He's an arborist
15d 7h ago by lemmy.world/u/The_Picard_Maneuver in lemmyshitpost
The only way to get an accurate measurement is to cut the branch off first.
The cylindet MUST stay intact!
I came here to say this. Take your stupid upvote.
It is imperative that the cylinder and the larger object remain unharmed.
"It's a meat cylinder"
But you're supposed to measure it twice before that!
I just had some serious flashbacks to all the fucking Handy Manny I’ve watched. Thanks for that. 👍🏻
One each side I guess?
The branch cannot be cut.
The branch is ~4.5" in girth and attempting to cut it off could cause discomfort
🎵Detachable tree branch🎵
Method A on account that that would be the maximum usable length
As a skilled carpenter who's used to measuring wood, this is the only answer.
Well..... It kinda depends. If I were to be ordering stock to recreate the branch or even if I were making a covering for the branch. I'd have to order at least 6 inches of material to cut down.
So I think it matters most how you are intending to use it.
Oh you're a skilled carpenter? How much wood have you cut in your time
Half as much as they have measured, is my guess.
THIS ia getting philosophical.... i mean, first of all, things don't need to be cut perfectly in half every time they're cut.
But then your answer is probably an estimate/approximation.
HOWEVER... when you cut one piece of wood into two, is not 100% of the wood cut into?
So either this carpenter measures 50% of his wood aimlessly, or you, sir, are a LIAR
I believe they were alluding to "measure twice, cut once"
🫠 I concede
This isn’t about measuring it so wrong that the number gets larger than it sheuld be?
Measure twice, cut once
I'm interested in your wood measuring services.
... For a friend
That’s not how it works with soft bodies though, method B represents potential useable length when pointing down. It’s only distorted because it’s pointing up. For rigid bodies, I’d agree.
So... Non rigid?
Nobody cares how long the limp branches are.
Nobodies talking about the limp branches, soft and rigid bodies are a physics term and they don’t mean what you think they do.
It was a boner joke, I could not care less about what these words actually mean.
Usable length is relative...
*reverse cowgirl enters the room, galloping backwards and surprising everyone*
Branches and other small cylinders can be sized using M&M tubes
Banana for scale
The cylinder must remain unharmed
The generally accepted method used by scientists is to firmly push your ruler against the base of tree at the top of the branch. This is called BPEL, or bark-pressed erect length.
Hehe hehe erect
Method C. Sounding rod depth required to hit the prostate.
I know it sounds odd to do this on a tree, but trust me, it works.
Thrust*
Tear off the branch and measure the total length.
It is imperative that the branch not be damaged
It's just a branch who cares? Mangle that fucker lol
Ok chop down the tree and cut a line perpindicular to the bottom of the branch into the tree. Then measure the branch with watever remains of the tree attached.
Would using a chainsaw count as "chop"?
I mean, chainsaws were invented to cut up the pubic area, so you wouldn't be far off.
Unless you're into that
Because it's oak-wilt season, right?
If you trim the bushes the branch looks bigger. Pro tip.
THE CYLINDER MUST NOT BE HARMED!!!
I'm not sure how amused I am that I understand this reference.
What if there is a knot at the base of the branch?
Then you might be measuring a werewolf. Seek professional help.
(I am a professional and can help you measure the knot.)
;)
Burl wood can be quite valuable so you should try to keep that part in one piece
Half the length plus seven
Woop woop, 7.5cm! A personal best.
it took me way to long to realize y'all talking about penises ...
That's so innocent. Almost like a certain mythical character before opening her eponymous box...
I thought it was optimal street pathways at first, then trees, then got surprised by the amount of genitalia referencing comments then I "realised" thanks to this comment TT
This was my process exactly!
Well, it's two of us.
I would use 0,5x(A+B) because chicks dig a big branch.
I'll ask the branch manager.
I can't use method B, the tree fruit are in the way.
You have to push the branch down with one hand, such that it is perpendicular to the trunk. With the other hand place a ruler to measure trunk to tip via method A. This gives the honest expectation of ''usable" length.
The correct answer is "between 114 and 152 millimeters" because both measures are relevant and necessary from an engineering standpoint: For the purposes of sizing something such that it can utilize the branch for support, it must be made clear that the branch is solid and whole up to 114 millimeters from the trunk. For the purpose of accidental collision clearance, it is necessary to know the furthest extent of the branch's reach no matter how damaged or disrupted it is. Furthermore if the branch may break and fall off, giving it at least 152mm of clearance means that it is unlikely to accidentally catch upon something in its descent even if it "hinges" away from the trunk at the base.
My friend says "ouch wtf!!!!"
But then you'd need to know the angle, too.
The larger length, even if it's at a near vertical acute angle, is likely to tumble if it breaks--which means the whole reason we're interested in its measurement is a situation where the angle is no longer fixed
Then you'd still be interested in the length at 45 degrees, the farthest possible distance.
The radius of a circle is a fixed distance from its origin at every angle.It's still the same number of milimeters distal of the trunk from the pivot point.
The concern regarding clearance would be horizontal, parallel to the surface of the Earth, roughly perpendicular to the trunk, so perpendicular distance from the trunk would be what matters. If the branch were fifty miles long but only went straight up, there would be zero horizontal clearance.
you will find that if the branch snaps from the trunk, its perpendicular distance will be exactly the same number of milimeters.
This guy engineers
The question is, are we talking about a very normal cylinder? (possibly stuck to something?)
It must remain unharmed
This can be easily calculated by the formula [(length x diameter) + (Weight / Girth)] / Angle of Tip^2
This is the way. You have to account for the yaw of the shaft
Personally I start measuring from the middle of my taint 😌
That's a shoddy way of doing it. There are measurement standards.
Taint to tip is the superior standard
No. BP.
Since the internet began it’s been known that you always measure asshole to tip.
Literally how every guy on Grindr measures...
Ah, my misunderstanding
Measure from the roots
The correct way is to see how deep into a Pringle can it can go. For an accurate measure, you'll need to prevent angled entry. You can help it slide in straight by using a couple guiding sponges on either side of a latex glove attached to the rim pushed up inside it. Put a bit of Vaseline in the glove to prevent tearing the glove with the rough bark. For maximum safety, put the jar of Vaseline in a warm water bath for a few minutes beforehand to make the viscosity better for smooth entry and exit.
That sounds like an awful lot of effort just to jack off a tree branch
gasp! clutches pearls
How dare you imply such vulgarity about my branch measuring device.
I don't think you need to prevent angled entry; take the deepest measurement achieved at any angle.
You working with a micro twig? Sometimes trimming back the foliage can help make it seem longer.
This changes everything
I measured like this when my first girlfriend asked what my size was. I told her it was 10". Suffice to say, she was definitely not impressed when the pants came off for the first time. 😅
I mean you joke but the actual rule of thumb is measuring from the crotch of the branch.
What if there's a ... um ... protuberance on the bottom where the branch meets the trunk? What's the correct measuring procedure in that case?
It's critical the cylinder not be harmed
It's a perfectly normal cylinder size.
Wrap all the way around that and down to the tree roots and back around and up to the top branches. To be sure.
You mean like a big burl?
Often times two.
Yeah. What am I supposed to do with these burls?
None of them are. You need a graduated cylinder.
482 cm3 here.
Shine a light directly down on it from above. Measure the shadow
I just ask OP's mom.
You measure from the back of the balls.
From the edge of the anus of course... the further edge.
Or… from the base of the skull. The only accurate measurement.
here is an authority on the matter
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=81bt0ZJLMas&pp=0gcJCUACo7VqN5tD&ra=m
Wrap the measuring tape until the entire branch is wrapped. For more accurate measurements, use thinner tape.
Loggers should be called arbortionists.
4.1 inches is 10.4cm
5.1 inches is 13cm
7 inches is 17.8cm
Measure from the taint and add an extra inch to the measurement for standard wood shrinkage.
Probably from the side tbh as opposed to either of these two
Woah wait... Can we solve the measuring crisis but just measuring from the trunk at the top and all the way across then wrapping around the exposed end and back down the length on the bottom to the next obstruction?
Wouldnt that then include the width in your overall measurement and everyone would be generally impressed at any dimension?
Average them?
It's method b both for tree branches and for appendages of different creatures
Nevermind the measurement. How are you going to use the branch?
Bend it straight, then measure
They are using the wrong measuring unit, instead they should measure the force needed to pull it level.
You're saying rigidity/turgidity trump sheer length and girth?
Most arborists prefer branches that can handle the load, and avoid sagging branches or ones that snap off.
What is your tree normally goes straight out with a cut l downward curve? The measurements are the same either way...
Down to the root
Measure from your feet, all the way up your legs, to the tip of your erect shaft, you say?
Take the average 🤷♂️
Depending on what he's trying to measure. Both methods are correct for their respective sides.
Diameter obviously. But also, the bottom line is going into trunk wood so obviously wrong.
I had just gotten out of the pool!
There was shrinkage!