openspaceman

Yes there is a bit of a catch 22 here, the 1981 act uses the words "intentionally take, damage or destroy" which applies to any wild bird. The later CRoW act makes it an offence to recklessly disturb nests of schedule 1 birds. So if you realise a nest is there and then you disturb it then it is intentional, if you don't check for a nest then it is reckless if it involves a schedule 1 bird but how do you know what species you are disturbing?

Just as I found out today; I'd put aside the makita blower that was refusing to run more than 10 seconds, conviced it was a fuel starvation problem http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/chainsaws/66200-makita-blower-playing-up.html#post1007313 So three and a half years later, feeling bored, I dragged it out and changed the fuel filter plus re stripped and cleaned the carb. Ran it back up, same fault, ran flat out for 10 seconds and stopped, just like the stop switch had been used. I pulled the earth off the coil and same again. Next I put the spark tester on again and it appeared to be sparking fine even as the engine dies, NGK plug was a good colour and looked fine. I'd post the video of the spark tester but anyway I took the plug from a dead saw and wonderful, back to its old self and running without problems.

Might be the broken piece jammed under the bottom of the flywheel. Spud suggested piston slap from the skirt being worn when the same shape broke out of an old 026 I had in.

In the field I used a stick welder for agricultural stuff so am only used to MIG for steel sheet up to 3mm. In fact the little 162A parwelld inverter was good down to 2mm using rods. Given that I'd plump for a MIG welder inverter and one with 4 drive wheels. I notice Parweld also do an all in one MIG, Tig and stick welder for under a grand. With the cost of keeping oxy-acetylene being so high I wonder if it would be worth having TIG for sheet work but have never used it. It would mean keeping a bottle of pure argon for MIG and TIG but there are a number of firms offering gas sales with no rental charges.

As I recall the handbrake cables would need re routing on a transit.

It's an interesting one; I drove hundreds of thousands of miles in a peugeot 206 diesel getting around 60 mpg and we changed the oil about every 12k miles. It devalued from about £1000 to zero when I packed it in. I don't think you can get much cheaper motoring. However in about 1995 I needed a replacement works vehicle and wanted a 4WD again , my choice was to go LR110 .A 5 year old tdi would cost about £8k but an ex mod V8 £2250 of same age. As I intended to only work a 20mile radius I calculated the 19mpg petro verses the 27mpg diesel would never make up the difference in capital cost. Also back then the service interval was 5k miles for diesel. So I went for the V8 and kept it working for about 13 years and 100k miles. In the event I forked out £1200 for an LPG conversion and stretched the service interval to 20k miles and the oil was still golden ( a mate had the oil analysed on his and it still showed adequate detergents and lubricity well after this as the LPG burns cleaner). The 150 mile range was a pain as it meant refuelling twice a week. I had a second high compression engine which should have been even more economical with higher gearing but that sits in my garage long after the 110 was sold as I didn't have enough round tuits to fit it. Even earlier in about 1988 I ran a 2.3 petrol Bedford CF to deliver logs, it returned around 19mpg but its big benefit was as it was not a tipper and weighed 1500kg empty so could just about carry the Holder empty though I moved it under its own steam when necessary. I'm actually a diesel fan and have a 2009 1.4 diesel (same engine as pug) fiesta as a family car but my other vehicles are both petrol.

I don't know but if it is at all sappy I'd try not to handle the grindings though I don't think I ever cut a fig.

I don't and was happy to carry on using a combination of over 3.5 tonnes and under 7.5 tonnes without a tachograph. Vosa as was and now DVSA may well have an unpublicised position statement to this effect . I was giving my interpretation of the English language meaning of "carrying materials, equipment or machinery for the driver’s use" which to my mind does not include carrying away waste but plainly builders, plumbers, electricians etc. do do this and do not get pulled up for it so why should a few logs and chip be any different.

The first thing is that the regulation is open to interpretation, so asking at the then local VOSA office as I did only gets their opinion of the law. The precedent is only set once it gets to the high court and I don't know if that has happened yet. What the EU regulation originally said was: "Vehicles or combination of vehicles with a maximum permissible mass not exceeding 7.5 tonnes used for carrying materials, equipment or machinery for the driver’s use in the course of his work, and which are used only within a 100 km radius from the base of the undertaking and on condition that driving the vehicles does not constitute the driver’s main activity" The lady from VOSA said she would regard carting arisings away as being material for the driver's use in the course of his work. I believe a strict interpretation would class it as haulage.

I'm not quite sure what you are replying to, did I write something different?

Most vehicles over 3.5 tonnes will already have a tachograph but all the time the gross train weight is below 7.5 tonnes you don't have to use it (but it's no problem to stick a card in so why not?). As soon as the GTW goes above this, as when pulling a chipper behind you must use the tacho. The licence issue makes it a bit different as only pre 97 tests have the C1+E entitlement which means most people over 40 who took their test soon after 17. The thing that interested me was the 6.5 tonne Iveco can tow 3.5 tonne with a payload of ~3.5tonne, derate it to 5.75 and it looks like you can still carry 2.75 tonnes whilst pulling a safetrak and staying inside the 8.25 the C1+E and 107 note allows. This didn't impress the boss so the lads carried on with transits, to be fair in 8 years only one got pulled over and he wasn't overweight at the time, just driving without trailer entitlement.

It said mitigate not get away with it:001_smile: The word wilfully was changed to recklessly, so you have to pro-actively avoid disturbance. No one was prosecuted under the old wording and I don't know about whether any have since the change. We had 20+ crews out inspecting for nests prior to starting work on utilities and rail but very few nests were found, funnily enough when I went out one was found on my work section:001_tongue:

To add to Alec's post: if you burn Chromated Copper Arsenate treated timber you will volatise the arsenic and some chromium and copper, the worse long term problem is the chromium will be given of as the hexavalent form rather than the trivalent state in the wood. The remainder will be in the ash so the char will contain some I think there is up to 5kg of CCA salt in a m3 of treated wood (but not all the thickness will be treated). Modern treatments also contain copper Creosote is likely to produce sooty particulates which will contain polycyclic aromatic compounds.

That's a weel built device compared with my Heath Robinson efforts. Yes it makes sense to use the cerablanket/kaowool like this to reduce overall heat loss. What all these lurgi based devices fail to address is making use of the flared offgas to do work and the manual loading and unloading. If you think about the insulation : here it is not being used to protect the steel as the steel is cooled on the ouside by ambient air, so you can use a thinner layer of the expensive cerablanket and then add an outer layer of cheaper rockwool/fiberglass with the steel sandcwiched in the middle to protect it. In this retort the limiting factor is the steel which contains the wood as this is subject to the fire heat from below and the 500C inside. So you really need to control the heat in the fire once gases are being evolved. With these two chamber retorts has anyone managed to load one whilst the first is gassing? Yury's ekolon hot swapped cassettes so once it was all running no further fuel was needed. Consider the offgas from pyrolysis of dry wood will have an average adiabatic flame temperature of over 1500C and has 70% of the energy in the original dry wood (maybe 50% in retorts as the low temperature means the char has low fixed carbon). You only want to heat the wood to 500C, you can run a dryer with anything above 40C and you can heat a building with underfloor heat with 30C so the process lends itself to running a cacaded series of processes each downstream one utilising the rejected heat from the one before.

We were required to weigh our and did it at the riddling stage with a bag stitcher to close the bags I cannot see the benefit. Traditionally you allow in more excess air or recirculate exhaust gas to lower firebox temperature but in this case it makes more sense to divert the offgas away. The problem is too much heat and the flame temperature will be up around 1200C-1600C yet you only want to heat the retort contents to ~500C

Yes Yes and in itself this is not bad except it will be like running an engine with the choke on, dark smoke instead of a clean flare. Butterfly valve on flue? Well a a means to direct the offgas away from under the retort, I'd tend to avid valves or anything the tars can foul up. Not seen it

Looks like a good yield and charcoal

That's 50% volume, it will be lower weight, are you allowed to sell charcoal by volume now?

i GUESS MOST PEOPLE WILL MEASURE THE CONVERSION OF DRY INPUT INTO WEIGHT OF SALEABLE CHARCOAL AS THE MAIN METRIC. wE'LL HAVE TO DISAGREE ABOUT WHETHER BURN TIME IS SIGNIFICANT, ALSO i SAID THERE WERE OTHER REASONS. Sorry about the caps, I only just noticed my granddaughter had left caps lock on as I am a two finger typist and look at the keyboard No reason why it should, it is a matter of size matching and the heat is available from the pyrolysis. I disagree with this last too, simply because drying time is considerably longer than pyrolysis time, most will not realise this because the two processes are happening concurrently. Water gas shift oxidises carbon monoxide and reduces steam to hydrogen I think, cannot see the benefit from this in charcoal production and as you say the ~500C temperatures we are seeing won't be hot enough. A bit of a red herring I suspect you are mixing the watergas shift reaction with the water gas reaction, the first produces CO2 and hydrogen the latter CO and hydrogen, both need higher temperatures than in a retort and typically in a down draught gasifier the water gas reaction will pull down the temperature from the 1100C oxidation of carbon to carbon monoxide to the 800C where the reaction is too cool. As you will see this is the last thing you want if you are conserving carbon (charcoal) but it is useful in that it evolves a true syngas for further chemical process. I wish you the best of luck with it there was a good researcher on ours but one out of 5 including a bit of hegemony soon eats the budget and causes time to overrun ., I can dig out some of our work if you wish. I read the summary and see the objectives have already changed. Stirling engines have never found a large market and the reason is probably fundamental in that conversion of heat to motive work in a reciprocating engine is proportional to the difference between the pressure developed to the pressure the working gas is at the cold side when it is rejected. A diesel engine with a 17:1 compression ratio has very little space left in the head at top dead centre, so pressure is high, the Stirling has all the space in the regenerator which compromises the pressure difference it can attain. We had much the same reasoning and because of all the difficulties and oil contamination problems the reciprocating engine enthusiasts have with their Imbert style down draught gasifiers and the sensible heat loss of the producer gas as it is cleaned and cooled (reducing the cold gas efficiency), plus the contamination of the filter medium meant our internal combustion engine ran on the Brayton cycle. I was happy for this to produce a small amount of motive power on a low pressure cycle and use all the heat for process but as soon as you require ~20% electricity then size and pressure go up and capital costs escalate The problem was the wish to maximise electricity production because that's what the government wants from renewable energy. My view is that whilst wood is an energy source it is a poor fuel and as 70% of our winter energy requirement is for heat all the time fossil fuels provide 70% of our electricity it is not worth trying to compete, FITS skew the argument slightly. It's late so I cannot follow up all you said in an interesting post.

My choice was purely from a desk exercise, my experience is mainly forestry and there aren't that many trees in commercial forestry. The only 5 needle pine I came across was weymouth pine and not many of them, I realised it was not that so searched a bit.

The button should be out for full pressure, throttle half open pull it a few times to reach max pressure.

That's what I thought from the description but I doubt I have ever seen one

Thanks, I'll have another look in the week, it looks like the plastic trim snaps off the exteriro to expose some screws but I can pull the door card to have a look first.

Can anyone tell me how to remove the lens from a 2001 Canter nearside door to change the bulb of the indicator repeater?

Yes it's a lot better than my first attempt, I set the plough too deep and there was a prominent yellow stripe up the field visible from the road for years after whenever it was cultivated.