spedigrees: Limestone varies in magnesium content. If you go to your local agricultural store--I am not sure what you have up there--and ask for “high mag limestone“--crushed or pulverized--they should be able to direct you. The analysis is always posted on the bag. Dolomitic limestone is generally “high-mag,” but perhaps other types of limestone have a high magnesium content. Our soils here in the northern Shenandoah Valley are very high in magnesium, and high mag limestone underlies a good portion of our soils, and high mag limestone is readily available. And, almost all the NS in this area look very nice, in spite of our hot, dry climate. As for soil acidity--that should not be a problem for Norway spruce, unless the soil is extremely acidic, maybe in the low 4’s. At my timberland, where the soils are a bit below 5, Norway spruce does very well. I am not sure what an optimum pH would be, and it would probably vary with soil type. Maybe somewhere in the 5.5 range is "safe." As for magnesium for Norway spruce--this has been fairly well documented. I titled my original post “a hypothesis,” but there is substantial evidence. A site factors study done at SUNY Syracuse some years ago now, noted that “at least 75 kg per hectare” is needed for good NS growth. Studies in Europe, where there has been extensive decline in NS forests, has shown that the acid rain causes a reduction in the availability of magnesium, and supplementing magnesium often solves the problem. And, I have made some personal observations--not scientific, and without all the facts--that magnesium supplementation can make a dramatic difference. But, the main effect of magnesium may not be in height growth, but in the fullness, density, and lushness of the foliage. I have seen many poor looking, thin foliaged NS trees growing reasonably fast in height. Also, the thin foliage on some Norway spruce trees has causes other than a lack of an optimum supply of magnesium. And, I know, some of that is genetic, and not correctable. As for your experiment: Yes, 5 years should be long enough to show some results, but no sooner. The limestone has to dissolve into the soil, get down to the roots, and, because NS hold their needles for several years, the "thickening" of the foliage may not be vis1ble for several years. BUT, and this is a big "but," the effect may not really show up on very young trees. It may help the growth rate, but as for foliage density, that is never really noticeable until trees are somewhat older and larger--maybe not until they are 20 feet tall or more will any difference be really clear. As for the growth rate: white pine usually starts growing faster than NS. How old are your trees? How tall? NS trees don't begin to grow fast until they are about 4.5 feet high, and that could be only after 6 to 8 years. At that point, they should "take off." On the best soils, and in the right climate, an average of 28 inches is possible, with some years the new shoots elongating up to 4 feet or more. But growth averaging 20 to 24 inches is good for many sites. Norway spruce and white pine, assuming equally good strains, should grow equally well over the first 50 years. The white pine up to about 18 years should outgrow the NS, but after that NS should catch up a bit. After 50 years NS should outgrow the white pine for some years. SUNY Syracuse did a growth curves study for NS, and found that for the first 60 years--after the trees reach 4.5 feet in height, there is no "curve" as such, but a straight line. White pine growth curves bend sharply over to the right after the first 18 years or so, and at 50 years the growth averages about 1 foot, while at the same age, NS trees can still be growing 28 inches per year. But this rate does begin to decline not too long after the 60-year mark. On the best sites both should eventually make 150 feet or more in forest stands. Open grown NS should make 120 feet or more on better sites. As for the blue spruce and magnesium, I really don't know. Tom may be right about this. --spruce

And of course, it is most dependent on climate. In Wisconsin, a geothermal might save 50% compared to conventional while in central NC, the quoted number is 20%. Geothermal saves very little when the ambient temp is 35-95. So how long you spend under 35 (or over 95) really affects how much geo helps. I think so many times geo is compared to oil or straight electric which is completely unfair. The other comparison is old "conventional" heat pump. Like when "a geothermal system is the equivalent of removing 2 cars from the road" - maybe compared to oil heat in a large, leaky, and northern house.

First, I figured you would not answer any questions and about 8 years ago I did have a blower test and ESP test done and the manual J performed and none of them would show me the results except to say, I needed a 4.5 ton unit which is on the fence, right? And all said they would have used the same duct work and the blower test was 34 out of like 50 (whatever that value is, I just don't remember). He said not bad and usually sees a lot worse, but could be better and they wanted to gut my duct system and go to all metal duct and both companies pricing was about $6,000 to $7,000 again, about 8 years ago. I had other estimates too, but I don't trust most A/C companies around here as I used to do the repair business years ago and it was mainly window units back then and I know how this business overall operates and you and others online are the exception rather than the rule in residential work. Which is great, but surely you know how bad it is? It is way too competitive and other things I know, I'll just say is very embarrassing to say the least. So, as I do the manual J and D calculations myself I am coming up with between 4 and 4.5 ton system, which you are right, so I see it is going to be oversized. But, I will say we had upper 80 degree days last week and the humiditiy was in the mid 40 percent range in my home as did my 4 ton unit performed and was still comfortable. But, I understand the tighter I make the system, doing as designed will bring the temperature down more quickly and will not be able to control the humidity as well and may become more uncomfortable and cycle more often making it less efficient. Your link is what has made me do what I am doing so far and I thank you for sharing some of your knowledge to the public, I wished I had seen it before I made this move. I know this is not a good excuse, but we had two 14,000 btu portable units in the house this summer and still couldn't keep the temperatue in the house from climbing to 80 degrees during peak outdoor temperature and the central system still would run until midnight before it would shut down briefly. I understand between the leaks and being undersized on return I was losing ground from day one as we bought this model home new. It just seems these portable units would have helped a little bit in keeping the temperature reasonable in our home. I even had a third unit ready to install, but we sweated it out through the end of the cooling season and so, how many would it have taken, 5, 6, or 7 units? Thanks.

I have not only ours, but have been over the years caregiver for both my mother and aunt. I'd highly recommend keeping them for at least several years. Just about a week ago, I got an EOB from her supplemental for Aunt (who died in Jan) for a service that was performed in Dec. Reasons you need to keep them for a while: not all facilities bill promptly--you often need to go 6 months back to make sure benefits are coordinating properly; if you end up in an estate situation, you sometimes need those records; often you think a bill is taken care of, an the facility thinks it's NOT*; also, aside from the financial aspects, those are a great addition to your health record (what year was it I had my appendectomy?)--everything is on them, and you can refer to them. There's also the tax stituation--you need to be able to verify your health deductions--what you paid, what was paid for you, etc. *We've had a problem with this just recently. I was in the ER last August, DH paid the bill IN FULL, IN CASH and got a Paid in full receipt the beginning of SEPT (2011). We've been billed at least 5 times since for a portion of that bill. Each time we've addressed the issue, sending proof we paid it--and been told the matter was cleared off our account. And just a few weeks ago, I got a letter saying they would be turning the matter over to collections--I have been told one more time that our account is cleared. The gal I spoke to seemed surprised that I wanted written proof (????????) I got a printout of the account with a 0 balance, but I'm not wholely convinced yet.... I cannot tell you how many times, for one reason or another, I've had to refer back to those records years later. I'd hang on to them--neatly organized, of course.