Yeah Janna we have strayed from "It's SNOWING" (how lovely), but frankly now that I've got some "cool" photos I'm tired of it and WANT Spring back! The weight of the build-up crushed the net and supports covering outer chicken run. Now while freezing MY tail feathers off I've got to get knee high boots on and wade into cold mud to try to lift and patch and get the net back on it's supports. Anyway, I like hearing about your photo experiences and seeing your AWESOME photos. I especially like the B&W softball shot ... GREAT!. Afraid tho that as much as I like them I suspect others will feel opposite. Not because they're lame, but they are WAY BIG! The problem of posting BIG pics in forums hits close to home because it's been a recent hot topic in my fishing forum. While I appreciate large high resolution pictures and have a graphic capable computer and high speed net connection to handle them, they do cause problems for folks who don't. First they throw the formatting of the text way off requiring people with small monitors to have to scroll back & forth to not only see the BIG pics, but also just to read the text. Many already frustrated by slow download give up and avoid the whole thread. Patty4150's post provides (at least for me) a rather confusing example of "CLICK" linking so the large pic pops up outside the forum in it's own new window. In the fish forum I learned special coding needed to put a text described clickable link to my large photo below a small version formatted to fits the normal width of the forum layout. My text goes like this, "CLICK HERE for 1200x1600 pixel 600k image" I've not yet figured out how to do that here in GardenWeb. youreit can you help? I use ImageShack for free image hosting. What's confusing with Patty's post is that the clickable text that looks to me like it should lead to picture posting instructions instead presents the pic she's sharing with us. Janna if you're interested in seeing a few more of my nicer non-garden pics send me your email address I can then send you an invitation to view my Webshots albums. Even if you're not interested in my humble collection I highly suggest you check-out the Webshots site. It's the best place I've found on the net to enjoy top quality photography ... some available FREE. I pay a modest subscription not so much for album hosting, but for access to ZILLIONS of AWESOME high rez pics. "Fix" this email address to contact me: eagle_i_photos(at)yahoo(dot)com

Robert: The narrow strip on unlogged trees along Redwood creek was left to provide access to what were then thought to be the tallest trees in the world. A big section of logged over land surrounding the "worm" was added to the park with the park expansion bill. I was one of two lobbyists for the Sierra club working to make sure our Senators and Congressmen had the right information and would support the bill. It is a shame that that land, and even more, was not included in the original park, which really did not preserve that much additional old growth redwood forest. By this time much of the Bull creek watershed has recovered somewhat--the cutting there was done close to 60 years ago. As for the incorrect measurement of the "Mother of the Forest Tree": As a percent of the total height, the amount of error is not that uncommon. The most frequent error, is what I noted in my discussion above--the top of the tree, or a point sighted as the top, was closer to the observer than a point directly above the base of the tree. So, when the angle for computing the height was read, the clinometer gave an angle steeper than the true angle would be. The problem occurs because the measurement to the base of the tree was made separately from the measurement of the angle. For these calculations, whether for the ENTS method, or the previous method, a right triangle is assumed, but unless the top sighted is directly over the base, no right triangle actually exists for the calculations, leading to distorted results. The ENTS method assumes TWO right triangles, and measures two distances and two angles, and then combines. So whether the tree leans, or whether the top is directly over the base, is not an issue. But this method, using the convenience of the laser rangefinder, is, after all, much easier and faster. The difficulty is finding a good window to the top, and judging what the true top is, especially when sightlines are difficult and the crown of the tree is broad and/or complex. When no good window can be found--if the tree is very special--it will be climbed, and a tape dropped. Now this is really difficult and takes both climbing AND measuring expertise. And one or two additional people. With the ENTS "sine top, sine base," the angle and the height are measured on the same sight line. The assumed right triangle always--and of necessity--always exists for the calculations. If an error occurs, it is usually to underestimate the height. This would happen when something other than the true top is sighted. The ENTS method will give a true height of whatever twig is sighted, whether the top or not. Note that Will Blozan, when he measured the tree, moved 600 feet away to ensure that from his angle--from far away--he could sight the true top. And, because the distance and angle are measured along the same line and from the same point, the issue of whether the top is perfectly over the base is not an issue. The base is measured the same way as the top, and the height added or subtracted, as the case may be. What may have happened with the "Mother" tree, is either someone did not have enough patience to try to find a visual "window" for sighting the true top of the tree.--so if he stood too close to the tree, allowing him to sight some twig that was more to the side of the crown towards himself rather than at the absolute top, and that twig were a relatively small distance closer to the observer than the base of the tree, whether it were the true top or not, a large overestimation of the height could occur. Or, if the true top was sighted, but that top were closer to the observer than a point directly over the base, that would lead to the same kind of error. Of course, errors could occur in measuring the distance to the trunk, even it the top were directly over the base. Of course, people using the ENTS method can make errors, but any error will not occur simply because it is built into the methodology, as has been the case with the method commonly applied previously. Want to have some fun: get some equipment and start measuring. The now discontinued Nikon 440 rangefinder is perhaps the most preferred rangefinder because it has a narrow laser beam that can pass through narrow openings without giving a false echo from surrounding clutter. Used ones usually available on e-bay, often for between $100 and $150. I also use a basic Suunto clinometer and $13 scientific calculator. If I can sight the top and the base without too much searching, I can get readings, punch in the numbers and get a tree height in maybe as little as two minutes. --Spruce

I have to post a couple more pictures from the incredible Blue Mountains Botanic Garden at Mount Tomah. It was my favorite garden on this trip. Although not having the variety of Rhododendrons that can be found in Olinda, the scenic aspect of it is just mind boggling. I can think of only 2 other gardens I've visited with such an amazing natural setting and attendant sense of place - UC Berkeley, and Villa Taranto on a mountainside next to Lago Maggiore. (In fairness, I should really wrap in Isola Madre and Isola Brissago and just say "the absolutely incredible Gardens of Lago Maggiore". The latter two merely sit in the lake, while Villa Taranto allows you to climb at least a couple hundred feet up and feel like you're in the clouds looking down, as does the UC Berkeley garden. As close to the Horticulturally Edenic as you will find, I think.) Looking at these pics years later, I now spot, for example, that there was a Glyptostrobus (probably!) that I hadn't even noticed. Here were some of their native grass trees, albeit smaller than ones I saw in coastal Victoria: A few more from Australia. Here is the lush undergrowth of the Blue Mountains. The is the biome that the Wollemi pine comes from. Phil explained to me what this plant was. It looks like a South African Erica, but is actually the Aussie version. It's either also in the Ericaeae, or is another plant family that co-evolved to look similar. Sorry, can't remember! Finally a view of the forest-y part of the Sydney Botanical Garden. Looking and feeling every bit like being on a tropical island, but quite a ways from the tropics. Sydney is as far south as Myrtle Beach is north. 33S. Good luck creating anything like this in Myrtle Beach! Practically any plant recognized by northern tourists as a 'tropical' plant grows here, barring coconuts. You have go closer to the Queensland border to find those, they simply can't deal with the frost-free albeit slightly chilly winters of Sydney. On to Christchurch! A quintessential NZ scene at the Christchurch Botanic Garden. NZ Flax, of course! Tree ferns, of course! Weird little conifer - probably one of the shrubby Podocarps, of course! Nearby was the bizarre looking Phyllocladus alpinus, aka 'Celery Pine'. You can grow this in the milder parts of the PNW, definitely not in the eastern US. Typical plantings...a young Telopia, a Callistemon, and Kniphofia northiae. Although clearly not as mild as most of the gardens I saw in AU, it's still pretty damn mild, as is evidenced by the fact they can use Clivias as bedding plants! I suspect Christchurch is probably 10a in the milder parts, 9b if you get away from the coast or 'urban heat island'. IIRC the guy who used to post on GOTE from there put 9b in his profile. I saw, for example, winter blooming South African aloes, but far more infrequently than in AU, and maybe only in sheltered north facing gardens har har har.

" Making your own face mask? Some fabrics work better than others, study finds " This study, non peer reviewed and non published that's touted all over NBC is, sorry, looking at the issue in the wrong way. They studied how various materials can filter out the virus, which is tiny teeny, 03 micron. Sounds like this means that they're trying to prevent incoming viruses from infecting the person who wears the mask. However, one primary mode of transmission is through face-to-face interaction. Fact is that in normal interaction, speaking, coughing, sneezing, the virus is ensconced in droplets --- these droplets are way, way bigger than what Segal tested. Therefore, 1. The point is to look at how to prevent EMITTING these virus carrying droplets, that is, the wearer prevents transmitting his/her infection to others. And this is where face covers are extremely efficient: They block the spit droplets from leaving the mouth of an infected person. 2. So, any meaningful tests of protective mouth covers needs to test such droplets. 3. Yes, there is evidence that such droplets that are emitted by talking, sneezing, coughing can become aerosolized, ie become tiny, the size of what Segal tested. However, again, this can be prevented by emitting droplets in the first place. Super frustrating to see some anesthesiologist's unpublished, non-peer reviewed "study" be all over the Internet.