In message
Michael Bell wrote:

In message
Martin wrote:

On Sun, 08 Mar 2015 07:42:37 +0100, Michael Bell
wrote:

In message
Spider wrote:

On 07/03/2015 15:06, Martin wrote:
On Sat, 07 Mar 2015 13:25:59 +0000, Spider wrote:

On 06/03/2015 22:58, Michael Bell wrote:
In message
David Hill wrote:

On 06/03/2015 11:46, Michael Bell wrote:
I am going to start soon fertilising alders with their pollen. "With
an artist's paint brush" is the usual advice, but even though I am not
an artist, I know that there are many kinds of "artist's paint brush".
Which kind should I use?

Let me do a bit of start-up thinking. The pollen has to stick to the
bristles to a moderate extent; if the pollen doesn't stick at all,
then the paint brush won't carry the pollen and it won't be any use,
but I also want the pollen not to be held too firmly otherwise no
fertilisation will be achieved.

This has prompted me to think a little for myself. How useful is it
going to be to look at the bristle of the paint brush to check how
much pollen is on them, before and after?

Michael Bell


Depends how flushed you feel,
You could use sable or a cheepy "Kids" paintbrush, needs to be soft
and
of a size to suit the flowers it will be used on (I know you wont be
using it on flowers but others may).
For tomatoes etc it used to be a rabbits tail (With the rabbit
removed).
David @ spring like side of Swansea Bay.

I have gone with the suggestion of a woman's make-up brush. Pollen is
a powder and women's make-up brushes are designed for use with
powders, rather than liquids as paint brushes are, I think that is the
crucial difference. There are no rabbits in my garden, and this brush
seems to get fairly near to that quality of feel.

I must say I felt a little funny buying women's stuff, but all in the
name of science!

Michael Bell


:~)). Good for you. You wouldn't be the first, actually. It has been
done before. Some male anglers even use womens' tights under their
trews when fishing in winter as they're so cosy. After that, asking for
a mere make-up brush is child's play;~).

I knew somebody who wore women's tights under his trousers when
sailing. He got
some odd looks in the showers of a sailing club he visited.


I bet he did! No calls of "hello sailor", then? ;~)

We men tend to think of women's clothing as ridiculous and
impractical. But we see now that it is more practical than it looks.
They wear tights not only under skirts, but under trousers too.

Not very practical for men when they want to go to the toilet.

No better for women!

Michael Bell

It's interesting that both string vests and nylon tights are so
warm-keeping, when neither of them seal the skin from the air. There
must be some deep principle of aerodynamics here!

Michael Bell




--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

In article ,
Michael Bell wrote:
In message

It's interesting that both string vests and nylon tights are so
warm-keeping, when neither of them seal the skin from the air. There
must be some deep principle of aerodynamics here!

Aerostatics, actually :-(

Air is a vastly poorer conductor than almost any solid substance,
so the insulating properties of a material are primarily the
thickness of the air gap. To avoid losses by convection, the
air needs to be trapped in very small cells - hence the immense
factors for wool or down with a windproof outer.

Neither string vests nor nylon tights are particularly warm,
incidentally, but most UK conditions don't need Arctic survival
kit. Icebreaker tights are intermediate between the two.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.