That's great! Maybe you could even find ships that sank on their way to Her
Majesty in the 1600s with the logged trees still intact. I wouldn't be
surprised if some eager loaders put a few too many logs on so that their
ships never made it out past the continental shelf drop off or the first bad
storm.
--
Carolyn Summers
63 Ferndale Drive
Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 10706
914-478-5712
> From: Lee Frelich <[email protected]>
> Reply-To: <[email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 09 Jan 2010 10:10:48 -0600
> To: <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [ENTS] Height projection - answer to Don Bertolette's question
>
> Bob:
>
> Get out your scuba gear. You can solve the debate about growth rates and
> size of the original white pines once and for all by diving and
> retrieving the mast of ships sunk in battles and storms during the
> 1700s. You'll be able to write a book about it and have your own TV
> show too!
>
> Lee
>
> Bob wrote:
>> Don
>>
>> It would seem so. The truth about great white pines of the past
>> may lie in the records of masts hauled back to England.
>>
>> Bob
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Don Bertolette <[email protected]
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>
>>> Bob
>>> Not that I'm suggesting it but it wood seem from earlier reports that
>>> a 170' white pine would make the grade as a mast of the second order...
>>> Don
>>>
>>> Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
>>>
>>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 2:33 PM, Bob <[email protected]
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Don
>>>>
>>>> Yep, I think it was my screw-up +0.3 as the height of the tulip
>>>> in VA. It shrunk to 166.1 feet.
>>>>
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 6:03 PM, Don Bertolette <[email protected]
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Bob
>>>>> Seems like I've seen that number recently...coincidence, no doubt?
>>>>> Don
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from Don's iPhone 3GS...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 8, 2010, at 1:45 PM, [email protected]
>>>>> <mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am finally getting to a question you previously asked about the
>>>>>> projection of the full height of a tree from a section starting
>>>>>> near the base. If we assume a uniform rate of taper and we have a
>>>>>> section to use to project the full height, the following formula
>>>>>> will do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L = diameter of lower (large) end of log
>>>>>>
>>>>>> U = diameter of upper (small) end of log
>>>>>>
>>>>>> h = length of log
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b = length from L to base of tree
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T = total projected tree height
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T = [ h/(L-U)]U+ h + b
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> L = 5
>>>>>>
>>>>>> U = 2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> h = 100
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b = 3
>>>>>>
>>>>>> T = [100/(5-2)]2 + 100 + 3 = 169.6 ft
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Remember that this formula assumes a uniform rate of taper. If the
>>>>>> tree increases its rate of taper above the log, which would be
>>>>>> true for old growth forms that have a paraboloid form from about 5
>>>>>> feet up to where the limb structure takes over, then the rate of
>>>>>> taper can change dramatically.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
