Paul, Someone at the Black Mountain ENTS gathering had one of those plastic orange clinometers. A Brunton, I think. It looked very easy to use. To a beginner it would look less intimidating than the Suunto. I think Larry Tucei had it but I am not sure. I myself have always found the Suunto easy to use. That is what I have but when I first saw it I wondered " How do I use this "?
JP On Jan 6, 12:17 pm, Paul Jost <[email protected]> wrote: > JP, > > Another advantage to the Suunto is that if the clinometer movement becomes > faulty, professional mail order stores like Ben Meadows can salvage the old > housing and install a new clinometer cartridge element into it for less than > the cost of a new clinometer. I'm not sure if this service is available for > Bruntons. > > Paul > > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 11:13 AM, Paul Jost <[email protected]> wrote: > > James, > > > There is no difference between the operation and ease of use of the Brunton > > CM360 series when compared to the Suunto PM-5/360 series. They are nearly > > identical in design, size, and appearance. I'm not sure why you would think > > that one is better than the other unless they have a completely different > > unit available than the one that I have. In any case, don't use the crude > > plastic arrow clinometers that come with compasses. > > > Paul > > > On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:57 AM, James Parton <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> ENTS, > > >> The Brunton looks like it would be a little easier to use, at least > >> for a beginner. Not that the Suunto is at all hard to use. > > >> JP > > >> On Jan 6, 12:18 am, "Edward Frank" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Steve > > >> > As far as I know nobody has ever compared the two here in ENTS. Brunton > >> makes top of the line compasses/clinometers for geology work. would thin > >> they would make good clinometers. The thing to check would be how easily > >> the readings are to take, how closely can you estimate the angle, and if > >> you > >> sight the same point several times from the same position (sight, drop it > >> down, sight again, do you come up with the same readings. > > >> > You can test the accuracy of the clinometer calibration: > > >> > Ed Frank wrote (Sept 14, 2005) > >>http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measure/instrumentation/suunto_clino... > > >> > You can test the level accuracy of a clinometer or instrument. Sight > >> from a > >> > marked height at some object- tree of pole at a distance. Have an > >> assistant > >> > mark the point on the distant object the clinometer or instrument says > >> is > >> > level. Move to that spot and sight back to your original position. If > >> it > >> > is perfectly accurate the backsight will be right on the point you shot > >> from > >> > originally. If it is reading high, then the angle it is off will be > >> > under-reading by arc tan [1/2 (error)/distance]. If it is pointing > >> lower > >> > than the starting point, then it is reading high, calculations are the > >> same. > >> > In this way you can tell at least if the original level line is actually > >> > level or not. > > >> > There is no reason to think that the Brunton would be calibration error > >> would be any different from that of the Suunto. But you can use this > >> process above to develop a correction factor if you want. The error in the > >> clinometer is a simple mechanical one relating to the weight placement on > >> the dial. It is a simple error that should be exactly the same amount in > >> the same direction at all angles, unlike systematic errors which increase > >> over a range. However unless the clinometer is really way off, several > >> degrees, then the errors at the bottom (slightly larger but shorter > >> distances, ad the errors at the top slight ly smaller but longer distances) > >> tend to pretty much cancel out > > >> > John Eicholz wrote (Nov 6, 2003) > >>http://www.nativetreesociety.org/measure/instrumentation/calibration.htm > >> > I think I can prove mathematically that the error in tree height > >> that > >> > results from each degree of clinometer error is approximately > >> between > >> > 1.75% and 1.9% of the horizontal distance to the trunk...Because > >> the > >> > factor: (1/cos(@))*(Sin(@)-sin(@+e)) is nearly a constant! Its > >> range is > >> > a smooth progression from 1.74% at 0 degrees to 1.9% at 80 > >> degrees. > > >> > Ed Frank > > >>http://nature-web-network.blogspot.com/http://primalforests.ning.com/... > > >> > ----- Original Message ----- > >> > From: Steve Galehouse > >> > To: [email protected] > >> > Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 11:09 PM > >> > Subject: Re: [ENTS] Suunto vs. iPhone > > >> > I have, and have been using, a Brunton clinometer rather than a > >> Suunto---any appreciable differences in quality or accuracy? > > >> > Stevehttp:// > >> nature-web-network.blogspot.com/http://primalforests.ning.com/http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?ref...quoted > >> text - > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > >> -- > >> Eastern Native Tree Societyhttp://www.nativetreesociety.org > >> Send email to [email protected] > >> Visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en > >> To unsubscribe send email to > >> [email protected]<entstrees%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>- > >> Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
-- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
