Directional pull line for felling

[techdave]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

So does a steer.

 

[MasterBlaster]

Hahahaaa.

 

[caryr]

 

[belgian]

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]

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

Dan

Whut Dan said! :blob5:

 

[belgian]

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

 

[caryr]

 

[glens]

Looks nice, Cary.  Well done.

Glen

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

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]

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

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]

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]

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]

 

[TheTreeSpyder]

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]

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