# Cabling and Bracing



## electrictrimmer (Jan 29, 2010)

In my area cabling and bracing in non-existant. Nobody does this and I want to start installing cables and braces. I have read plenty of materials on this subject, but is there anything else I should know. If you could, please give me some install tips, where to purchase the equipment to install, specs and how to sell this service. I am just getting started on my own and I dont know anything about sales. Thank you for taking the time to read my post.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 30, 2010)

Know the BMP's through and through first.

Find a high-profile tree that needs it, then show the work to your community.


----------



## BC WetCoast (Jan 30, 2010)

My advice would be to start slow, learn how to splice rather than using easy eyes, it'll keep your overhead down and there are lots of tricks you need to know to get easy eyes to work properly and look good.

If you're using J lags, then you can get by with just a cordless drill and not a gas powered one. You will need a gas drill if you're doing through bolts and rods.

Practice your splicing on the ground, so you will be fast when you get in the tree.


----------



## treeseer (Jan 31, 2010)

BC WetCoast said:


> You will need a gas drill if you're doing through bolts and rods. .


But not for through-drilling cable width and using terminal fasteners.

Can't splice EHS cable; why sacrifice strength for tradition?

If you have a question about marketing with the BMP's, ask away.


----------



## pdqdl (Jan 31, 2010)

Marketing with BMPs?  I am ALWAYS interested in learning how to improve my marketing.

By the way: I'm completely on your side with abandoning the lower strength (splicable) strand and going to EHS. It's harder to work with, but so much stronger. It may be practical to save money in the end by using lighter EHS strand than heavier & thicker conventional strand.

To keep costs down, consider wire nuts. Although some at this website disapprove of them, I find that they work pretty well. I don't really do much cabling, so you can take my advice for what you think it's worth.


----------



## treevet (Jan 31, 2010)

Industry standards have evolved beyond BMP's to ANSI A300 (Part 3)-2006 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard Practices (Supplemental Support Systems)


----------



## treeseer (Feb 1, 2010)

Actually ANSI came first, and the ISA BMP's follow with a how-to guide.

i think the article was in tci feb 08


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

Ansi is the standard


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

treeseer said:


> But not for through-drilling cable width and using terminal fasteners.
> 
> .



NOT acknowledged as a viable system by ANSI standards.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 1, 2010)

I can't believe it, a newbie cabler asks for advice, and within the first few posts gets steered towards using friggin J lags and rigguy wirestops!

What's next for this poor student trying to learn cabling, cobra dynamic rubber band cambium strangling systems recommendations?

jomoco


----------



## mndlawn (Feb 1, 2010)

treevet said:


> NOT acknowledged as a viable system by ANSI standards.



I'm new to cabling too. ANSI does say this about wire stops: "but if you clearly define the objectives, and follow the manufacturer’s recommendations, installing these newer systems can be ANSI compliant."

I'm confused. I have seen a lot of botched up cable jobs. I really just need to take a class.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 1, 2010)

mndlawn said:


> ...
> 
> I'm confused. I have seen a lot of botched up cable jobs. I really just need to take a class.



No need for confusion, although a class won't hurt you a bit. There are very experienced arborists on this site that have widely different thoughts on what equipment is suitable. Traditional cable installers like Jomoco tend to think that the newer equipment is not suitable. Other arborists think otherwise.

I think in the final analysis, that you need to pay more attention to HOW the hardware is installed, and choose a good system that you can install properly. Understanding the role of cabling and the dynamics of a proper installation are more important than which piece of metal you have chosen to terminate an end.

Myself, I question the merit of using J-lags, as they rely on healthy wood to hold the threads. If the wood was all healthy in the branches getting "fixed", it probably would not need the cabling system. Others contend that two injuries per attachment (both sides of the limb) increase the probability of introducing decay. I disagree.


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

mndlawn said:


> I'm new to cabling too. ANSI does say this about wire stops: "but if you clearly define the objectives, and follow the manufacturer’s recommendations, installing these newer systems can be ANSI compliant."



Where does it say this? It is not even in the vocabulary section for the standard.


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Myself, I question the merit of using J-lags, as they rely on healthy wood to hold the threads. If the wood was all healthy in the branches getting "fixed", it probably would not need the cabling system. Others contend that two injuries per attachment (both sides of the limb) increase the probability of introducing decay. I disagree.



bolts rely on healthy wood to hold the termination.

Lag hooks work just fine in the right circumstances. I have put in well over 2,000 cables in my life and have never had a call for a pulled out lag. Most of my cables have been and will continue to be lags. The problem usually stems from homeowners and scaredy cats that put them in too low. 

I guess it is deja vu time for the groundhog's day on cabling now. I'm in.


----------



## pdqdl (Feb 1, 2010)

Let's hope this one stay's friendlier than the last one. 

I'm pretty safe on this topic, since I do not claim any particular expertise. I have seen a few J-lags holding just fine, and I don't think I have ever seen any cable job fail. 

Obviously, my skills at failure analysis would be limited.


----------



## treevet (Feb 1, 2010)

Sometimes I go 1/8 smaller dia hole (than the lag) instead of the 1/16 recommended on what I consider softer woods or more demanding applications. I will step up to bolts if the situation dictates. It is fun to be creative with experience. Success breeds confidence. Had a ton of compliments from the hurricane of 08 here with trees withstanding 80 mph sustained winds and non cabled trees nearby failing. Cabling is a pro service that you can take pride in like any other service.

Best way to learn IMO....apprenticeship.


----------



## Ekka (Feb 23, 2010)

jomoco said:


> cobra dynamic rubber band cambium strangling systems recommendations?
> 
> jomoco



Apparently so and from the PDF I have lifted this about static Cobra system and circled in red where no doubt cambium would be restricted from regular growth.

As the tree grows it expands in girth (ever see tree rings?) and that occurs via cell division. When cells divide they'll tend to take the path of least resistance. This is why things like signs, bikes, nails, fence wire and even J-lags get encased by the tree.

What I see here is a tensioned section of static with a loop around the tree, there will be pressure on the cambium for sure. I see a larger wound area, cambium restriction and structural weakness as expansion will not occur directly beneath the loops but above and below. 

I certainly would not be recommending such a system and insist on through bolting, J-Lags or Rigguy.... but that doesn't mean you have to use steel wire either, I just don't like the termination loops around the stems.


----------



## Wohn (Feb 23, 2010)

Ekka,

your are right that there will be some pressure (I guess around 50-100 kg (110-220 lb)) on the bark and the cambium below the loop that may restrict the natural secondary growth of the branch. But that pressure is devided by the contact-surface of the loop thus it is minimized. A regular inspection also helps to avoid ingrowth.

Sure alternative you can drill a stem and use j-lags and it doesn't matter if you install a steel insteed of a dyneema - except of the weight. But as you know the compartimenzation of some trees isn't really good so for those trees a loop is possibly the lesser evil.

You have to evaluate from case to case what solution is best for the tree.

Greetings


----------



## jomoco (Feb 23, 2010)

Wohn said:


> your are right that there will be some pressure (I guess around 50-100 kg (110-220 lb)) on the bark and the cambium below the loop that may restrict the natural secondary growth of the branch. But that pressure is devided by the contact-surface of the loop thus it is minimized.



220 lbs huh?

Somehow I doubt you realise how silly that sounds to a veteran cabler. One who has installed cabling systems over 25 years old, under thousands of lbs of linear tension, with galvinized steel hardware rated in excess of 20K lbs of linear tension?

If you're selling this snake oil my friend, I hope for your sake you have plenty of product liability insurance.

jomoco


----------



## Wohn (Feb 23, 2010)

Jomoco,
excuse me but possibly you got me wrong. With 220 lbs I meant the constant load that is on the cable not the breakload (tensile strength) of the cable or system. (cobra ultrastatic has a system breakload of around 14k lbs)

To I install a static cabling I use a pulley to pull the branches together carefully and then I install the system. After loosing the pulley the constant load (constant pressure) isn't much higher than a few hundred lbs.

Sure during storms there are higher peak loads but they won't effect secondary growth after the storm anymore, right?

Our product liability insurance is plenty - thanks - but we never had to fall back on it. There wasn't one system or material failure since 1993.


----------



## jomoco (Feb 23, 2010)

The pertinent point is that your system can't come anywhere near it's rated strength of 14K without damaging the cambium at both termination points, whereas a traditional steel cabling system can.

Like rigguy, your system's liabilities exceed it's benefit, particularly in a long term sense measured in decades.

Rigguy's termination ruins the structural integrity of the steel cable itself, separating each individual strand of cable, stressing it, and exposing it to corrosion and rust, then hiding that weakpoint in the system in a location impossible to inspect.

Your system can't deal with thousands of lbs of tension without damaging the cambium at each termination point, period, despite your claims otherwise.

Both these newfangled systems are so poorly designed that they should never be accepted for use in any cabling standard, anywhere, in my opinion as a 37 year veteran climbing arborist.

jomoco


----------



## treeseer (Feb 23, 2010)

re the undocumented fear of cambium damage, see the top of the second page. No offense Jon but the university dissertation trumps your 37 years in the tree. Sounds like i got you beat by 6 but that is not relevant data is it? just means I'm more tired.

"Rigguy's termination ruins the structural integrity of the steel cable itself, separating each individual strand of cable, stressing it, and exposing it to corrosion and rust, "

this is a concern, but keep in mind that all this happens outside of the fastener. So how much load does each bend bear? and how fast does it corrode? We'll see; that's why periodic inspections are needed. 

"then hiding that weakpoint in the system in a location impossible to inspect."

?? the bends in the strands are on the outside of the fastener and are visible and tangible.

:deadhorse:


----------



## jomoco (Feb 23, 2010)

Come on Guy, pick say a white alder, Alnus rhombifolia, choose any lateral on it capable of supporting a heavy load, throw your synthetic polypropylene anchoring strap over it and hang a thousand lb load on it, remove the strap and see if there's any cambial damage? 

Whereas I can drill that lateral, install a throughbolt, hang as much weight as that limb is capable of supporting from it, and still do no cambial damage to it beyond the width of my galvinized washers, about 2 inches, which can heal over in a few years.

So much for using cobra in white alders, or any other tree in my opinion.

It's ridiculous to try and support a tree with components weaker than wood. If I were to rub an oak limb against even a one inch thick polypropylene rope, which would fail first my very book learned friend?

jomoco


----------



## jomoco (Feb 23, 2010)

What about fire, say a home fire, or a brush fire?

How well will a polypropylene strap or rope holdup to the rising heat compared to drop forged galvinized steel?

Doh!

jomoco


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Feb 23, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Rigguy's termination ruins the structural integrity of the steel cable itself, separating each individual strand of cable, stressing it, and exposing it to corrosion and rust, then hiding that weakpoint in the system in a location impossible to inspect.
> 
> jomoco



I tend to agree with jomoco. I have used Rigguys and wasn't happy with their usability. Maybe after 20 cables I still didn't quite have the hang of it. Ive gone to old tried and true, through bolts / lags, and dead end grips. I figure if there is ever a problem or lawsuit that I'll go with something with years of data behind it in court. Just my 2cs..... Mike


----------



## treevet (Feb 23, 2010)

treeseer said:


> No offense Jon but the university dissertation trumps your 37 years in the tree. Sounds like i got you beat by 6 but that is not relevant data is it? just means I'm more tired.



You boys either were tied into a tree outside the middle school with a text book in one hand and the window open....or you need some batteries in the calculator.....or sooombooody's fiiibiiing.


----------



## Wohn (Feb 24, 2010)

My opinion and experiences about constant loads of static cables and cambium damages can be read in my previous post.

But I have to add a few thoughts that may be interesting. It always has to be distinguished between static and dynamic cablings because they are used for different jobs.

Static cablings are used to immobilize the branches of a predamaged (cracked) crotch to prevent the crack from opening more and more. Or to hold a breaking branch. In the first case they are installed horizontal in the second case (as load system) they have to be installed vertical to prevent the branch from falling into the cable.

Dynamic cablings have to ...

...support a branch by transfering some (not all) wind load to a neighbour branch because the wood of the weak branch is still transfering a lot of the load by itself.

...restrict the movement befor the wood fibres were overstreched and fail and it has to avoid a branche from swinging in resonance with the squalls and thus store more and more kinetic energy (as a child’s swing) until the branch collapses. Therefore it has not to be very strong (see below). Furthermore a smooth slow down of the movement is best for a tree. A dynamic system is able to avoid shockloads, a static cable can’t.

There is no constant load in dynamic systems thus no cambium damage occures. The ingrowth of systems is always a case of not regular controlling cablings. True for rubbed through systems too.

About loads in trees and the required tensil strength of systems I also want to add a few words. 

There are many hundred thousend cobras out there and not a single one failed because of high loads. cobra standard with 2 t (4,400 lbs) tensile strength has been installed since 1993 in branches with up to 50 cm base diameter. This experience in the field has proven that by installing cablings near the wind load center (around 2/3 height) the leverage force can be minimized thus loads effecting the cable are low thus cables can be sized low too. If the loads in trees would have been higher then in the last 15 years a lot of cables had to be broken. But they have not. If interested read also the results of the field measurements of Ken James (see „Dynamic loading of trees“, Journal of Arboriculture 29 (3): May 2003 ).

Sure the (dynamic) cable has a small diameter and and its tensil strength is weaker than the wood but it has not to be stronger, it is strong enough to do its job.

Synthetic cables used for static cabling have that high tensil strength not because they have to resist high loads. They have it because the higher the tensile strength the lower the elongation of the cable, e.g. Dyneema has a elongation of 0.2 % per t of load. Static load cablings are a bit different because they have in case of a branch failure to hold the branch. But the load that effects the anchor is temporary because the broken branch has to be removed as soon as possible.

Fire seems to be an increasing problem in CA but I guess home owners have other problems in case of a homefire than a burned cable in a smolding tree.


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

Much laboratory sounding rhetoric here and you will have to excuse some of us for the replies to it as some of us have played this out at least a half a dozen times with the same "statement-response" scenarios so  (ho hum) here we are again like groundshog day where everything is played over again and again in a very predictable sequence. I have heard myself quoted multiple times from past threads.

You are the inventor/manufacturer of this system I surmise? I may have met you or an agent of yours in Nov. 1995 at a week long Shigo seminar where it was first introduced into the US I was told.

My question for you is why is there a tensile strength listed with this product if it so gradually is hit by the end of the branch's movement? This product should have a WLL. And why would either be necessary if the system is not made to "bang" into the end of the movement in a violent storm scenario?

Next question....How do you control if the movement is held to where it is not controlled enough (it goes too far and breaks out the codom/multidom) or it "bangs" into the end of the movement (incurring the use of the tensile strength (WLL)) and causes compression of conductive tissue? 

Most of the applications I assume are going to be protection of codoms/multidoms and not the suspension of individual limbs from gravity and their own mass causing failure. Storms give sudden and violent movement of individual co doms. I do not think this system can "gradually slow movement" as advertised predictably. I suppose this system would be of merit in an area where codoms are not subject to any sudden winds. That place is not here. I have never seen one system installed anywhere around here in that 14 year interim. And, on the other hand if there were no sudden violent winds and the codoms were not that high of a risk with no target.....why install anything? 

The premise is to allow reaction wood to develop and maybe enjoy the aesthetic appearance of a tree moving around in the breezes. I do not think the allowance of a few inches of movement is worth the liability one puts themselves into to view such or develop more wood that challenges the defect even more. If there are no apparent defects then the reaction wood will develop quite well on its own thank you.


----------



## electrictrimmer (Feb 24, 2010)

My question is more towards which size cables to use on what diameter limbs. I understand how they are used and everything, I just want to know which diameter cable should be installed into which diameter limbs. Any help with that would be great. Thanks guys.


----------



## Mikecutstrees (Feb 24, 2010)

Its more complicated than just diameter. I'd also consider the weight of the limb, the angle of attachment and the length of the limb. Go bigger if in doubt. Most times I use 5/16 and people usually can't see it up in the canopy. On small ornamentals I may use 1/8". On really big maples and such with say a codominant or included bark I'll use 3/8 to be sure. 5/16 is nicer to work with though..... Mike


----------



## jomoco (Feb 24, 2010)

A combination of extra high strength 7 strand steel cable(EHS), and Tree Grip dead ends, manufactured by Preformed Line Products, makes for the most robust highly rated cabling systems that I know of. Installation is a breeze, provided you have very high quality cable cutters to cut the EHS cable with, like Felco cable cutters.

EHS cable is impossible to wrap of braid like the old 7 strand softlay cable, you have to use the tree grip dead ends with it or forget it.

Here's the link you need for tree grips.

http://www.dulmison.com/artsfest/files/literature/NU-SS-1023TreeGrip.pdf

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

electrictrimmer said:


> My question is more towards which size cables to use on what diameter limbs. I understand how they are used and everything, I just want to know which diameter cable should be installed into which diameter limbs. Any help with that would be great. Thanks guys.



If you want standardized direction phone TCIA or the ISA and order ANSI A300 (part 3) Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard Practices (Supplemental Support Systems) and go to page 28 Annex A. 

In the event of extreme conditions and system failure then you have CYA by having documented following the current standards if you end up on the wrong side of a law suit. You will find the answer to some of your questions here as well.


----------



## treeseer (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> If you want standardized direction phone TCIA or the ISA and order ANSI A300 (part 3) Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Maintenance-Standard Practices (Supplemental Support Systems) and go to page 28 Annex A.
> 
> In the event of extreme conditions and system failure then you have CYA by having documented following the current standards if you end up on the wrong side of a law suit. You will find the answer to some of your questions here as well.


You may find more in the ISA BMP, at one-third of the cost. But both together are $20, no reason not to have them if you want to do the work.

But we are not limited to techniques or products that are described in the books; other work can be quite defensible.

re the undocumented fear of cambium damage, consider the compression by stem-girdling roots, which trees tolerate amazingly well. So rarely occasional squeezing of upper branches does not seem so damaging to the tree.


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

treeseer said:


> You may find more in the ISA BMP, at one-third of the cost. But both together are $20, no reason not to have them if you want to do the work.
> 
> But we are not limited to techniques or products that are described in the books; other work can be quite defensible.
> 
> re the undocumented fear of cambium damage, consider the compression by stem-girdling roots, which trees tolerate amazingly well. So rarely occasional squeezing of upper branches does not seem so damaging to the tree.



I disagree with that post completely and challenge the comparison to losing a root to girdling and the losing of the top of a tree and its related consequences.

Better off staying with the standards......that is why they are published.


----------



## treeseer (Feb 24, 2010)

treevet said:


> I disagree with that post completely and challenge the comparison to losing a root to girdling ...


How about hopping off the soapbox long enough to look at the image and listen? It's not the root that is lost to girdling--it is the squeezing of the cambium in the stem that is done BY the root.

:agree2:You're right about no comparison--stem girdling is far worse for the tree when done by a root at the base, compared to a belt on leaders. Yet I've dug out SGR's that went 360 degrees, but the tree kept chugging along.

Also read this German study: I respect you and jon, but if no damage was noted in a PhD dissertation, I gotta go with that over your fears. Dissertations get researched for years, then defended in front of a half-dozen or so professors. That gives more credibility than...what science did you cite again? Years in the tree?


----------



## treevet (Feb 24, 2010)

years in the tree installing successful cable systems (40...over 2,000 respectively)

ps we don't want our trees to keep "chugging" along....we want them to live a high level of life.


----------



## Wohn (Feb 25, 2010)

Treevet,
Nothing to excuse I have played this out serveral dozend times by myself too. I am not trying to proselytize anyone only defending our products against unproofen defarmations. Therefore I want to show interested people our point of view so they can form their own view on tree cabling.

But now to your questions.

1. Tensile strength:
To list tensile strength as „easy to use“ benchmark for tree cablings wasn’t invented by us rather it was envoved by arborists in the end of the 1980th. Based on the fact that modern dynamic tree cabling was developed from practice in close collaboration with sience after SHIGO published his new tree biology. At that time arborist were looking for new methods and systems to cable trees. One result of this collaborations is cobra. Still we collaborate very close with active arborists around the world to optimize our systems.

Sure it would make more sense and it would be more specific to list energy absobation rates or talk about maximum shock-loads that may affect trees at a certain tension. Compareable to the exigencies for developing and producing dynamic climbing ropes (here in Europe: max. 12kN at max 20% tension). But the complexity of tree structures and the difficulties to measure and calculate their dynamic behaviours and characteristic impede to establish a universal benchmark for all trees that is useful in tree cabling practice. So still those benchmark (tensile strength) that came from practice is in use.

Existing (sientific) calculating models (e.g. see WESSOLLY, 2005: ‚Dynamic and static crown-securing devices and carry/ hold protection – advice on correct installation and control’) are only able to help understanding and explaning what practice found out in all those years of field experience.

Besides our systems have a security and aging reserve, e.g. our 2 t-system cobra plus 2t has a tensile strength as new system of 3 t. After 15 years it has still over 2 t (the aging rate of differnet cabling systems was object of a sientific investigation (see. BRUDI, SPIESS, LESNINO, 1999)). Those 2 t systems usually are not stressed with more than 30-50% of their load capacity during their service life. So their work load is around 0.6 and 1 t.

2. Made to „bang“ into the end of movement:
The „bang“ comes not during the gust of wind because both branches move (more or less) in the same direction. It comes when the branches are swinging backwards because the windward branch swings more backwards than the leeward branch does. The difference is caused through the higher windloads affecting and energy consumption of the windward branch. When the system got tightend it comes to an shock-load and this load seems to be seldom over 1 t (see JAMES, 2003: ‚Dynamic loading of trees’). As I told in my previous post the mentioned shock-load depends on installation heigth (2/3) and thus the affecting leverage forces. All our systems are capable to resits those shock loads, storing energy in the shock-absorber and release it while afterbouncing. Thus our system and the included shock-absorber is lowering the shock-load by 20-40% dependig on the load affecting the system.

3. How to control the movement:
As I told you above since the beginning we collaborate very close with arborists. Their experience helped us to size the systems dynamic to fit to the trees needs. To avoid overstretching we recommend to install no shock-absorber from connection length over 8 m.

To get a better feeling for it many arborists (me too) are creating artifical branch movement by pulling and releasing the branches and look at their swing behaviour to infer the required and possible swing range before installing a cabling. Sure this is not very sientific and calls for some practical experience.

This all proofed useful in practice.

4. it „bangs“ into the end of movement and causes compression of conductive tissue:
Loads occurring in such a case are within the coefficient of elasticity of green wood. That means no tissues getting compressed. In the case they have been compressed the branch should have collapsed without cabling. 

5. Gradually slow movement:
Sure the system can not gradually slow down the movement to zero anytime befor it has been tigthened. And if the gust of wind is too hard then the thightened system stops the movement more suddenly. But in this case the shock absorber reduces the shock load that affects the branch. It’s a bit like the crumple zone of a car that absorbs energy to protect the driver who wasn’t able to brake early enough to avoid the crash against the guard railing. But as the guard railing prevents the car from falling down the bridge the cabling prevents the branch from overstretching.

6. codoms/ multidoms:
The system can be used to secure codoms / multidoms too and often enough was used in such cases. Therefore you have to connect every stem with its neighbour (e.g. as ring connection) and possibly crosswise with its vis-a-vis. Try to secure every load directions – that means back and forth as well as left and right. 

7. Sudden winds:
Right they could happen everywhere - and cobra is dealing them worldwide since over 15 years. 

8. Not worth the liability:
This point something anyone has to come in terms with oneself. Thousands of arborists think it is worth to put themselves into this liability and they trust in our system.

9. More wood challenges the defect even more:
More reaction wood doesn’t challenge a defect even more. It rather helps the tree compensating that defect thus it is healthy wood that can transfer load down to the roots.

10. Apparent deffects:
Not every defect is visible like a crack, often decay is hidden inside the wood. But you are rigth if there is no defect than cabling is sensless – apart from calming a homeowners worries.

Puh, excuse my answers are that long. Nevertheless I hope they are useful to you or anyone else.

Greetings


----------



## Ekka (Feb 26, 2010)

Wohn said:


> 9. More wood challenges the defect even more:
> More reaction wood doesn’t challenge a defect even more. It rather helps the tree compensating that defect thus it is healthy wood that can transfer load down to the roots.



I applaud you for you tenacity and references. 

I also mentioned previously that Treevet has no clue about that specific point quoted above. Reaction wood is a tree's natural reinforcement of stressed areas, it is a good thing in most cases, and to encourage via dynamic cabling not diminish via static cabling.

In general you have expelled much energy on primarily 2 posters (Treevet and Jomoco), the larger arborist community is well aware of these systems and their application, as they may also be more aware of tree biology and anatomy. :rockn:

You can also buy 5% stretch rope or 20% stretch rope depending on the application. With the ease and speed of fitting these systems, the non invasive aspect, the longevity I would consider it a disservice to not include it in your bag of MANAGEMENT OPTIONS.


----------



## treevet (Feb 26, 2010)

Ekka said:


> > I also mentioned previously that Treevet has no clue about that specific point quoted above. Reaction wood is a tree's natural reinforcement of stressed areas, it is a good thing in most cases, and to encourage via dynamic cabling not diminish via static cabling.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## treevet (Feb 26, 2010)

.....furthermore...let's take 2 very flexible twigs and scotch tape them together at the base (say 3' long)....

then let's try to pull them apart...very difficult as the willow flexes. Then let's add a steel support to each side (again reaction wood simulated) and then let's try to pull the scotch tape apart by the steel supports....

very easy now to pull them apart.


----------



## treeseer (Feb 26, 2010)

treevet said:


> Reaction wood is very nice if the stem is standing alone...but....when it is being added on to a large leader that is challenging a codom with included bark....well then it is just more mass moving away from the other stem in the fault or defect.


Doesn't that depend on where this reaction wood is formed? I think a review of basic biomechanics is needed, tv. The baseball bat and scotch tape analogies are very hard to apply here. Wohn has laid out very clearly the uses for dynamic systems.

Jon I think it's time to retract the "snake oil" epithet. If you have the vision to put a laser in a tube to site your next drill hole, you can see the place for dynamic support.


----------



## treevet (Feb 26, 2010)

treeseer said:


> > Doesn't that depend on where this reaction wood is formed? I think a review of basic biomechanics is needed, tv.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Ekka (Feb 26, 2010)

Wohn, best you just ignore this guy, he's like a tired old worn out record stuck in the 70's groove.

His strategy is ALWAYS to attack people personally, lie, call them names, distort reality, defame, slander, bully etc.

He has really poor literacy skills, cant even use the quote button properly as clearly seen all over the place, comprehension that is so poor that he contradicts himself continually (we call them backflips). If the advancement of arboriculture was dependent on this guys open mind you might as well change jobs and call in the apes. :monkey: 

He should try pumping his mental muscle more than those biceps he wore out drinking years ago. 

Somewhere today, some person half his age is perhaps cracking the cure for a serious disease, whether they were in diapers or not makes little difference except to this man's ulterior motives of degrading people using anything he can lay his hands on, even your religion or lack of it.

I wonder if his fellow parishioners read his tripe? Thank goodness the confessional has been done away with as he'd set his bed up in there for the session he'd be having.

He likes to call things like a manufactured and rated rope "elastic" because it suits his tainted perspective, he thinks it gains him some leverage in a debate but just makes him look even less intelligent than he already is.

He claims I attack 2 arborists, I do not ... I just show their errors, they are their own worst enemies as everyone else can clearly see. Trust me, the arborist world is far greater than 2 American hard heads. :bang:

Forget them, who cares what they think really.


----------



## ddhlakebound (Mar 1, 2010)

I don't want to turn a homeowner thread into a cabling argument, so I'm adding this here....began in this thread. 








NCTREE said:


> The triple leader could be a problem like someone else said with side walk in the future. If you like the tree though it can be made safer with a little dynamic cabling.
> 
> ...





ddhlakebound said:


> I don't want to transfer another thread's argument into this one, and we can't tell enough from the pic to determine the degree of included bark, but....
> 
> The only option those three leads have as they grow in size is to exert outward pressure on the other two leads. It's a significant fault, and should be addressed with static cabling IMHO. (steel cable) Start the reaction wood forming now as a whole, instead of as three individuals.





NCTREE said:


> I disagree, those trunks are in a triangular pattern not a straight line where the center lead is pushing out on the other two trunks. If there is included bark then steal cabling is not going do anymore than dynamic cabling will do.
> 
> Trees build up tension wood from forces exerted on them from an outside source just as a gymnast builds muscle strength from lifting weights. Steal cabling restricts tension wood dynamic cabling encourages it. Trees in a forest work in uniform with each other moving from side to side as they bounce off other trees. The same concept happens with the branches of individual trees. Trees should just simply me allowed to move with the forces exert on them.
> 
> One last thing as the trunk calipers increase in diameter outwards so does the strength. As long as there is no defects in the trunks like rot or girdling roots then they should do fine.



Opinions?


----------



## NCTREE (Mar 2, 2010)

Ohh! I see this is over here now. ddh if you are going to bring up the argument than argue your case. Don't wait for your guys to bail you out. 

That tree is young and still growing if you steal cable it now then it will have to be recabled ten years down the road as it get taller. Dynamic cabling would allow it the freedom to grow and would do less injury to the tree.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

I'd cut the 2 leads off and eliminate the future included bark injuries while this young.


----------



## Ekka (Mar 2, 2010)

Cutting them off at the base I assume?

Wouldn't that lead to


decay in root crown
excessive pruning creating root/foliage ratio imbalance - starvation and death of some roots
accelerated growth of existing leader
probability of epicormics and suckers


----------



## NCTREE (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> I'd cut the 2 leads off and eliminate the future included bark injuries while this young.



Really??? Do you think thats a good idea. thats 2/3 of the tree.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> I'd cut the 2 leads off and eliminate the future included bark injuries while this young.


Hard to judge 3D trees by 2D pics. Removing two would leave a lopsided leaner that would never branch out evenly on its bare side. But it might gain enough symmetry to be stable enough for the owner.

The 3 trunks look like stump sprouts, so the usual concerns aren't as bad as in a typical pruning situation. Also without knowing the species--Quercus.....? we are guessing a lot.New sprouts from the stump can be snipped off easily enough. Epicormic growth in the crown would form buttresses, and tend to stabilize the tree. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Whacking or subordinating 2 might work, dynamic cabling or steel would also work, but would need replacement over time. If followup was uncertain, maybe subordinating is best. It depends on client goals.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

NCTREE said:


> Really??? Do you think thats a good idea. thats 2/3 of the tree.



Really???.....Yeah really!!!

"Large-maturing trees are usually not suited for this form. (if this form is desired)...For the strongest tree, develop 4 to 6 inches of vertical spacing between multiple trunks. ...The least desirable form is present when all stems originate from the same position on the trunk, OR WHEN INCLUDED BARK FORMS." Illustrated Guide To Pruning, Gilman, pg 142 

Also please note undesirable structure noted illustrated fig 10-1 page 143. The picture looks just like the one in the thread.

Young trees such as these are much more dynamic and can recover from such pruning cuts better than more mature trees and this pruning is obviously the lesser of 2 evils.


----------



## EdenT (Mar 2, 2010)

*Quick questions*

Would you consider a staged reduction or just zap em in one go? Also what do you think of TS's thesis that they could be stump sprouts?


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

EdenT said:


> Would you consider a staged reduction or just zap em in one go? Also what do you think of TS's thesis that they could be stump sprouts?



What are the benefits of subordinating? A careful and skillful cut must be made to ensure not injuring remaining tissue.

I think it is irrelevant if they are stump sprouts or not and I would just bite the bullet and remove the 2 most subordinate leaders with the least lean toward targets. The remaining one could be staked if nec. If catastrophe strikes and an ensuing attack of fungi occurs....cut the damn thing down and put in a more appropriate starter. This may happen down the road with the pinching and wounding of the included bark in a worst scenario when the tree is more established.

If this tree was started like this from planting then shame on the landscaper for delivering and shame on the ho for taking delivery.


----------



## EdenT (Mar 2, 2010)

Thanks!



treevet said:


> If this tree was started like this from planting then shame on the landscaper for delivering and shame on the ho for taking delivery.



Not too many HO's would know what a codom was let alone what it implied, and not too many landscapers would know either, (though there are definately exceptions).


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

EdenT said:


> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Not too many HO's would know what a codom was let alone what it implied, and not too many landscapers would know either, (though there are definately exceptions).



If a landscaper does not recognize this defect then they should be regulated out somehow. A homeowner should be able to discern this through common sense if this is a large maturing tree IMO. We are listing a link in our town called "The Homeowners Guide To Trees" on our Urban Forestry site.

The more sophisticated tree owner is our ally.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> Ekka said:
> 
> 
> > IMO the longevity is in favor of the tried and true system with decades and decades of history.
> ...


----------



## EdenT (Mar 2, 2010)

Hello Ekka, or is it a D?:deadhorse:


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

EdenT said:


> Hello Ekka, or is it a D?:deadhorse:



:hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## ddhlakebound (Mar 2, 2010)

NCTREE said:


> Ohh! I see this is over here now. ddh if you are going to bring up the argument than argue your case. Don't wait for your guys to bail you out.
> 
> That tree is young and still growing if you steal cable it now then it will have to be recabled ten years down the road as it get taller. Dynamic cabling would allow it the freedom to grow and would do less injury to the tree.



I have already argued my case. To me, the most important factor in this tree(s) is the junction at the base. There is no avoiding included bark. If it's not there now, it will be soon enough, and the only thing that will prevent it is a chainsaw. 

It makes no difference if static or dynamic is used from a maintenance standpoint. Both will have to be checked on and replaced as necessary.

I don't see removing 2 leads as a good option, the homeowner will be left with a leaning tree bereft of 2/3 of it's wind support, with 2 large wounds at its base. 



> Originally Posted by NCTREE
> I disagree, those trunks are in a triangular pattern not a straight line where the center lead is pushing out on the other two trunks. If there is included bark then steal cabling is not going do anymore than dynamic cabling will do.
> 
> Trees build up tension wood from forces exerted on them from an outside source just as a gymnast builds muscle strength from lifting weights. Steal cabling restricts tension wood dynamic cabling encourages it. Trees in a forest work in uniform with each other moving from side to side as they bounce off other trees. The same concept happens with the branches of individual trees. Trees should just simply me allowed to move with the forces exert on them.
> ...



I'm fully aware that they are in a triangle pattern. There is (or will be) included bark. Static cabling will do much more than dynamic cabling as this tree matures. Granted, it's small enough now that dynamic could be beneficial for a time, but at some point static will be necessary to support the growing leads and included bark junction. 



> Steal cabling restricts tension wood dynamic cabling encourages it.



So the tree knows it's now carrying steel, and no longer produces reaction wood? I don't think so. 

Adding the steel cable will change the location that the tree adds reaction wood, it won't keep the tree from adding reaction wood. By making the three tops behave as one, the tree will begin adding reaction wood to support it's new dynamic (the whole tree) instead of adding reaction wood to support three faulted junctions. 



> Trees in a forest work in uniform with each other moving from side to side as they bounce off other trees.



:bang:

These trees aren't in a forest. They don't have the same dynamics of trees that are, and they're faulted at the base. Better to leave the forest dynamic in the forest. 



> Trees should just simply me allowed to move with the forces exert on them.



I agree, except when they've got multiple faults and targets aplenty. This tree has multiple faults and targets aplenty, and we DO NOT want those faults to be flopping about in the wind. That means static cabling. 



> One last thing as the trunk calipers increase in diameter outwards so does the strength. As long as there is no defects in the trunks like rot or girdling roots then they should do fine.



Again, :bang:

The trunks will not only increase in diameter in an outward direction. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the growth rings go all the way around the stem. So as they're getting stronger with diameter, they're also exerting outward force from the inward growth. They're also supporting more weight, because the whole tree is getting bigger, not just the trunk, so that "added strength" is already being used to support more tree. And there are multiple faults in the trunk....included bark. Have you EVER seen a codominant with an included bark junction fail? That never happens...


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

It is a no brainer....remove 2 of the 3 stems.


----------



## ddhlakebound (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> It is a no brainer....remove 2 of the 3 stems.



I can understand the thinking, but at what diameter of lead does that option go away?

I see the included bark as easier to manage over time than the root crown decay and root/shoot ratio that ekka mentioned. 

Combined with the fact that one of those three stems standing alone will be horribly imbalanced and not very pretty, I'd prefer to remove completely and start over than reduce to one lead. And I'd rather keep all 3 with a cable than start over. 

Isn't it better to have faults we can see and manage above ground, than to have the fault below ground?


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

ddhlakebound said:


> I can understand the thinking, but at what diameter of lead does that option go away?
> 
> I see the included bark as easier to manage over time than the root crown decay and root/shoot ratio that ekka mentioned.
> 
> ...



I feel the faults at ground level (if they are not stump suckers and separate) will easily compartmentalize and close the wounds on this young plant. If they are separate sprouts....all the better and no wounding should occur on the remaining stem.

As for the included bark....that will never be able to be "managed" and the pinching and wounding annually by new growth and the potential for structural cracking and pathogen attack of necrotic tissue is not worth leaving them there now not to mention the need for a cable system.

As for the root shoot ratio ...this is not an issue on young trees as much as it is on older trees and is more commonly referred to as "dynamic equilibrium" for a reason.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> I feel the faults at ground level (if they are not stump suckers and separate) will easily compartmentalize and close the wounds on this young plant. If they are separate sprouts....all the better and no wounding should occur on the remaining stem.



Probably there will be limited decay, but nothing easy about it. Depends on species, vitality, soils, etc.


> As for the included bark....that will never be able to be "managed" ....


Well actually, subordination manages bark inclusion to some extent. By stunting the 2 side leads, it lessens their girth increase, somewhat. Maybe best to cut back the 2 and let the chosen trunk fill out and gain resources and strengthen, then take the 2 back to the base in maybe 3 years. That would give the tree time to work on forming a collar at the base of the 2.

Just a thot.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Probably there will be limited decay, but nothing easy about it. Depends on species, vitality, soils, etc. Well actually, subordination manages bark inclusion to some extent. By stunting the 2 side leads, it lessens their girth increase, somewhat. Maybe best to cut back the 2 and let the chosen trunk fill out and gain resources and strengthen, then take the 2 back to the base in maybe 3 years. That would give the tree time to work on forming a collar at the base of the 2.



where do you come up with this stuff? You subordinate (new trendy word of the decade) the 2 stems and the non-subordinated (?) stem will gain in girth quicker giving the same results which is wounding through included bark. All the while (3 years huh?) the eventual cut will be larger when all is said and done.


----------



## D Mc (Mar 2, 2010)

treevet said:


> As for the included bark....that will never be able to be "managed" and the pinching and wounding annually by new growth and the potential for structural cracking and pathogen attack of necrotic tissue is not worth leaving them there now not to mention the need for a cable system.



I have witnessed a lot of trees that contradict the standard by which we judge inclusions. Granted this is only a Ponderosa pine, but these inclusions are hundreds of years old. 

Trees are in it for the long haul and tend to work around problems if they can. 

Dave


----------



## ddhlakebound (Mar 2, 2010)

new pics of tri-dom tree

It's in the red family, and the new pics show it to be larger (to me anyway) than it originally appeared. 

Based on the better set of pics, I'd give them the options of static cabling or removal, and then make sure that tree got kept and cabled. 

Removing 2 and leaving the best one could work, but it would be ugly in the process, with limited chances to become a eyecatching part of the landscape. The combination of size and species indicate to me that thinning to one lead would create greater future difficulty than cabling. If it were smaller, I could easily see recommending thinning to one lead. 

I think this tree is past that size.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

Nice shot, DMc! Trees are programmed to deal with anything that nature throws at them; it's the human-thrown problems are more problematic.

Yes, subordination is about a decade old to my ears, and it is a useful term. Gilman 2002 gives it 7 pages; he credits Way Hoyt in Florida for adopting the term to this trade of tree pruning. Easier than saying "Pruning to reduce the size and ensuing growth of a branch(/stem) in relation to others..."

"the non-subordinated (?) stem will gain in girth quicker giving the same results which is wounding through included bark."

Not exactly the same--if the dominant stem expands more, there will be less surface area and less pressure from the bases of the subordinates.

"All the while (3 years huh?) the eventual cut will be larger when all is said and done."

ok 3 years is a SWAG; could be 2 or 5, depending...ya gotta go with what the tree gives ya; see below..

Not much larger if the stem is subordinated/stunted, but the key thing is the storage of resources that make a collar at the base. p. 101: "Trees provide you with information on how aggressive each branch is growing and this can guide your pruning plan...as new growth emerges in the spring, clues develop that help you guide your pruning plan."

Scientist as a prose poet; beautiful stuff. Thanks for getting me to crack open the book, Dave S!

"The combination of size and species indicate to me that thinning to one lead would create greater future difficulty than cabling."

What kind of difficulty do you mean? I hear what you are saying about redoaks not responding to new exposure like maple for instance. also trunk rot is an issue, hence avoiding 2 big cuts at once.

And how about guying it more toward vertical for a few years, to see if it "straightens up"?


----------



## ddhlakebound (Mar 2, 2010)

treeseer said:


> What kind of difficulty do you mean? I hear what you are saying about redoaks not responding to new exposure like maple for instance. also trunk rot is an issue, hence avoiding 2 big cuts at once.
> 
> And how about guying it more toward vertical for a few years, to see if it "straightens up"?



Root and basal rot from the two large wounds left. The one remaining lead wouldn't have a normal root system supporting it in all directions because it's re-growth from an old stump, more likely 120ish degrees, with each other lead taking up the bulk of the root space. I think they all need each other to continue to thrive, even with the included bark faults. 

Guying it could help, but I'm sceptical that the home owner would want the guy cables anchored in the yard, and guying won't address the potential rot issues if we make those wounds.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

after seeing better pics i agree witchoo.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Not much larger if the stem is subordinated/stunted, but the key thing is the storage of resources that make a collar at the base. p. 101: "Trees provide you with information on how aggressive each branch is growing and this can guide your pruning plan...as new growth emerges in the spring, clues develop that help you guide your pruning plan."



I have to call you on this one Guy. Are you insinuating the size of the branch collar is an indication of limb vitality. I viewed that quote by Gilman and he is not giving that impression. The consistent thing about branch collars is that they are inconsistent.

Plus I am not so sure that a branch collar can be instigated. Subordinating, making weaker, does not IMO instigate a collar or make it more profound. Now killing the limb will initiate callus and this will become your new target for pruning but it is not the branch collar. "Collars are switching zones for transport" Shigo

"The branch tissue forms first and then the trunk tissue forms later and they circle the branch collar with a trunk collar..." Shigo

This is why we want to cut outside the collar. We do not want to remove trunk tissue and break into barriers.


----------



## treevet (Mar 2, 2010)

ddhlakebound said:


> Root and basal rot from the two large wounds left. The one remaining lead wouldn't have a normal root system supporting it in all directions because it's re-growth from an old stump, more likely 120ish degrees, with each other lead taking up the bulk of the root space. I think they all need each other to continue to thrive, even with the included bark faults.
> 
> Guying it could help, but I'm sceptical that the home owner would want the guy cables anchored in the yard, and guying won't address the potential rot issues if we make those wounds.



I am on the retain all 3 stems bandwagon after seeing the new pict indicating a much larger tree.

Not the place for dynamic IMO if there is any place tho. Rodding may even be in order and maybe an early installation would be the ticket.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 2, 2010)

"Collar" was a poor choice of words; shoulda said buttress or BPZ. we are obviously not talking about branch collars with this thing. Now it's all moot anyway; peace.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 6, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Jon I think it's time to retract the "snake oil" epithet. If you have the vision to put a laser in a tube to site your next drill hole, you can see the place for dynamic support.



Fat chance Guy!

And there's a very fundamental reason why. Trees, like humans, must use their muscles in order to develope them and make them stronger, on a regular basis.

Now a snake oil salesman may tell you that just a little bracing of that heavy lateral is going to help it and somehow make it stronger, but it's a lowdown dirty lie. The truth is that holding all that weight alone and unassisted is the only possible way the tree has of building the necessary tension and compression wood it must have to grow larger. The only way to make that limb stronger is to add more weight, expose it to more winds, that it can react to.

It's like a bozo instructor at the gym, telling you there's this new way of building muscle mass in your arms and legs, by wearing special braces that limit your range of motion, and lighten the true load of the weights you're lifting.

Either you understand these fundamental facts of reaction wood dynamics in nature, or you are pushin snake oil on the unwary and uneducated customer.

That's why cabling and bracing can only be justified when there's an identified fault in the tree's wood structure, something known for quite some time now.

jomoco


----------



## EdenT (Mar 6, 2010)

jomoco said:


> And there's a very fundamental reason why. Trees, like humans, must use their muscles in order to develope them and make them stronger, on a regular basis.



Tree's don't have muscles! They have wood. New cells are laid down when and where required provided it is possible for the tree to grow wood in that location.



jomoco said:


> Now a snake oil salesman may tell you that just a little bracing of that heavy lateral is going to help it and somehow make it stronger, but it's a lowdown dirty lie. The truth is that holding all that weight alone and unassisted is the only possible way the tree has of building the necessary tension and compression wood it must have to grow larger. The only way to make that limb stronger is to add more weight, expose it to more winds, that it can react to.


 
A 'snake oil salesman' isn't telling you that at all. A dynamic cabling proponent is telling you that the limb will either grow strong or it will break before it does. The dynamic cabling is just a safety device to absorb some of the kinetic energy if it does break and therefore reduce the destructive potential of the falling limb.




jomoco said:


> It's like a bozo instructor at the gym, telling you there's this new way of building muscle mass in your arms and legs, by wearing special braces that limit your range of motion, and lighten the true load of the weights you're lifting.



Actually it is more like wearing a back brace belt when your doing squats with weights that might otherwise destroy your lumbar vertebrae.





jomoco said:


> Either you understand these fundamental facts of reaction wood dynamics in nature, or you are pushin snake oil on the unwary and uneducated customer.



I would be interested to know how a static cable promotes the formation of reaction wood. Never mind I can answer that, it doesn't. The tree is wholly dependent on the mechanical support for the rest of it's life. As far as the customer is concerned I try to educate them by offering all of the options and their pro's and con's, not just the ones I like.



jomoco said:


> That's why cabling and bracing can only be justified when there's an identified fault in the tree's wood structure, something known for quite some time now.
> 
> jomoco



I agree that when there is a recognized fault in a tree and retention is the preferred option such as the tri-dom stems above that static cabling is a viable and possibly preferred solution. I am not a fan of static cabling because making holes in living tree's is a concept I have difficulty with. However, given the body of evidence supporting this treatment, it obviously can work if professionally installed and maintained. It is however an invasive treatment and as such should not be lightly chosen or mandated in all cases of potential fault. That would be like having your spine fused because you might injure it one day. Each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

The place for dynamic cabling is where risk of a failure is slightly elevated but the tree has the opportunity and or potential to develop its own 'muscles' over time as you put it. The dynamic cabling is just a safety net until it does, or fails.

It would be wonderful if such ideas could be discussed without resorting to hyperbole and petty insults.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 6, 2010)

But look at where you're going selling this dynamic junk as some kind of failsafe for perceived threats with no identifiable faults.

Are you going to push it for county park trees with sidewalks or picnic benches under them?

And what happens when the system really does weaken a limb and it fails catastrophically, is not caught for whatever reason, and injures someone below?

Can you claim an act of god?

What if the limb that recently failed in Central Park and killed a man below, had a dynamic failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb?

jomoco


----------



## treevet (Mar 6, 2010)

I would like to see the manufacturer of this system come on here (Bohn) and say that this system can be installed....then when enough reaction wood is produced....then the system can be removed. How much reaction wood is necessary? 

Now that is really putting yourself in a libelous situation!!

ET....What is the difference between invasive and injurious? The static system causes one wound, at one time.... and the dynamic causes chronic injuries in extreme environments like we have here (ice storms and hurricanes). 

The steel system will not allow enough travel to allow a defect to worsen but the dynamic system allows a guess at some movement and a hope it is not enough to allow the defect to fail.

ps....how do you know a static system will not allow reaction wood. The codom it is attached to moves in conjunction with the supported member, so there is movement....should be reaction wood


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 6, 2010)

jomoco said:


> And what happens when the system really does weaken a limb and it fails catastrophically, is not caught for whatever reason, and injures someone below?



You will have to excuse my asking but how does a dynamic system weaken anything? I checked my cobra supplies and there are no pixies with axes so it is OK to use



> Can you claim an act of god?



If it is an act of god then you can claim it as long as you are not out there selling your bracing as God proof. In 200 mile an hour wind all bets are off. In fact in 90 mile an hour wind I have seen the main stem of a tree fail and bring the braced branch down with it.



> What if the limb that recently failed in Central Park and killed a man below, had a dynamic failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb
> jomoco



Exactly the same thing as if it had a static _*failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb*_? Come on what a senseless hypothetical pile of crap! :bang: What if!?

When it comes to tensile strength, who cares what the brace is made out as long as it is appropriately selected for the load involved. Have a look at the slings at your local crane company. Many of them are using continuous round slings essentially made out of a a really long length of "dental floss". What happens if one of these round slings fail ... well if it is used correctly it won't. I have them in my shed that will lift 20 tonnes and the local manufacturer makes them to 100 tonnes.

What you are suggesting is that material science has reached its limits at mild steel and 7 strand whip splice and there will never be anything better. Go back to climbing on 3 strand! I suspect that when / if we can artificially replicate the protein in spiders web you will see a whole new generation of materials. 

Perhaps you are a youngster and can't remember 3 strand manila rope but certainly in my lifetime things have changed and I would suggest that EHS cable and tree grip dead ends are one such change that a metal lover such as you should be thankful for.


----------



## treevet (Mar 6, 2010)

Change certainly can be good at times. I have put in countless cables with a hand brace so I really appreciate the gas drill.

Manilla was not a bad climbing line though.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 6, 2010)

Corymbia said:


> I would suggest that EHS cable and tree grip dead ends are one such change that a metal lover such as you should be thankful for.




Oh I am, and use both almost exclusively now.

I like my cabling and bracing components to be considerably stronger than the tree, it makes real good common sense to me.

jomoco


----------



## EdenT (Mar 6, 2010)

treevet said:


> I would like to see the manufacturer of this system come on here (Bohn) and say that this system can be installed....then when enough reaction wood is produced....then the system can be removed. How much reaction wood is necessary?
> 
> Now that is really putting yourself in a libelous situation!!



Yes a very valid question I agree. Though I haven't used one, I think sonic tomography will eventually be the way that we determine whether a branch union is safe or not and can or cannot afford to have support removed.



treevet said:


> ET....What is the difference between invasive and injurious? The static system causes one wound, at one time.... and the dynamic causes chronic injuries in extreme environments like we have here (ice storms and hurricanes).



Firstly let me agree that a dynamic system is weaker than a static one, no question. If a dynamic system is installed (and maintained) correctly it should not be injuring the tree. In the case where a storm event does manage to make it cause an injury, then it is likely the system has actually done it's job and prevented a catastrophic failure. I don't experience ice storms where I live, and suspect that dynamic cabling would not be appropriate for that environment. I will let the manufacturer inform us on that one though.




treevet said:


> The steel system will not allow enough travel to allow a defect to worsen but the dynamic system allows a guess at some movement and a hope it is not enough to allow the defect to fail.
> 
> ps....how do you know a static system will not allow reaction wood. The codom it is attached to moves in conjunction with the supported member, so there is movement....should be reaction wood



I agree WRT steel holding a defect immobile and preventing further damage. I think if a defect is that pronounced such as a codom splitting out then steel is definitely the way to go. A static system installation is saying, this limb might break at some time, it is a reasonable low risk, low impact target zone but if it does fail we will try and slow it down just in case.

As far as whether reaction wood is formed when there is steel providing support, I defer to your greater knowledge. While I accept that some reaction wood will be formed I doubt it would be enough to cure the original defect that prompted the installation of the static support system. But then proponents of static systems don't make the, at this point I believe preemptive claim that their systems can be removed at some future time.

I also agree that the manufacturer of dynamic systems need to create a body of evidence (with scientific rigor) , to support their claims.

I think Corymbia answered Jomoco's queries more than adequately.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 6, 2010)

EdenT said:


> I think Corymbia answered Jomoco's queries more than adequately.



Not even close mate.

Say a fair sized branch above your dynamic system were to fail in a storm, and fall down onto your synthetic line, and get caught up there, rubbing against it everytime the wind blows, for a whole year or two before being discovered and removed?

Can it take the friction for one year? Two?

How would it compare to galvinized steel in that extremely likely scenario my friend?

jomoco


----------



## EdenT (Mar 6, 2010)

Well say your static system provides a better grounding in a lightning storm and a bolt of lightning hits the tree and a branch breaks off and lands on the school beneath and destroys the building.

WON'T SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!

As our Myrtaceaen brother stated -



Corymbia said:


> Exactly the same thing as if it had a static _*failsafe installed on it, that couldn't quite catch that limb*_? Come on what a senseless hypothetical pile of crap! :bang: What if!?



I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.
ET


----------



## jomoco (Mar 6, 2010)

Well if you want to believe that a branch falling onto your dynamic stuff is an unlikely event in this biz, you are certainly free to believe that mate.

jomoco


----------



## EdenT (Mar 6, 2010)

EdenT said:


> I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.
> ET



If you want to deny whats in black and white in front of you, you are certainly free to deny, mate.


----------



## jomoco (Mar 6, 2010)

EdenT said:


> If you want to deny whats in black and white in front of you, you are certainly free to deny, mate.



I'm talkin about the real world in the trees, not the paper world in either your or your customer's filing cabinet mate.

jomoco


----------



## EdenT (Mar 7, 2010)

I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.
I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.
I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.
I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.
I guess you missed the part in Cabling and Bracing 101, and reiterated by several 'professionals' on this forum where they said you have to maintain and inspect any system regularly.



You are talking about a branch being hung up in a tree off the dynamic cabling (see I actually read what you write). You think people don't look at tree's after a storm and notice the top half is inverted. You the installer are meant to advise the client to watch out for things like this and hopefully have a maintenance contract that includes annual inspection. Incidentally branches can, and are probably more likely to hang up on a rigid steel cable too and then fall when they break. INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ANY SYSTEM IS THE KEY TO ONGOING SAFETY AND SUCCESS!


----------



## treeseer (Mar 7, 2010)

Thanks to our colleagues down under for joining the drum circle with the energizer bunny and his hyperbole and hypotheticals. Reminds me of cross-examination by by a desparate attorney. It can be fun in the chair, deconstructing the false premises, etc.; after all one is on the clock there.

But doing it here just for sport, 

Lightning--I've seen lightning damage jump over to steel hardware, follow it into the heart of a tree, and blow it apart. dam pic is in there somewhere... I'm glad this came up--we all need to include in our disclaimers that any tree with steel installed should also have an lps installed, or risk the tree being blown apart by the system that was designed to protect it from failure!

Then, it's not a wild leap, but more of a bunny hop , that electricity through a big honkin through-bolt fastened with nuts and washers and treegrips would be more likely to destroy the tree than a cable with fasteners only on the ends. But that would be another 12-page thread (please stop copying entire previous messages willy-nilly!)

Carry on, gents. :yourock:


----------



## treevet (Mar 7, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Thanks to our colleagues down under for joining the drum circle with the energizer bunny and his hyperbole and hypotheticals. Reminds me of cross-examination by by a desparate attorney. It can be fun in the chair, deconstructing the false premises, etc.; after all one is on the clock there.
> 
> But doing it here just for sport,
> 
> ...



gibberish


----------



## murphy4trees (Mar 7, 2010)

pdqdl said:


> Myself, I question the merit of using J-lags, as they rely on healthy wood to hold the threads. If the wood was all healthy in the branches getting "fixed", it probably would not need the cabling system. \.



That is an ignorant statement... co-dominant stems with included bark are the vast majority of cases that call for a cable. Most of these have good wood for J-lags... Industry standards call for thru bolts on wood over 10" in diameter... So j lags can be used in wood 10" and under....WELL if you are going up 2/3 of the way to the branch tips, you should be in wood 10" or less in all but the biggest of trees, at least around here where trees go to 100-120' ... The reason thru bolts are needed is becasue climbers lack the skill, knowledge or care to install cables high, where they belong.. SO low cables require thru bolts... If it was up to me, i'd write the standard, that cables should be installed a minimun of 2/3 and preferably 4/5 the distance OR in 8-10" wood... WHICHEVER IS HIGHER.... 

Installing cable in wood less than 10" precludes the need for thru bolts, though I often use them anyhow, just because I think they hold better, especially in big tres with high value and important obstacles.... 

I have never seen a tree that was cabled too high?

Have you?


----------



## treevet (Mar 7, 2010)

murphy4trees said:


> I have never seen a tree that was cabled too high?
> 
> Have you?



If nobody else is gonna take a shot at this I will Murph....

Let's go to the very extreme to illustrate why there can be a TOO high...

If we put a cable between 2 leaders up in the 3 inch dia stuff near the top

The limb/s supported when moving will likely break the material near attachment.

You will get very little support and restriction of movement because of the flexing allowed by the thinness of the attachment area and the restriction of movement and support is what we are after.

If you take your attachment point down closer to the 2/3 area from the crotch you get more and more of what you need and when you pass that point, like you accurately stated, you get too much torque which will often pull out or break cabling material.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 8, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Not even close mate.
> 
> Say a fair sized branch above your dynamic system were to fail in a storm, and fall down onto your synthetic line, and get caught up there, rubbing against it everytime the wind blows, for a whole year or two before being discovered and removed?
> 
> ...



Well you have me there! 

I can only hope that someone would notice the big green and eventually brown dangling thing in the tree called a broken branch. Clearly static lines are sold to some people who don't care about their trees or who stop caring about the trees because once that static line is in not even a tornado or a 747 will bring it down.

You seem insistent on hypothetical garbage so what do you say if an adjacent tree falls on your horizontal limb that has a static brace, causing the top to break out of the tree, falling across electrical conductors. The cable causes a short and drops molten metal causing a fire resulting in the loss of a 2.7 billion dollars worth of real estate and 147 lives

I am happy to debate a a scientific level but I cannot waste time considering what happens if a static brace fails and is catapulted into the air and is hit by Marine One, resulting in an all out atomic war because they thought it was a deliberate attack by the Chinese who manufactured the cable. 

Please don't dignify this garbage with a response! This sort of hypothetical crap is crap regardless of the source and you can always find more of them.

By the way I used my 20 tonne fabric sling today and again it didn't snap! Tensile strength is tensile strength ... regardless from what it is made! Now what were the problems with my calculations? I missed that post!


----------



## jomoco (Mar 8, 2010)

Corymbia said:


> You will have to excuse my asking but how does a dynamic system weaken anything?
> 
> When it comes to tensile strength, who cares what the brace is made out as long as it is appropriately selected for the load involved.



It weakens the limb by giving it support, by reducing the range of motion that all the other unsupported limbs are exposed to and react to by building reaction wood.

You should care very much what your cabling and bracing is made from when it's exposed to hostile elements 24/7, be it sun, wind, snow, rain, abrasion or temperature extremes, the system once installed has to be able to take it, and do so for 2-3 decades without annual nursemaiding adding to it's cost.

The old lady hanging bowling balls on springs off the lower laterals of her citriadora euc understands how to strengthen a limb far better than you and every quack selling this dynamic snake oil.

That lady's profound wisdom got me to wandering why nurseries don't condition their juvenile seedlings to a far greater degree than they do currently.

Like a wind-up rotation device that would very slowly rotate a containerized sapling in front of a fan?

jomoco


----------



## Ekka (Mar 8, 2010)

jomoco said:


> The old lady hanging bowling balls on springs off the lower laterals of her citriadora euc understands how to strengthen a limb far better than you and every quack selling this dynamic snake oil.


----------



## treeseer (Mar 8, 2010)

Hey Jon, 

Maybe if you hang bowling balls from your ears you will hear better!

:monkey:


----------



## jomoco (Mar 8, 2010)

Come on Guy, we're in the commercial arborist forum mate.

I've set out a very basic fundamental case that the current forms of dynamic cabling commercially available directly contradict their intended purpose, and only serve to exploit a customer's fear and lack of arboricultural knowledge.

Cabling can't be justified without an identified fault in the tree's structure period.

If you're selling a failsafe, then call it such, and quit pretending you're doing the tree any favors by installing it.

The lady with the bowling balls can actually remove her system from her tree and factually and truthfully claim that she has strengthened that tree. These dynamic snake oil salesmen can't make that same claim honestly no matter how many papers they write claiming otherwise.

I've set out my reasoning, and patiently await your reasoned rebuttal.

jomoco


----------



## Ekka (Mar 8, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Cabling can't be justified without an identified fault in the tree's structure period.
> 
> If you're selling a failsafe, then call it such, and quit pretending you're doing the tree any favors by installing it.



Then according to your terminology you either install steel failsafes, dynamic fail-safes or no fail-safes.... which is it?

Hey, did you read about the Turnbuckle a newly recorded phenomenon in Eucalypts?

Here check some of it out, pretty stupid these trees are eh best we tie them up with steel. :hmm3grin2orange:


----------



## jomoco (Mar 8, 2010)

Uh, the answer would be no failsafes, unless a structural fault is identified, at which point I would use high strength galvinized steel components to help support and isolate the fault so it can callous over and compartmentalize over time.


jomoco


----------



## treeseer (Mar 9, 2010)

ET look at the archives here for some of Jon's excellent work. 

Jon you concept of "fault" seems a bit more black and white than reality. Consider:

A big fork with included bark and or rot. Movement will aggravate, static preferred.

A big fork with a branch bark ridge and no rot, but an overextended end that cannot be corrected by pruning. Movement will mitigate, dynamic preferred. this is all spelled out quite well in the sherrill catalog.

Jon you say that static cable can help compartmentalize a defective fork. I do not understand how this happens; please explain?

Good link to an excellent article from a mag that does have some good stuff now and then; be sure to check the April issue. :angel: . Trees do know what they are doing; we need to follow their lead, and not impose rigidity where dynamism is needed. One size does not fit all.


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 9, 2010)

jomoco said:


> Uh, the answer would be no failsafes, unless a structural fault is identified, at which point I would use high strength galvinized steel components to help support and isolate the fault so it can callous over and compartmentalize over time.
> 
> 
> jomoco



That makes good sense then ... your clients wait until a junction starts to split. Most of these limbs actually fail and fall but you get to some before they fail completely. (It must be hard in such poor economic times ... have you thought about going to Mexico to work  Then you correctly suggest steel (or a sthil) to try and sort the mess out ... and I would agree in that situation that steel is the better choice. 

Fortunately my clients like to prevent failure starting and because it is cost effective they can have dynamic systems installed that reduce the likelihood of failure in the first place and then replace and or upgrade the system every 10 years or so.



> the system once installed has to be able to take it, and do so for 2-3 decades without annual nursemaiding adding to it's cost.



And I guess you only prune once every 30 years as well. Can I sent you a food parcel  Hope the economy gets better for you soon


----------



## murphy4trees (Mar 9, 2010)

Why not just leave the steel cables a bit loose... let them hang enough so the tree has to support itslef when it is in full leaf... think about it... what is the difference between that and a dynamic system.. how much will the dynamic system allow the tree to move before it stops it.. 

If you've ever been in a cabled tree on a windy day, you've felt that snap as the cables goes taught and the tree jerks abrubtly to a stop... Probably not so much snap to a dynamic system.. in my thinking, you'd have to show that the tree is damaged by that snap in some way, (which I doubt), to show any improvement in dynamic systems... the other advantage is that the there is no need to drill holes in the tree, which could be important, especially on limbs with existing decay... otherwise, what other advantage does a dynamic system provide???? 

OH ya silly me... its the $$$.... Somebody is making money on the dynaic systems... 

and the old advertising claiming that dynaic is superior because it can be installed by one person, doesn't hold up to real world conditions.. a steel cable can easily be installed by one climber, and it is usually better to have two climbers in the tree anyhow, to get the cable at the proper height..


----------



## outofmytree (Mar 9, 2010)

murphy4trees said:


> Why not just leave the steel cables a bit loose... let them hang enough so the tree has to support itslef when it is in full leaf... think about it... what is the difference between that and a dynamic system.. how much will the dynamic system allow the tree to move before it stops it..
> 
> If you've ever been in a cabled tree on a windy day, you've felt that snap as the cables goes taught and the tree jerks abrubtly to a stop... Probably not so much snap to a dynamic system.. in my thinking, you'd have to show that the tree is damaged by that snap in some way, (which I doubt), to show any improvement in dynamic systems... the other advantage is that the there is no need to drill holes in the tree, which could be important, especially on limbs with existing decay... otherwise, what other advantage does a dynamic system provide????
> 
> ...



To quote an old western "It aint the fall that gits em, its the sudden stop at the bottom." 

The difference in systems is all in the name Daniel. One restricts movement, the other allows it. Both by intent and both useful in different circumstances. 



> A big fork with included bark and or rot. Movement will aggravate, static preferred.
> 
> A big fork with a branch bark ridge and no rot, but an overextended end that cannot be corrected by pruning. Movement will mitigate, dynamic preferred.



As to installation time, arborists I know who have used both steel and dynamic cables say that the fixing of dynamic cabling is faster and definately easier on your hands! Cabling solo sounds like a lot of work. Especially if you drop the damn fid!


----------



## jomoco (Mar 9, 2010)

So rather than being just arboricultural snake oil salesmen, the installation speed and lower cost of these dynamic systems worsens that title further, making proponents/installers of dynamic cabling, expedient and cheap snake oil salesmen.

I must admit that I'm very curious to see whether the ISA and ANSI embrace this snake oil into their standards?

jomoco


----------



## treeseer (Mar 9, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Jon you concept of "fault" seems a bit more black and white than reality. Consider:
> 
> A big fork with included bark and or rot. Movement will aggravate, static preferred.
> 
> ...


Jon please apply your mind to this instead of changing the subject

thang Q


----------



## jomoco (Mar 9, 2010)

treeseer said:


> Jon you say that static cable can help compartmentalize a defective fork. I do not understand how this happens; please explain?



Ensure it's integrity would have been better wording and more accurate Guy.

The fundamental problem with current dynamic cabling is that providing support always lessens the amount of reaction wood produced compared to an unsupported branch, yes some reaction wood will be generated, but it will always be less than an unsupported branch, thereby making the branch dependent on it's support, as that degree of support grows larger over time, the linear pull of the encircling synthetic line will incrementally increase to the point it damages the farside cambium on both attachment girdling points, and this will happen long before the synthetic line reaches anywhere near it's rated strength, and this affect will be far more prevalent in soft bark and cambium trees like Alnus rhombifolia.

The precise reason that cabling should only be recommended to help isolate and support an identified quantifiable fault in the trees structure.

Once a steel system has been installed correctly, it can meet it's rated strength on day one, or 15 years later, doing no further damage to the bark, phloem or cambium whatsoever.

The whole dynamic strangulation system is poorly thoughout in terms of both attachment, and coming anywhere near it's rated strengths without massive bark, phloem and cambial damage.

I don't call the current dynamic systems being sold snake oil lightly by any means, and I could prove it on any Alnus rhombifolia anywhere in SoCal Guy.

jomoco


----------



## murphy4trees (Mar 9, 2010)

What kind of branch can't be pruned???

I find the vast majority of cables I install, something over 98%, are in trees with included bark, co-dom stems. And I cable a lot relative to my peers. I usually buy 100 thibles at a time and several dozen j lags and thru bolts at a time. 

Yes, there is the occasional big heavy limb that is reaching for light... but then I most often just lighten it by pruning the tips lightly... I tell my clients all the time... "we don't need to take TOO mcuh off, just the needle that breaks the camels back in a snow, ice or wind storm"... Take the weight off at the tips where the leverage is.. many small cuts and as long as there is good wood at the branchn union, I will leave it at that... only sell the cable as a "feel good" measure... and tell the client that..

If the tree is hollow and there is much question about the integrity of the limb, I'll prefer to either remove or partially remove the tree/limb.. Better to just remove the risk than to cable in most cases... My preference..


----------



## treeseer (Mar 9, 2010)

murphy4trees said:


> What kind of branch can't be pruned???


Some, not many, can't afford to lose the amount of foliage that is needed to reduce risk to an acceptable level.


> Yes, there is the occasional big heavy limb that is reaching for light... but then I most often just lighten it by pruning the tips lightly... I tell my clients all the time... "we don't need to take TOO mcuh off, just the needle that breaks the camels back in a snow, ice or wind storm"... Take the weight off at the tips where the leverage is.. many small cuts and as long as there is good wood at the branchn union, I will leave it at that...


Sounds like sound arboriculture.


> If the tree is hollow and there is much question about the integrity of the limb, I'll prefer to either remove or partially remove the tree/limb.. Better to just remove the risk than to cable in most cases... My preference..


But partially removing the limb or tree does not remove the risk, just reduces it. And that can be sound arboriculture too. Glad to have your reasonable input on this, Daniel!


----------



## murphy4trees (Mar 9, 2010)

my point is that at least around here, the vasy majority of cables are (or at least should be) installed in co-doms with included bark... I prefer steel cable for that job... I very rarely have even seen dynamic support system, and of the very few that I have seen, one particular one comes to mond that was a rediculous waste of money... 

I would really only reach for the dynamic system if there is a hollow limb, so as not to damage compartmentalization... 

Gas drills, sharp bits, 2 climbers setting high steel cables, left intentionally loose... works really well... And like I said, if you are drilling wood over 10", you are either in a monster tree or you aren't 2/3 of the way to the tips.. 

Low cables suck....

again leaving the hypothetical scenerios out of the conversation..

HAS ANYONE SEEN A CABLE THAT WAS TOO HIGH??? ANYONE????


----------



## jomoco (Mar 9, 2010)

murphy4trees said:


> HAS ANYONE SEEN A CABLE THAT WAS TOO HIGH??? ANYONE????



Yeah...........my cable tv bill.

So I canceled it and settled for live streaming CSPAN on my computer!

jomoco


----------



## Corymbia (Mar 10, 2010)

*I am a snake oil salesman*



jomoco said:


> So rather than being just arboricultural snake oil salesmen, the installation speed and lower cost of these dynamic systems worsens that title further, making proponents/installers of dynamic cabling, expedient and cheap snake oil salesmen.
> jomoco



So thankfully useless hypotheticals are gone!

Now we come down to the next issue and that is name calling.  

OK if that is the best you can do; there are no real issues left. I am a snake oil salesman. I know a lot about snake oil, I know what it can do and I recommend it only for those purposes. No it will not cure baldness. Please read on

So my snake oil is cheap or do you mean value for money. I guess you haven't noticed that the more expensive watches are brands like Rolex and yet that does not mean they keep better time than a digital watch that is a hundredth of the price. Some people make decisions on functionality (what works best in each situation) ... it is clear that you are not one of them.

I have to tell you I don't know the difference in the cost between the two bracing systems and I use and sell both. We charge based on the value of what it does not on what it costs us to do. I do know that my clients love the fact that we care about their trees and we build long term relationships that include repeat visits.

Selling any form of bracing under the pretence that is a one time fix for all time is a very questionable approach. 

We have established that different techniques serve different functions and you have made clear that you see no value in preventative bracing. That is your choice but I think it is a bit hard on your clients trees. Most of my clients like keeping the trees healthy and are proactive in that regard. Oddly enough preventive care is often cheaper than remedial care.

Seems like the people who see dynamic bracing as snake oil sales are not very smart. It seems that they allow the panacea mentality of fools to distract them from the true benefit of the product. Yes I sell good quality snake oil at a value for money price. Snake oil is high in omega 3 fatty acids and is good for your health ... see below ... now fancy that!
:jawdrop::jawdrop::jawdrop:


From wikipedia 


> Snake oil sold in San Francisco's Chinatown in 1989 was found [4] to contain:
> 
> 75% mostly unidentified carrier material, including camphor
> 25% oil from Chinese water snakes, itself consisting of:
> ...


----------



## Ekka (Mar 10, 2010)

I can see why America is one of the few places left to embrace the metric system too. LOL ! Must be snake oil.


----------

