Hamas big reduction/pruning thread!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

  Mesterh said:

Looks to me that those trees have been reduced before in the past.

 

In fact I would bet on it.

 

and your point is? and yes they had.

[Mozza]

  Mesterh said:

Looks to me that those trees have been reduced before in the past.

 

In fact I would bet on it.

 

Yup, Just been taken to where they were cut in the past

 

Did you do them in the first place Tony?? Then just revisit and do them again a second time??

 

They look good

[Mozza]

  hamadryad said:

and your point is? and yes they had.

 

I go to get a drink and you answer my question before i post it

[Mesterh]

  hamadryad said:

and your point is? and yes they had.

 

I do have a point but I will have to think about it first.

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

It would seem the old myths still remain, that reducing trees INCREASES windload/sail area and also that it is a futile excercise for light gain as the tree supposedly quickly replaces the growth.

 

Firstly reducing, reduces wind loading/sail area, period, not even worth discussing, but will if need be, for the second time here!

 

Secondly if you look at a trees profile and imagine it as a 2dimensional object reducing the outer perimeter allows more sky to be in clear view, multiply this around the crown dimensions and you have considerable more sky for your dollars as apposed to a thin which may allow SOME light through, but this will inevitably be dappled and short lived through the course of the day.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Tony Croft aka hamadryad

[Mesterh]

All my point was they havent grown that much and they woulda been a lot taller without the reduction. Obvious YES,but it is worth it to keep a 40 foot tree rather than have a 60-70 footer that will cause loads of hassle, ie people whinging about light, leaves scared it might fall down etc.

 

IMO its better to reduce and keep maintained a mature tree than to just fell the thing and maybe plant up with a weedy birch.

 

 

In an urban area though.

[Danavan]

I don't like 'reducing' trees. This seems a futile atempt in the control of an organisam that will in most cases come back with vengance.

 

However I do see a market for this method & an understanding for the end result.

 

As a layman I feel the reduction in sail area with removal of the outer limits of the tree is a consept I can grasp with ease.

 

I would like to see a movement to structural re-location pruning & thinning to achive a reduction in sail.

 

Having said this I do like to prune a tree now & then to look real nice to the eye:thumbup1:

[Dean Lofthouse]

  hamadryad said:

Firstly reducing, reduces wind loading/sail area, period, not even worth discussing, but will if need be, for the second time here!.

 

Period!! Is that your opinion is the only opinion ??

 

My opinion is : Temporarily yes it does reduce sail area, but then when the branches split off into ten branches there is ten times more surface area for the wind to load upon, therefore you dont need the same height to create the same leverage, that is scientific fact period full stop

 

In other words, if you have a two foot pole with a 1sq/ft sail on it, will it give the same leverage loading as a 1ft pole with two sq/ft sails on it.

 

Shorter pole but bigger sailarea

 

  hamadryad said:

Secondly if you look at a trees profile and imagine it as a 2dimensional object reducing the outer perimeter allows more sky to be in clear view, multiply this around the crown dimensions and you have considerable more sky for your dollars as apposed to a thin which may allow SOME light through, but this will inevitably be dappled and short lived through the course of the day!.

 

Can't argue with that, but that is from a veiw point selfishness, I personally wouldnt buy a house with trees if the trees caused me a problem

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

  Dean Lofthouse said:

Period!! Is that your opinion is the only opinion ??

 

My opinion is : Temporarily yes it does reduce sail area, but then when the branches split off into ten branches there is ten times more surface area for the wind to load upon, therefore you dont need the same height to create the same leverage, that is scientific fact period full stop

 

In other words, if you have a two foot pole with a 1sq/ft sail on it, will it give the same leverage loading as a 1ft pole with two sq/ft sails on it.

 

Shorter pole but bigger sailarea

 

 

 

Can't argue with that, but that is from a veiw point selfishness, I personally wouldnt buy a house with trees if the trees caused me a problem

 

weve talked about the "ears bent back" thats how the reduced sail area works, 10 ft scaffold pole will roll a massive log, try it with a 2ft pole?

[Frank]

My opinion is the only thing that matters, and my opinion is that there is nothing better than dappled shade created by a mature tree. Fact. Period. Full Stop.