Wedging
- Thread starter John Ellison
- Start date
Help Support Arborist Forum:
Pseudo Physics-
IMLHO, and theories...
i think accidents happen, people get killed, work gets done etc.; cuz physics never takes a vacation, never lets ya down, but never gives you a break. With no schooling this is what i think i see, so it can be wrong as any other man.
If the BackCut is horizontal, wedging pushes up, the hinge converts this to forward, the arc induced places more motion into the actual movement of the CG forward, than if a line had pulled straighter from the top.
The direction of the line pull to the motion of the CG is more straight to each other, therefore less leveraged. The input force of wedging to the output froce of movement of CG forward are not inline with each other. But, this is not a deflective or wasted effort, for it induces more motion into the same envelope of output, for more power, the force input isn't partially deflected and wasted, it is caught and funneled by the machine of the hinge into a smaller, more powerfull output distance(CG), than the input (wedge) distance.
Anytime, we can get a solid to arc, one end of our solid moves faster, one end moves slower/more powerful from the same input force, and i look fer leverage. If, backcut is slanted, this changes and wedge pushes CG more straight forward to target, less leveraged, arched; the input wedge pressure is now closer in same direction as output motion as CG. This will take more work for the same pressure, but move CG more directly/quickly when it does move. The danger is that ti will take more pressure, and have a weaker 'backstop' for wedge to push off of to build the same pressure, because the angle of the backstop now gives less fortification directly down into the stump.
Direction is always important, the direction of the output, input, pull on hinge, even direction of release in hinge (i think), and their relationships to each other.
i guess it is like my feminine side showing, but i see a lot of it like not the mass of this, the power of this, the leverage of that, all these immense forces bulldawging it out etc. in the show ring; but the relationships betwixt the parts, not the raw force of one, that defines and makes the differance in the motions. And, when out of balance, a tree or anything else will wander till it meets an equal and opposite, matching, quelling force that fully stops it in it's tracks; and it is again at balanced rest.
Direction is force, in that there can't be force without it, soemthing can't try to move, without having direction. That is why i try to balance across the hinge in exameyenations; and meet direction as the first element of force in this way.
Or,
Something like that,
:alien: :alien:
IMLHO, and theories...
i think accidents happen, people get killed, work gets done etc.; cuz physics never takes a vacation, never lets ya down, but never gives you a break. With no schooling this is what i think i see, so it can be wrong as any other man.
If the BackCut is horizontal, wedging pushes up, the hinge converts this to forward, the arc induced places more motion into the actual movement of the CG forward, than if a line had pulled straighter from the top.
The direction of the line pull to the motion of the CG is more straight to each other, therefore less leveraged. The input force of wedging to the output froce of movement of CG forward are not inline with each other. But, this is not a deflective or wasted effort, for it induces more motion into the same envelope of output, for more power, the force input isn't partially deflected and wasted, it is caught and funneled by the machine of the hinge into a smaller, more powerfull output distance(CG), than the input (wedge) distance.
Anytime, we can get a solid to arc, one end of our solid moves faster, one end moves slower/more powerful from the same input force, and i look fer leverage. If, backcut is slanted, this changes and wedge pushes CG more straight forward to target, less leveraged, arched; the input wedge pressure is now closer in same direction as output motion as CG. This will take more work for the same pressure, but move CG more directly/quickly when it does move. The danger is that ti will take more pressure, and have a weaker 'backstop' for wedge to push off of to build the same pressure, because the angle of the backstop now gives less fortification directly down into the stump.
Direction is always important, the direction of the output, input, pull on hinge, even direction of release in hinge (i think), and their relationships to each other.
i guess it is like my feminine side showing, but i see a lot of it like not the mass of this, the power of this, the leverage of that, all these immense forces bulldawging it out etc. in the show ring; but the relationships betwixt the parts, not the raw force of one, that defines and makes the differance in the motions. And, when out of balance, a tree or anything else will wander till it meets an equal and opposite, matching, quelling force that fully stops it in it's tracks; and it is again at balanced rest.
Direction is force, in that there can't be force without it, soemthing can't try to move, without having direction. That is why i try to balance across the hinge in exameyenations; and meet direction as the first element of force in this way.
Or,
Something like that,
:alien: :alien:
But, what could we move, walk, talk without leverage? i look for it's force everywhere to recognize it's patterns!
Gypo Logger
Timber Baron
Lets say we have a Doug Fir, 125' tall, 28" dia. at stump height and standing at 0 degrees or totaly straight, hypotheticly speaking. If felling cuts were placed and wedges driven to lift the tree 1" off the backcut in the direction of fall, how far would the leader be moved from its original position?
This isn't a trick question, nor do I know the answer, but I am sure someone would have the formula.
I guess the answer would be related to where the hingewood was placed in relation to the centre point of the stump.
John
This isn't a trick question, nor do I know the answer, but I am sure someone would have the formula.
I guess the answer would be related to where the hingewood was placed in relation to the centre point of the stump.
John
A relationship, of how much lift from how far away from the pivot part of hinge (closer giving less leverage) wedge is; and how far from the pivot to the other leg of the balance (height of tree). The taller will give more movement in head, but less power to that movement (from wedge).
But, i still think the direction of the wedge lift or line pull matters, if it is straigh or arched and whether that fights side lean directly or just folds hinge; once again only using the numbers for identifying pattern's trails. In actual use, dropping the numbers; and realizing/adjusting the balances of the relationships of these patterns i think.
Or,
something like that;
anyway, we all know,
climbers rule as loggers can just drool!!
Steep up ol'Gypo; tain't nothing betwixt us but air and oppurtunity!! ;
why do ya think the call loggers 'fella(r)s' anyway
But, i still think the direction of the wedge lift or line pull matters, if it is straigh or arched and whether that fights side lean directly or just folds hinge; once again only using the numbers for identifying pattern's trails. In actual use, dropping the numbers; and realizing/adjusting the balances of the relationships of these patterns i think.
Or,
something like that;
anyway, we all know,
climbers rule as loggers can just drool!!
Steep up ol'Gypo; tain't nothing betwixt us but air and oppurtunity!!
; why do ya think the call loggers 'fella(r)s' anyway
Exactly. Which is why I suggest leaving a little more meat in the hinge on a back-leaner.
As far as roping being easier than wedging, it's really the same amount of work being done; just depends on how much time it's spread over. (or should that be "over time it's spread?)
Glen
As far as roping being easier than wedging, it's really the same amount of work being done; just depends on how much time it's spread over. (or should that be "over time it's spread?)
Glen
Wood doesn't have the same strength characteristics in all directions. I wouldn't worry about stretching the hinge wood by using a wedge.
The imagery of my model doesn't go with that Mr. Dan...
i think of it as that the hinge is the pivot, like the central pulley in lowering, then hinge or pulley must take on all loads on both legs to device? To include the to targetness of the lean, wedge, line compounds into pivot part of hinge.
Until first folding/motion the other, tension, side is pulling back equivalently or tree would move, be out of balance of the pulls/pushes; so not be at rest, and wander to a position that pushes back as hard as it does. So, the tension side of hinge before moving, must match the sum of all pulls and pushes Lean + Wind + Line + Wedge on pivot of hinge / distance across the hinge etc. So that, the pivot portion of hinge carries 2x load like pulley. It carries the load and the hold, the more the load or the tree 'runs' the less load on hinge device, like pulley device in rigging.
i think that the force comes off the hinge when both (or 1) extremes of faces close, then the compression support (again 2/1) takes over and releives pressure on tension of hinge. i think that a wedge strategy is comparable on some points to line. Given the same direction etc.; i think that as raw force of equal leverage etc. that the wedge push would equal the line pull; one is just a push strategy, one a pull. In this way, the lean's pull can be used as a line pull, and more power gained by adjsuting the efficiency of movement and support of the hinge in it's relationship to the lean.
Guess i had to give my spin on logger vs. climber parody; i been watchin'a while; i imagine Gypo din't take it toooo hard.... But, a logger doing large stuff in woods prolly would have more complications and safety issues with line placement, people pulling line on something over 150' needing about 200'+ clearance, hard to get line in though some of the stuff,and maybe hard to get above the CG. i think below CG not only gives less leverage, but pull force is inbetween a pinch of CG pushing down and stump pushing up.
Or......
:alien:
Edit: from the Stumper analysis of bending wood, and the further amount that it must be bent in drawing CG to opposite side, i go with skinnier but wide hinge, and deeper set, to take some of the lean out of the back lean by virtue of the relationship between the fixed CG and the now moved back hinge.
i think of it as that the hinge is the pivot, like the central pulley in lowering, then hinge or pulley must take on all loads on both legs to device? To include the to targetness of the lean, wedge, line compounds into pivot part of hinge.
Until first folding/motion the other, tension, side is pulling back equivalently or tree would move, be out of balance of the pulls/pushes; so not be at rest, and wander to a position that pushes back as hard as it does. So, the tension side of hinge before moving, must match the sum of all pulls and pushes Lean + Wind + Line + Wedge on pivot of hinge / distance across the hinge etc. So that, the pivot portion of hinge carries 2x load like pulley. It carries the load and the hold, the more the load or the tree 'runs' the less load on hinge device, like pulley device in rigging.
i think that the force comes off the hinge when both (or 1) extremes of faces close, then the compression support (again 2/1) takes over and releives pressure on tension of hinge. i think that a wedge strategy is comparable on some points to line. Given the same direction etc.; i think that as raw force of equal leverage etc. that the wedge push would equal the line pull; one is just a push strategy, one a pull. In this way, the lean's pull can be used as a line pull, and more power gained by adjsuting the efficiency of movement and support of the hinge in it's relationship to the lean.
Guess i had to give my spin on logger vs. climber parody; i been watchin'a while; i imagine Gypo din't take it toooo hard.... But, a logger doing large stuff in woods prolly would have more complications and safety issues with line placement, people pulling line on something over 150' needing about 200'+ clearance, hard to get line in though some of the stuff,and maybe hard to get above the CG. i think below CG not only gives less leverage, but pull force is inbetween a pinch of CG pushing down and stump pushing up.
Or......
:alien:
Edit: from the Stumper analysis of bending wood, and the further amount that it must be bent in drawing CG to opposite side, i go with skinnier but wide hinge, and deeper set, to take some of the lean out of the back lean by virtue of the relationship between the fixed CG and the now moved back hinge.
Gypo Logger
Timber Baron
Hi Ken, not a problem. It's fun to joke around.
If someone was to read all our input here, they may think we have never felled a tree before! LOL
However, I think what we are discussing is the efficiency of leverage, gravity and the various ways to implement that end, while placing complete trust in our methods and to be able to go to plan B instantainiously should plan A become somewhat ineffective.
Treeco and Caryr, thanks for the input on the distance of travel per inch of lift.
Most wedging is done in an inefficient manner. Wedges are designed to lift a movable object. Most wedges are driven too early with too much force before the hingewood is ready for it. The wedges and hingewood must work in unison. This is accomplished with the minimum hingewood and wedges being driven in alternately. Little is accomplished if wedges are forcefully pounded in against two surfaces of a backcut when the tree hasn't even begun to think about commiting to an intended direction of fall.
Cabling is very effective in commiting a tree over against it's lean, but is also abused when too much force is applied against a too thick of a hinge. Think of the cables soul purpose as "holding" the tree while the cuts are placed. Then with a bit of friendly persuasion from the winch, the tree will go exactly as your hinge tells it to.
I guess I don't understand the use of ropes, as only so much force can be exerted, unless it's a smallish tree or used in conjuction with a snatch block.
Many times I have had trees set back on my saw if I wasn't fast removing it from the backcut, So what I do is, I back my log skidder against the tree in question as the log arch is 10 ft. high. This generally smartens it up, but entails walking under the tree in question, so our backs should never be turned on a "cut-up" tree, however of the hundreds I have pushed over, none have ever fallen back, but wind has lifted them though and thrown then in the intended direction of fall, which is testement to the strength of holdingwood.
John
If someone was to read all our input here, they may think we have never felled a tree before! LOL
However, I think what we are discussing is the efficiency of leverage, gravity and the various ways to implement that end, while placing complete trust in our methods and to be able to go to plan B instantainiously should plan A become somewhat ineffective.
Treeco and Caryr, thanks for the input on the distance of travel per inch of lift.
Most wedging is done in an inefficient manner. Wedges are designed to lift a movable object. Most wedges are driven too early with too much force before the hingewood is ready for it. The wedges and hingewood must work in unison. This is accomplished with the minimum hingewood and wedges being driven in alternately. Little is accomplished if wedges are forcefully pounded in against two surfaces of a backcut when the tree hasn't even begun to think about commiting to an intended direction of fall.
Cabling is very effective in commiting a tree over against it's lean, but is also abused when too much force is applied against a too thick of a hinge. Think of the cables soul purpose as "holding" the tree while the cuts are placed. Then with a bit of friendly persuasion from the winch, the tree will go exactly as your hinge tells it to.
I guess I don't understand the use of ropes, as only so much force can be exerted, unless it's a smallish tree or used in conjuction with a snatch block.
Many times I have had trees set back on my saw if I wasn't fast removing it from the backcut, So what I do is, I back my log skidder against the tree in question as the log arch is 10 ft. high. This generally smartens it up, but entails walking under the tree in question, so our backs should never be turned on a "cut-up" tree, however of the hundreds I have pushed over, none have ever fallen back, but wind has lifted them though and thrown then in the intended direction of fall, which is testement to the strength of holdingwood.
John
Last edited:
Husky372
ArboristSite Guru
a wedge is $5 the person pulliing rope at least $10 dollars an hour
That's okay, i wuz just kidding about just kidding....
Here is the drawing for my theory on how wedging gives this arc, that a line pull doesn't; also thereby changing to down slanted backcut (thinking it is safer against backlean etc.) weakens the stop under the kerf (stump) by the angle the load is applied as well as loses some of the arching to target strategy to place more input motion into the output of the tree moving forward.
Gypo always talks about tickling the hinge fibers away, now of proper coordination and application of wedge pressure, all to the same goal i think of to make tree barely fold as support barely fails under the load, just plinking enough fibers out to barely make it fall slowly i think. Once it lifts slightly, wedge quits pushing, but men could keep pulling line, or line elasticity might keep pulling, line weight etc.; making faster/weaker hinge i think than existed at first folding(max setting). i think as long as it don't stall, and has no imediment, just let Nature work, walk the backcut to the point of failure, upset the balance of support to load,and let gravity slowly take it. Ya can always make it go fast to throw or punch through i think, the real help, skill exercise and challenge is to push the control envelope and learn all ya can fer when ya need it. Softer falls let more be fallen, is easier on the timber, less spring poles, less lawn damage, soil trauma etc.
Here is the drawing for my theory on how wedging gives this arc, that a line pull doesn't; also thereby changing to down slanted backcut (thinking it is safer against backlean etc.) weakens the stop under the kerf (stump) by the angle the load is applied as well as loses some of the arching to target strategy to place more input motion into the output of the tree moving forward.
Gypo always talks about tickling the hinge fibers away, now of proper coordination and application of wedge pressure, all to the same goal i think of to make tree barely fold as support barely fails under the load, just plinking enough fibers out to barely make it fall slowly i think. Once it lifts slightly, wedge quits pushing, but men could keep pulling line, or line elasticity might keep pulling, line weight etc.; making faster/weaker hinge i think than existed at first folding(max setting). i think as long as it don't stall, and has no imediment, just let Nature work, walk the backcut to the point of failure, upset the balance of support to load,and let gravity slowly take it. Ya can always make it go fast to throw or punch through i think, the real help, skill exercise and challenge is to push the control envelope and learn all ya can fer when ya need it. Softer falls let more be fallen, is easier on the timber, less spring poles, less lawn damage, soil trauma etc.
Ken, are you back to JPEGs or is that an old one?
DO NOT USE A SLANTING BACK CUT!!! If you do what you're showing and put very much force on the wedge, you'll split the stump just like a barber chair and you'll be well and truly fooked. The back cut should not be dead level with the horizon any time the grain in the stem is not dead plumb at that point -- your back cut should be at right angles to the grain, especially so the more you're going to be levering the tree with the wedge.
Glen
DO NOT USE A SLANTING BACK CUT!!! If you do what you're showing and put very much force on the wedge, you'll split the stump just like a barber chair and you'll be well and truly fooked. The back cut should not be dead level with the horizon any time the grain in the stem is not dead plumb at that point -- your back cut should be at right angles to the grain, especially so the more you're going to be levering the tree with the wedge.
Glen
Husky372
ArboristSite Guru
i know dan just giving you guys a hard time.
MasterBlaster
TreeHouse Elder
I was wondering about that.
What say you, Kenny???
What say you, Kenny???
Stumper
One Man Band
ER... Kenny's illustration is demonstrating that slanted backcuts don't do what people try to get from them. I know Spydy started out with the commonly stated reasoning for slanted backcuts but then he is trying to 'splain they ain't no good.:angel:
Yes, and I WOULD worry about the stresses placed on the hinge with the slanted backcut and wedge.
What I was hinting at in the start of this thread is how many guys have a wedge or two handy when they are pulling a tree? (By house or whatever) It is good to have trust in your equipment and methods. I agree that a line set high is the most strain and stress free way, But unless you always set multiple lines there is always that what if factor. I just am not comfortable without a couple of wedges on me when I'm falling in the woods or in a yard. Might cut all day and not touch them but they are there.
John
John
Similar threads
