I have a wall of river rock. It is the wall behind the stairs from the living room leading to the second floor. Af first it was the rock adhered with epoxy to the wall. There was a coating of clear varnish to show the colors but it was too dull for the rest of the house decor. So I painted the rocks a forest green high gloss. I then went over the rocks with a paint brush almost dry except for a small amount of flat white paint on the brush. This brought out the texture of the rocks and created a wonderful mix of texture, shape and colors. People who see it for the first time love it and want to know how to recreate the look. It sounds like I had more rock to work with then you do, but the idea might stir some creative thoughts for you. Lisa

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

No, no, no, Caroline. It neutralizes all else in the garden. It is not a neutral color, purple in the garden but it serves to create unity with disparate colors in the garden. Try Fragrant Cloud for instance (red deep brick darker than Georgia clay but smellier than the Estee Lauder counter) mixed with Papa Meilland, the most beautiful and elegant rose ever to honor soil in a garden. The color is so crimson I understand that if one is pricked by a thorn in its vicinity, the human body is embarrassed to bleed as hemoglobin may pale in comparison to Papa Meilland and of course, there is no Estee Lauder counter fragrance to dear Papa, but a glorious combination of every light soft undertated fragrance one loved rolled up into one, a veritable phernomone, if you will, but these two handsome roess will only be able to reside side-by-side with the addition of purples and periwinkles of larkspur and delphinium, purples of foxglove and iris. Throw in a few purples and watch all those oranges, pinks and reds work together, like a school of fish swimming upstream. Hurvich and Jameson reasoned that when red and green are mixed together they produce yellow, not reddish green. Further when yellow and blue are mixed together they produce white and not yellowish blue. Red and green cancel each other as do yellow and blue. They further reasoned that if one started with a color such as bluish green it should be possible to mix this color with a unique yellow to cancel out the blue content leaving only green. This is the basic idea behind the hue cancellation technique. The first step was to identify for each observer their unique red, green, yellow and blue. Then monochromatic lights were presented one at a time and the observer's task was to cancel out one of the perceived hues if the wavelength was not already a unique hue. So at the shortest wavelengths the observer would add a certain amount of green to cancel out the redness. Then in the middle wavelengths unique red was used to cancel green, unique blue was used to cancel yellow and in the longer wavelengths unique green was used to cancel red. The amount of the cancellation color used was taken as an indicator of the strength of the cancelled hue. These data were then converted to produce the opponent processing curves. Although it is mentioned in the figure, it is worth repeating that the sign (plus or minus) attributed to these functions is arbitrary and chosen to represent the opposite nature of the opponent processes. Refilling my wine glass.

" 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.