ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
Prolly 85' many trees in maturity in that size range but then we
have many larger than the 100' mark here as well still a bigie
Climbing a pine tree, some questions
- Thread starter Plasmech
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Prolly 85' many trees in maturity in that size range but then we
have many larger than the 100' mark here as well still a bigie
Stihl Alive
ArboristSite Operative
Prolly 85' many trees in maturity in that size range but then we
have many larger than the 100' mark here as well still a bigie
yes. this is a great learning experience for me. a lot of the limbs are tied up with the other tree, and the top 15 ft curves toward the shed/house like crazy. I got a lot out of one of them today. Not as much as I thought I would get done but I never move as fast in the tree as I do in my head on the ground. I have no doubt we'll get it down safely.
lostcoastland
ArboristSite Operative
getting high
how did you get your rope out of the tree. unless your going back up. usualy you double your rope up so the tree would be less than 60ft. i used to think i was climbing 100 feet until my doubled up rope( 150ft of arborplex) was off the ground and i set my new record at 75 ft. the 100ft mark will be no problem some of the redwoods at my dad's ranch are probalby 160' maybe .. When i finally prune out the biggest one i'll let you know howhigh i got. :jawdrop: but i imagine you can never get high enough. check out this guy....http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/bend_man_takes_off_on_lawn_cha.html
how did you get your rope out of the tree. unless your going back up. usualy you double your rope up so the tree would be less than 60ft. i used to think i was climbing 100 feet until my doubled up rope( 150ft of arborplex) was off the ground and i set my new record at 75 ft. the 100ft mark will be no problem some of the redwoods at my dad's ranch are probalby 160' maybe .. When i finally prune out the biggest one i'll let you know howhigh i got. :jawdrop: but i imagine you can never get high enough. check out this guy....http://blog.oregonlive.com/breakingnews/2008/07/bend_man_takes_off_on_lawn_cha.html
Last edited:
That would have been 10th or 11th grade trigonometry/geometry. Not too many tree workers took that class.
Listen to Moray, he's got it right, but he might have explained it better:
If you are looking up at the top of a tree at a 45° angle, the height is equal to the distance from the tree, assuming that you are looking at it from a level (90°) angle. Then add the height to your own eye level, since that wasn't included in the first height measurement.
If NOT looking at the tree from a 90° angle (uphill or downhill from the base of the tree), then all bets are off. The viewpoint is no longer a "right" triangle, and you'd better go back and take that trigonometry course.
If you have a clinometer that measures slope in percent, then doing tree heights is easy. Percentage slopes is essentially the tangent, that is rise over run measured as a percentage. So 45 degrees is 100%.
To get the tree height, measure the percentage to the top of the tree, measure the percentage to the bottom of the tree and add them together (assuming the bottom is below your eye level - if not, then subtract the bottom shot from the top). Now take your total percentage and multiply it by the horizontal distance to the the tree. That's the technique use in timber cruising (at least here).
To get the tree height, measure the percentage to the top of the tree, measure the percentage to the bottom of the tree and add them together (assuming the bottom is below your eye level - if not, then subtract the bottom shot from the top). Now take your total percentage and multiply it by the horizontal distance to the the tree. That's the technique use in timber cruising (at least here).
I don't know the tangent idea but I will try it. The way to estimate the height of the tree if you have an inclinometer is;
back away at a known distance from the tree base.
Use the inclinometer to sight the top to establish the angle.
divide the distance from the base by the cosine of the angle.
Square this number
subtract from that the squared distance from the base
determine the square root of the new number
That is your height.
depending on where the inclinometer was held to determine the angle, add that height to the height of the tree.
ps Pythagoreans theorum is side a squared + side b squared equals sice c (hypotenuse) squared. the equation used in a previous post forgot to square the distances so 6+8=10 is incorrect. 6 squared + 8 squared = 10 squared.
Used to use these equations all the time when I worked for a surveying firm.
back away at a known distance from the tree base.
Use the inclinometer to sight the top to establish the angle.
divide the distance from the base by the cosine of the angle.
Square this number
subtract from that the squared distance from the base
determine the square root of the new number
That is your height.
depending on where the inclinometer was held to determine the angle, add that height to the height of the tree.
ps Pythagoreans theorum is side a squared + side b squared equals sice c (hypotenuse) squared. the equation used in a previous post forgot to square the distances so 6+8=10 is incorrect. 6 squared + 8 squared = 10 squared.
Used to use these equations all the time when I worked for a surveying firm.
Very good description of a complete and accurate method.
This is the method I use with my clinometer when measuring the trees around here, but I use my calculator to tell me the tangents of the angles. If you did take that course pdqdl mentioned, figure the tangents; they are more versatile.
A problem with the method as described is that it may be difficult or impossible to measure the horizontal distance to the tree. Perhaps you are on a small ridge, the tree is 30 feet down the steep slope, and even though the clinometer shows you the spot on the trunk that is level with your eye, you have no way to stretch a tape over to that spot. I have run into just this sort of situation.
With some simple trig you can still get the answer. You need: angle from eye to top of tree, angle from eye to bottom of tree, height of eye above ground, and straight-line distance from your feet to base of tree. I wrote a small program to deal with all this, so I just plug in my numbers and let the computer give me the answer.
What if the base of the tree is surrounded by a ring of fire or is otherwise inaccessible? You can still measure the correct height without ever going near the tree, but you will have to sign up with pdqdl for a remedial course on elementary trig.
Moray, sometimes you just work too hard!
I bought a small nikon laser range finder. It solves all those measurement problems in about 5 seconds. Accurate to 1/2 yard, 1 yard up to 1/4 mile away. Using the tools & methods listed above, you can stand where you want and measure the height of a tree. Or more importantly, you could stand by the object you don't want to hit, and measure your margin of safety.
This isn't the model I own, but there isn't much difference except newer & neater looking: http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/laser/350/index.htm
Of course I bought it for measuring ground for mowing, fertilizing, etc. But it works great on trees, too. It's really handy for figuring out quickly how much rope/cable/chain we need to pull something heavy out of a back yard, mud hole, whatever.
I bought a small nikon laser range finder. It solves all those measurement problems in about 5 seconds. Accurate to 1/2 yard, 1 yard up to 1/4 mile away. Using the tools & methods listed above, you can stand where you want and measure the height of a tree. Or more importantly, you could stand by the object you don't want to hit, and measure your margin of safety.
This isn't the model I own, but there isn't much difference except newer & neater looking: http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/laser/350/index.htm
Of course I bought it for measuring ground for mowing, fertilizing, etc. But it works great on trees, too. It's really handy for figuring out quickly how much rope/cable/chain we need to pull something heavy out of a back yard, mud hole, whatever.
Last edited:
Uber cool !
While researching my own laser rangefinder, look at what I found:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/laser/f550/index.htm
A forestry laser rangefinder that looks like it does all the thinking for you !
While researching my own laser rangefinder, look at what I found:
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/lineup/laser/f550/index.htm
A forestry laser rangefinder that looks like it does all the thinking for you !
I bought the laser rangefinder because I'm too dam lazy to walk all over the place with a roll-a-tape. You should see me measure a big apartment complex with my voice recorder, roll-a-tape (seldom but occasionally used), and the Nikon. 1 hour later, and I'm out of there.
My coolest toy ever was my DMI: Distance Measuring Instrument. An electronic device, it coupled into the differential sensor on my explorer, and measured ground speed and distance. It was accurate to 1 foot per mile, providing you kept your calibration correct. Measure fast and accurate, never get out of the car!
Lots of cool functions, I used it to measure hundreds of miles (or least it seemed like it) of roadside for a roadside mowing contract. Their acres were ALL wrong, and I needed to set them straight, since they re-wrote the contract and started calling everything "pay per acre" instead of "pay as bid". Once I whooped on their measurements (much to their chagrin), Public Works of KCMO was so impressed that they went out and bought their own DMI.
Now-a-days, I seldom use any measuring device at all. Nearly all the land I look at is available to measure from aerial maps, while sitting at my desk. Not only is it easier, it's actually more accurate. No eyeballing for square, height of triangle, etc. I just directly measure square feet using the computer. Sometimes I use the contour lines to re-calibrate the scale for severe slopes, but not often.
My coolest toy ever was my DMI: Distance Measuring Instrument. An electronic device, it coupled into the differential sensor on my explorer, and measured ground speed and distance. It was accurate to 1 foot per mile, providing you kept your calibration correct. Measure fast and accurate, never get out of the car!
Lots of cool functions, I used it to measure hundreds of miles (or least it seemed like it) of roadside for a roadside mowing contract. Their acres were ALL wrong, and I needed to set them straight, since they re-wrote the contract and started calling everything "pay per acre" instead of "pay as bid". Once I whooped on their measurements (much to their chagrin), Public Works of KCMO was so impressed that they went out and bought their own DMI.
Now-a-days, I seldom use any measuring device at all. Nearly all the land I look at is available to measure from aerial maps, while sitting at my desk. Not only is it easier, it's actually more accurate. No eyeballing for square, height of triangle, etc. I just directly measure square feet using the computer. Sometimes I use the contour lines to re-calibrate the scale for severe slopes, but not often.
TreeTopKid
ArboristSite Guru
Loblolly's quite often get past the 100ft mark here, we lost a lot during the recent storm all I seem to have been doing is pines or the matchstick that was left when the top snapped off.
The tallest tree I've ever cut down was a Black Poplar which was close to 120ft which is bigger than they are supposed to grow but it had been planted in the overflow ditch of a lake so it got plenty of water which poplars love. It is actually the one in the photo on my avatar, I will post the photos as soon as I have scanned them and uploaded them to the computer (pre- digital). It was a great job it was given to me and a guy called W--n- by someone who'd bitten off more than he could chew. The guy said he would pay us 'basic day rate' for me W-Y-- and our guys. So we made it last three days (we spent a day pulling Ivy off it!) to make it worth our while.LOL
TreeTopKid
ArboristSite Guru
It is if they are dead but I hate sycamores I mean merry Christmas by
mentioning those I dread the new yearTulips get big here too tall
weakwooded sobs. It is better to prune them though:angel:
I think our tallest is basswood at 151 foot not red woods
but hey you fall from 20' just as dead!
I hate Sycamores also in winter they are brittle as hell. In the summer they're okay but full of Aphids. I've a feeling you may be referring to what we call the London Plane platanus occidentalis those things are just the same except when you put them through the chipper those hairy fruits make you cough like you're never gonna get the chance to cough again. They're full of Aphids in summer too. It is one of the most common street trees in the UK due to it's tolerance of pollution. In the UK it's called [I ]platanus acerifolia[/I] we all ought to get together and at least keep the Latin names the same!.
The Sycamore in Europe is acer psuedoplatanus linnaeus which is actually a Maple. It's also used a lot as an urban tree notorious for spewing sap out all over parked cars.
ropensaddle
Feel Lucky
London plane is Platanus x acerifolia American sycamore is Platanus occidentalis. Either will gag you.
i just call em button woods, i must say when we get em, its good to be the climber. big azz'd sycamores are one of my favorite trees to puzzle down. the glass like fibers will accumulate several inches or more around the chipper.
Last edited:
TreeTopKid
ArboristSite Guru
I know that's what I'm talking about it's nasty stuff. I like the way the wood cuts though. It's good firewood too if you burn it within 6mths. I had a customer who loved it (even though it burned so quickly) he used to call me up and say 'have you got any more of that Plane wood' no one else liked it so of course I had. Splits like a dream too.
I had been working trees for quite a few years before I ever knew that some folks don't get along with sycamores. I was talking to a seasoned climber when he mentioned how vile sycamores were. When I heard that, I was clueless as to what he was talking about. He had to explain it to me.
So not everybody hates them.
But then again, poison ivy and stinging nettles don't bother me either. Or chiggers, or mosquitoes, or wasps, or...anything. I'm not allergic to it, no matter what it is, and I seem to have remarkably thick skin. In more ways than one!
So not everybody hates them.
But then again, poison ivy and stinging nettles don't bother me either. Or chiggers, or mosquitoes, or wasps, or...anything. I'm not allergic to it, no matter what it is, and I seem to have remarkably thick skin. In more ways than one!
