==============================================================================
TOPIC: FW: Confirming the Exact Height of the Tallest Tree in New
England:
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/t/3d544f31adb1c553?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 6:30 am
From: dbhguru@comcast.net
Lynn,
On November 1st, Will Blozan climbed the Jake Swamp Pine in MTSF and
we did a tape drop measurement to get an exact height. Will used a
pole to get to the tip of the highest sprig. The tape drop
measurement yielded 168.5 feet as compared to my ground-based
measurement of 168.6 feet. Shucks, I missed it by 0.1 feet. Losing
my touch, I guess.
Joking aside, we in ENTS have the measuring process down pretty
well. Our challenge has been to bring other tree measurers on board.
Many, if not most, want to stick with the clinometer and tape
measure because it is easier - but unfortunately, it leads to lots
of errors. Dr. Lee Frelich, Dr. Don Bragg, Will Blozan, Dale
Luthringer, and myself are writing a paper on the comparative
accuracy of measurement methods. Lee is actually doing the writing.
The rest of us supplied the data. BTW, Monica and I are still
planning to visit you next summer.
Bob
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Lynn Rogers" <lrogers@bearstudy.org>
Marshall, here is an example of what I was saying about Bob Leverett,
the dbh guru. Lynn
Confirming the Exact Height of the Tallest Tree in New England:
The effort that ENTS has put into measuring the Jake Swamp white
pine in Mohawk Trail State Forest has, by any reasonable measure,
been extraordinary - excessive to non-quantitatively inclined tree
lovers, no doubt. I, alone, measure that great white pine as many as
20 times in a year and I have no thoughts of hanging up my lasers.
Jake will continue to receive attention.
However, I am not alone in lavishly heaping numerical attention onto
Jake. Over the years, our tall tree champion has been measured by
such notables as Jack Sobon, Colby Rucker, Bob Van Pelt, Will Blozan,
John Eichholz, Gary Beluzo, John Knuerr, Howard Stoner, and probably
others assisting one of the foregoing. In terms of members of the
A-team, I don’t specifically recall if Ed, Dale Tony, or Carl
measured the tree, or if superstar Jess Riddle measured Jake.
Regardless, the list of stars who have is long and impressive.
Beyond ground-based measurements, the Jake tree has been climbed and
tape-drop measured twice and it will be climbed and measured a third
time this fall. Will Blozan made the initial climb in 1998. Michael
Davie climbed and tape-drop measured Jake in 2001. Will Blozan and
possible others (Andrew Joslin?) will climb Jake on November 1st.
2008. So, suffice it to say that Jake has garnered ample attention
from a host of distinguished tree measurers working on the ground or
aloft over the years and this state of affairs is guaranteed to
continue so long as Jake performs for us as he has done so
outstandingly since 1992.
So, it was appropriate that on Thursday, I went to Mohawk to test my
new Nikon Prostaff 550 and chose Jake as the logical tree to
measure. The day was crystal clear and Jake’s highest leader stood
out cleanly against the background of a bright blue sky.
Unfortunately, blue sky bodes poorly for using my expensive TruPulse
lasers. They do much better when the sky is cloudy. They do not
return accurate bounces when the target is small and framed against
the background of a bright blue sky. You have to aim lower in the
crown to a spot where the foliage is thicker and broader, and of
course, that means you don’t measure the highest spot in the
crown.
However, on Thursday I was fully prepared. I took three other
lasers: my new Prostaff 550, the older Prostaff 440, and the really
aging, but still useful, Bushnell 800. For angles, I decided to use
the clinometers built into the two TruPulses. You can get clinometer
measures regardless of the target’s clarity or background
illumination. The clinometer in the TruPulse is just a tilt sensor.
I decided to use all five instruments in one way or another to see
what kind of results I would get comparing the different readings.
It was in this respect a thought experiment. I would use three of
the five instruments for distance ( 2 Nikons and the Bushnell) and
the remaining two for angles (the TruPulses). I decided to use the
tape measure to establish the distance to the base. A tape-measured
result to the base would eliminate the problem of trying to get good
laser returns from the base through the clutter. With this plan, I
was set. The following table gives the results.
Calculation
of height of Jake Swamp Tree
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DISTANCE
in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FT
|
|
NK550
|
|
NK440
|
|
BS800
|
|
Over
All
|
|
Lowest
measure for the top
|
|
216
|
|
216
|
|
216
|
|
|
|
|
Highest
measure for the top
|
|
219
|
|
219
|
|
219
|
|
|
|
|
Avg
|
|
217.5
|
|
217.5
|
|
217.5
|
|
217.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bottom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
188
|
|
(Tape)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANGLE
in
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DEGREES
|
|
TP360
|
TP200
|
|
|
|
Over
All
|
|
Lowest
measure for the top
|
|
31.1
|
30.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest
measure for the top
|
|
31.3
|
30.6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg
|
|
31.2
|
30.6
|
|
|
|
|
30.9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lowest
measure for the bottom
|
|
17.1
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Highest
measure for the bottom
|
|
17.4
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Avg
|
|
17.25
|
18
|
|
|
|
|
17.63
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HEIGHT
CALCULATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Above
eye level
|
|
sin(30.9)*217.5
|
|
|
|
111.70
|
|
|
Below
eye level
|
|
sin(17.63)*188
|
|
|
|
56.94
|
|
|
Total
Height
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
168.64
|
|
|
The above, latest determination of Jake’s height stands in
opposition to the more common ENTS approach that uses the highest
values returned for distance and angle. However, I chose the above
route for good reason, especially considering the mix of equipment.
If I were to selectively choose maximums, e.g. from the TruPulse 200
for angle and the Prostaff 550 for distance, or some other equipment
combination, I could get values as high as 169.68 by one selection,
169.58 by another, etc. Close!
From the above data, I could make a good argument that a defensible
height based on the maximums is around 169.6 feet. Following a
similar strategy, using the minimums, I could go as low as 167.6
feet. Using the average of maximums and minimums, I get 168.6 feet
as the midpoint between the minimums and maximums.
I should point out that all three distance measuring instruments
gave return bounces off Jake’s high point of 72 yards at times and
73 at others. I shot repeatedly with all three instruments and
consistently got either 72 or 73 yards with each instrument. No
bounce registered as low as 71 or as high as 74 yards.
I settled on an average of 72.5 yards. That seemed reasonable to me
because all three instruments can shoot long or short as
demonstrated in my tape measure comparison studies. Also, the use of
the average is consistent with the literature on the lasers that
quotes accuracies in terms of +/-. I would further point out that my
Prostaff 440 often shoots long by half a yard. So using 72.5 seems
justified.
Experimenting with the various combinations points to 168.6 as the
most probable figure, with arguments for 169.6 feet duly
acknowledged. BTW, on two recent occasions, I got exactly 169.1 feet
as the height of Jake, and prior to this latest exercise, I had
settled on 169.1 as the most probable height. I abandoned 170 from
an even earlier measurement. That stretches my luck a little too
far. So, until Will proves otherwise, it’s 168.6 feet for
celebrity Jake, the tallest tree in New England.
For new members of ENTS who don’t know the history, Jake was first
measured in November 1992 by Jack Sobon and myself and was 155.3
feet at the time, based on careful cross-checking transit
measurements. Then, Will Blozan taped dropped Jake in Nov 1998 and
got 158.6 feet. In the 16 years that have followed the first
measurement, Jakes average growth rate has been 0.83 feet per year
if we consider the current height as 168.6 feet. However, if Jake is
169.6 feet, then the average growth rate is 0.89 feet per year. I do
have other input on annual growth rates.
Based on Macroscope 25 measurements made in three successive years
of the new-year growth candle, Jake is putting on height at about 13
inches per year, a much higher annual rate when compared with the
growth rate between 1992 and 1998, which averaged only 0.5 feet.
Crown damage over the course of 16 years is highly probable.
Now to an important question: Why are we spending so much time
specifically on the Jake Tree? There are several reasons. First, the
white pine is a key economic and aesthetic symbol of a bygone New
England. Henry David Thoreau spoke of the loss of the great virgin
white pines, towering 150 feet and more along the banks of New
England’s rivers. In “Tall Trees, Tough Men”, author Robert
Pike speaks of the great pines of the past with almost religious
reverence. The use of the species by the Royal Navy for ship masts
is well documented and led to violent conflicts between colonists
and British authorities. The great whites are embedded in our New
England history. White pine sap runs through New England’s
arteries and veins. A few stalwarts still romantically search for
symbols of the King’s Pines, hoping to find some huge old snag
that shows the three hatchet marks. Jake is our best symbol of that
history, interest, and admiration. Viva La Jake!
Bob
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 3 2008 1:18 pm
From: James Parton
Bob,
1/10th of a foot. That is incredible accuracy! It reminds me of an
offline conversation Will and I had a few weeks back. I have been
carrying the decimal point to 100ths. The sine method is good but
not
that good so my future measurements will be done to the first
decimal
point. Tenths of a foot. We also exchanged comments on fractions of
an
inch when measuring tree girths.
You guys are still edumicating me! AND thank God for calculators! My
math stinks!
James P.
|