Despite the original posters overly extensive post, with certain questionable content, the central point is still quite vaild. We as a nation spend more money on grass than on any other crop. That by itself should be reason enough. Read up on the history of lawns and you'll find that they were orginally created as a means of demonstrating wealth (aka, I have this big area and I can afford to do nothing with it except grow grass I can't eat) Regarding the comments of junegem13 and zachslc, you might want to read up on the legal history of this movement. As it turns out, most weed laws (ones based on hight, not on noxious weeds) are unconstitutional. Nonetheless, if you are in a city or subdivision and decide to do a wildflower meadow where there is not an reasonable ordinance, then you should notify your neighbors and the city about why you are doing and the legal preceedants. The EPA has all this information. Regarding property values, that was the original complaint neighbors made against one landowner when she converted her lawn into meadow. When they were unable to demonstrate an actual decrease in property values, the city ordinance was ruled unconstitutional. Afterwards, the neighbors decided if they couldn't beat her that they'd join her and replace their own yards with meadows. Property values in that one neighborhood are now some of the highest in the city (Specific names and places, are available if you want them). Time and time again, lawn alternatives done correctly have shown to raise values, not lower them. In Charlottesville, VA local government is working on an ammendment to exclude native meadows from our weed ordinance. Other cities are doing the same very quicky, especially since the weed ordinance as written by many localites constitutes a legal liability to local governments.

I called again and finaly got a hold of the timber appraiser doing my neighbor's deal. He did not even offer to come look at the tree, and basically told me that I would be lucky to break even on it by the time I got it down and to a mill. Come on. I know this is not a lottery ticket. Yes of course there are expenses and deductions, but there will already be a logging crew 800 yards away doing a job, and there are two sawmills here, one within 10 minutes and one within 30...which is likely where my neighbor's trees are headed. I guess this appraiser already knows there just won't be any room for an extra tree on that flatbed truck. I refuse to believe that I should just GIVE this tree to the loggers and be glad of it. If I can get even a few hundred dollars for such a quality (assuming) tree and avoid a potential threat to my house then I think that's a fair deal, especially if there's a crew doing this very thing right next to my back yard at the time. The response I got from the appraiser was somewhat unexpected as he was very dismissive, as if I was wasting his time. I had hoped he could have at least come by the house to see it for himself, evaluate the tree and give me some advice. He lives about 10 miles away, after all... He's getting a 7% cut off this timber sale, with or without my tree tossed on that heap, and the irony of all this is that the day he and my neighbor were doing their walk-through, the reason they stopped to talk with me was because he wanted to know if I had any trees back there that I would be interested in including in the sale. I thought of the cherry right after they left. Now I feel like I'm wasting my time and should just drop it and make another habitat brushpile, an equally good use, in my opinion.

'U' are preaching to the choir here...

building2017 wrote: ... - What are the silencers I have read about and how do they work/would they work here? These are like giant truck mufflers, except designed for various diameter ducts. They have low pressure loss (forget the value but it is a lot less than baffles). Fantech is the source. - Any benefit re:sound to using two smaller liners instead of one big one and only using one at a time when using only one side of stove? Or is this magnifying the cost for no good reason other than sound? (Because I'm assuming I'd then have two runs up and out and two things on the roof because they wouldn't combine to avoid a turn and to ensure proper function? If only one side were run at a time, then MUA costs could be lower, but where code requires MUA, I am willing to bet a donut that the AHJ will demand an MUA system that can handle both at once. In theory, the sound reduction will be only 3 dB less. Also, when using the central burners, you will still need both systems for capture and containment. Well, I guess three things on the roof then with the MUA. While commercial systems mostly use roof MUA entry, and I use roof MUA entry, the options for residences are wide open and may include side of house entry, or entry into a basement that has an air path access to the kitchen.