Resistograph on sale now at IML!!!

mrtree

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

As far as facing potential litigation, I would argue that thru use of the resistograph data you would be subjected to LESS litigation. Resistograph data is used in courtrooms across the US and Canada. The data is legally accepted, and it takes a glance from a 5th grade student to effectively identify dangerous levels of decay/cavity in the measurements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do not totally believe this. I absolutely believe that providing (repeatable) measurements is a great idea and certainly beats using a wooden mallet to identify extent of decay, BUT, how does a 5th grader identify dangerous levels of decay? Is not the entire arguement presented by Kane (and others) against Mattheck's t/r<.3, that the number is not only incorrect, but oversimplifies the importance of measuring shell-wall thickness and comparing it to standards? Wessoly and others have suggested that we need to know about tree size, windload, material strength etc. Further, understanding fungal organisms and their methods of decayi and resultant changes in wood strength, is not something for a 5th grader. I wonder what percentage of consultants, let alone arborists, have read and understand Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees?
 

JamesIML

New Member
[ QUOTE ]

I do not totally believe this. I absolutely believe that providing (repeatable) measurements is a great idea and certainly beats using a wooden mallet to identify extent of decay, BUT, how does a 5th grader identify dangerous levels of decay?

Decay is immediately identified by a sharp dropoff in amplitude, or the lack of peaks and valleys. Dangerous levels of decay show as flat lines for long lengths of the measurment. In simple terms MrTree, Spikes are good, flat is bad.

Is not the entire arguement presented by Kane (and others) against Mattheck's t/r<.3, that the number is not only incorrect, but oversimplifies the importance of measuring shell-wall thickness and comparing it to standards?

Regardless of a persons stance on the various assessment formulae, knowing shell thickness IS undoubtedly important, and this is something that the Resistograph will tell you. You can then apply that information how you see fit.

Wessoly and others have suggested that we need to know about tree size, windload, material strength etc. Further, understanding fungal organisms and their methods of decayi and resultant changes in wood strength, is not something for a 5th grader. I wonder what percentage of consultants, let alone arborists, have read and understand Fungal Strategies of Wood Decay in Trees?

I am not suggesting that a 5th grader can go out and perform complex tree risk and hazard assessments. My ONLY point was that a person using the Resistograph would not be subject to litigation, because he used the tool. The tool provides information. The simplest level of that information is sound wood wall thickness, and dangerous levels of decay.


[/ QUOTE ]

There are many things one can learn from a resistograph reading. Based on different phenomena, different types of decay can be identified, incipient decay, reaction zones, cracks, wetwood and many other things. Without the knowledge to identify the TYPE of decay, anyone can still effectively use the tool to identify if decay/cavities are present(even 5th graders), and the physical extent of the internal damage.

I view the resistograph like so:

A tape measure to a carpenter is like the Resistograph to the consulting arborist. (Stethoscope to Doctor, Gas pedal to Nascar Driver, Fishing rod to a Fisherman)

I will certainly concede that I am not an arborist, and I am still learning about arbor culture(and will always be). I just cannot see how its not possible to be a consulting arborist, and not embrace / take advantage of any of the technology in existence. (Resi, Tomograph, sound velocity, etc)

If your the customer, would you hire the Arborist who gives opinions from experience or the one who can SHOW YOU the data, and explain it to you using experience.
 

mrtree

Well-Known Member
I am really lost here

Resistograph data is used in courtrooms across the US and Canada. The data is legally accepted, and it takes a glance from a 5th grade student to effectively identify dangerous levels of decay/cavity in the measurements.

Regardless of a persons stance on the various assessment formulae, knowing shell thickness IS undoubtedly important, and this is something that the Resistograph will tell you. You can then apply that information how you see fit.

I am not suggesting that a 5th grader can go out and perform complex tree risk and hazard assessments. My ONLY point was that a person using the Resistograph would not be subject to litigation, because he used the tool. The tool provides information. The simplest level of that information is sound wood wall thickness, and dangerous levels of decay.

What does all this mean? Please tell us exactly what dangerous levels of decay are. Apparently any 5th grader can do it so please tell us.
 

mrtree

Well-Known Member
What I take from this, and other discussions, is that inspecting a tree, analyzing the information, and making some conclusions is either, a simple cut or save answer, or is a complex activity.
 

JamesIML

New Member
[ QUOTE ]
What I take from this, and other discussions, is that inspecting a tree, analyzing the information, and making some conclusions is either, a simple cut or save answer, or is a complex activity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tree risk assessment and hazard analysis are complex activities, that can never truly be mastered. My suggestions in previous posts do not say or imply that any 5th grader can perform these complex tree assessments.

I will point you again to HOW TO READ THE DATA in order to accurately understand what you would be looking at with Resistograph Data. Dr. julian Dunster has really explained it well.

For sake of argument, I will refer to the Resistograph data graph as a "Curve". Within each curve there are spikes that correlate to the trees rings (early and late wood).

Quite simply, where there are no spikes, there is either decay or void.


What is pictured here is the SIMPLEST application of the Resistograph. The resistograph is capable of identifying MANY OTHER types of phenomena within a tree.

Any 5th grader can see the above measurement and identify the decay/void is present. Any Arborist should be able to use the above information effectively, without fear of any litigation in their assessment regarding the use of the resistograph. The 5th grader analogy was merely made to push across the point that while extended education is available on many levels, it is not needed to use the Resistograph effectively.

I fear that this thread has become less about the wonderful opportunity IML has presented to those interested in picking up this tool on the cheap, and more about the merits of a random 5th graders abilities/education.

I hope the discussion has at least answered some questions, and provided value to others on this board. I would be more than happy to continue, but would like to focus less on the 5th grader" part. We can discuss the 5th grader part on the telephone should you wish too.

For anyone else that wished to speak with me directly regarding the application / validity of the data / or interpretation please call me directly @ 978-335-3905.

James
 

mrtree

Well-Known Member
So with the it specific example above is this a dangerous level of decay/cavity? How is this determined?

You did say "this takes a glance from a 5th grade student to effectively identify dangerous levels of decay/cavity in the measurements"

I am really curious how these dangerous levels are determined.
 

JamesIML

New Member
I am not here to talk specifics about what the scientific or mathematic threshold for "Dangerous" is, as I am not Mattheck, or Kane. I am not a scientist or an arborist for that matter. If you want to explore the accuracy of t/r, coders, wagners etc, please start another thread.

As a layman, or a 5th grader, I can look at that graph, and say there is maybe 3" of solid wood and then it is hollow. As a layman, or a 5th grader, I would call that dangerous.

As an assessment professional, you are the one that the customer is paying to determine how dangerous that tree really is. Using the information obtained from the graph while in conjunction with growth factors, canopy, surrounding areas etc., you should be able to.

As an assessment professional, you would need a Resistograph to quantify non-destructively, the levels of cavity/decay inside the tree.

As the Professional, it is your job to take that quantification, and apply it to whatever methodology you use when calculating risks/hazards/failure scenarios.

The Resistograph will not make that calculation that for you, I will not do that for you. The Resistograph will simply supply you with the vital information you will need in order to perform the complete assessment without harming the tree.

edited for formating
 

MisterSir

Member
Why all the negativity? Some of y'all are acting like 5th graders arguing in the sandbox. Sheesh!

My 9-year old daughter can interpret the results from the Resistograph. It ain't rocket science folks!

It's a tool to help us do our job, plain and simple. If you don't want to use it, fine. I happen to love it and my clients are fascinated with it.
 

mrtree

Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Why all the negativity? Some of y'all are acting like 5th graders arguing in the sandbox. Sheesh!

My 9-year old daughter can interpret the results from the Resistograph. It ain't rocket science folks!

It's a tool to help us do our job, plain and simple. If you don't want to use it, fine. I happen to love it and my clients are fascinated with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must seriously be joking!!!! If your nine year old can interpret the results then there is really no need for you, a tree risk assessment course and certification or consultants.

For you and others to denigrate those that ask questions and suggest that TRA is easy is disgusting and a clear indication why TRA education is needed. I suggest that you tell Wessoly, Brudi, Kane, Wagner, Coder, Smiley, Funk, Dietter, Gilman, James, Dunster that their work is a waste of time because it ain't rocket science.

You clearly do not have an understanding of this tool or the interpretation of data.
 

niceviews

Member
I'm pretty sure I learned how to read graphs in elementary school. That was way before I knew anything about trees and risk assessment.
 
Top