daltontrees

I was commenting on all 3 of your posts, just saying rock and tree climbing are on different bases. Fall factors are a rating for ropes, not anchors or climbers. I suppose another key difference is that in tree work the rope length can never be more than twice the height above last anchor, whereas in rock climbing you can be way way above last anchor. So far sometimes tha teh amout of rope out i a good deal more than the distance to the groundI remember a climb in Skye where I was a full 50 metres out, my last runner had pulled out as I passed it and I was 40 metres above my last runner. I was having kittens. Just made the belay ledge.

From what I can gather of this case, it was a judicial review or challenge of the Council's decision that the honeydew was not a statutory nuisance. More specifically, the nuisance claimed was that the honeydew and resulting sooty mould was prejudicial to the health of the occupants of the thatched cottage (the thatch supposedly harbouring the sooty mould spores that caused respiratory problems). I agree people seize too readily on cases as proving generalities, whereas it is the other way around, the law looks to apply generalities to specific situations and if we are lucky clarifies the generalities of the law. And so some of the useful principles of tree-related law come from places like Donoghue v Stevenson (about ginger beer) and Rylands v Fletcher (flooded mines). All that the Test Valley case did was clarify that a statutory nuisance based on 'prejudicial to health' has to be prejudicial to the average person. This is consistent with the principle that actions and inactions towards others expect us only to anticipate normal situations. Statutory nuisance has specific classes, and none of them involve dirtying cars with sooty moulds. There seems to be no prospect of a case succeeding based on sooty moulds causing inconvenience or damage. There was a case in 1985 (Wivenhoe Port), concerned with statutory nuisance interference with personal comfort, where the judge stated that "dust falling on motor cars may cause inconvenience to their owners; it may even diminish the value of their motor car, but this would not be a statutory nuisance." Common law nuisance, now that's a slightly different matter, bound only by broad principles of deprivaion of right to enjoy property.

I imagine the effect on your intetrnal organs of a straight vertical drop and sudden stop in a harness would be something like being in a car crash at 30mph wearing a seatbelt. i.e survivable but not good for you and with little margin for error. And as with car crashes, falls and sudden stops could cause disastrous skeletal damage, and then there's ligaments, tendons, cartilage... brain damage. It's nothing like jumping off a sofa. Paratroopers can arrest falls on landing becasue they're ready for it and trained to absorb the energy in ways that doesn't cause damage to them. Not the same as taking it all through your pelvis and base of spine in a fraction of a second, unprepared, sideways. The limit of 500mm might seem silly, but it's probably only half of what would certainly **************** you right up, and there can't be many people around who would vouch for it being silly, after having experienced it.

4kN to 5kN force on an anchor point is the same as hanging a 400-500kg weight off it. When selecting an anchor one should maybe try and imagine if you could hoist 1/2 a tonne up on it slowly.

You can't compare rock climbing to tree work. Rock climnbing ropes are for fall arrest, tree work ropes are for work positioning. The former have to elongate to absorb the fall, the latter have to be almost non-elastic so that you can climb the rope and then be stationary while cutting etc.

Can't be arsed with this thread since woodnicer couln't be arsed even to say what country he/she is in.

OK I get it a bit more. A dry meter only needs to be an analogue to digital converter but a wet meter needs to have a calculator in it too. FR_BEC_Wood_as_Fuel_2012.pdf FR_BEC_Wood_as_Fuel_Technical_Supplement_2010.pdf

Is there a wee mistake in the presentation of the formula, i.e. should it not be Mwet = (100 * Mdry) / ( 100 + Mdry)?

Just when I thought I had it... I will need to dig out an old publication I have somewhere about moisture content. My recolledtion was that green wood was 65% water, and hearth-dry was closer to 20%. Call it 66% or 2/3rds. If so, 1/3 weight reduction on drying brings wet % to 50%?

Thanks for explanations everybody, Head-spinning stuff. I agree the new rules seem to be on a 'wet' basis. The 'wet' basis is the most intuitive one I think as it doesn't re;ly on knowing the hypothetical oven dry weight, the important bit being how much drier is it than the green weight. Or in words, the wet basis is now much of the log is water. The dry basis is how much heavier is it because of water content. Dry basis could be a useful indication of re-humidification. Ther's no doubt that wet basis is most obvious measure of how much the wood has been dried from green. PAUSE FOR THOUGHT The electrical resistasnce of bone dry wood is high. Compared to wet it is very high. I think that effectively conductivity is very nearly proportional to free moisture content. I don't know how meters can automatically calibrate to measure dry weight %, whereas wet weight % would require no calibration. basically a resistance meter.

It's a bit of a trek up there even from Glasgow, but I might give the guy a call tomorrow if he's stuck.

I have just read the whole thread and am none the wiser. No-one has explained what the difference is between wet and dry basis. Can someone spell it out please?

Meters don't meassure moisture content, they measure electrical conmductivity, and the display convertts this to a moisture content. Conductivity increases with moisture content and temperature. So strictly speaking all moisture statements should be followed by "(measured at X degrees)" or should be normalised to some standard temperature.. My old Protimeter had a chart for adjusting values for temperature.

Informative, thanks. Uptake if this service would be for me based on cost. It's a hard thing to specify but how much does iot cost to survey and report on a tree?

The legislation on CA notifications is almost unbelievably wide open tointerpretation (and abuse). The written notice needs merely to define 'the act' in some way. It needs to be an 'act' that could be prohibited by TPO. Not surprisingly, therefore, the CA exemptions are the same as TPO exemptions with a few additional ones. If you notify and the Council can't possible know from your descrition of the 'act' what you plan to do and wha the effect on amenity and the tree's vitality they should reject the notice rather than try and stop the work by making a TPO. They might tolerate a sloppy definition if the tree isn't that important. But there can't be any complaint about a rejection if the description is wooly and can't be checked afterwards. The best service to a customer or client is to describe the works properly, including finished dimensions, so that the Council has no reason to reject. It's all very well saying the Council can only TPO a notified tree but if the notice is invalid from uncertainty a prosecution could ensue. I had this situation during the week where an insufficiently described notification (by the client, not me) was not rejected until a few weeks after the 6 weeks. There comes a point where you have to say that if the Councl doesn't reject it within 6 weeks it probably hasn't looked at it and the prosecution is time-barred. After all, for it to be rejected all the TO or planner has to do is look at the description and decide if it is (a) unambiguous and (b) check-able afterwards. There's a lot more to be considered as to whether the tree should be TPO'd but that is not a rejection matter. Read a notification as if you have never seen the tree. If it's not clear to you what it means, it could be rejected. Tighten up the definition, and state checkable finished dimensions.

A major difference between CA notification and TPO application is that the latter has to give a reason for the proposed works.

almost certainly Bhutan Pine Pinus wallichiana

Remains of a male cone then. Those can't be seeds, just scales.

Are you sure it is from a tree?

Totally agree.😄

A friend and I got chucked out of Pollok Park in Glasgow for climbing trees. Council said it had been advised that if there were defects in the trees and we got hurt it would be liable. So rather than assess every tree it didn't allow any to be climbed. So we went to Kings Park where there was no rangers. The right to roam Acces Code says access rights extend to climbing, but I'm pretty sure it anticipates only rock climbing. If you don't use spikes and you use a cambium saver for descents I don't really see the problem.

Rarely it can be stated by Planning that a site cannot be developed because the tress will not allow for adequate daylight. In effect not forcing removal (the Council never has the power to do that) but saying if you want permission the trees have to go. Species would not be an issue, but evergreen could be because of winter daylighting.

the stain in the cut end says willow, so does the bark, adn I'd guess from the general form of teh pieces tha they were all stems from a typical multistemmed willow scenario. Willow is watery but it can be plenty heavy to start with.

goat willow for me.

Take 2, no way this is Plum.