Fork failure Duncan Slater

[Xerxses]

self taught, self-dictated

sorry for not being clear!

 

Are you reffering to autodidact?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autodidacticism:thumbup:

 

 

or http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Automation ?

Edited February 12, 2011 by Xerxses

[scotspine1]

Just had a chance to sit and listen uninterrupted.

 

Duncan better have a very good explanation as to why Shigo's model of a lateral branch attachment is wrong. I find it very unusual that he would say this is the case when his project was part time over a year meanwhile Shigo spent a lifetime dissecting and studying timber.

 

I think Duncan may have made a mistake regarding this issue or at the very least.....misunderstood Shigo's model.

 

There is very little if anything Shigo has been wrong about.

[scotspine1]

Shigo's model of lateral branch attachment is correct, you can't argue with it........from a Cedar log -

[Xerxses]

I wouldn't go as far as he is "Slating" the whole idea of Mr Shigos findings...merly stating that his findings mightn't be the whole truth.

 

Mr Slaters findings are, in my opinion, very interesting and give a whole new perspective on how branches and forks are joined into the main trunk. I think Shigos model is true as it has been stated previously, but I wonder if he ever studied tight forks? The findings of Mr Slater will be interesting to follow. The whole new notion of whorled grain is something I will look closely for when I rip forks apart...

 

 

 

Nice pic by the way!

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

I wouldn't go as far as he is "Slating" the whole idea of Mr Shigos findings...merly stating that his findings mightn't be the whole truth.

 

Mr Slaters findings are, in my opinion, very interesting and give a whole new perspective on how branches and forks are joined into the main trunk. I think Shigos model is true as it has been stated previously, but I wonder if he ever studied tight forks? The findings of Mr Slater will be interesting to follow. The whole new notion of whorled grain is something I will look closely for when I rip forks apart...

 

 

 

Nice pic by the way!

 

cat ball/ whorled burring grain is something claus mattheck also talks about, it plays very odd games, diverting forces and helping to prevent splits occurring

 

The laying down of fibres in the shigo model is correct in the optimal branch, we can see it cleary in old pines as with the image posted, but as we all know, there are rarely perfect things in nature and angiosperms offer many alternative examples to the optimum, for want of a better word

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Seldom do we see such perfect conforming to the axiom

 

[Xerxses]

Seldom do we see such perfect conforming to the axiom

 

[ATTACH]56948[/ATTACH]

 

Can we rip it apart and see whats inside?

[Amelanchier]

Duncan better have a very good explanation as to why Shigo's model of a lateral branch attachment is wrong.

 

Indeed he does. In fact in his paper in the AA Journal (Vol. 33 No. 2 September 2010) which he part presented to the AA Conference, he outlines six seperate reasons...

 

I'll do my best to summarise them (with my typical gross vagueness and idiosyncratically deficient delivery):

 

1. The basis of Shigos Model (SM) was destructive observation of limited sample group taken during the growing season supplemented by decay pattern assessments. This fails to support annual occulsion (insofar as it looks backwards without confirming any predictions about future events) and ignore the tissue preference of decay organisms.
    
   
2. There is no supporting evidence that the cambium is capable of producing the overlapping 'tails' that SM shows. The production of such tails would require extreme contortions of the sheetlike vascular cambium.
    
   
3. Shigo discounts the possibilty of a vascular connection between the branch and the tissue above on the stem because contempory experiments showed a lack of dye conduction. He then infers that this lack of conductivity precludes a structural connection - which is not accurate. Post hoc ergo hoc!
    
   
4. In excluding vascular connectivity above the branch SM requires that all connectivity must occur through structural tissue which are know to restrict and impede vascular flow. Hardly an elegant efficient result.
    
   
5. When does a union become a fork? The SM makes no explanation for the mechanics of forks (such as Hama's nice example above). If branches and forks are simply our definitions within a continuum of morphology, then SM requires that forks of equal diameter must logically create overlapping tails with each other (which they don't)?!? Or that we need another completely separate model for forks, presupposing that trees have evolved two seperate strategies for supporting branches and forks...
    
   
6. Finally, and as if number 5 wasn't compelling enough - if branches are only attached with with a collar of last years tissue then first seasons twigs must either be unattached to the tree or the collar must form before the branch...
   

 

I'm not sure whether it matters how long someones been studying something; being wrong for 100 years is still being wrong. I find his arguements entirely convincing.

 

Interestingly enough, not only does the Kuhnian model of scientific 'progress' (that's in quotation marks for all the PoMo fanboys) require step changes like this but it also outlines a phase in the development of a science where rival schools of thought accumulate around the work of individual scientists like the late tree toucher...

[Tony Croft aka hamadryad]

Indeed he does. In fact in his paper in the AA Journal (Vol. 33 No. 2 September 2010) which he part presented to the AA Conference, he outlines six seperate reasons...

 

I'll do my best to summarise them (with my typical gross vagueness and idiosyncratically deficient delivery):

 

1. The basis of Shigos Model (SM) was destructive observation of limited sample group taken during the growing season supplemented by decay pattern assessments. This fails to support annual occulsion (insofar as it looks backwards without confirming any predictions about future events) and ignore the tissue preference of decay organisms.
    
   
2. There is no supporting evidence that the cambium is capable of producing the overlapping 'tails' that SM shows. The production of such tails would require extreme contortions of the sheetlike vascular cambium.
    
   
3. Shigo discounts the possibilty of a vascular connection between the branch and the tissue above on the stem because contempory experiments showed a lack of dye conduction. He then infers that this lack of conductivity precludes a structural connection - which is not accurate. Post hoc ergo hoc!
    
   
4. In excluding vascular connectivity above the branch SM requires that all connectivity must occur through structural tissue which are know to restrict and impede vascular flow. Hardly an elegant efficient result.
    
   
5. When does a union become a fork? The SM makes no explanation for the mechanics of forks (such as Hama's nice example above). If branches and forks are simply our definitions within a continuum of morphology, then SM requires that forks of equal diameter must logically create overlapping tails with each other (which they don't)?!? Or that we need another completely separate model for forks, presupposing that trees have evolved two seperate strategies for supporting branches and forks...
    
   
6. Finally, and as if number 5 wasn't compelling enough - if branches are only attached with with a collar of last years tissue then first seasons twigs must either be unattached to the tree or the collar must form before the branch...
   

 

I'm not sure whether it matters how long someones been studying something; being wrong for 100 years is still being wrong. I find his arguements entirely convincing.

 

Interestingly enough, not only does the Kuhnian model of scientific 'progress' (that's in quotation marks for all the PoMo fanboys) require step changes like this but it also outlines a phase in the development of a science where rival schools of thought accumulate around the work of individual scientists like the late tree toucher...

 

I couldn't agree more, and its long overdue our late great tree touchers work was re addressed, though somehow i think that eroding old regime is hard to do.

 

Outstanding post mr T, for once even my un trained mind "gets it":biggrin:

[scotspine1]

[*]Finally, and as if number 5 wasn't compelling enough - if branches are only attached with with a collar of last years tissue then first seasons twigs must either be unattached to the tree or the collar must form before the branch...

 

do you realise how stupid that sounds? does Duncan understand Shigo's model?

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

Edited February 13, 2011 by scotspine1