John Seymour was educated in England and Switzerland. After studying at an agricultural college, he worked on farms in England for two years and then spent . John Seymour has lived a self-sufficient life for over twenty years and has been growing his own vegetables and fruit for over forty years. It is this knowledge and . Originally I wrote Bhagavad-gétä As It Is in the form in which it is presented now. When this book Bhagavad-Git The-Complete-Book-of-Self-Sufficiency-John-.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Hindi|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
ryaleomitsuvi.cf File Size: kb. File Type: pdf John Seymour's "Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency" (FREE PDF). BACK-TO-BASICS GUIDE, by John Seymour and Will Sutherland. New York: DK Pub, , pp., US$, Canada $, ISBN: 0–––2. 'NLP is a valuable and intriguing approach to the understanding of learning and communication. Joseph O'Connor and John Seymour's book is an excellent.
Butts et al. Both profiling programs [Maestro and NetProfiler] were able to improve the inter-instrument agreement on BCRA tiles, but with consistency only for their own instruments… Improvements in BCRA agreement did not produce similar improvements in textile agreement… A significant number of textile samples were adjusted in the wrong direction and are in much worse agreement after profiling.
These results were not unexpected. Rich had this to say: Seymour came to similar conclusions when analyzing BCRA tiles to determine the characterization: What Can Go Wrong? The list of potential reasons for two instruments to disagree is rather daunting [Spooner, ]. Repeatability — There is an inherent variation from one measurement to another even in the same instrument.
This may be in the instrument itself, or it may be because of positioning on a non-uniform sample. Does it? Rejection of scattered light — An instrument is potentially sensitive to ambient light. It may differ from another in the degree that it rejects specular reflections or light reflected from outside of the true sample area. White level — Spectrophotometers need to have a white calibration to convert their internal measurements into standard reflectance values.
This calibration relies on measuring a white calibration reference that has official reflectance values. Measurement geometry — The measurement of most samples depends on the angle that the light hits it as well as the angle the light is measured. A small difference in the angular distributions of illumination and detection may affect measurements.
Nonlinearity — The detector and associated electronics have some inherent nonlinearity. That is to say, twice the amount of light may not yield a measurement twice as large. Aperture size — There is a subtler problem when measuring objects that are translucent.
Incident light will spread laterally through the sample. The amount of this light that is measured will depend on the size of the area that is illuminated and the size of the area that is measured. There are actually two physical areas, and the relationship between them can enhance or detract from the ability of an instrument to agree with other instruments.
Wavelength alignment — A spectrophotometer is calibrated in the factory to assign wavelengths to each spectral band of the instrument.
Two instruments could disagree on this assignment. Bandwidth difference — Each channel of a spectrophotometer accepts a range of wavelengths in each of its bins. The fact that there is a difference is obvious when an instrument with a 10 nm spectral resolution is compared against an instrument with a 20 nm resolution, but there are still potential differences between two 10 nm instruments.
Fluorescence — If a sample fluoresces, the measurement of a color depends a great deal on the spectral curve of the illumination. This issue has been addressed with the introduction of the M1 condition in ISO , but even so, there is potential for disagreement due to implementation differences. The mathematical models described in the literature recognize some subset of these causes for disagreement, and seek to quantify them.
The approach of all of these methods is to lump all the measurements together, and let regression tease out the discrepancies in instrument design or calibration that cause the disagreement.
As shown in the paper by Seymour , one difficulty with this approach is that the instrumental discrepancies are often confounded. Misattribution of cause can lead to an increase in any disagreements.
This is particularly true when the samples to be measured differ from the samples used to standardize. General Outline of the Experiments The approach in this experiment is to use samples chosen to isolate the individual causes for discrepancies between spectrophotometers as much as possible. These sets of samples were measured by all instruments in the test group.
Inter-comparison of the measurements was performed to determine the sources of color measurement discrepancies. Five spectrophotometers were used for this experiment. They were selected based on two criteria.
First, they cover presumably a wide range of designs. Second, they were convenient for me to borrow for this test! I regret that instruments from additional manufacturers were not available.
This was intentional. Despite all exhortations to routinely calibrate instruments, the fact remains that a large number of instruments in the field are not up to date. Feb Gretag- Spectrolino 3. Jan Figure 1: The spectrophotometers used in these experiments.
Five samples were selected which should, in theory, all be very close to zero reflectance. Differences between the instruments in the measurements point to specific differences between the instruments.
Ugg light trap — I have constructed a light trap from a boot box. This top has a 5 mm aperture which is chamfered from below. Two instruments may differ in the measurement of the Ugg light trap if either a the Ugg aperture is not large enough, or b the instrument was not properly zeroed.
Ceram black glass reference — Lucideon formerly Ceram, and previous to that, BCRA provided me with a black reference made of highly polished black glass. If an instrument does not read zero for the Lucideon target, but does read zero for the Ugg light trap, then the instrument has inadequate specular light rejection, which may be an issue with dirty optics or inadequate attention to scattered light in the design.
Light which reflects specularly from a flat surface should be blocked from reaching the detector, but could still manage to make its way to the detector. Interstyle Ceramic black tile — I obtained a black tile from Interstyle Ceramics which is of a different design than the black glass reference from Lucideon.
This tile is clear glass with a thickness of 5 mm, and with a rich black on the bottom. If the tile is viewed with a focused light, the black back as viewed through the clear glass is a dark gray with a matte appearance. A first surface mirror has its shiny part on the top so that the reflection is not seen through the glass. X-Rite light trap — The XRite comes with its own light trap for calibration.
While this should in theory give identical results to the Ugg trap, inter-comparison of the measurements of the two traps will provide a useful cross-check of the effectiveness of the two light traps. The first four samples were measured with all the instruments, and the fifth one the X-Rite light trap measured where possible.
Ten replicate measurements were made with each sample and each instrument. In theory, at least, all the instruments should agree, within the limits of instrument repeatability, on the measurement of all the black samples. Average reflectance of the samples as measured by all instruments Note that I have intentionally not identified the instruments since the intent of this paper is not to rate specific models, but rather to try to understand differences between commonly found instruments.
The order of the instruments is not the same between Table 1 and Table 2. I consider the first three black samples the two light traps and the Ceram reference to be the most important. The other two Interstyle tile and first surface mirror are diagnostic.
The numbers in the table are color coded based on magnitude. The decision of how to color the numbers is based on asking a simple question: This is absolutely acceptable.
The yellow numbers would cause a drop of 0. This is also acceptable, in my opinion. The orange numbers represent a density drop to somewhere between 0. I consider this borderline acceptable.
The numbers in red represent a density drop of more than 0. I consider this unacceptable. Results by Instrument Instrument 1 The black measurements for the first instrument are good for all samples. On the other hand, the first surface mirror test is moderately large. But, the first surface mirror has roughly 15 times as much specular reflection as any ink, so I see no need to correct this instrument for black level.
Instrument 2 The numbers on the three critical samples are all very good, so there clearly are no issues with black level calibration. The first surface mirror number is a bit high: But, as stated for Instrument 1, this is a pretty severe test. The number for the Interstyle tile is quite large. The likely source of this difference is that Instrument 2 has a larger aperture.
The Interstyle tile is clear glass with a black backing.
The backing is a matte black, so there is a small amount of light reflecting at all angles from the area that is illuminated. My guess is that the first instrument has a fairly small aperture compared with the thickness of the clear glass. The drawing in Figure 1 shows illumination that reaches the black backing quite far afield from the area of detection.
Even though the light reflected from the black backing heads out in all directions, very little of it is accepted by the detector, since it is outside of the cone of acceptance of the detector. Figure 1: Instrument with a small measurement aperture cannot see the illuminated area Figure 2 shows my guess as to what the aperture of the second instrument looks like on the tile. The illumination and detection angles are such that there is some overlap of the area of illumination of the bottom of the tile and the area of detection.
There is also advice on digging a deep vegetable bed, growing undercover such as cold frames and greenhouses and growing in containers. You can find information about what to plant when, which is super handy when planning your growing year.
The book also gives a decent write up about common vegetables and fruits you can grow, and tips for growing a plentiful crop of each. John covers in depth how to tackle problematic pests on your veg plot and how to deal with them whether you choose natural methods or chemical methods. Personally, I aim to have a completely organic garden, with no use of pesticides at all. John Seymour is so passionate about permaculture, you can tell that he knows a lot about organic gardening and finding alternatives to chemicals a much preferable method of pest control.
Not everything can be eaten fresh, especially if you end up with a glut of something.
Last year we were swamped with courgettes, picking 2 or 3 per DAY! Most gardeners who grow their own food will need to preserve their harvests at some point or another. The NEW Complete Guide To Self Sufficiency can help you with freezing and bottling your food, making jams and chutneys, brewing your own booze and even features some useful recipes.
As a reader, if you were considering keeping livestock, John Seymour also has some incredible advice on this too. His early books concentrated on his adventures. These included his pre-war travels in Africa, his overland journey to India, a further year travelling in India and Ceylon, his voyages around the waterways of Britain in an assortment of craft and then his sailing trip to the Baltic in 'Willynilly', a Northumberland coble.
He even managed to fit in an autobiography 'On My Own Terms', which chronicled his life before he had a family.
In John married Sally and then, with a young daughter, they decided to adopt a more self-sufficient lifestyle and rented a remote house near Orford in Suffolk.
The story told in ' The Fat of the Land ' is a fascinating insight into the life of a young family working towards living a sustainable, self-supporting, enjoyable life in times when most people were succumbing to the consumerist society we were all being encouraged to join. As John wrote, they wanted to "contract out of an economic system motivated by greed". Their experiences in Suffolk led to a move to West Wales in with their three daughters collectively known by John as 'Janeannekate'.
Here they continued to farm.
John kept writing and in he wrote his most popular manual ' The Complete Book of Self-Sufficiency '. This brought him fame and a certain amount of riches, neither of which interested him. As long as he had a 'sun downer' in his hand at the end of the day and the company of good people he didn't give a thought to it.
In John left Wales and moved to another smallholding in Ireland. In at the age of 84, he was charged for damaging a genetically modified crop of sugar beet along with six others known as the 'Arthurstown Seven'. John was prone to using Monsanto's own herbicides to kill their 'genetically mutilated' crops, as he preferred to call them, on more than one occasion.
When confronted John would always claim that the faeries did it. John was not put on this earth to be a success in conventional terms. His business acumen was lousy, there is no other word for it.
The more money he had the less able he was to manage it.