Coydon Wallham

Glenn Herbert wrote:Racking prevention is conceivable for upper floors, but not for the floor directly on the foundation.

Not directly on a monolithic slab, but for something on piers or even perhaps cinderblock or other mortared walls...?

I don't know about this cob hat thing, it looks like someone just stole the cob mullet idea from Uncle Mud...

Esteban Ademovski wrote:Honestly, I’d say I’m probably over 70 of the 9' sections  by now. I haven’t really been keeping track of an exact number, but thinking back on everything we’ve worked on, I’m pretty sure it’s at least 70+.

The windstorm gave us about 30 panels that were completely down and another 10 or so that were leaning. Then there were the 6–8 sections around the Abbey entrance that were originally metal animal fencing, plus all the sections we’ve been working through from the entrance toward the Cooper Cabin gate.

A bunch of those needed to be rebuilt because the posts were rotted out at ground level— specifically the ones that didn’t have gravel socks.

So yeah, 70+ is probably a pretty good ballpark ...

That must be a few thousand junkpoles. Are they getting harder to find for harvest? Is anything being done as far as coppicing there?

Is there a more expansive discussion of what can be put on top of the barrel in a 'standard' RMH? I routinely put rocks and pots of water on my barrel to cook or store more heat once the yurt is toasted up.

In my case i warped the top (bottom) of the barrel when doing the original paint burn off, having left too much of the oil remainder in the can during the pocket rocket process. This makes for incomplete contact under a flat pot so maybe not a problem in my case (and if it did spall out it would be a good excuse to make a nicer replacement barrel). However, I've been telling clients that it is okay to use the center of the top to cook on or place water to boil and help with winter humidity.

What is the threshold for too much mass on the barrel to that could put the metal at risk?

(BTW, I would say that coming across little caveats and complications with RMHs like this at random is likely one of the reasons many more conservative homeowners look sideways at taking on the whole concept for installation. Would compiling these items into an easily referable list/manual be helpful to encouraging adoption?)

Christopher Weeks wrote:
It's probably worth reading some of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc_v_Schmeiser -- it ended up turning out that the farmer purposely grew out the seeds and kept planting them, there was no accidental aspect to it. He was also apparently not fined. However, it would prevent e.g. Monsanto from patenting the "roundup-ready" gene (or any genes) in the first place, while allowing their current patents to stay in effect. Basically it'll take 20 years to completely reshape the agriseed industry, but if it is made law and stays law, it will do a lot of good in that regard

I'm not wasting time reading a wikipedia article containing something related to contemporary political issues, but do recall the event and immediate follow up. It was unfortunate that the anti 'Big Ag' crowd heralded Percy as some sort of hero fighting the monster in this case, as it turned out he had made use of Roundup previously and was intentionally selecting GMO seeds to save and replant. To produce and distribute an entire documentary without clarifying points like this...

But it has remained unclear to me what the case is with patented life forms that 'accidentally' escape their owner's control and invade the environment of other individuals or the public in general? Reading an article on the Schmeiser case, it looks like the court's ruling didn't address this instance, but the hints from what they wrote is that they would not uphold any patent claim made about material that had 'trespassed' by unintentional distribution.

But But it seems to me the focus should be on the other foot of the issue. If a patented life form is 'trespassing' on you property and displacing something you wish to let grow/behave naturally or you have planted yourself, does the patent holder owe you for damages?

Without legislation to address this issue, we seem headed toward a culture of passive aggressive colonization. As annoying as 'invasive species' can be in the current environment when they are neutral representatives of different geographic regions, imagine if they were patented creatures whose presence established a property claim for some distant patent holder.

That's where my line of thinking goes, does this legislation address that issue in some manner? Would it be 'baby steps' toward more essential issues or is it a diversionary skirmish?

According to the govtrack link provided, the bill has no sponsorship from anyone on the judiciary committee so looks unlikely to be promoted and passed at this time.

Christopher Weeks wrote:If I understand it right, that kind of situation will continue to be specifically protected by the two laws this new act calls out as remaining unchanged. That is, a specific clone will stay protected as per current law, and new clones can still be protected going forward, but when you obtain one of those, you can use it for breeding -- you just can't clonally reproduce it and sell the clones without following the owner's rules.

Sounds pretty common sense, like a good open source software license. The point that would interest me is could you grow and propagate a patented clone if it was for personal use without having a contract with the owner?

So would this help someone like that Canadian farmer who was sued by Monsanto for saving roundup ready seeds that blew onto his property (if they were in the US)?

How would it affect something like the hop industry where plants are propagated by rhizome cuttings rather than seeds?

Has the love shack remained at this location?

It seems odd to expand the electrical grid there, was a larger solar battery install considered? I guess something already was there for the pump house, eh?

Jim Fry wrote:What I grow under/around our fruit trees, and everywhere else not barn or pasture, is the best grass that will grow. Then I cut the grass with a mower with bagger. I rotate sections, so I always have high grass ready to cut. Every bit of the grass I mow goes to the various animals we have. For them, it's like candy, -sweet, young, fresh. That way I cut way down on the pasture the animal's graze. Then in late Fall/early Winter, there's good pasture left for the cows etc. By letting the grass grow longer than usual, it helps preserve more soil moisture. And by resting the pasture most of the Summer, it does better.

From observing dozens of orchards or fruit trees around places I've stayed or visited, there's been a pretty clear pattern. Grass/lawn up to the trunk almost always indicates a dying fruit tree. The best look like they are just hanging on and deteriorate over time if it's someplace I return to annually. Fruit trees mulched with wood chips, or better yet 'wild' growth, underneath seem to always look vibrant in comparison.

In this case, I wonder if grazing cows are stirring up the soil and leaving fertilizer 'deposits' to somewhat help the situation? Carrying away the grass in a bagger just doesn't sound like it would be good for the trees.

I chose a 60L Iceco chest cooler. It has two compartments with separate thermostats that can be set anywhere down to 0*F. It can run directly on 115AC or 12/24/48DC. Being off grid I appreciate that it can be powered directly from my base 24V battery or 48V once I upgrade. Most importantly I can run it directly from a car or truck electrical system in case the home system fails or on a trip, and plug it in to AC while staying somewhere on grid. Pricey, but I went with an all metal body to take abuse and the compressor has double the warranty of the common Amazon cheapie knock offs.

Back to the question that started this thread, what is implied by "solar fridge", something that has an inverter and can run directly off a solar panel? I was thinking of something like a wofati freezer when I first clicked on this, a way to refrigerate without electricity (using the sun, not blocks of ice)...

Jay Angler wrote:
The "jam" nuts I use on the perches are just a skinnier than average regular nut. They can be skinnier because they're not "load bearing" - the inside regular size nut takes all the load. Theoretically, they shouldn't be any more expensive because there's less material than a regular nut so less metal to make them and less weight to ship them and less volume to take up in the truck. However, "should" and "are" don't always equate.

As Mike says, two regular nuts will do the job just fine, if that's the cheapest option. Hubby still thinks you should go for stainless, but he's a perfectionist! Stainless has its own weaknesses - more brittle for example, and much greater tendency to gall.

Often there are no "perfect" solutions particularly when the word "affordable" gets involved. Hopefully you're learning a lot as this project inches its way along to completion! Hopefully you learned a bunch of new skills at the Lab for the winter?

Just to update on this topic, I used a regular nut and a thinner jam nut (both stainless). The jam nut was slightly less expensive than the full nut from the fastener specialty store. Super easy to install with a cordless drill/driver. The Yupee has stood for 3 years and held the snow load from 3 Wisconsin Northwoods winters without any signs of stress on the structure. If I ever have to take it down and move it, I'll update further.