Macroscope
25 vs RD 1000 |
Robert
Leverett |
Feb
10, 2006 06:31 PST |
Will and Jess,
I ran some more tests on the Macroscope 25 vs
the RD 1000 at long
distances and less than ideal visibility - a kind of worst case
scenario
for the instruments. The results are summarized below.
Dist Diam Error Instrument
Rng-ft Rng-in Rng-in
226-312 14-44.7 0.170 Macroscope
226-312 14-44.7 1.220 RD 1000
At 0.17 inches, the average error for the
macroscope reflects the bad
visibility rather than the instrument. I was fairly pleased with
the RD
1000's performance. I feared that the average error might be
even more
at great distance.
For the range of work we do, for the
Macroscope 25, it boils down to
visibility. If we can see it, we can accurately measure it. With
luck,
this Sunday, I hope to measure this past season's growth of the
Jake
Swamp tree. Should be able to do it to the nearest half inch.
Bob
Robert T. Leverett
Cofounder, Eastern Native Tree Society
|
RE:
Macroscope 25 vs RD 1000 |
Will
Blozan |
Feb
10, 2006 22:57 PST |
Bob,
Are those numbers and error ranges for width or diameter? If
diameter, they
are not all that meaningful for absolute error.
Will
|
Back
to Will with buried question for Pamela |
Robert
Leverett |
Feb
13, 2006 06:12 PST |
Will,
ANSWER TO WILL'S QUESTION:
They were diameters, and as a consequence, I completely agree
with you
that they aren't very meaningful. I did more tests over the
weekend. The
results follow.
NEW MACROSCOPE VS DENDROMETER TESTS:
Object: Birch
tree (diameter)
Distance: 58.7'
Actual diameter: 13.8"
RD 1000 12.8"
Difference 1.0"
% error of act 7.3%
Macroscope 25 13.1'
Difference 0.7"
% error of act 5.1%
Object: Paper
on same birch tree (flat target)
Distance: 58.7'
Actual diameter: 11.0"
RD 1000 10.8"
Difference 0.2"
% error of act 1.9%
Macroscope 25 11.1
Difference 0.7"
% error of act 0.9%
Object: Stick
on cottonwood (flat target)
Distance: 77.2'
Actual diameter: 18.0"
RD 1000 19.7"
Difference 1.7"
% error of act 1.9%
Macroscope 25 18.1'
Difference 0.1"
% error of act 0.9%
When the target is well
defined, I'm consistently getting errors
of under 1% for the Macroscope 25. Based on your and Jess's
tests, I
expected that. I probably won't get quite the results that you
two get
until I get new glasses. However, bad vision and all, the error
has been
as low as 0.3% for significant distances. The Dendrometer's
error is
usually around 2%, sometimes a little less. With a better
tripod, I
might slightly reduce the error for both instruments.
One lesson that comes through over
and over (not that we didn't
already know it) is that trees are NOT circular in cross section
and
that any serious attempt to model the volume of a trunk or a
limb must
take lack of circularity into account. The wide variation that I
get
from taped circumferences converted to diameters as compared to
the
measurements of diameter that I'm getting with the Macroscope 25
versus
the very narrow variation in actuals versus measured for flat
targets
serves to further illustrate how often trees are out of round.
Instruments that are designed around assumptions of a circular
cross
section are going to lead to measurement errors. I suppose that
they
rely on a lot of averaging out over large numbers, so that over
many
trees maybe the volume errors are negligible, but not as applied
to
individual trees, so that volume tables that assume circularity
and a
standard rate of taper are of no value to ENTS. I discovered
that for
myself about 9 years ago, but wasn’t so confident then in
proclaiming
the inapplicability of table data to single tree measuring. But
maybe I
was missing something. However, time and testing by the three of
us
(you, Jess, and me) has amply shown that we weren’t missing
anything. We
are sentenced to ahve to go it alone.
|
Tree
Trunk Assymetery |
Edward
Frank |
Feb
15, 2006 14:46 PST |
Bob,
You have made a couple of recent posts concerning the asymmetry
of tree
trunks. What kinds of things could be looked at in this
context/? How
asymmetrical are individual trees? Do some species tend to have
more
asymmetrical trunks than others? Does the degree of asymmetry
vary with
age/ What about other factors like stand density? Height to diameter
ratio?
Is the asymmetry oriented in a preferred direction - north/south
or
upslope/downslope? Tree canopies are often asymmetrical. Does
the
asymmetry of the trunk relate to the asymmetry of the crown? Are
the trees
equally asymmetrical along their entire height? How does asymmetry
vary
through time (you could measure cookies to determine this one)
There are
lots of potential things to measure...
Ed |
Re:
Lowes & Cannon Creeks, GSMNP, TN |
foresto-@npgcable.com |
Feb
15, 2006 22:23 PST |
Ed-
One way to look at this issue is to assume that in the East,
barring
broadscale windevents and other climatological extremes, a
forest grows one
tree at a time...as one senesces (from whatever
cause/disturbance), another
one has an opportunity to fill the void, fresh exposed rich
soil, new dose of
sunlight, to the victor seed goes the spoils (space).
Where that seed that grows most successfully falls, determines
its 'space' and
its space determines how the tree fills it. Seed fall may
approximate random
chance, but seed germination/growth success, probably doesn't.
Topography,
aspect affect solar incidence angle (warmth, energy) and tipover
mound
microtopography probably has significant impact on success.
Once the tree roars up into its space, its neighbors constantly
remind it of
its space constraints, as they 'wear' at each other.
Assymmetry should be expected, and the lack of it cause
surprise...
-Don
|
Tree
trunk asymmetery, Macroscope 25, more tree conversations |
Robert
Leverett |
Feb
16, 2006 06:14 PST |
Ed,
Whew! You've given us a decade's worth of measuring
possibilities in
your enumeration of asymmetrical possibilities. As it is, I'm
lagging
behind the plan I had for myself to begin simple measurements of
trunk
asymmetry. Haven't forgotten it though. Will and Jess, HELP!
Will and Jess,
On another measuring theme, yesterday ENTS reached another
milestone.
After missing a Forest Reserves meeting, I consoled myself and
went to
MTSF to measure the prior year's growth of the Jake Swamp tree
using the
Macroscope 25. The weather was perfect.
The
instrument worked marvelously well. I measured 8
growth candles atop Jake's crown. The distance to the targets
varied
from 66.5 to 69 meters and the reticle values varied from 0.3 to
0.5
millimeters (I use the metric scale with the Macroscope 25).
Converting
to English units, the two highest candles had surprisingly
differing
lengths: 10.6" and 17.7". The full list of candle
measurements follows:
10.6", 17.7", 11.2",
16.9", 17.6", 10.4", 15.5", 10.9".
The average of the above is 13.8 inches. There
is little doubt that
Jake will reach 168 feet this year. With luck, it will make 170
by the
end of 2008, 2009 at the latest.
After measuring Jake, I measured 3
candles on the Massasoit tree:
13.8, 11.5, and 9.2 inches. A white pine in front of the Nature
Center
yielded 14.8 and 14.9 inches for its two very conspicuous tops.
The reticle is ideally suited to measure
candle growth. More on
geometry considerations using the reticle for vertical
measurements at
an angle as opposed to horizontal ones in the next e-mail.
With the confirmation of the Macroscope as
reliable for new candle
growth measurement atop our tallest trees, I can finally make
good on my
promises to DCR. Lots of new possibilities. When will it ever
end?
Bob
|
Rd
1000 vs Macroscope 25 |
Robert
Leverett |
Mar
07, 2006 04:46 PST |
Will, Jess, Ed, et al:
I've added a few more tests of the RD 1000
versus the Macroscope 25.
Through 30 tests, the average of the absolute values of the
differences
between the two instruments is 1.07 inches. That average covers
targets
that are from 8 to 34 inches in diameter and shot from distances
of 54
to 312 feet. The difference between what the two instruments
return is
most pronounced for large diameter objects. For example, the
average
difference for targets 24 inches or more in diameter is 1.99
inches.
That is almost double the overall average. This makes me
extremely weary
of my volume modeling of the big pines and hemlocks that I've
done so
far in MTSF, MSF, Ice Glen, Bullardwoods, etc. Yet, it is a cut
and
dried issue. I got almost exactly what BVP modeled for the
Thoreau pine.
In fact, my number was slightly lower than his. So, since the
pattern is
not uniform, I cannot say for sure that all my big tree models
are off
by a certain percent.
The RD 1000 is a fun instrument to use and
definitely has a role in
what I'm doing, but some kind of compensation factor must be
developed
to correct for large objects and long distances. The difference
between
the two instruments illustrates the problems we encounter with
reliance
on sophisticated, versatile instruments. Internal algorithms and
design
tradeoffs can compromise accuracy without trusting users being
aware.
One needs to be aware of how much accuracy they are willing to
surrender
in order to enjoy a plethora of "Gee Whizz, it makes coffee
too"
features.
Having said this, use of the RD 1000 at
distance of 65 to 85 feet on
targets of 6 to 20 inches does yield good results.
Bob
|
The
daily stats |
Robert
Leverett |
Mar
08, 2006 05:33 PST |
Will, Jess, Don, Lee, et al:
More comparison tests of the RD 1000 vs the
Macroscope 25 were
conducted last evening. The edition of 4 tests puts the average
difference between the two instruments at 1.1 inches and that
difference
represents 4.86% of the Macroscope average diameter.
If more larger objects are shot at a distance,
the average difference
between the Macroscoope 25 and RD 1000 will grow. But if the
size
classes stay well mixed, the average difference (actually the
average of
the absolute values of the differences) will likley stay around
1 inch.
At present, that's the number I'm keeping in my noodle.
How does the accuracy of each instrument
compare with the direct
measurement of the target objects? Well, a tree trunk measured
yesterday
evening with a D-tape was 32.52 inches. The Macroscope 25
reading was
32.72 and the Rd 1000 was 33.3. The 0.2 inch difference for the
Macroscope represents 0.6% of the taped diameter. The 0.78 inch
difference for the Rd 1000 represents 2.3% of the taped value.
Since the tree trunk isn't absolutely
circular, the D-tape
measurement yields only an approximate value so that comparisons
of the
0.2 versus the 0.78 inch differences is a little misleading.
Measuring control objects that are either
circular or flat is showing
that the maximum absolute error from the Macroscope does not
exceed 0.5
inch and that the average error is less than half that -
sometimes less
than a 1/10th of an inch. The Macroscope is consistent. Large
errors
tend to be problems with seeing the target. However, the maximum
absolute error of the Rd 1000 can reach 3 inches, although that
is truly
extreme and is for large targets seen at distances of over 100
feet. The
average error is around 1 inch.
The bad news from all this is that the volumes
of the larger trees
that have been modeled with the Rd 1000 are highly likely to
have been
overstated. So it's hi-ho back into the forest I go to figure
out a new
set of volumes for an old set of trees.
Bob
|
RE:
Rd 1000 vs Macroscope 25 |
Robert
Leverett |
Mar
08, 2006 10:25 PST |
Don,
With one exception, the 35 measurements are
comparable only among one
another. I was not clear on that point in my communication.
I've now tested the Macroscope 25 many times
against directly
measured objects and am very confident that its error range is
within
+/- 0.5 inches for distances approaching 300 feet. Errors in the
0.35 to
0.5 range are due to human error as opposed to instrument
limitations.
Target visibility is the biggest source of error. However, most
Macroscope 25 measurements are accurate to +/- 0.2 inches on
objects
between 100 and 250 feet. Objects that are too close are not
clear in
the monocular, so one does have to maintain one's distance.
Once I start re-measuring the pines, I'll
consider the Macroscope 25
as providing the equivalent of a direct measurement, but I'll
also
re-shoot with the RD 1000 so I'll have a side by side comparison
for
each tree to report.
Despite its limits, I really like the RD 1000
and see its utility for
jobs that fit into distance and diameter windows, with distance
being 60
to 100 feet and a diameter being 6 inches to 30 inches. The 6
inches can
be dropped to 4 and the 30 can be increased to 36 if one is
willing to
accept a larger error.
I'm anxious to re-measure the Grandfather pine
in MSF. I have a
feeling that the volume is going to go down by 75 to 100 cubic
feet.
That would drop it below 1000 cubes. Rats!! If the weather
forcast holds
out, it may be off to MSF old Bob goes this Sunday.
Bob
Don Bertolette wrote:
|
Bob-
Stupid question time...are these measurements
comparative between
themselves
only, or are you comparing these two measures against
actual
diameter/circumference measures?
-DonB
|
|
|