And, of course, the technique was invented by Archimides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_(word)
Not for logs, but for anything.

Joe

On Sep 28, 7:49 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Bob/Joe--
>
> The water displacement technique for measuring log volume has already been 
> described in research papers--one such paper was recently published in the 
> Southern Journal of Applied Forestry.  You can find the abstract of this 
> article 
> at: http://saf.publisher.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?title=volume+m...(unfortunately,
>  you need a subscription to get the full article).  The unique aspect of this 
> work is that the author took detailed measurements of logs and then 
> translated them so that a computer-controlled system (often used to create 
> miniaturized plastic models) made small versions of the logs to displace, so 
> the large bole wouldn't have to be put into an Olympic-sized swimming pool to 
> displace the water.
>
> Definitely a technique to highlight in the Dendromorphometry book...
>
> Don
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Don C. Bragg, Ph.D.
> Research Forester
> USDA Forest Service
> Southern Research Station
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> The opinions expressed in this message are my own, and not necessarily those 
> of the Southern Research Station, the Forest Service, or the USDA.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Sat, 27 Sep 2008 6:35 pm
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: Sneak preview
>
> Joe,
>
>  
>
>     The water displacement process can be used in a piecemeal way to test the 
> closeness of different formulas. Over the years, I've discussed water 
> displacement as the litmus test of volume20in emails. The big question for 
> the analyst to ANSWER is how far does the volume of a log or section of trunk 
> or limb differ from the frustum volumes of the more common regular 
> geometrical solids. The frustum formula:
>
>  
>
>                                     V = Pi*F*H*[a^2 + b^2+ a*b]
>
>  
>
>     where F = (1/4) for a neiloid, (1/3) for a cone, and (1/2) for a 
> paraboloid and a and b are the radii at the ends of the frustum is the one we 
> apply most commonly these days. The formula assumes a cross-sectional area 
> that is circular. However, the formula can be modified if the cross-sectional 
> shape is more elliptical. In this case we would need to use the semi-major 
> and minor axis from each end of the frustum. The formula would look like the 
> following:
>
>  
>
>      V = Pi*F*H*[a1*b1 + a2*b2+ SQRT(a1*a2*b1*b2)]
>
>  
>
>      The utility of these formulas is their repeated application. We break 
> long lengths into series of short sections. In the aboev formulas, H should 
> not be high or too many changes in trunk shaape can be obscured.
>
>      In trees that Will Blozan has climbed and modeled (he's done by far the 
> most in the eastern United States), his frustum height are often a meter. He 
> climbs the trees to get girth measurements ever meter of height. In addition, 
> he fr
> ame maps trunk splits by using a highly accurate method we developed in ENTS 
> to determine cross-sectional area. We don't just assume circularity or 
> ellipticality where that is obviously not the case.
>
>      Before leaving the subject I note that log volume charts commonly 
> employed by foresters are of no value to us. They may too many simplifying 
> assumptions. I started out with them years ago, and while they may work for 
> large numbers of logs, I found them to miss individual trees, especially 
> large, old ones. So from that point one Will and I went it alone.
>
>       All this will be covered in the book on Dendromorphometry 
> that Drs. Frelich and Bragg and Will Blozan and myself plan to write. It is 
> supposed to be under way at this point, I because of my medical situation, I 
> needed time off before taking the plunge. However, when the book is 
> eventually completed, it will include many methods for volume modeling - on a 
> poor man's budget. That will leave plenty of room for high tech wizardry in 
> the future, some of which is already being developed and employed by the 
> likes of Drs. Steve Sillett and Robert Van Pelt in Washington.    
>
>  
>
> Bob
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
> From: the Forestmeister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > BTW, a suggestion- to check how accurate current methods are for
> > measuring the volume of large trees- I suggest going to a forest that
> > is about to be logged- no doubt you can=2
> 0find some really big trees-
> > then measure them- then when that tree is cut, it should be easy to
> > gather all the crown, in pieces and measure the volume of them by
> > placing in a tank filled with water (specially designed of course)
> > whereupon the displacement of the water would give an accuratge
> > measurement- and the cut logs could easily be measured extremely
> > accurately before haulded off to the mill. The actual physical measure
> > by this method should be extremely accurate- then compare that to
> > various methods now be ing considered (of which I know nothing other
> > than rough measurements for merchantable logs).
>
> > Joe
>
> > On Sep 27, 4:09 pm, the Forestmeister wrote:
> > > Well, I don't know what the accuracy of current methods are when
> > > estimating tree volumes but it's not likely to be more than plus or
> > > minus 10% if you're including all the crown. With a digitilized scan
> > > done by my the technique I'm fantasizing about - I should think it
> > > would be accurate to plus or minus a tenth of a percent which would be
> > > orders of magnitude better.
>
> > > Regardless of that issue- I think it's urgent for us to start putting
> > > real dollar signs on all the currently intangible values- which are
> > > more likely to be significant for large trees- the larger the trees,
> > > the greater for those intangible values. Though there ma y not yet be
> > > market values for these considerations- if we
>  pretend that there are-
> > > maybe they'll happen.
>
> > > For example, let's say we do come up with a value system- then say,
> > > the state wants to buy a property to add to an existing state forest/
> > > park- when they negotiate with the owner they should have to factor in
> > > such values- because we'll all demand it. After all, when people
> > > appraise something like antiques- there is no logic to it other than
> > > supply and demand. If a landowner were told that the value of their
> > > property was something beyond what some real estate appraisser says-
> > > then it will be so if they believe it. Much of our economic system is
> > > "faith based", not logical- so we must all have faith in the true
> > > values of large trees and old growth forests, c'est nes pas?
>
> > > Joe < BR>> >
> > > On Sep 27, 10:50 am, "Will Blozan" wrote:
>
> > > > Joe,
>
> > > > What do you mean by "orders of magnitude"? That would imply at least ten
> > > > times more accuracy, but in what units?
>
> > > > Will F. Blozan
> > > > President, Eastern Native Tree Society
> > > > President, Appalachian Arborists, Inc.
>
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > > Behalf Of the Forestmeister
> > > > Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 3:58 PM
> > > > To: ENTSTrees
> > > > Subject: [ENTS] Re: Sneak preview
>
> > Hey Bob, I know next to nothing about the sophisticated methods ENTS
> > > > people use to determine tree vol umes- I only know standard, basic,
> > > > simple methods of tree measurements used by field foresters. But, I
> > > > should think that there must be some way using the best technology in
> > > > the world today to get an exact 3 dimensional image of any tree- using
> > > > something like radar or some other electromagnetic radiation- by
> > > > moving the energy generator AROUND the tree- sort of like a giant scan
> > > > of a hospital patient.
>
> > > > The scan could scan the shape to great detail in 3-D, then incorporate
> > > > that into data into a holograph in order to project it- and I'm sure
> > > > mathematical geniuses could easily then use that data to calculate the
> > > > volume of the tree to an order of accuracy orders of magnitude beyond
> > > > current ENTS methods.
>
> > > > And, while at it, why not use pene trating energies such as the
> > > > hospital scan to give a true internal image of the tree which could
> > > > then be studied for whatever reasons, such as the work done by Alex
> > > > Shigo to determine the course of "discoloration and decay"- or to
> > > > discern the value of the tree for wildlife habitat (assuming some
> > > > hollows in the tree).
>
> > > > And, if this is done for many trees close together- it could be useful
> > > > to Gary Beluzo who I reca
> ll is interested in the emergent properties
> > > > existing in forests- and for that, having such information and
> > > > modeling tools- might be significant in such research.
>
> > > > Just a crazy thought.
>
> > > > Joe
>
> > > > On Sep 25, 9:06 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > > Beth,
>
> > > & gt; > The proposed ENTS point formula admittedly works best for trees 
> > > with
> > > > long straight trunks that can be modeled with a regular geometrical 
> > > > form,
> > > > principally a neiloid, cone, or paraboloid. I chose the cone for
> > > > illustration purposes, but either of the other two forms would have 
> > > > worked
> > > > just as well.
> > > > > The question of what kind of formula works for a big spreader like
> > > > the live oaks that Larry measures is probably not going to be adequately
> > > > determined for a long time. There is just too much wood tied up in the
> > > > complex network of limbs. The ENTSPTS formula is not the answer for 
> > > > trees of
> > > > that shape, but then neither is the champion tree formula. Consider the
> > > > table below.
>
> > > > > HGT CIR SPD CHP PTS ENTSPTS
> > > > > 50 12 12022472
> > > > ; > 6 524120383374.4
> > > > > 13024120448748.8
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org

You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to