Mare Sjeme

For me any of the proposed options are just a big no., I didn't do either thumb up or down. Most of it was already said, adding to it:
- triple burn M.H. - this sounds like a bad comercial, like someone is selling a mediocre product and slapping all the superlatives on it in promotion and marketing. Just no...
- Montana M.H. - if your intended audience is just based in USA (or Canada, it's geographically close enough ;-) ) I would say go for it. But from a non USA, non North American perspective - a lot of people don't have any idea where or what Montana is. It's not compareable to calling something "Russian xyz heater...". Everyone know where Russia is and about coldness of Sibir. Montana not so much. Please don't fall into the trap that the whole world knows all abut US states.

As for a good name, of all mentioned in other comments, "Rocket Masonry Heater" or "Smokeless Masonry Heater" sound the best from my perspective.

Most important - I completely agree with an earlier post that name isn't what's prohibiting people to install RMH. Personally I would say that no. 1 is that you have to DIY or know someone who can DIY. The percentage of people willing and/or able to built it is simply to low. Yes, there are some options, but that's not enough for "taking over the world" with RMHs. The fact is that majority of people, even permie people, would like to have already built options available. It could be parts, or the whole thing. Anyway, that's my take on it.

I'm leaving you all to decide what to do and go sit by my lovely old style masonry heater - she's heating us for the last 45 years and we gave her a second life, I'm guessing she had some 50 years of life before us....

Rebecca Blake wrote:I'm very interested to hear more about where you got the calculation for how much water you would need to hold for 3 months supply. You say 26,000L for a typical family of 4. (A little under 7,000G)
I have found multiple local resources that indicate a family of four would need to store WAY more water for a 3 month supply.
For example:

A water conserving household will use between 25 and 50 gallons per person per day. (Pg 33)

This same document later says:

The results of a study of 1,200 single family homes by the American Water Works Association in 1999 found that the average water conserving households used approximately 49.6 gallons per person per day. (Pg 33)

49.6!

So if you have a family of four with each person using 50 gallons a day (a water conserving household, apparently, according to that document), you would need 6,000 gallons (~23,000L) just for a month's supply of water. Now, to store 3 months worth to get by dry periods you would need 18,000G (~68,000L)

You sound like you have helped countless families with their rainwater systems, so riddle me this... Why the disparity? This difference is HUGE. And of course it's creating a household battle here as we compete to find evidence of how much water a family REALLY needs. I'm inclined to believe it's way less than my other family members.

Are we, as Americans, just really THAT wasteful?

I didn't read whole thread yet but have to react to this.

How much water do you people use?!?!?!?!???

Here in SE Europe average is around 5000 L per person per month for city people. That would be 20.000 L per 4 person family per month and 60.000L for 3 months. And that is not the conservative use but your general 'everything is always available' type of use. I know it's correct because I've seen many water bills with that usage in our cities.

I'm shocked by this numbers - both what you wrote for America and what I wrote above.

I live on a small island without municipal water system and without freshwater resource both undergorund and above ground. So rainwater it is for everything.

Our consumption is (that is without irrigation for garden and other plants, but do bear in mind that some of the water that we use in the household have it's secondary use for watering plants):
- cca 750 L/person/month when we don't act conservative at all; 9.000L for 4 people for 3 months
- in months without or with very little rain we can go way down, somewhere around 350 L/person/day; 4.200L for 4 people for 3 months

So yes, all over the world people that have a steady supply of water - either municipal or own systems with wells or dams or whatever - overuse it in a big way.

Basically only communities that are directly reliant on rainwater for everything know how to use it properly without wasting so much

Just popping in to say how happy I am that this tour is happening. I've first found Joseph's teachings on modern landracing here on permies some years ago, and later (via info I've read here) become a part of really nice online Going to Seed community, great place for discussions on everything to do with landracing/adaptive gardening & farming. There I found same minded people who live much closer to me, meaning in my country and in Europe in general, and we do so much lovely seed sharing (serendipity seed train is so much fun!), collaborating on our amateur breeding projects, and managed to put together this great tour Joseph is doing :-)

Thank you Joseph for helping us teach our communities about more resilient and nature oriented way of growing our food and re-learn our relationship with seeds. Looking forward to meet you Joseph in person both in Croatia and in France. And to meet in person some of those same minded people mentioned above :-)

Since the apple tree already has (not so mild/light) colours in it, in my opinion any strong background colour has a very unpleasant effect at least for my eyes. My artistic painter mum wholeheartedly agree.

So the suggestion would be
- if you want strong background colour the apple tree should be without colours or with minimal colours - black&white, sepia or something like that
- if you want coloured tree and and apples like it is, then sepia or b&w background is appropriate (sepia is my favorite)

I can see the purple background is one of two with most votes for now, and beeing Paul's favorite it has a lot of chance to win. If it does, please consider what I've written above. It really is much easier on the eyes without those clashing colours.

Another source for seedling trees could be Edible Acres nursery. I'm not sure about fruits, but they are trying out producing trees from seeds for other trees and some nuts. Their location is somewhere upstate New York.

Demitrios Pitas wrote:
The original apples that were put on this earth were plenty edible or they wouldn't be what they are today. Where are those genetics?

While those original fruit trees produced edible fruits, I think we should take into account that people had different tastes back than - they were definitely not used to so many sweet tastes as people of today had. Point I'm trying to make is what our long time ancestors thought are fine tasting fruit probably isn't near to what we today think is fine tasting.
One example is wild plum, in my area of SE Europe it was widely spread and used up until recently (maybe up to 100-ish years). Nowadays most people think they are too sour, while even just 30-40 years ago they were widely used in my village.
Just my two cents...

Mike Ruggeri wrote:Did everyone get a notification from Kickstarter about it going live, or just an email from Permies?
I got nothing from Kickstarter, even though I signed up for the notification.

Mike it could be something in your kickstarter account settings (e-mail notifications).

I've got their notification fine and on time, in fact I got two e-mails from KS - one from "notify on launch" and other as a backer of previous campaings from Paul (+ permies mail ).

Backed the project, right now it is at 347 backers &

10.611 $

Andrés Bernal wrote:

I'm restarting the "Poor Man's Poll" because out of all the possible images from the footage recorded during the PTJ, I couldn't resist creating some more.

I'll be posting two sizes for each image: one in full size and another in the size that Kickstarter displays thumbnails. Please keep in mind that we want to capture people's attention, especially at the smaller size.

Vote for the image or images you like the most by giving a thumbs up in the subsequent posts!

I'm not sure if this is still open for decision. I just did a few thumbs up on what I think works best and wanted to add a bit of an explanation:
color wise, best are 3rd, 5th and 7th picture - in those letters are in a clear contrast with the background picture and are most easily visible. Other pictures - while those background pictures may be even better at showing what's this about, it's much harder to read the title, esp. on smaller pictures. Either color of letters is too similar to the background picture, or the background picture has too many tiny details just where the text goes... hope this helps a bit....

And with fireworks its final $171.632,52!!! Woohooo

Count down of seconds left on the kickstarter site - at 60 sec to go it's $170.932