government scheme to rip us off- loads of cash being made on the tuition by more twits in high viz jackets, and a stack more on the tests.

I'd have to agree that as good as Silky are, 50 quid plus is pretty steep. Try a Samurai. Less brand name clout, but basically the same thing and current retail is about low 30's for Zubat equivalent

Another one for the otter box. I ran over an iPhone 5 in the car and the phone didn't have a scratch, the case took all the impact. Needed a new otter box but much cheaper than the phone. 👍

Blimey, maybe I was wrong??

Put any smart phone in an Otterbox Defender, and I believe it will survive ok if you drop it off a multistorey. I've got an iphone 5 in one, and you'd have to do something pretty stupid to to wreck the phone (run it over?)- just make your existing mobile more durable, don't worry about another

Get a second hand Tesoro or C scope. They needn't be that expensive and ok, we're not looking for buried treasure on here but there's no point in buying cr*p as it's money down the pan, they probably won't work. Plus if you come across any friendly landowners, its a buzz if you can get on plough soil if you get a spare hour- people have come across stuff worth fortunes over the last few decades.

Just realised that they apparently have to be calibrated for wood??Maybe no good then

They've gone ahead BEFORE you got a chance to send some quotes etc...?

 

How do / will the courts see this...?

 

As said, sound like chancers thinking you're dad will cough up....

Exactly..he won't have a leg to stand on. Normal procedure would be to get quotes in before proceeding, not just crack on (at the highest rate imaginable)

without consulting your father or the insurers. No worries