Bob, yes I will join you at Forest Park, what time and meeting spot? On Thursday I ordered a Nikon forestry 550 but I don't think it will be here by then. I will take notes and coordinates and come back with mine when it comes in. I don't know about recorded dimensions. Other thoughts were checking the timbers used in old barns and there is a lumber company up north that's been around 100 plus years with their own woodlot. A while ago WGBY did a show about logging and log drives on the CT river. Sam
________________________________ From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 5:08:50 PM Subject: Re: [ENTS] Height projection - answer to Don Bertolette's question Sam, I haven't? Are you thinking they might have recorded tree dimensions? BTW, Bart Bouricius and I will be going to Forest Park on Monday. Care to join us? Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sam Goodwin" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2010 11:44:26 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [ENTS] Height projection - answer to Don Bertolette's question Has anybody talked to people who recover old trees from old logging rivers and dry, cut and sell the wood? Sam ________________________________ From: Lee Frelich <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 11:10:48 AM 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 >>>>>
