As my friend Sean so accurately notes, "Tree work is NOT for almost everyone on the planet."
Robert, so far I have seen many a fine attribute in your personality...but precious few in your skills, or ability to learn these skills, as they pertain to treework. It's not just the saw work. You seem to be deficient in native ability at reading lean and limb weight, at setting rigging appropriate to loads, at basic use of a blinkin' trailer, fer gads sake.
I like you, sir. You are the most willing new and inexperienced member to put their questions out there, admit mistakes, and gracefully take criticism, that has come across Butch's site in quite a while.
But I greatly fear you are heading down a road that will perhaps lead to a very sad end. I'd hate for that to happen, Robert. Please consider my at times rude cautions as they are intended...no ill will, only a wish for your long term welfare.
Thanks a lot, Mr. Burnham.... this is life and death...
...and even I know enough (at least "on paper") that for someone like me this is no place for ill conceived pride/hubris, stiff-necked refusal to listen to words of wisdom from those with much more (some much, much, much, etc. more) knowledge, experience, skill, talent than I do, etc.
... so I try to be "defenseless" and all ears
And I thank you and everyone else for continuing to engage me with these things.
Seeing more and more what a
FIASCO this was.....
but it also appears a relatively small price to pay to learn so much from --- thanks to The Treehouse and all you guys and gal(s)
But as I said before, sir, from you I have derived encouragement and direction .. AND .. a measurable goal in this endeavor:
IF (I CAN LEARN TO MAKE PROPER/GOOD FELLING CUTS)
THEN
CONTINUE...
ELSE
GIVE IT UP!
END IF
Thanks again
.... a vain attempt to knowingly ignore the laws of physics, that's why God gave us a BRAIN...to use it!
good one, Bermy, Thanks.
You. Didnt. Have. Enough. Pull.
ha, ... heard you loud and clear this time...Thanks Mick... and MB
That isn't a MA here. If you judge your rope not strong enough to be in the safety margin for the intended task, an easy way is to fold the rope in 2 and use this doubled rope as if it was one plain rope. Two times stronger, but also two times shorter. An important point is to rig that with the same load on both parts (less a concern with a stretchy rope tough).
If you need a MA to get enough force, the doubled rope has to go throw the set of pulleys the same way as if it wasn't folded.
The rope can be folded in 3 or 4, but it becomes very short and equalizing the loads between the legs begins to be really tricky.
Got it! Thanks Marc.
I cant leave this alone.
All the stuff about hinges, dutchman, COGs et al is irrelevant.
A back leaning tree without enough pull will not go over the right way, even with the greatest hinge, wedges or nay without enough pull.
Because it wasnt going over you cut through the hinge or the like.
I dont know why youre not listening to this.
Mick, Thanks. I'm
totally listening.
NEXT time your comments will be in there bouncing around in my head "
MUST. HAVE. ENOUGH. PULL." ... which will hopefully help me past this.
BUT... one reason I didn't have enough pull this time was because I badly misjudged (ignored) the back force of the lean and canopy....
... IF I had properly taken that back force into account by...
-- removing some back branches.... and/or
-- putting pull line higher in tree
-- using heavier rope I wasn't afraid of breaking
-- made hinge thinner/better
Then I might have had enough pull this time.
but for next time:
MUST. HAVE. ENOUGH. PULL.
thanks!
Sometimes you just gotta know when to grab that towel and toss it.
Yes
It's not as simple as you're making it Mick. A properly cut tree will go over way easier than an improperly cut up one. With much less pull force I mean. Some bad cuts like a bad Dutchmen will break the hinge before it'll pull over so the harder you yank you're just screwing yourself.
Thanks Squisher. This says it better than I was trying to say it...the truth of Mick's words, notwithstanding.
What carl said. It didn't fall with your choices of persuasion and so you did the same ole thing thats been done by students of the saw for thousands of years. . . You kept cutting the hinge.
See my video "Grayback" on Youtube.
Thanks August! ... will do.
....
What I'm saying is you put in crazy cuts [... ha, noted! no prob
...] and there's no saying that tree would've gone to lay no matter how much pull he had and if he hadn't nipped off the hinge. The extra pull may have just broke the hinge before committing. But properly cut up a ton of backweight can be overcome with the proper pull. It's a combination of the two, not just having enough pull. But forming a hinge that that pull can be leveraged against successfully without failing.
Thanks Squisher and Mick!
I'm cutting that sucker off here!!!
Looks like you are executing an advanced technique, MB!
The Center Of Gravity is very relevant to pull the tree over.
At least in your wording, Robert, you don't seem to have it right about that:
No, you don't push the tree past the COG.
It's the tree's COG you have to push/pull past the equilibrium point of the hinge (combined with the folding resistance of said hinge, plus wind's force...). The tree's COG is the center of mass of all the thing. It's a point representing all the weight of the tree. At least the moving part above the cut.
When you play with the tree, you deal with the COG, and its surrounding structure. In a back leaner, more with an uneven crown, the COG is way back behind the hinge and you must pull or /and push really hard to move it past this point. Actually, the COG makes a circular trajectory around the hinge and have to rise during the forward movement. This rise is the main part of the difficulty to pull your tree. It's literally as if you have to lift the whole tree many inches to get it moving forward, exactly as if you want to push your truck over the curb.
The wedges alone with a good hinge can do it but it can be a hard work, due to the poor leverage. You need a lot of wedges to get it right, either horizontally to overcome the tree's weight and vertically to get enough lift. The rope is easier. Should be...
I had to fell a pine, small (less diameter than your tree) but with almost all its limbs on the back side. No anchor point for a rope, but a good hinge capability and no critical target, so I tried with my wedges. It didn't want to go until I drove in two 5" stacks of wedges (1" and 2" wedges). It's the first time that I used all my set in one tree. But it was risky because such a stack is prone to spit out or slides sideway. It took me a moment...
Thanks a lot, Marc.
Kyle had a good post earlier here on calculating the COG and lean forces.
I had not thought to take into consideration the *
upward/circular* movement aspect to be overcome.
I had been taught (and in Jeff Jepson's "To Fell a Tree" as I recall)... to stand back 90* to the lay, visualize (e.g. with your outstretched fingers) the front and back boundaries of the canopy.... then bring your fingers together evenly in front of you.... drop them straight down.... and if that point falls behind the tree, then that is the "back lean" that must be overcome.
In your pine tree example do I understand you stacked your wedges 3 high?
Thanks!
also please see John 9 (entire chapter) too!
