# Directional pull line for felling



## Ekka (Jan 17, 2005)

Lets say you have a 100' tree and you have the pull line going through a fork up the top. You have 2 options of where to tie it ...

A/ Tie to the top fork (running bowline etc)

B/ Tie off on trunk at base

My question is, is it the same? 

Before you answer please consider that all we are doing is trying to settle a debate on which is better and we want it qualified with engineering fact not opinion. Some trees such as Norfolk Pines etc are extremely difficult to isolate the top due to the volume of branches. The rope passing down the trunk makes it easier but do you get the same amount of force onto the tree because energy is transfered via the rope down the trunk, also the top fork may create a vector... I've searched and searched for some facts but cant find any


----------



## NeTree (Jan 17, 2005)

The leverage applied is the same, since the effective attachment point is the same, pulling force being equal.

The only thing that changes is rope stretch; since you've used more rope, there's more stretch.


----------



## tnttreeman (Jan 17, 2005)

I've always understood that with a big enough lever you could move the world. I am a firm believer in the higher the tie in the better for a pull, but when push comes to shove I try to at least to be higher than the midpoint in height on the tree. I don't have any proven engineering facts, but I know that when I've tried to pull at less than the midpoint I have encountered trouble when trying to overcome a back lean. I will try to find facts to prove this, and I imagine some search on fulcrums and levers would help.
Also, my attachment point may not be the same when the rope is higher in the tree. I think it is more difficult to pull at a steep angle than at a lesser angle. I agree there is more rope stretch and the pulling force on the ground is equal, but I think there is more leverage above the midpoint than below.


----------



## treeman82 (Jan 17, 2005)

Keep on searching, I know kenny did a thread on this a couple of years ago, it should still be around.


----------



## P_woozel (Jan 17, 2005)

I dont think you get the same amount of leverage by tying to the base, as you do by having the line tied and isolated at the same point. You would be able to see this more readily on a leaner. :blob5:


----------



## tnttreeman (Jan 17, 2005)

I posted my version of your question to the physics guys at www.madsci.org. If they answer it for me I will share the reply.


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 17, 2005)

That will be interesting to see what their take on it is tntreeman, I dont believe that there will be much if any diff.

John


----------



## Can-Do-It (Jan 17, 2005)

*Good Question*

Let me see if I understand the question.

Which has more pulling power,

1) Bull rope tied at the top of a tree or

2) Bull rope tied at base, rope then runs up the back of the tree(not front) and comes out at the same point as option 1).


At this point we have to make some assumptions:

- Equipment used will hold the pulling force
- Pulling force is the same

That being said,

Option 2 .... is better, IMO.

Option 2 distributes the force of the pull along the entire back side of the tree. The energy that the pull is applying is not isolated at one point but spread out along the entire length of the pulled item. 

The question that has to asked and answered is .... which option gives you better control of the item being pulled.  


Have a Blessed Day :angel:


----------



## Can-Do-It (Jan 17, 2005)

Mike Maas said:


> I'd say the pull is the same, or very close.



I like the drawing Mike. 

I always top tie because I'm looking to throw the tree in a certain direction, and get the center of gravity going in the direction of the pull. Like we all want and do.

It's like using wedges but its applied at the top. :Eye:


----------



## bottlefed89 (Jan 17, 2005)

From the drawings, I think since the leverage would be the same, it wouldn't matter, other than the above mentioned rope stretch. Only thing I can see being any different would be in a situation where tying directly to one side of the fork might cause any spin when pulling, where going through the crotch might give you a more direct pull. I think that would be a pretty rare situation, but not unfathomable.


----------



## topnotchtree (Jan 17, 2005)

ok, heres my opinion. I think you will get more leverage tying directly to the top of the tree. Send a rope thru a crotch and tie near bottom of tree. When pulling on pull line, you will spread energy the entire length of the rope. Upwards from base of tree, thru crotch, then to whatever is pulling on rope. When tying to top of tree and pulling, energy is spread along rope again, but only in one direction, from tie point, to whatever is pulling the rope. I do want to add that the difference between the 2 methods will be not enough to worry about.


----------



## belgian (Jan 17, 2005)

from my engineering point of view, tying directly to the top of the tree (option 2)is better :

1. some pulling force will be lost in vertical direction in solution 1(the rope will stretch a little)
2. you will have more control of direction (if the pulling force can be maintained during tree movement)

hope I don't make a fool of myself now, since I'm not a professional logger.


----------



## KentuckySawyer (Jan 17, 2005)

I'd say the amount of pull is going to be the same with either method. If you have a 1,000lb come along pulling a tree over, its only going to exert 1,000lbs of pull. When you pull a tree (or log) over, you want the point of pull in the tree (point A) to be as high as possible (whether that be routed through a crotch and tied at the base, or simply tied to a high limb) and the point of pull on the ground (point B) to be as far away from point A as possible. This is because the angle between the ground and the rope is more acute. A smaller angle is closer to a straight pull, which means a more efficient transfer of energy ( in this case pulling power).

Generally I'll tie my tag line at the base for simplicity on small to medium trees. One less chance for the throwball to get stuck.

Another application for the redirect pull method would be if the tree is dead, hence structurally questionable. If you were pulling a tree over with this method and the crotch/limb you're pulling from breaks out, the rope is still attached to the tree, can still catch another crotch, and still bring the tree down. Or maybe stop it from landing on the power lines behind you. Another measure of safety would be to spiral the rope down the trunk, like a candy cane. This gives support to weak spots in the wood, etc.

As far as rope stretch. The stretching rope is absorbing the energy of the come-along (actually the person cranking on it) and then releasing that energy when the tree starts to come over. This lengthens the moment in time where you are affecting the fall of the tree (hopefully). The rope traveling down the back of the trunk isn't stretching as much because of friction against the trunk, so it isn't as effective at storing that energy. I'd say if you're flopping a big tree and the pull is critical, you're better off with all of your rope between points A and B, rather the losing 40-50 ft of it down the trunk.


----------



## Gord (Jan 17, 2005)

It's hard to say that either case is better.

Here's Spydy's original thread:
http://www.arboristsite.com/showthread.php?t=4074


The _leverage_ will be the same if either the rope is tied to the crotch or is just running through it. The horizontal force is still applied at the same point.
Although the tree will likely not need to be pulled as far before it becomes committed to the fall in the second scenario, due to the extra elasticity in the rope taking over as the necessary force decreases as the tree gets closer to plumb, this advantage is likely negated by the extra work required to tighten the rope to the necessary force.
The other force that could be considered is the crotch-to-butt compression on the spar. In either case the rope must take this force so the only difference again is the length of rope.
It's often easier to untie and pull out a rope that has been tied off to the base of the tree.

I usually tie off to the base if I can't easily isolate the line just where I want it, but if I'm already in the tree or can easily isolate the line just where I want it I tie it directly to the limb or stem.


----------



## arboromega (Jan 17, 2005)

we agree to butt tie if the line cannot be isolated in the canopy? 
if the line can be and it is just a matter of choice then i go with the canopy pull.
when the rope is butt tied your force on the line will be placed on the backside of the trunk and most likely be coming from behind the hinge by a distance equal to diameter from the back cut to the back portion of the hingewood. i would imagine this creates slightly more downward pressure on the hinge. in other words the pull force arrives from behind and directly above the hingewood.
if the line is in the canopy in front of the hinge you will achieve more of a forward and sloping force on the pull line helping the hinge work in a more natural fashion.
any thoughts?


----------



## glens (Jan 17, 2005)

I'd weighed in extensively in the other thread linked-to above, so I'm not going to go into much detail here.

I will say, however, that if you merely drape the line and fasten back at the bottom, 1000# pull on the line will result in more line being pulled through the device to achieve that tension than if it were directly fastened at the top.

Also, you'll get the most leverage at the highest point you can achieve, but that might not be the best choice in the big picture.&nbsp; You'll want to maintain adequate strength in the stem for the task at hand.&nbsp; Both of those statements I feel are painfully obvious, of course, but I contend that neither route for the rope will provide an advantage over the other for marginal conditions.&nbsp; Unless you consider the greater compressive forces of the draped method, which just might cause failure when the direct might not.

Glen


----------



## NeTree (Jan 18, 2005)

Stretch is irrelevant to pulling force. 1000 pounds is 1000 pounds.

Glen, are you referring to compressive force as in say,- splitting the crotch out where the rope runs down?


----------



## glens (Jan 18, 2005)

If the rope stretches 1" per 10' at 1000# and you've got half again as much rope between terminations you'll pull half again as much stretch before the load cell reads 1000#.&nbsp; More rope pulled is more cranks on the hoist, right?

Yes, splitting the crotch is one possibility.&nbsp; Another is that the stem, if not straight, will be induced to bow more so than it would when pulled solely from the top.

Glen


----------



## NeTree (Jan 18, 2005)

Glen, to the first part:

You're still going to hit 1,000 pounds. You just have more stretch to take up to get there. 1000# of pull at the hoist will equal 1000# of pull at the crotch, no matter if it's tied directly or "fishing pole" (as Murphy calls it). Correct.

Sometimes this stretch can be useful (the strech alone will keep the tree moving as it nears center of balance), sometimes it's a PITA (like if you're using a comealong short on working length).


Second part: I agree/ I agree. Another good reason to (usually) get the rope high- less force needs to be applied to achieve the pull. In actual practice, each tree should be examined on a tree-by-tree basis for the suitability of one method/technique over the other, and how high the line should be placed to balance pull needed vs. structural inegrity.


----------



## OutOnaLimb (Jan 18, 2005)

The only time I tie off to the top of the tree is when I have topped off everything and am pulling over a spar. Usually I run a line through the highest crotch and down the back side, and tie off using a running bowline about a foot above my face cut. Alot of times its hard to isolate a branch at the height that I like to have using a running boline. Not only that, but the higher your line is set and the further distance you pull from gives you more leverage.

Ken


----------



## hobby climber (Jan 18, 2005)

Would this work ? What if you tie a rope to the upper part of the spar and its other end to mid trunk. Then run the rope through a block that is attached to your truck. This would equalize the pull force exerted on both attachment points of the tree as it's pulled over with truck. Your thoughts...


----------



## Gord (Jan 18, 2005)

> Yes, splitting the crotch is one possibility. Another is that the stem, if not straight, will be induced to bow more so than it would when pulled solely from the top.



I disagree here...a fishpoled line will produce no more 'bowing' than a line tied on directly. The crotch still has to exert the same forces regardless of how the line is tied. However, if a fishpoled line is passed around the trunk a few times before it's tied to the base, it will add some rigidity to the tree.

edit: I rethought this. The only way that the fishpoled line will produce more downward force on the crotch is if the pull is near to vertical so that the 'doubled' line will give somewhat of a mechanical advantage. Given that a pull line should pulled from at least a tree length away, and that the pull point will be below the top of the tree (unless it's a spar) the angle will almost always be more acute than 45 degrees (more so for a back leaner), also given the friction in the crotch, the MA will be very little above 1.


----------



## arboromega (Jan 18, 2005)

hobby climber, pulling a tree with a truck is usally bad news in my opinion, too much to go wrong.


----------



## glens (Jan 18, 2005)

Gord said:


> I disagree here...a fishpoled line will produce no more 'bowing' than a line tied on directly. The crotch still has to exert the same forces regardless of how the line is tied. However, if a fishpoled line is passed around the trunk a few times before it's tied to the base, it will add some rigidity to the tree.
> 
> edit: I rethought this. The only way that the fishpoled line will produce more downward force on the crotch is if the pull is near to vertical so that the 'doubled' line will give somewhat of a mechanical advantage. Given that a pull line should pulled from at least a tree length away, and that the pull point will be below the top of the tree (unless it's a spar) the angle will almost always be more acute than 45 degrees (more so for a back leaner), also given the friction in the crotch, the MA will be very little above 1.


Think it through some more.

If you "fishpole" the line, it will pull <i>between the upper interface and the lower</i> with the same amount of force you exert on the "free" end of the line (discounting friction).

If you pull from 70' away to 70' up, you're pulling straight down to the ground at a level of 71% the force you're exerting on the line.&nbsp; That will be the case in either scenario.&nbsp; If, however, you've got the line "fishpoled" down the tree, you're also trying to compress the top interface to the bottom attachment with the same (100%) force as you're pulling (ignoring friction at the upper point) for a total downward force (as the upper point sees it) of 171% if the stem were plumb.

Why stress the upper interface that much?

If you wind the line around the stem on the way down before anchoring it back to the stem below you'd indeed decrease any "bowing" effect to the extent of the number of wraps along the way, but you're <i>still</i> trying to compress (and now twist) it.&nbsp; Remember, the line is going to do everything it can to become as straight and short as possible when you pull it.&nbsp; In any event, that sounds a bit more difficult than simply isolating the upper point with your throwbag, etc. and using a running bowline.

Glen


----------



## Gord (Jan 19, 2005)

Reading these over I understand that you're right with the math Glen. However, aside from the math your post doesn't show a good grasp of real world tree work.


----------



## a_lopa (Jan 19, 2005)




----------



## glens (Jan 19, 2005)

Thanks for the half-a-nod, Gord.&nbsp; I used a 45&deg; angle of pull to illustrate the best worst-case scenario.

I only use a pull line in situations where the tree (or parts thereof) can be felled but they exhibit notable side or back lean very near and threatening stationary targets.&nbsp; I don't do it every day, but it doesn't occur extremely infrequently either.&nbsp; Are you saying I should cease using my throwline to isolate high points and running bowlines up to them?

Regarding use of a vehicle of some sort to pull, I dislike it very much due to the lack of delicacy/feedback, but when I do it, the pull is redirected from a stationary object with a low-mounted block.

Glen


----------



## hobby climber (Jan 19, 2005)

So Glens, what you are saying is if you have to use a vehicle to assist in pulling over a tree, it should be stationary? I do understand your logic but what about the what ifs ... Last year I took on a job to TD seven dead/dry "carolina poplars" situated about eight feet inside a white pine stand along a field. The pines -25-30' & the dead trees -55-60'. The dead tree could only be drop ed in the field and not into the pines. What I did was secure a bull rope to the upper (stable) part of the trunk and the other end about half way down. Then ran the rope thorough a block that was attached to my truck. I notched the base of the trunk for direction and had assistant back cut as I gently pulled the tree into the field. With this set up it gave equal pull force to the attachment points on the trunk and reduced (I believe) the risk of snapping the spar. It worked out fine for me is this situation. I know this may not have been the best method but its all I could think of at the time given that there was nothing else in the field to anchor to. If there is a better way to have done this...I'm all ears. Blocking down the wood was not an option, the tree I don't think would have supported it. Thanks HC


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 19, 2005)

I use a truck regularly to pull with and see nothing wrong with it in some situations because it is so much faster. If I have a dozen pine trees to pull away from an old fence and they are sound green trees I will use the truck every time if I can easily set up redirects to where I can see the tree.
True, it is a receipe for disaster if you are talking about two guys, unfamiliar with tree work in a hopped up 4w drive yelling and waving at each other, but I am sure that does not apply to any of us on AS.
In a sticky situation I use one or two Maasdam rope pullers. If it is real sticky I dont touch any thing and turn around and walk away. I regularly tell people that they need an arborist.
To get back on topic I would rather tie at the top instead of the fishing pole method to eliminate what I consider the foul holt of the line running over the crotch, the line would not move much there but it is the weak link and could damage or burn the line. If it is going to be a hard pull and I cant isolate the top I use 3/8 wire rope to avoid any chance of burn right in the middle of the rope.

John


----------



## NeTree (Jan 19, 2005)

Hobby, coupla things:

When pulling trees over using a vehicle, consider: If the tires start to slip and you break traction, the tree (if it's heavy enough) can actually pull you back further than where you started, risking snapping the tree off at the hinge when the kerf closes. 

In your example of using a block, you actually INCREASED the force required to pull the tree over; since the pulling force was effectively applied (roughly) in between the two attachment points on the tree. 



Dan,

In your example I may have used the 3:1 MA system tied to the cedar and gunned for the target with tapered hinge, to be fancy. Since that would pull the tree slightly towards the cedar, it would ensure counteraction to any lean towards the house. More likely, I just would have attached my come-along to the cedar, and then a bullrope directly to the tree being felled. With 20 feet of pull at 4,000 swl, the tree would have to have one helluva lean to not have enough cable to pull it over center.


----------



## glens (Jan 19, 2005)

HC, the only time I'll pull directly to the tree with a vehicle is when the vehicle is on a hill and the resultant pull is nearly horizontal.&nbsp; Any other time I'll affix a block to a very low point and pull through that.&nbsp; If there isn't a suitable fixed location for that block, I'll set another vehicle there and use the trailer hitch to fasten the redirect.&nbsp; I don't want any upward pull on the "mule" which might serve to reduce traction, with the problems that can cause (as Erik mentioned).&nbsp; I also keep the back cut filled with wedges (in fact, try to actually wedge the stem over merely using the rope as an assist) just in case the rope or stem suddenly becomes ineffective for whatever reason.

Dan, what can I say?&nbsp; That must have been some sight!&nbsp; My math shows an angle of 25.6&deg; with 2000# direct pull resulting in a horizontal component of 1801#, hahaha!&nbsp; Also, I very much prefer to use a Ford.

Glen


----------



## arbortec (Jan 19, 2005)

I think that the direct tie to the top of the tree would be most efficient(no force lost to friction)- also if you rigged a rescueceder to your rope and added a fiddle block(say 5 to 1) tied back to a solid anchor point you couldn't lose. The force generated with that sort of rig would pull over a tree with a good lean even.


----------



## hobby climber (Jan 19, 2005)

NeTree...an interesting point. Your saying that because the block (on my truck) pulls equally on the two attachment points on the tree, it would be as if I had attached only one rope to the tree between the two attachment point. This would make my example less efficient than if I had attached the rope higher. That makes sense...thank you for the eye opener. :Eye: (Ya learn something new all the time on AS.com)!!!


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 19, 2005)

Dan, I think he was refering to HC's situation. I could'nt read your diagram on my screen, looks interesting though.

John


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 19, 2005)

Dan, No its a Mozilla browser. I think I answered your question.  I looked in the help section a bit and tried to match your key words up with Mozillas but figured that supper sounded better. Thanks

John


----------



## arbortec (Jan 19, 2005)

my drawing sux but maybe this will better illustrate.......


----------



## NeTree (Jan 20, 2005)

glens said:


> Also, I very much prefer to use a Ford.
> 
> Glen


----------



## geofore (Jan 20, 2005)

*rope/wedges*

I've seen Glens work with wedges, not often that he would have the need for a truck or rope to do a pull with his ability using wedges and notch placement to direct a tree. Any of you guys using 4x4trucks or 2x4trucks to pull, you'll have much less wheel spin if you load the truck (fill the bed with wood) with some weight for more traction before you pull. Once the wheels spin you have no traction and the tree can pull the truck backwards. So make sure the guy in the truck doesn't floor it for a good take off. What is your back up if the rope/cable breaks? 
Dan, I liked your pulley set up, I've done setups like that and gotten comments that it looked like something from outerspace. When the tree lands where I said it would all the comments stop and they ask," How did you do that?" Even seeing it done they don't believe it works.
All you new guys, heed the warnings about useing a pickup truck to do the pulling, the trees weigh a lot more than a pickup truck. You need to learn how to use wedges and pulleys. It's good to have more than one trick in your bag. There's more than one way to skin a cat.


----------



## glens (Jan 21, 2005)

John Ellison said:


> Dan, No its a Mozilla browser. I think I answered your question.  I looked in the help section a bit and tried to match your key words up with Mozillas but figured that supper sounded better.


John, does your cursor appear as a magnifying glass with a central plus sign while over the image?&nbsp; If so, left-click once and it should jump to full size.

The detail level in the image is quite poor because it was saved as JPEG.&nbsp; If it had been saved as GIF or PNG it would have much better resolution and would be probably 1/10 the file size.

Glen


----------



## glens (Jan 21, 2005)

hobby climber said:


> NeTree...an interesting point. Your saying that because the block (on my truck) pulls equally on the two attachment points on the tree, it would be as if I had attached only one rope to the tree between the two attachment point. This would make my example less efficient than if I had attached the rope higher. That makes sense...thank you for the eye opener. :Eye: (Ya learn something new all the time on AS.com)!!!


Actually, I think that method was a fine idea.&nbsp; I somehow envision the forces being split proportional to the length of line in each leg, the shorter of which would act the strongest.&nbsp; If that's true, using a movable block as the pulling point would redirect the forces toward the top as the tree falls toward you, and there's nothing wrong with spreading the load out like that.&nbsp; It just seems a bit extra work, is the only down-side as I see it (well, that and the fact that the initial median pull point would then lie closer to the lower point, requiring maybe greater pull for the same effect).&nbsp; I'll probably ponder the math on that one while sleeping...

Glen


----------



## John Ellison (Jan 21, 2005)

Thanks Glen, that did the trick.

John


----------



## tnttreeman (Jan 21, 2005)

*Leveraged pulling*

I asked the question to the physics guys at the mad scientist site. They basically said there isn't a difference in force whethere tying to the top of the tree or through the crotch and back to the bottom. Their answer is:The <a
href="http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/1105976966.Ph.r.html)previous
answer still is applicable. The only modifications I would make to
that answer are that
a) if the rope tied at the bottom of the tree trunk does not slip
either at the tied end or in the tree's crotch, and
b) if the tree is stout enough that the tree trunk does not bend,
then there will be no difference between the two ways of tying the rope.

However, there are some ways that the two methods can be
different, but I hesitate to mention them because they are probably obvious
to somebody of your experience. Here they are, though, for the benefit of
other readers:
1) If the rope tied to the bottom of the tree trunk can slip at the
tied end then you will have to deal with that inconvenience. 
2) If the rope can slip in the crotch of the tree then there is the
possibility that the tree trunk will be more likely to snap or bend, due to
the added compression on the trunk (in the vertical direction) between the
bottom of the trunk and the crotch.
3) If the branch, to the side of the crotch, around which the rope is
tied is not sufficiently stout then obviously it can break. The rope
in the crotch will not break the branches to either side of the
crotch as easily.
4) The rope in the crotch may have a tendency to split the tree
at the crotch, but I don't actually think that that is very likely.

Have I missed anything? Happy timbering!!!

John Link, MadSci Physicist


----------



## glens (Jan 21, 2005)

The URI you provided (http://madsci.wustl.edu/posts/archives/1105976966.Ph.r.html) does not address a comparison of installation types.&nbsp; Perhaps you had another one in mind?&nbsp; That question/answer is the only thing I can find at that site using their search facility with the word combinations "pull tree" or "rope tree".

I disagree with your added conclusion #2.&nbsp; The tension between the top and bottom of the tree-to-rope contact points will exist whether or not the rope slips, else the need to securely fasten at the bottom would not.

Glen


----------



## tnttreeman (Jan 21, 2005)

I emailed them the drawing Mike Maas used on page 1 of this thread (#10) as the two tie in points. Also, the conclusion #2 is not mine but the physicist that responded to the question.
I only tie in at the top to pull, never to the base.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 21, 2005)

Concerning dead, fragile trees the "rope to the ground" method allows for the top breaking out, yet the pulline is still viable.


----------



## Gord (Jan 21, 2005)

Good point there MB. The whole 'spar bending under load/crotch breaking under downward force' disadvantage to the fishpoled line is moot in all but a very few circumstances. For me, the ease of setting a fishpoled line makes it my more often used method.

In situations like these, wedges are an aid and a safety. The line is the key.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 21, 2005)

i think that strategy allows higher leverage more confidentally, for that reason. Any elastic flex in top gives storage of force i think, and i'd think a double displacement, for sure advantage?

i think MM drawing should pull offset torque from the heavier and higher side; not towards it.


i think the over the top lacing is the best, for several differances that appear, in the subtle change of the mechanics as i see'em. The reaching over, more of a spin, arched input on an arched movment on hinge; that i don't think a linear pull would trace as well, delivering full focus of effort to the work path. i think the Mayhem Puzzle proved there is extra loading, and loaded points, in the line bent on the load. Minimally, we have created 
a loaded bend, that desires to unload, come out, dump it's load/bend; in additon to any pull of the line. Whatever the linear pull is, that addition of desire must be more!

i think the pulling up from the hitch on the over the top lacing as the bend pushes down, tries to put spin on the spar. On any axis of pull/push, we can increase/decrease by adding direction of spin to that same axis. 

The elasticity is increased by the increased length of the line, it is usable to pull in addition to efforts as spar moves forward;from it's stored energy. Though as Eric says it can get in the way trying to take up all the elasticity on short intake of comealong/hoist; especially if you are using pulleys to increase power/ decreasing distance of pull on top of elasticity needing more distance to be taken up. We've mounted the hoist to a Z-Rig on 
anchor, tension Z, lock, then pull with device to fumble thru that one. This pretensions line without using cable/chain length. 

The line behind spar, can further have a purchase of line sweated from it, to be maintained on the other side of the friction at top of bend, for more power at first flexxing too; that gives maximum hinge strength in response (no dutching). i believe the spar movement is more directly focussed forward with this technique, for not an increase of power, but better, focussed use; that alone could seem like an increase in power; like better bearings might seem. i believe these are the patterns of these things i see.

In Self Tightening Torque ; i try to show once again that any bent line invokes a multiplier to recognize/ use. such a change in mechanics without offset, msut give some differance. It is similar to me here.

If a linear motion has so much power, that same motion + any spin force on same axis, must be different.

That is just a start i guess!


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 22, 2005)

To my eye Mike; your over the top lacing, pulls straightest, has most loaded points from rope straight inline with target axis. Also, i think that if the loaded line between the bend and the hitch lays against the spar, it steadies, stabilizes, pushes forwards more focussed somehow. Also in this position, applying an arched input pull, into an arched motion; maintaining more of 'focus', conserving more of effort into work. In that way not giving more power, but using existing power to more advantage, by this focussed conservation of force to target.

i think the bowline at top, pulls slightly off center to spar, and would provide more pressure towards heavy side. Grabbing the larger fork, would be off center pull to spar, but could be used as a correction, dealing with the sidlean force, reeling it into target, rather than pushing further away (as with torque from pulling on smaller fork can i think) with any torque given from off center pull.



Great rig Dan! i think for truck pulls ya need to verify weight in truck, solid non-slip run of proper length, overwhelming force on your side, possibly redirct pull from top of tree to lower so reactive pull doesn't pull up on truck - losing traction; while giving a mroe rotational angle of pull then advancing truck angle. Deeper face, to lessen backlean.

At 45 degree calculation, and any margin for error; you are in kill zone. Equivalent to the fall - height of cut: if tied at top; as best case scenario.

In Dan's case; i might have considered 'comealonging'(actually preferring chainhoist myslef) tree as forward as possible, lock off; then finish with truck pull. Primary comealong pull can continue thru 1st phases of back cut. Alternatively using truck, lock off with a line. Then switch truck to alternate system. If no extra pulleys, pull thru a self tended friction hitch,; let it hold tension, as you relax truck and lock off line, get multiplying pulleys free to use on secondary pull to finish. This makes the secondary pull much easier, and gives some degree of safety. Also, you can lay or hang spar aginst the line, to give bent tension and keep pulling as tree advances, on that side.

The next biggest thing is to make sure the face is in no way Dutched. If it is, all the tension is going into increasing compression on this unconected space in front of hinge. You want total relief in front, so the only responsive force you casue increase in is hinge strength, of connected wood, that controls from the rear that you are manipulating with saw thru backcut. Not, forcing higherforce in disconnected compression, inside of face,that you can't alter with saw cutting forward to target.

i think the idea of a directional line is wrong in good wood generally. The direction of pull should be to the full releif of the gunned face; forcing the hinge stronger, to multiply your efforts to then steer against the distractions to target of sidelean etc. Correcting lean directly with line by countering lean to opposite side of target, generates the same leveraged force on spar, just not further running it through the hinge multiplier to let that higher number fight sidelean. Unloading the hinge tension with the line correction to counter lean, doesn't allow the hinge to work for you in that way. 

A bent line always gives a multiplier, forces re-induced onto themselves are harder to trace, as in Mayhem, DdRT, martial arts etc. Bent Line Calculator


----------



## geofore (Jan 22, 2005)

*diminishing returns*

How high the rope should be in the tree is not dicussed. High is good but you reach a point of diminishing return if you try to place the rope very near the top of the tree. Above half way yes, but do you get any better pull if you go beyond 3/4 of the way to the top of the tree?


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 22, 2005)

Yes.


----------



## Ekka (Jan 22, 2005)

Hi all,

Hasn't this been a great thread. I have to research this vigorously becasue it's part of my task for Arb College. I have to have facts and be able to prove them.

I jumped onto a physics forum and asked the question and they reckon there is a difference. The top tie off will give the most leveraged force as all the energy is directed to the one point of the tree and will follow the line of the rope to the pulling point on the ground ... where as if the rope goes down the back it will create a vector and more downward force depending on the friction from the fork (rough bark smooth bark etc), the less friction in the fork the greater the vector will become. Fact is there will always be a vector created as long as there's tension on that knot at the base on the trunk.

Imagine replacing that fork with a pulley, you all know that the force on that pulley would be split between the direction of both ropes, well its the same.

I've done a bit of a diagram so you can see. We are now crunching some numbers to try and quantify the fact, the next step is to set up a model. What we will do is apply accurate tension on a line, tie off in the 2 ways described and measure the bend in the spar.


----------



## NeTree (Jan 22, 2005)

I usually shoot for 2/3's up, minimum.

How high? Depends on the tree and how much pull I'll really be using.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 22, 2005)

i have been writing about and using this for years.

Many things to consider. Increase of force? More focussed force? More radial? As, spar tilts; at that dynamic moment, what happens in the shifts in forces? 

First flexxing is time i think maximum hinge strength is given, so more force, more focussed force, at this moment is very important by that model. If it doesn't stall, added pulls, pushes, cuts give more speed/ less power from the strength set at 'First Flexxing'; increasing the loading etc.

i use over the top on stuff 2-3' tall, to tumble more into rigging, i think giving stronger hinge to carry load longer and slower, before giving to rig is maximum. There might be an arguement that the power is not given to a tree hinge by this, because of no tumble/torque of distance; but msucling over a piece like this in slow motion on hinge, is more of a motion than static pull. i think we would more likely find the arched input effective then fer sure. i've turned this bend on the load/tree sideways, running the leg after the bend along the spar, or perpendicular to in years of rigging. It always seems, at each angle, short or tall, upside down, backward or to the side, that there is a differance in the bend; that is employable. The folks pulling the lines until something happens seem to agree, those watching the rigs, same. Loads seem to serve forward more focussed and sure; in addition to the pull of the line, the bend seems to want to dump it's excess load (and be straight) to reach minimal loading.

Nature wishes to run at minimal loading to task; as pattern/law. The Mayhem puzzle deal was to show the excess loading; that might wish to unload if it can. Any Bend of line giving multiplier, even ones back to themselves. In dragging logs i think i have noticed the farther apart the half hitch and timber hitch in killick (as example), the more 'stable' the drag, similar in rigging with 1/2 hitch preceding running bowline etc. Not for an increase in power; but smoother, more focussed power, that seems like it. As 1 aspect of the over the top pull, we have that leg of tense line pressing flat against the back 'spine' of the tree, pushing forward it seems. Like serving forward more focussed, under same power.

Any experiments done, must make sure their are no dutch's/ crossed cuts in the face; that would take efforts and load them into this disconnected compression, rather than in uncrossed cuts, forcing the connected hinge tension to be more. The effect best noticed if line coming over the top has as much purchase sweated out as possible, to increase energy store.

i too am a serious student; (when not clowning around... and even sometimes then..), the answer is elusive. i have followed the scent of some of these things to the correct door i think, so have some trust in that person-ally. Let us know what ya find!


----------



## NeTree (Jan 22, 2005)

Ultimately, when it's time to git'r'done, I'm not dragging out the darn slide rule. Either you have an instinct for this stuff, or you don't. 

Kinda like sizing up the trees for lean. How many loggers you see standing there studying the tree for hours?


----------



## glens (Jan 22, 2005)

Ekka said:


> I jumped onto a physics forum and asked the question and they reckon there is a difference. The top tie off will give the most leveraged force as all the energy is directed to the one point of the tree and will follow the line of the rope to the pulling point on the ground ... where as if the rope goes down the back it will create a vector and more downward force depending on the friction from the fork (rough bark smooth bark etc), the less friction in the fork the greater the vector will become. Fact is there will always be a vector created as long as there's tension on that knot at the base on the trunk.
> 
> I've done a bit of a diagram so you can see.


There will be no more (intermediate?) "vector" with the laced-down-the-back setup than with the top-tied one.&nbsp; At least nothing that would be notable in practice.&nbsp; There are a couple factors your physicists need to bear in mind, namely that once the tree comes over-center the rope ain't doing a thing.&nbsp; This happens quite early in the scheme of things.&nbsp; The other thing is that the lower tie-in point of the back-laced method is itself part of the stem.&nbsp; I think what they're thinking is having the anchor being separate from the tree itself.

I cannot "open" your document, but would very much like to.&nbsp; I see it's a Microsoft Office file with an embedded Power Point something.&nbsp; If you're merely providing images, I'd like to suggest you use a <i>real</i> standard format, such as PNG if they're simply sketches, or JPG if they're annotated photos.&nbsp; Or if that's not possible for you for some reason, could you isolate the Power Point file instead of embedding it within another non-standard/closed-format entity.

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 22, 2005)

Ekka Pic:






This is all i got in file.
Yeah, i embedded it, only ~8k!

i thnk MM original a lil big as .BMP


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 22, 2005)

Glen, ya drive me nuts, but I wish I was as computer-savvy as you!


----------



## NeTree (Jan 22, 2005)

I bet alot of people do.


----------



## NeTree (Jan 22, 2005)

In the pic, 30kn applied is what the tree "sees" either way.


----------



## glens (Jan 22, 2005)

Thanks, Ken.&nbsp; That's what I thought they were thinking.&nbsp; You'll agree with me that they're wrong, right?

Here's what I'm saying:

<img src="/attachment_20456.php" alt="diagram">

Glen


----------



## Gord (Jan 22, 2005)

To call a .doc file non-standard/closed format isn't what i'd call computer savvy...


----------



## glens (Jan 22, 2005)

TreeCo said:


> Yeah but there are very few people who can drive one as nuts as GlenS
> 
> Dna


Drive one <i>what</i>?&nbsp; And are you suggesting I'm nuts?


----------



## glens (Jan 22, 2005)

Gord, <i>which</i> .doc format is "standard"?&nbsp; Are any of them "open"?


----------



## NeTree (Jan 22, 2005)

(You mean I _have_ moderating abilities?  )

Dan, correct. I was referring to "pull-over" force; the compression would be irrelevant unless the tree had some serious defect.


----------



## NeTree (Jan 22, 2005)

(Glen can't DRIVE us nuts. We're already there anyways.)


----------



## a_lopa (Jan 22, 2005)

the most relavant thing when pulling something over is the saw hand,hes controlling the stress, weight, pull etc etc


----------



## caryr (Jan 22, 2005)




----------



## arboromega (Jan 23, 2005)

nice job with this post everybody.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 24, 2005)

What is premium angle to pull the line from for best rotation on the hinge?

As we look at the static properties, angles and forces; how do they change at movement/ rotation? Does their previous loaded inertia have any consequence on the changed position (brief/sharp, rotational force?).

i think that for sure the maximum hinge tension strength is set at first folding, as an equal and opposite type of response; begins to fail. If tree will fall of it's own weight without stalling or sawing at that point; hinge is maximum strength; and acceleration of force minimum. So, that any force, even brief, sharp force; scheduled at first folding, increases the hinge strength in response. 

i think the over the top lacing, cradles the load more; increases the number of loaded points on the pulling axis, giving more stable, focused bringing forward. Not necessarily more power there(that point), but better use of it i think; like less wobble in tire, more smooth, directed force. 

The line at the bend is pushing down, the hitch is pulling up. There are tons pushing down, but nothing else pulling up; at rotation, angle shift of spar this unique event might give some measure of advantage, where none was before. On a rotation, that up pull (from hitch) compounding the down pushes on other end.

These are some of the more elusive points i've had to consider in watching this for years and thinking there is use for the bent line in rigging and felling. In rigging the weight of the load becomes the source of pull on the restricting line, bent around the load; to give similar, observable forces (i think). Especially on slow rotating stuff, you are muscling through on the hinge. In between fall and stall; extending first folding of hinge. Where, it won't fall on it's own, but line pull doesn't let it stall, i think the effect of the lacing over the top/ around the load; is most noticeable as a force of it's own.


But, it has driven me  'ier!
Some old drawings.


----------



## P_woozel (Jan 24, 2005)

How about proper size up of the tree/stick, try using wedges (iknow its new territory for many of you) Become comfortable with your falling ability or in some cases learn the fundamentals. Most of the time a pull line is used it isnt truly needed. This discussion proves that. Learn how to judge a trees lean.  :blob5:


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 24, 2005)

A line can pull over longer range, a wedge gives 'dead lift' that can't be taken back by tree, like risk of tree responding back to rope pull. A wedge loses it's leverage the deeper you make the face i think; but with a line you can go deeper under CG, and still have leveraged help. Huge, Huge trees might take too much line, too high a shot, when wedge could simply tilt the balance with lots less gear! Different strategies. 

i think we should give force to target direction (in good wood); to give more strength to hinge, than is forced by tree's own weight and angle; for better results. Raising the hinge strength to higher value, to prep it for the increased leverage on hinge with every degree of fall. Interuptions in face use whatever of that force; to load disconnected compression; instead of forcing more connected tension in hinge. The hinge tension doesn't carry as much load, as a face closes; so forcing more pressure here doesn't give more steering, control by saw or connected support. Taking the face, is meant to remove this resistance, and place all control at the rear tensioned hinge fibers, reachable by saw to control, by disconecting fibers. Forcing compression, puts power were the saw can't reach it, and also is already disconnected anyway.

The rope fiber too, is connected control, for more of the ride on hinge arc, the wedge only seconds of flexing on hinge. More insurance, over the distance with rope, and unubstructed face. Both allowing connected control over the longest distance.


----------



## P_woozel (Jan 24, 2005)

Maybe I should say a pull line isnt always used properly, I see guys set a line when wedgeing will suffice, or see guys set a line as a matter of course in a tree that has obvious favor to the lay, then I watch the same guys not set a line when taking a 30' conifer top that has a difficult read, when they are a 100' up dropping into a 50' long by 20' dz. I am fanatic about pull lines, when they are needed. I wish I could do in town what I do in the woods.


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 25, 2005)

i think wedge push and/or line pull can be used on a tree that favours a lean to target, to force a stronger hinge for softer landing. Once again in good wood, using the line not to direct the tree, but force the hinge stronger , then let the stronger hinge steer and lower the tree.


----------



## fpyontek (Jan 25, 2005)

There are only two component vectors of force from a pull line which act upon the tree, a horizontal component (toward the direction of the applied force) and a vertical component (down the tree). 
For an explanation go to: http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/vectors/U3L3b.html 
To answer the original question from Ekka, the advantage of either method may depend upon the situation. A rope can suffer up to a 50% loss of breaking strength after tying a knot. See http://www.treevolution.co.uk/documents/Ropes.htm (scroll down to the paragraph under the heading "ROPE APPLICATION (Safe working loads and knot strength)". The advantage to method (B),(tying the knot near the base of the tree) is that the friction against the rope through the crotch and the additional friction of the rope around the larger diameter of the lower trunk is applied along a larger area and reduces the stress to the rope at the bend in the knot.
A disadvantage to method (B) could be that there may be no good crotch to go through. The rope could be lying over a limb, such as in a spruce tree, where the limb could break with relatively little force applied to the rope. In that case, method (A) would be better.
Getting back to the vertical component of the applied force (down the tree). At a 45 degree angle the horizontal and vertical components are equal (but tree guys who stand with the rope at a 45 degree angle while pulling a tree over won't last very long). As the vector of the pulling force moves further away from the tree (the guy pulling the rope moves back) the vertical component of of that force reduces quickly.
Assume you have a 100 ft tree and you place the rope 3/4 up or 75 ft. In order not to be hit by the tree you would need to stand at least 100 ft away. Say you stand back 25 ft additional for safety or 125 ft from the base of the tree. The angle of the rope is then arctan(75/125) or approximately 30 degrees. At that angle if two 250 pound guys pull on the rope (assume 500# force for simplicity), the horizontal component of the applied force is: cos(30)*500 = 433 pounds of force applied to the point 75 feet up the tree. Thats 75*433 = 32,475 ft lbs of torque applied to the base. The vertical component of the applied force is: sin(30)*500 = 250 pounds pushing the tree into the ground (a good size climber bear-hugging the tree)
I'm not trying to say dropping a tree is simple, it is DEFINITELY NOT! As you all know there are many factors to consider. I'm sure that there are homeowners or "nubies" to the tree business that read these posts. I would just like to point out to those readers that there is no one way to drop every tree. A wedge will not always work! If the tree is hollow you may not get to the back cut before the tree falls backward.


----------



## belgian (Jan 25, 2005)

fpyontek ,

you explained in detail what I meant in my previous post. Best answer so far to my opinion. In order not to offend animal protectors, it would be wise to inform the climber bear to get out the tree before you start pulling the rope ....


----------



## glens (Jan 25, 2005)

Yeah, that <i>was</i> good.&nbsp; I see it as basically a well-fleshed-out and proviso'd version of what I've been saying all along, except for the omission of the extra 500# (nominal) which would be added to the 250# downward force at the crotch/limb with the laced setup (for a plumb bole).

Addressing the knot strength:&nbsp; even if the bowline had a 50% reduction rating, the setup would tend toward full line strength again since the bowline itself would be essentially carrying only &frac12; the direct load, being wrapped around the tree/limb back onto the line.&nbsp; Right?

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 25, 2005)

Nice Job Fpyontek (such an easy name to remember...);

The Mayhem Puzzle proved there would also be a force component pulling up from the hitch. 

Also, more compression isn't always a bad thing; i use it as in Hinge Pocket Pressure Rig. Which is a rig with the bent line mechanics on a load, that is self tightening (to create the line pull) with more leverage the farther from hinge the bend in line is. Also, this rig adds the angle of the line purposefully compressing into the hinge, to hang on with less fiber in hinge, for hinge holding on, but turning easier with less fiber resistance.

i'm not sure the downward compression would be signifigant on a large tree, whose total weight was also pushing down. The downward compreesion into the stump, would depend on the angle of the spar i think. The hitch pulling up force would be a unique event though; i think. The static numbers and their inertias would alter at movement.


----------



## glens (Jan 25, 2005)

Ken, I'm sure I'm "hearing" you say that the laced line with it's added downward pressure at its upper end would add to the downward pressure on the hinge/face, but I contend those control elements would not see one iota of it.&nbsp; It's entirely dispersed above them.

Sorry if that's not what you're saying; it can be somewhat difficult at times to be entirely sure.&nbsp; <tt>:</tt>)

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 25, 2005)

i was saying that more compression isn't necessarily bad. The downward force exists but is several hundered pounds in the midst of 5 tons (whatever); and also does have a countering pull up at the hitch (that is also unique in play of forces here).

i still think, there is something to the continued inertia of those pulls, as the spar shifts position. This makes the inertia of the pulls, not inline with the spar anymore, so therefore are leveraged; also acting in concert to spin. This i think could happen, briefly, sharply at first folding; which is the window of time to force the hinge more, to have more hinge strength maximized i think.

You have to consider torqued pulls on the spar (side to side) when choosing between the 2 methods.

i still think in a simple analysis, line to the same point; you can choose between the line pull or the line pull + bend in line wanting to come out; in choosing between the 2 methods. The force input is more arched on an arched action in the over the top lacing. i've used it felling at the standard angles. Also, rigging to side, pulling up, rigging thru highly leveraged horizontal plane, sometimes twisting hinge fibers sideways with it's power etc. for years. Of which i have been writing about different points of, starting at ISA board some ~7 years ago.


----------



## P_woozel (Jan 25, 2005)

treespyder, all the crap you say gives me a headache, you are obviously intelligent but I would like to see you work in the feild cause I wonder if you really can show this crap you yak about. Have you ever said yes or no to a question? Push/pull compress that.


----------



## techdave (Jan 25, 2005)

*existance of vertical force depends on tie off point*

Howdy all, the vertical force component along the trunk is only a factor in the tipping of the tree if the rope is tied off BELOW the hinge. Otherwise there is no moment produced about the hinge, and moment about the hinge is what fells the tree, be it from the weight of the tree, line pull, windforce, or heavy equipemtn pushing. 

I thnk P. Woozel is probably right that lots of things are done with rope that could be wedged, but I understand why arborists rope, as there is often no margin for error in residential work. 


On the flip side there is more consequence to screw ups in logging than most non-loggers realize. Failure to hit the desired lay could result in big dollar loss due to brekage, lost productivity due to difficulty in untangling crossed leads, or even goofing up the pattern for the entire area being logged. Doing fire damage removals, which are basically clearcuts without access for heavy equipment (homeowners aint got it and cant afford it espec in remote areas) has made me much more aware of the need to drop them according to plan within a foot or two of the target.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 25, 2005)

P_woozel said:


> treespyder, all the crap you say gives me a headache, you are obviously intelligent but I would like to see you work in the feild cause I wonder if you really can show this crap you yak about. Have you ever said yes or no to a question? Push/pull compress that.




:blob5:


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 25, 2005)

Things are not determined by a mahco force of 1 item;
but rather a female sense of the relationship balance betwixt items.

The yes or no to any question; 
is dependant on the orchestration of values in a system; 
not any won point.

:alien:

edit: even in the woods, the sea of soil of the underground landscape would prefer a softer tree landing. One of the reasons not to lay into the lean, is not to feed into the direct pull of gravity, for less force hitting. It takes force to turn a tree away from the most direct gravity pull, using hinge pull to do that (rather than steering with line/wedge), further reduces the tree's potential force(as it consumes some of it's own force to turn). The CG, then will hit flat ground more glancing than directly, too.

Made Up Crap Done
-KC


----------



## P_woozel (Jan 25, 2005)

See again I cant understand what you are saying and I really do try. :blob5:


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Jan 25, 2005)

So does a steer.


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 25, 2005)

Hahahaaa.


----------



## caryr (Jan 26, 2005)




----------



## belgian (Jan 26, 2005)

sorry treespyder, I agree with P woozel !! I've normally no problem in understanding technical englisch, but I cannot really figure out what you are trying to say.

And I thought that loggers were simple men !!!


----------



## MasterBlaster (Jan 26, 2005)

TreeCo said:


> Hey Ken don't give up on these guys. Most geniuses aren't understood by the masses.
> 
> Dan



Whut Dan said! :blob5:


----------



## belgian (Jan 26, 2005)

I didn't know Ken was a "genius", NOW I understand.....


----------



## caryr (Feb 1, 2005)




----------



## glens (Feb 1, 2005)

Looks nice, Cary.&nbsp; Well done.

Glen


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Feb 2, 2005)

It is really great Cary, been trying to put other thoughts together about it; but feel that i have let too large amount of time go by; without recognizing your efforts and passion in this.

i still believe their is a positive differance in the over the top lacing, or over the side etc. i have said so many times, in many ways before. i was not so forward before,a s most know i have stated this, and it is in the links noted. So, i endeavored just to give the places and points i questioned over the years, for y'all to look at and make up own minds. Not to be wishy-washy etc.

Also, i believe that no power graph is a straight line yes/no; they all curve in perspective of something else; even in perspective unto themselves singley monitored, in their own different ranges of loading on the graph.

The Center of Mass/Center of Gravity/ Center of Balance in my imagery; is the total/soul force of the load/tree. The shape of the tree is inconsequential; except to have 'handles' to transmit force to pull/push on the CM, or it back out unto the world, and need room for it's manipulation. Also in my imagery, this CM doesn't have to be in the pith of the tree, and theoretically can be in the open air(like calculating the leveraged force from CM of a metal ring?). So the CM's leverage, would depend on it's angle and length from the compressed side of roots or compressed side of hinge. If rolling a log over; i concentrate on moving the CM, and figuring best 'handle' postiont to react on the CM with. If the 

Of course Dan was jest kidding; i am dedicated to : "Each man is, his own savant" as a personal philosophy. i think everything runs in a complimentary duality of forces male/female, power/speed, line SWL/elasticity, night/day etc. The conjoining of the 2 P sciences is not my own; the first ancients that were phycists, were also the philospophers of their day; seeing both disciplines bound by the same elements of our world; and thereby functioning the same.


----------



## caryr (Feb 3, 2005)




----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Feb 7, 2005)

i have been playing with this bent lacing on the load/target in various forms for years. i think even a 'small' 300# differance expressed 35'+ from a pivot is signifigant. This force would pull on the hinge; if line pull direction is to gunned face of hinge; the hinge itself acting as another leveraged multiplier, to then carry the load of the tree. i think if the line pull (or wedge push) is to counteract sidelean directly, the hinge multiplier is not invoked as much; as the line carries that portion of the sidelean, not the hinge. on more horizontal rigging in tree, sidlean force u fight is simply down. But, at that angle of leverage, the hinge is forced stronger in response by the load's own weight; and the loading increase per degree of roataion much less than at more vertical angles. i think a lot of shaping to greatest support/least loading for best/safest work output; is stacking the multipliers of force as high as possible in your favour; and letting their ending, compounding actions on each other, make the differance. A small differance here, another 1 1/2 feet of leverage there, a better leveraged hinge, better angle of pull etc. all slight nuances to pile on; and let the higher numbers flow on their own.

i also think that in felling(more vertical angle hinging), a tree with lean will force a hinge to barely match it's force pulling forward to target. Then as the tree moves it's lean angle on hinge increases (and speed), so any prepping pull, forces a stronger hinge for this journey into higher loading, with less hinge support (maximum support being forced at First Folding, which was a less leveraged angle). So, by that theory, any forced loading at hinge's First Folding is helpful; to strengthen hinge for that arc on hinge of increasing load, with a hinge of preset strength.

This over the top lacing to me, seems to show more of it's stuff on smaller branches and blocks, that have a smaller rotation to force than a tree, and more degrees of turn are actually directly forced by the strategy.

Here are some of the ways i have tried to show this working: Tight, Bent Lines. In all the pix, at every angle i find different mechanics in a tight bent line, than a straight line. i've come to look at it simply as linear or arched pull. When i deploy the strategy, i sweat as much purchase in the line past the bend around the load, in rigging; sweat the line leading to the target load too. Especially with a close frictional support, to sneak the line purchase by, this not being as powerful with pulley support(but, then groundies acn tighten more directly anyway; and must for the increased froce from lack of friction 'buffer'). At all kinds of angles, tiedowns, sizes etc.; i find something helpful here; generally as the dynamics and shifts of motion ensue. i think the tighter the line is, the more the bend wants to come out; Nature wishing to use the least amount of force to support/werk. 

i've defferred to some previous threads, one was the Mayhem Puzzle i made up for High School students presentation. They show an increase in force at the bend. The bend raising that above minimal. Mayhem Drawing Archive


----------



## asharrow (Feb 8, 2005)

No offense meant, but physics class was actually pretty interesting in high school and none of it has changed.

Someone said it earlier. The only difference is the rope would stretch more when tied at the bottom. BUT, once it had stretched its limit, it's all the same. Think of this: If you tied the rope at the top, then dropped the long end down, could somehow stretch it to its limit and tie it to the bottom, what difference does the knot at the top make?

Oh never mind...

Jim in Maine (Only been cutting 5 or 6 cords of good sized maple per year for 27 years anyway.)


----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Feb 8, 2005)

i use this mostly on rigging in tree; but felling too.

In the smaller arc rigging; i can get more degree of movement of arc on hinge actually forced by the line. Getting it to induce more of a forced roll on hinge by the line. i think there becomes a differance between a linear movement forced by the line, and a more arched/torqued line forcing movement, but to same target evident.

In 3 dimensions, recognizing 3 axises of force; then also any torque (forward or back) on each axis must be recognized and increased/decreased force given in comparison to just a linear movement with same line. Giving 6 potential influences i think here. 

i do sweat as much purchase from the line as i can, to take full advantage of the extra elastic storage; but also to tense both lines to the bend as much as possible.

Many massive trees down in Florida hurricanes, cranes etc. all tied up, just had to get many things to road quickly fer FEMA to haul. Many pieces, were too big to drag, even when we had small tractor; even trying to get them 20' to road. Time and again, bending line over or around the target load, gave more of a rotation, than straight pull; moving the large wood.

Forcing the arched input of a bent line on a horizontal moving sweep with branch, sometimes even raises the height of the branch some, as it rolls up, then over; sometimes doing a nice 180 degree turn horizontally on the hinge off the house and to the clear yard etc. In this use for directional pull, instead of more angle placed on the support to load (that loses upward support pull as it gives sidewards pull); i place some of the line angle in the bend around the load for similar effect (as more angled line to support) without losing as much of overhead supporting pull. So i get more of the upward/overhead support + inducement to turn by the bend around the load of the line. Sometimes this can be used to even draw the branch into a face opposite branch's balance. To affect these sidewards movements induced by the line; i sweat the line, leveraging it tight; then steer the load down on the hinge (when i know it can't go down), to tighten the line even more. If i steer to target side first, i'm loading/using the hinge;not the line so much. Laying the load down, loads the line instead, to use these angles and bends. The harder pull to the side by line, can then force the hinge stronger; giving storng hinge and tight line as supports through sweep.

If the angle of the line also compresses into the hinge to any degree, support is given to hinge i think, just like a hard outward pull on hinge would seperate sooner.

On trees half ripped from ground, i find more confidence in bracing before climbing or even hinging from bucket, with this more rotational force support i think.


----------



## caryr (Feb 9, 2005)




----------



## TheTreeSpyder (Feb 9, 2005)

i guess dude.

i even thought that hinge was pivot to tree balance, and pull support countering lean; all in one device; the disantce and angle betwixt; the leveraged multiplier of the pull support. As the CG angle and distance to pivot/compressed portion of hinge constitued the leverage of the load, countering the support. In a bent see-saw balance of load leverage vs. pivot(compressed fiber) and pull(tensioned fiber) in hinge.







i think both of these line pulls address the side lean. Choice between angled line in air(A), or on the target load(B,C). Each though, unloading hinge; thereby the hinge's Pulls & Pushes working less for you. There is only so much force, and it's matching. i see either giving torqued force. (B,C) providing that on the target itself. What i've been trying to express as similar to (B,C), only torqued on different axis(forward). i offer that any of the examples could be mirrored to favour opposite side, thus no neutrality. Works turned on side like that too, in air; line can be bent around load to serve or hinder, thus not neutral.

i would think that the Mayhem deal would've proved that the equal and opposite of the hitch pull, would be extra loading at the top + friction loss of running down the back to hitch, for more added force at the turn, than at hitch. The inertia of the 2 events, giving compunding torqued influence at movement of the spar, that the inertia of the pulls is no longer in line with, therefore leverged and compunded(1 theory). Lots of thangs change in the dynamics of movement compared to static.

i often envision that martial arts was developed in tune with felt/realized forces, and capitalizing on them; physics only later proving what the originators knew. Vows of humility; offering less anxiety over saving face, methinx.


----------



## glens (Feb 9, 2005)

Ken,

I <i>really</i> can't tell whether or not you have an argument with Cary (or myself) on this issue.&nbsp; Would you <i>please</i> discuss the basics as are very ably covered in his PDF file, on a point-by-point basis, so that we may be better able to decipher what it is you're <i>trying</i> to say to us?

Glen


----------



## Ekka (Feb 9, 2005)

It must be time for experiments. Why don't we do some and post the results here along with the method.

An idea I had was to set a model in a vice fixed to a set of bathroom scales. Tie off at the top and apply 20kg of pull (measured on a scale) from a 60 degree angle, measure the new weight on the bathroom scale and measure the flex in the spar at the top.

Then do the same but tied off at the bottom.

You'll then know if the there is any difference in the downward or outward force.

Any one else got some ideas on how to set up an experiment?


----------



## glens (Feb 9, 2005)

I cannot get past the talk of the hinge <i>action</i> being part of the equation, if that's in fact what he's saying...


----------



## caryr (Feb 9, 2005)




----------



## Ekka (Feb 10, 2005)

Hey Caryr

Attached is what I was thinking, but I'm not with you mate, a diagram of your idea would be better.

If you're pulling more straight down that's not how we fell trees, we don't want to be under them when they come. Everyone knows that at 45 degrees you're right on the edge so you tend to go that bit further, 60 degrees is fair.


----------



## a_lopa (Feb 10, 2005)

mike?


----------



## glens (Feb 10, 2005)

Ekka said:


> Hey Caryr
> 
> Attached is what I was thinking, but I'm not with you mate, a diagram of your idea would be better.
> 
> If you're pulling more straight down that's not how we fell trees, we don't want to be under them when they come. Everyone knows that at 45 degrees you're right on the edge so you tend to go that bit further, 60 degrees is fair.


Ekka,

Try it like in this modified version of your diagram.&nbsp; The ruler may not be necessary, however (I can't figure why you want it).&nbsp; Then you'll be able to see first-hand what has been said by some of us all along.&nbsp; Try the same pull direction/distances with the line draped down the back and with it affixed to the top.

When I discussed it, I used 45&deg; because it provides for the greatest downward pull in any situation even approaching sanity with a spar.

I agree that 60&deg; would be a better minimum choice in practice, but it doesn't serve so well to exaggerate/illustrate the point.&nbsp; If the object is not a spar, but has limbs present above the tie-in point, even 60&deg; may be too steep.

Glen


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 15, 2005)

*glens' experiment*



glens said:


> Ekka,
> 
> Try it like in this modified version of your diagram.&nbsp; The ruler may not be necessary, however (I can't figure why you want it).&nbsp; Then you'll be able to see first-hand what has been said by some of us all along.&nbsp; Try the same pull direction/distances with the line draped down the back and with it affixed to the top.
> 
> ...



I did a physical modeling of your diagram in "diagram.png" and posted the results in arborist-experiment.pdf.
Fred


----------



## Ekka (Feb 15, 2005)

Hey Fpyontek

Well done on your experiment.  

What I'm trying to discover is ... is there any difference between tying the log up at the top only, or going down the backside. In your experiment I'm not sure if you tried both and measured any variables. 

Please elaborate, what we are in debate over is the differences. It's killing me!


----------



## glens (Feb 15, 2005)

fpyontek said:


> I did a physical modeling of your diagram in "diagram.png" and posted the results in arborist-experiment.pdf.
> Fred


Exemplary work, my friend!

The discrepancies in the horizontal forces are likely due to the large flat base of the "spar" and those of the (backside) vertical to the extremely large relative rope size and low source tensions.&nbsp; All in all I'd say it was a success and proof of the concepts as discussed.&nbsp; And the quality of your document itself is great.&nbsp; What did you use to produce it?

Glen


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 15, 2005)

*What did you use to produce it?*



glens said:


> Exemplary work, my friend!
> And the quality of your document itself is great.&nbsp; What did you use to produce it?
> 
> Glen



I use the Linux operating system instead of windows. OpenOffice is a MicroSoft Works like program that has an excellent wordprocessor, spreadsheet, drawing prog., etc. . The word procesor has an "Export to PDF" function.

Fred


----------



## glens (Feb 15, 2005)

I'd figured as much...&nbsp; I'm very near to starting on my 9th year of almost exclusive (easily 99.999%) use of Linux (a couple of those percentage points actually belong to FreeBSD, but not at home; from, but not at).&nbsp; You just can't get the same quality out of MS junk in my experience.&nbsp; They seem to always leave a turd in the pool, floating in a yellow cloud.

I don't use Org, or any of the others.&nbsp; I'll typically scribble it out in HTML in vi, load the page into the browser and print it to postscript, then convert it to PDF from the prompt.&nbsp; Almost takes longer to describe than to do; certainly quicker than waiting for Org to open it's terrible graphical interface.&nbsp; :<tt>)</tt>

At any rate, the pull up the back is lessened by the extra ("abnormal") friction across the top and the horizontal pull is lessened by the tendency of the log to actually rise as it tries to pivot on its forward perimeter.&nbsp; That's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

Glen


----------



## fpyontek (Feb 15, 2005)

Ekka said:


> Hey Fpyontek
> 
> What I'm trying to discover is ... is there any difference between tying the log up at the top only, or going down the backside. In your experiment I'm not sure if you tried both and measured any variables.
> 
> Please elaborate, what we are in debate over is the differences. It's killing me!



This Sunday morning I'll do the same experiment, this time with the rope tied around the trunk at same height and post the results. It has to end with the same values


----------



## caryr (Feb 16, 2005)




----------



## fpyontek (Feb 16, 2005)

caryr said:


> Nicely done Frank! I only see one small problem that when corrected should fix the mismatch between the calculated and measured results.
> 
> It appears you just placed the flat edge of the log on the bathroom scale.
> 
> Cary




A notch was cut into the bottom of the log approx. 1/3 deep so as to be consistant with felling. If you look closely, you can read the bathroom scale under the log. I will try a 1x1 though. It'f Fred by the way.
Fred


----------



## caryr (Feb 16, 2005)




----------



## fpyontek (Feb 16, 2005)

Hi Cary,

I took your advice and used a 1X1 and balanced the log on it as best I could. This time the horiz. component values were off much less, only 9%. The vert. component was off slightly more than previously, about 4%. My purpose for setting this up was not to confirm elementary mechanics, but answer ekka's original question. Unfortunately, I needed to get the "kinks out" in the setup so, all things being equal, I can try to answer his question. Now that I have the setup correct it shouldn't take long to perform both tests and post the documentation. I think that for the last 2 tests I'll "rip" the edge off of a 2X4 to give me a long triangle with a flat base. Then the center of mass and the pivot point will coincide.

Fred


----------



## caryr (Feb 16, 2005)




----------

