Big J

We ran our quite large Trakmet TTS800 off a 50kva generator. If memory serves, the main motor was 30kw. The sawmill had a star/delta start on it, and would very occasionally stall the generator on start up when cold, but it'd only ever do it once in a day. I highly recommend it. It makes for quieter and more efficient operation. Maintenance of the generator is easier than a motor on the sawmill as it won't be subject to the same volume of dust. Our 50kva generator used 3 litres of fuel per machine hour.

This is like a convention of flat earthers. Constantly trying to find legitimacy in a laughable concept. Justify the open fire which ever way you like - it smells nice, I like the crackles, the missus won't take her clothes off infront of a stove.... Just please don't try to make any claims about efficiency being even remotely comparable.

The Rumford fire may be better, but it's still functionally pointless when stoves exist. I know that a stove obviously creates pollution, but it's not on the same scale as an open fire. An 80% efficiency rating versus 20% is hard to argue with.

You're overthinking it. There was absolutely no incentive to be environmentally friendly or efficient. Stoves are principally stemming from Scandinavian designs, which we have no history with as there isn't a tradition of burning wood in this country. If you want to burn wood, buy a stove. There is no debate. There is no alternative (other than burning nothing). An open fire won't heat your house to 21st century standards, it will pollute the air and use a lot of fuel. Simples.

It is not possible to have a controlled (ie, efficient) burn without air control. You cannot achieve this in any kind of open fire. It only occurs in a stove. The least efficient stove is still twice as efficient as the most efficient open fire. Why are you so resistant to installing a stove? There is no evidence whatsoever that any form of open fire is even remotely comparable.

We had a house for a few years near Aviemore whilst I was working up there. Traditional croft house, terribly insulated. We put a much bigger wood burner in to replace a dinky one at one end of the house and there was an open fire at the other end. We'd have the stove running continuously, and it warmed the place as well as it could (zero insulation is a challenge when it's minus 5 or 10 outside) but we gave up on the open fire. The whole house would actually cool if we put it on and in the end we just blocked off the chimney.

The primary reason that an open fire is so inefficient is that it doesn't allow for complete combustion. The primary combustion of timber simply releases the flammable gasses through pyrolysis to allow for oxidative combustion. The uncontrolled air flow that an open fire cannot avoid means that the flue gasses are simply ejected up the chimney. The upshot of this means that very little heat is given out to the room, and as Woodworks said, the net effect is often negative due to the removal of warmer air from inside the house. A decent stove allows you to modulate the air intake, meaning the stove can quickly be taken up to the correct operating temperature for pyrolysis and then the air flow carefully reduced to allow an efficient and slow burn. If the flue is smoking, you've throttled the air flow too much. It's really simple.

Absolutely! 😆

I've been over in Sweden this week building contacts, testing a Malwa forwarder and finalising stuff on our house (pictured). We're still not moving until August but we could move sooner (technically). It's nice not to have to rush.

I think it's the aspiring Scandinavian in me. Enjoy the outdoors, love the cold, but come back to a toasty house

I'm down to 21.6c now (was 23c plus earlier) and that's measured on a thermometer 10ft from the fire, 2ft off the ground. My excuse is that I like it warm after working in the cold. Or at least it used to be - I sit in a warm cab most of the time now 😄

Just curious really. Many of us have stoves and many of us have rather large amounts of firewood too. I like a warmer than average living room - I'm sat here in shorts and a t-shirt, but under a blanket. The living room is 23c and that's perfect for me.

Very nice. Good song, talented musicians (as a reformed bassist, I particularly appreciated the interesting bass riffs), well mixed and the middle backing singer was especially easy on the eyes ☺️

Possibly. It's pretty discordant, but that feels like it's in the spirit of the song. Try her version of nothing else matters: https://youtu.be/DmL12NRE4hQ

This Russian pianist does some incredible transcriptions of metal songs. I do enjoy the originals, but I think in many cases, she does it better.

Blustery and chilly here in Devon. Nothing remarkable, but not raining too much, so happy. Couple of mad photos from Sweden. The first is a friend's house in Southern Sweden, just outside the town we're moving to. The second is a screenshot from a webcam from Northern Sweden. I was just looking at various cams from around Sweden to see what the snow was like and there was the most amazing aurora borealis.

I can't see that quote ever being misconstrued! 😄

You raise many valid points, but I really like being in communication with the outside world. Machine operating on a headset gives me much more time to sit and waffle my way through conversations with family and friends, near and far. I find telephoning without a physical distraction (like operating a forwarder, or driving a car) challenging sometimes. My compartmentalises tasks fairly well, and I can do a couple of things simultaneously without either task being affected. I sometimes get to the end of a story with the kids and have no recollection of what I've just read as I've been daydreaming! We also sometimes do get sites with absolutely no signal. Had one in August/September and the best you could hope for is a few messages might come through at the top of the site. That was it though.

I live my life on a headset. It means that when people need to get in contact with me, they can. Also, when I'm machine operating it means I have access to the world of podcasts, Youtube and Radio 4. I'd get very bored indeed without the phone. The headset in question is a Peltor WS Alert XP. Also very highly recommended - I think mine is now getting on for 5 years old and works as well as the day I got it. They are expensive (£250-350, depending on how lucky you are on eBay), but well worth it.

Regardless of which phone you go for, I really recommend something with a massive battery. I've had mine 4 or 5 months now and haven't once had to charge it whilst out and about. It's like having an electric car with a 1000 mile range. That anxiety is totally absent.

I'm a great fan of wild swimming, but haven't had much of a chance to do that here. Forest walks (busmans holiday, I know) or fishing. I was so excited about the fishing when we moved down here, as (with me being a coarse angler) England is much better than Scotland, but sadly it wasn't as good as what I remembered as a kid in Derbyshire. There are the carp lakes, yes, but very few rivers worth fishing as they're all trout and salmon. Beyond that, I'd like to get back into cycling, which is unfortunately a suicidal endevour in Devon, especially as I'd like to take the kids too.

I see what the problem is here. Isn't it obvious?

I did say that my comments were general, and your shoot doesn't bear much relation to the estates on which I've worked with huge drives. I simply find the presence of pheasant pens in woodlands to be unsightly and with the associated issues highlighted above, I don't personally see the point. I can think of better ways to enjoy my Saturday than standing in the rain trying to blast some gormless bird out of the sky. Each to their own.

I understand why you organise the shoot and enjoy it. I've eaten plenty of pheasant and have worked for shooting estates in the past in a forestry capacity. May I make a few general observations though? Firstly, from a forestry perspective, pheasant shoots are a nightmare. The infrastructure (pens) left in the woods puts metalwork everywhere, which compromises the value of the crop and makes harvesting awkward and unpleasant. Secondly, there is evidence to suggest that pheasant shoots support larger grey squirrel populations. Taken from Shootinguk.co.uk: "The possible link between the decline of woodland song birds and grey squirrel predation is now the subject of Game Conservancy research, particularly as it has been suggested woodlands where pheasants are fed may hold higher stocks of grey squirrels due to the abundance of food" Thirdly, from an aesthetic point of view, pheasant holding woodlands are hideous. The combination of the pens, unsympathetic woodland management (ie managed for the shoot as opposed to species diversity of timber quality) and profusion of idiot pheasants and scrounging grey squirrels just ruins any enjoyment anyone might derive from the place. I'm entirely supportive of rough shooting to control pest species (such as grey squirrels). Why is there a need to go to all the effort and destruction of a driven pheasant shoot. There is also the environmental impact of releasing 57 million non-native birds into our countryside each year....

By paying working class lackeys £40 a day. By trampling across land that they don't own or have a right to access. By endangering the public by chasing (for instance) deer across public roads. Last year I almost hit a stag on the A396 that was being pursued by some twat in fancy dress on a horse.