Just some ideas on how to protect or enhance or inhibit plant growth.
In a way your home can save energy using similar info.
yes it all starts with knowing about and being able to identify the
aspects of the land, ie.,. northern hemi' ideal would be a southern
aspect around to eastern. add some knowledge of average weather
conditions eg.,. rainfall an you can have a producing garden in an
area that say gets more rain than other near by places.
then the right sort of house needs to be built for the climate area so
it is truely efficient to run. lots of stumbling block in there as
many have no idea to even look for aspect let alone what it is, and
outside the indoctrinated mcmansion designs very many won't look at
so when buying property use the head and not the heart, the heart can
come later, develop a criteria. the orientation of the house on the
On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 08:50:00 -0400, Bill who putters
Matthew 25:13 KJV
"Watch therefore, for ye know neither
Quite right Len. So many houses, even newly erected, contain basic errors
that could easily be avoided. For example, they are oriented towards the
street or the view not the sun, or in hot climates they have unshaded
sunward windows. I know of people who are saving money by not including
insulation but they worry whether the portico should have Ionic or
Corinthian columns, of course they plan for aircon to deal with their design
errors. Such carelessness and ignorance will come back and bite them and
their heirs and successors.
Something else to consider is using the garden to improve the house. It is
common for people to assume that this means only the aspect and decorating
concepts such as linking the outdoors into the house. The plants that you
grow can do all that as well as improving the thermal performance of the
house. For example you can shade a sun-facing window in summer but allow in
the sun in winter by having a trellis with a deciduous vine over it.
On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 10:06:30 +1100, "David Hare-Scott"
I admit that we got the best orientation when we bought this house.
But it was luck. The house faces the west and we have two very large
Oak trees in the front yard. The deck is on the back and gets the
morning sun. By late afternoon the deck is completely shaded and
comfortable unless the day is extremely hot. We got one of the
sunshade awnings and roll it out early in the day to keep the heat out
of the kitchen and family room.
If I were looking for a building lot I would be checking out the
orientation and prevailing winds. Then see if I could build the kind
of house and orientation I wanted there. If I were planning to garden
I would also think about orientation & winds.
You may have got the best aspect for your deck but not for the overall
thermal performance of the house. In temperate zones the best aspect is
that the long sides of the house face north and south. In your climate you
would be missing out on getting winter sun into the house which will add to
your heating bills.
There are cases where hemisphere is not important but not this time. It's a
fairly fundamental error in the context of microclimates. Unless you
already understand what is going on and are used to making the switch the
article in question is going to be misleading. Either the author doesn't
get this herself or she is being parochial and only addressing the northern
How about constructive analysis?
Enlighten me. What is different for antipodials, except that they want a
northern exposure, whereas we want a southern exposure (unless you're a
painter, then it is just the inverse). After that, East is still East,
and West is still West.
Or were you referring to the cursory exposition of the microclimates?
Or were you referring to the type of habit where a person says things
like,"a gardener would be more efficient, if he . . ."?
Or all, or none of the above?
Inquiring antipodals want to know.
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
I vote for taught but completely forgotten after the test by the
majority of students. Consider the TV show "Are you smarter than a
fifth grader?" to see how much most forget.
How much school stuff should be retained? Vastly more than is by most.
How much effort should be spent at imporoving the median retention? I
have no idea. I remember enough of the material that I am amazed at
what folks don't know.
I am sure that forgetting large amounts of material we were taught in
schools happens everywhere. One of my concerns is with attitudes to facts
and learning rather than data retention. Do schools effectively teach good
attitudes to verifying facts and claims? To me this is an essential skill
for life because we are constantly bombarded by advertisers, politicians and
the like who want us to believe their view of things.
Evaluating claims requires the will and the skills to acquire facts and
opinions. Having done so if you forget some of the facts this is not such a
big deal in comparison with those who never bother and just accept and pass
on opinions somebody has handed them or they feel emotionally comfortable
Getting back on topic, we see plenty of unverified "facts" presented in
gardening and by gardeners. Who was it (Mark Twain??) who said " the
problem with folks isn't what they don't know it's what they know that just
University of Maryland Study Shows Watching Fox News Makes You Ignorant
A study conducted by the University of Maryland gives credence to the
view that Fox News is anything but, and is really a propaganda machine
meant to further a right wing agenda.
Uh, he's one of yours, isn't he?
If you like weekends, thank a union.
My entire family except me are strong fundamental Christians. I am an
atheist with strong ties to science. Almost everyone in my family believes
in the Ptolemaic system where I believe in the Copernican system. I would
ask them if the Sun was the center of the solar system, they all stated the
earth was the center because they could see the sun move. And the bible
states that the Sun stood still, so how could it be the center if it did
not move. They laugh at me and laugh at the scientific types as being
stupid... It is a sad world... I am also out numbered.
Religious people refuse to believe in global warming, because the bible
states that God would not destroy the earth with water again and refuse to
believe that the poles are melting. They dismiss pollution because they
believe God will create a new planet for them when Jesus Christ returns.
I have two minister nephews that went to Christian universities at have
PHD's in theology and they believe in the crap listed above! They believe
in the literal translation of the bible. They all watch Glen Beck and
believe in the crap he spews. Religious people have no concept of logical
reasoning, they believe in what the religious authorities tell them without
They all belong to the so called "archery" classes. But in reality the
teach kids as young as six years old to use guns. They teach them
propaganda like the government is going to take away their second amendment
rights. The list goes on and they are not the few they are in the many, in
This is one reason why I want to be alone. I cannot stand my family or
others like them.
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
Just to check - When I read this what I see is you reject one actively
anti-rational religion and become an atheist without seeming to notice
that there are a ton of other religious options out there. How is that
a rational approach? It's the major weakness of many atheists than runs
like this -
1) Assume there is only one valid religion in the world. Ignore that
this is a false basic assumption that allows the claims of that one
religion to dictate the terms.
2) Find flaws in that one religion and thus reject all religions.
Become an atheist rather than even address that the competition exists.
3) Never notice that the question of addressing deity has little or
nothing to do with the question of which religion, if any, to use as a
framework for that. For that matter never notice that there are
religions that don't much care if you actually believe in deity or not.
There are only two religions out there that are actively irrational.
They happen to be the two with the largest populations but "eat crap, a
trillion flies can't be wrong" is false in pretty much every group other
than a gardening one with composters in it. If you have such objections
to Christianity I figure you're not going to convert to Islam in
reaction to the irrationality of Christianity.
Science addresses the how. Religion addresses the why. To go without
religion is to throw away ages of why and reinvent the wheel yourself.
To change to a different religion is to chose among why's that have
centuries or millinnia of working on specific why's.
So look at the grillion other religions that have zero conflict with
science. This is a gardening group so consider one of the many nature
based religions. At one point I asked Thor if he cared how people
followed him. Thor is very good about being there but not so good at
paying attention to questions. After about a year of repeating the
question he finally came back with a shrugging "followers are good"
"have another ale". I conclude from that that it doesn't much matter
if you decide to follow his nature based system versus one of the many
others. But you don't seem to have noticed that options exist at all.
This one I have trouble accepting. Century old photos and year old
photos of pretty much any glacier in the world make the conclusion so
trivial. What I have trouble accepting is the irrationality of the
stance of ignoring such simple and overwhleming evidence. On the other
hand I am also very slow about my stance on the degree of human
input. But my being behind the times on degree of human influence
changes little in how I would approach the issue.
I do have objections to how folks are reaction to the fact of climate
change. In the 900s cattle were ranched on Greenland so it's clear the
current records don't go very far back. But Greenland was settled in a
period of global warming that was clearly warmer than we are right now.
Exactly how bad was it to be able to ranch cattle on Greenland? This
matters on why I am slow to evolve my stance on the degree of human
contribution - There was not much human contribution in those centuries
compared to now.
Reading history books says it was a time of extreme social change. Ah
hah, there's the political motivation right there. Folks are grabbing
for power at a time near the beginning of extreme social change. They
want time to build momentum and use leverage. Clearly it's not about
whether global warming is happening but about who will be in power and
what they will do with that power. That means their degree of sincerity
is extremely crucial. Folks calling themselves environmentalists who
are anti-nuke, check, very low degree of rationality and thus very low
degree of sincerity.
Billy has dived face first into that political fray. What's wrong with
ranching cattle on Greenland? What's wrong with letting the social
change as it will as the USDA zones move? Why bother with an irrational
religion that battles with science when there are rational religions
with zero conflict with science that are nature based?
Another irrational statement from a religious person.
Science addresses the why. Engineering addresses the how.
Religion is just pure nonsense. Not needed at all.
Science and Religion is like oil and water, they do not mix.
Of course you do, most religious people are, they believe god will protect
them and save us all. While destroying our environment until Jesus
returns... Oh Brother!
Yea, yea, God will protect us all. I have no faith in Nukes or your God!
"Rational Religions"? That is an Oxymoron statement like "Pretty Ugly".
I see I cannot escape the religious nuts even on Usenet. This is last of
this religious debate and will i not respond further as a waste of time.
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
In the introduction to Cat's Cradel, Kurt Vonnegut says,"If you can't
understand how a perfectly good religion can be based on a pack of lies,
then you probably shouldn't read this book".
Let me assure you, Nad, that Doug is one of the "good guys".
If you haven't already listened to it, you'd probably enjoy the last URL
If you like weekends, thank a union.
I always thought you were a hobokenist! It must have been the 250,000
cigarets, 2000 quarts of booze or your three wives that made you say that
Billy or your getting confused with Mark Twain with the Bible "being a pack
I am not saying he is or isn't. He did seem to confirm my suspicions. He
seemed to support a belief in a God, questioned global warming as being man
made and seemed to think nuclear energy is not that harmful to the
These are common traits among people. Yes they are exceptions to the
rules. However, it is also in my nature to categorize people and their
beliefs. After a while when i get some basic information, I can almost
always surmise the rest of his or her views. We humans weather you like it
or not fall into a few categories therefore can be type casted.
Enjoy Life... Nad R (Garden in zone 5a Michigan)
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.