i think without aids, the tree lean has so much force; it is a finite set amount. We seek to use that force to turn the tree itself to target. it hink wedges and lines are additional forces, with additional directions.
There are 2 axises to the hinge. The fibers are flexxed to target, are going to have a fixed resistance collectively, for there is only, that fixed, finite pull of the lean on them.
Once bent over as the chosen supports by this finite force, so to this target axis at folding there is always this same resistance in the hinge as set by the pull, no matter how arrainged -at first folding-; the hinge is the equal and opposite reaction to the pull of the lean. So the logical syllogism flows A=B, B=C, C=D, D=E :: A=E.
On the cross axis/sidlean this same block of equivalent pulling fiber can pull differently, for the fibers of same strength, are assembled at different leverage points in consideration to pulls on this axis; direction and distance are all important as strengths are all theoretically equal. As the considerations change to pulls on this axis
The point of compression in the hinge is actually double loaded, for it has the load of the lean force, then the load of the controlling hinge force too, as a support inherits both the loads of load and control legs. But, as long as the material doesn't crush, compression can handle the double loading or more. Many pivots are made needle thin, very small for less ressitance,and more calculable pivot point over a broader area consistently i think. So i think we can alter part of the compression not closest to lean and maintain compression function. Still under the finite pull of the lean, those fibers force to differrent positions, as most pull is on counter to lean, they will tend to collect slightly more there (i think) in response, rather than unilaterally and ignoring the challenge of the side lean quotient.
Taking some of the compression area directly under lean moves the best part of the pivot for fighting sidelean, increasing leverage against hinge, while shortening hinge and thereby decreasing leveraged resistance against side lean pulls. Giving less power to do a harder job with.
Shortening from tension side doesn't move pivot, but does reduce the leverage of holding/tension wood as above; also places those fibers where elasticity is needed in older/less elastic wood. Moving pivot always makes compund decision, while other alterations are less dynamic, as they only effect one side of the equal and opposite reaction, for it is the pivot that carries and connects both loads so stands alone in this position.
Reducing any fiber especially in most leveraged positions of pull is contradictory to handling the sidelean.
Though elasticity doesn't matter for holding power directly on compression considerations like tension, elasticity does matter as far as the less elastic wood would want to make a larger compressive area altering pivot to inside some. Calculating total pivot from center of pivot, stretching pivot inward increases leverage of lean on pivot center (now moved inward), also once again reducing leverage reach for tension force to have, and has less elastic wood where we need even more. Now we have a harder job to do, withless power to do it again, and a questionable tool in the less elasticity of hinge.
Well, that is how i see it at least....
:alien:
)
