Thread: flooded gum

Originally Posted by dai sensei

Weisy's theory was Ok, just his maths was out. Allowing for 8", less the 2" embedment, the angle over 54" is the Tan-1 that equates to 0.1107 radians, which equals 6.34 degrees.

Happy Inter.

But as I previously said

Don't forget to divide by 3

Originally Posted by ravna

Can't agree more Karl, I strike this all the time on the road listening to the UHF....someone make a comment and all the Dingo's chime in with the usual crap...real hero's behind a mike but when challenged to put up or shut up....disappear like the proverbial.

Usually with their bat & ball

Originally Posted by Halfdays

Karl

Thank you for sharing your experience and ideas. To a novice like me they are great lessons. I appreciate the time and effort you have made in putting the reports together.

Please keep them coming.

take care
Gary

Good to see you've come down off the fence after the dust has settled & added some really intellegent comments.

regards inter

Originally Posted by Karl Robbers

it were pointed out in a reasonable manner even weissyboy would admit his mistake I am sure

do you mean like "Is that a misprint on the 18 degrees or are you stretching the truth ?"
regards inter

Given that there is only one person posting on this topic who was actually present at the location where this tree was, surely it stands to reason that person is really the only one in a position to state what the fact are?

If that person says that the angle was XXXX, thus XXXX is the angle of the tree. We were not there and cannot possibly sensibly comment on the angle.

Any attempt to contradict the original posters opinion by armchair experts seeking to interpret a photograph is misguided at best and at worst, downright, well, its a family forum so will leave that unsaid.

In my limited experience, the only credible way to interpret photos in the manner some seem to be trying here, is when referencing against a known, quantifiable, scaleable reference point that is contained within the photo itself. That is merely the starting point, one also needs to know the distance from camera to object precisely etc amongst other things.

Okay Listen UP!!!

I do not own a Lucas, but I do own a big Stihl and I am a wood Turner (living in Jarrahland).

I love visiting the Small Timber Milling forum, for pictures of trees being opened up and revealing their beauty. I love the milling trips and write ups (Bob L etc). I enjoy the accounts and posts that Weisyboy has put together. He always has something of value to add (I just don't like his spelling of the (teh)). I also enjoy being accurate, but not at the expense of other contributors. Please let us move on. I suppose if everyone ignored this thread, it might wither on the vine and die.
Perhaps I should start a new contraversial thread to detract from the current thread. I know !!!

Lucas Mills are better than Peterson
Stihls are better that Huskies
Swing saws are better than bandsaws
Jarrah is better that Red gum
The Wallabies are better than............................. bugger

Originally Posted by InterTD6

. . . . . did you take into account the vial bubble being almost on the line one side about 1mm / M out[/COLOR]

OK - Deduct 0.5 - 0.7º for the bubble.

Originally Posted by Ray153

If that person says that the angle was XXXX, thus XXXX is the angle of the tree. We were not there and cannot possibly sensibly comment on the angle.

Any attempt to contradict the original posters opinion by armchair experts seeking to interpret a photograph is misguided at best and at worst, downright, well, its a family forum so will leave that unsaid.

Hang on, - while I'm not supporting certain member's "bedside manners", that's why we post photos on this forum - so that we can check what we are saying is right and to dispute claims and statements made by others. If I make a BS claim I expect to politely be brought to task. I've given up on the forums where its just chit-shat, plans and gunnas.

In my limited experience, the only credible way to interpret photos in the manner some seem to be trying here, is when referencing against a known, quantifiable, scaleable reference point that is contained within the photo itself.

Yep it's easy to get tricked out with photos but Carl has done the right thing and include a a spirit level so the bubble provides a pretty reliable zero angle reference (OK it's haf a degree or so out but that's OK). Unless Carl is trying to prove himself wrong then surely he would have chosen the greatest angle possible to show in the photo. The max angle on that photo is 6.5 - 7.5º .

Weisy said the tree had a lean of 18 degrees.
Inter pointed out that it would be difficult and dangerous to jack a tree with a lean of 5 degrees let alone 18 degrees.

A point worth making in my opinion.

cheers
Steve

Originally Posted by BobL

Hang on, - while I'm not supporting certain member's "bedside manners", that's why we post photos on this forum - so that we can check what we are saying is right and to dispute claims and statements made by others. If I make a BS claim I expect to politely be brought to task. I've given up on the forums where its just chit-shat, plans and gunnas.

Yep it's easy to get tricked out with photos but Carl has done the right thing and include a a spirit level so the bubble provides a pretty reliable zero angle reference (OK it's haf a degree or so out but that's OK). Unless Carl is trying to prove himself wrong then surely he would have chosen the greatest angle possible to show in the photo. The max angle on that photo is 6.5 - 7.5º .

Except those are not Karls photos. The photos with the spirit level and the angle gauge are taken by another person of a completely different tree and even then have errors within the measuring process. The level is not actually level and the arm on the protractor is parallel with the side of the tree, not the midline of the trunk.

Such things like that could leave the poster of those pics open to accusations of bending the facts to suit their argument.

Is that the type of BS as you put it and being politely brought to task on it you were referring to?.

There is still only one person posting (or there was) who actually saw the tree standing and can speak credibly on the difficulties that tree posed for him.

Originally Posted by Ray153

[COLOR="blue"]Is that the type of BS as you put it and being politely brought to task on it you were referring to?.

Exactly - thank you very much - and apologies to Carl as well.

Originally Posted by BobL

Exactly - thank you very much - and apologies to Carl as well.

Did you get a bump on the head in your accident bob? I had a prang once & had a bump to the head, knocked me momentarily sensible.
regards inter

me 2 bubs wurth on teh angel tanks a lot fur wasting mi faluble time reding all teh crape on angels

Originally Posted by InterTD6

Did you get a bump on the head in your accident bob? I had a prang once & had a bump to the head, knocked me momentarily sensible.
regards inter

Yes I did, but I also did the static weight calculation for carl's 18º lean tree.

Let me see if I got this right.
10.4 m trunk
1.36 m at the base and 1.21 m at 6.4 m
Assuming symmetry the rest of the way up that makes it 0.96m at 10.4 m mark.

This puts the Centre of Gravity of the tree at the 4.75m mark.

I also then make it an 11.3 m^3 log
The density of green Grandis is nominally 0.82 tons/m^3 so 9.3 tons.

Assuming his hinge is more or less mid way or greater thru the trunk (0.68m), at 18º this puts a load of 24 tonnes at the jack.

Can a 20 ton jack lift 24 tons - probably.

So it's feasible. Would I do it - no, but it's not physically impossible.

Fellas i'v read and listened to the arguments and the whole lot of you are right to degrees and that wasn't meant to be a pun it got typed that way from a personal point for the average timber cutter which i was, some trees were better left alone ,you all talked about back strap cutting and the way to do it and i have to have to say you all seem to know what you are up to .i'd like to move to how to do it to what can happen .I fell this big spotty gum and it was hollow but still a millable log not a dud and it had a good size lean, around 60 feet or so high with a bushy top i had to use a back strap cut ,when i did that sort of cut i took my time and got to the point where i was about to cut the strap and when i started, the whole strap tore of the back of the tree down into the ground and a root that was at bottom of the strap wizzed up and i did manage to get out unhurt, but what made it a near miss was i held onto my 090 which embedded into the strap about 2 inches with one hand while my brain was screaming at my feet to get moving,just trying to save my saw you see ,a total no no but i reckon we all do it at times and that was a unseen accident waiting to happen, which i added to to it, possibly being fatel . anyhow here i am still alive and kicking all my fingers and other parts,just one part completly had it, i'm deaf as a post .

Originally Posted by bluegum30

. . . . . ., i'm deaf as a post .

Was it the chainsaws that did it?