Question on the Humboldt cut

[fuelsguy1969]

That goes for either the conventional or humboldt.

The flat cut first, on whatever undercut used, allows for precise adjustment without having to recut.

Simply place your dogs in short of where you need to be to complete that part of the face, cut in and check the sights as needed. Adjust if necessary and complete.

 

[fhfr436]

[ QUOTE ]
Alot of times you can't just flop a 150' redwood in the yard in one piece, It's done in sections.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, then from a mill standpoint it wouldn't matter. The notch will be on the bottom of one section or the top of the next ... take your pick.

 

[Knotahippie]

You get a bit more wood cutting a humboldt. It also makes the process clean and efficient.

 

[Reg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Humboldt effect is best demonstrated in tall trees. Since it takes them longer to fall there's more time for the butt to slip off the stump and take the lead in the fall to the ground. In short trees, and especially stubs, the effect of the Humboldt is often times nonexistent. Because they tip and fall so much faster.



[/ QUOTE ]

Would you say it's one of those techniques that someone needs to experience where it's useful, to understand when it's practical?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having used the cut several times since this thread, I do understand it a little better now.

To answer my own question about the theory of the butt sliding down and off the stump: Well, consider that a falling tree is in more of a forward projection for at least its first thirty degrees of fall….and if it has sufficient top-weight/height = momentum to break the hinge off a similarly narrow notch, then this forward momentum should predictably drag the butt forward and off the stump.

Under these circumstances it appears that the Humboldt initiates a faster break while the conventional delays it slightly due to the upper surface extending past the lower at the point of contact. However, if the notch hasn’t closed by fifty degrees then much of the forward momentum has been lost, and beyond this the technique fairs no better than the conventional.

For short logs the Humboldt can also be used to fold a log in stages i.e. the notch closes without breaking off the hinge. I was able to gradually fold a couple of 15x3ft maple spars over by inserting 2 Humboldt’s per tree (one above the other)….by the time the second notch closed the trees were actually hanging at about thirty degrees from the ground. So upon finally severing the hinge, the fall-momentum-impact was significantly reduced.
After I felled them the guy who hired me asked, ‘ Reg, never seen you do that before?’… .I said ‘that’s the Humboldt Tony, been using it for years mate, where you been!’

I actually quite like the cut now, but I dare say will take some practice before I can cut it with the pro’s.

 

[AxeKnot]

[ QUOTE ]
I was able to gradually fold a couple of 15x3ft maple spars over by inserting 2 Humboldt’s per tree (one above the other)….by the time the second notch closed the trees were actually hanging at about thirty degrees from the ground.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reg,

2 notches per tree, duz dat mean u had 4 bak cuts?

video please.

 

[Gerald_Beranek]

With any cut it's more often the subtleties involved and knowing how they work to use them effectively.

 

[Reg]

[ QUOTE ]


Reg,

2 notches per tree, duz dat mean u had 4 bak cuts?

video please.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, 2 back cuts

 

[Treeman1]

I’ve met many people who seem to share the belief that by inserting a <u>basic</u> humboldt (no gap or snipe) that they are somehow creating the means for a butt to break off the hinge, slide down the slope and somehow land before the top. To be honest, I can’t really speak from experience as in my type of work, rarely can I justify the need for a humboldt of any kind.

If at all, I'll use it in a tree when either it’s easier to insert an angled cut underneath the undercut, or in the case where I might want to spear a branch downwards by cutting through the hinge.

I accept there are perhaps other benefits i.e. the preservation of the butt log; the theory that the butt will hold better behind the stump after the fall where there is a risk of it sliding back over the top….although it could otherwise be argued that the remaining stump left from a conventional cut would create a bigger, more abrupt barrier….thus having more chance of catching the log. A negative slope (ramp) exists either way though.

Back to the original point: by inserting the angled cut underneath the undercut, it’s surface would then have to extend beyond the corner of the undercut at about the moment when the hinge breaks, thus creating a stop/barrier….meanwhile the momentum of the top of the tree remains in tact.

I can visualize a cleaner, more predictable breaking of the hinge because the way the two surfaces meet, but not the butt recovering the speed and direction to beat the top in a race to the ground. The conventional cut, on the other hand, would have to work the opposite way where at the moment the hinge breaks, the same stop/barrier doesn’t exist as the corner of its angled cut extends further than its undercut, so would already be closer and relatively unobstructed in its journey to the ground.

Now I’m obviously not a logger by any means so perhaps there may be other variable’s that I’ve not considered?….its just something that’s never quite made sense to me but one that I’m reminded every so often.

Thoughts and views would be appreciated, or maybe this has been discussed/explained elsewhere so perhaps someone could highlight a previous thread or something. Thanks

I’ve met many people who seem to share the belief that by inserting a <u>basic</u> humboldt (no gap or snipe) that they are somehow creating the means for a butt to break off the hinge, slide down the slope and somehow land before the top. To be honest, I can’t really speak from experience as in my type of work, rarely can I justify the need for a humboldt of any kind.

If at all, I'll use it in a tree when either it’s easier to insert an angled cut underneath the undercut, or in the case where I might want to spear a branch downwards by cutting through the hinge.

I accept there are perhaps other benefits i.e. the preservation of the butt log; the theory that the butt will hold better behind the stump after the fall where there is a risk of it sliding back over the top….although it could otherwise be argued that the remaining stump left from a conventional cut would create a bigger, more abrupt barrier….thus having more chance of catching the log. A negative slope (ramp) exists either way though.

Back to the original point: by inserting the angled cut underneath the undercut, it’s surface would then have to extend beyond the corner of the undercut at about the moment when the hinge breaks, thus creating a stop/barrier….meanwhile the momentum of the top of the tree remains in tact.

I can visualize a cleaner, more predictable breaking of the hinge because the way the two surfaces meet, but not the butt recovering the speed and direction to beat the top in a race to the ground. The conventional cut, on the other hand, would have to work the opposite way where at the moment the hinge breaks, the same stop/barrier doesn’t exist as the corner of its angled cut extends further than its undercut, so would already be closer and relatively unobstructed in its journey to the ground.

Now I’m obviously not a logger by any means so perhaps there may be other variable’s that I’ve not considered?….its just something that’s never quite made sense to me but one that I’m reminded every so often.

Thoughts and views would be appreciated, or maybe this has been discussed/explained elsewhere so perhaps someone could highlight a previous thread or something. Thanks

 

[Treeman1]

I’ve met many people who seem to share the belief that by inserting a <u>basic</u> humboldt (no gap or snipe) that they are somehow creating the means for a butt to break off the hinge, slide down the slope and somehow land before the top. To be honest, I can’t really speak from experience as in my type of work, rarely can I justify the need for a humboldt of any kind.

If at all, I'll use it in a tree when either it’s easier to insert an angled cut underneath the undercut, or in the case where I might want to spear a branch downwards by cutting through the hinge.

I accept there are perhaps other benefits i.e. the preservation of the butt log; the theory that the butt will hold better behind the stump after the fall where there is a risk of it sliding back over the top….although it could otherwise be argued that the remaining stump left from a conventional cut would create a bigger, more abrupt barrier….thus having more chance of catching the log. A negative slope (ramp) exists either way though.

Back to the original point: by inserting the angled cut underneath the undercut, it’s surface would then have to extend beyond the corner of the undercut at about the moment when the hinge breaks, thus creating a stop/barrier….meanwhile the momentum of the top of the tree remains in tact.

I can visualize a cleaner, more predictable breaking of the hinge because the way the two surfaces meet, but not the butt recovering the speed and direction to beat the top in a race to the ground. The conventional cut, on the other hand, would have to work the opposite way where at the moment the hinge breaks, the same stop/barrier doesn’t exist as the corner of its angled cut extends further than its undercut, so would already be closer and relatively unobstructed in its journey to the ground.

Now I’m obviously not a logger by any means so perhaps there may be other variable’s that I’ve not considered?….its just something that’s never quite made sense to me but one that I’m reminded every so often.

Thoughts and views would be appreciated, or maybe this has been discussed/explained elsewhere so perhaps someone could highlight a previous thread or something. Thanks

I am an arborist in a big city and I usually use a standard notch cut as low to the ground as possible because a large majority of the trees I cut down require the stump to be ground as part of the complete removal process. A Humboldt notch would leave a bigger stump.

 

[Thillmaine]

I always use the Humboldt when tip typing. usually accommodated by a slanting back cut to make sure the but slides off before the rope catches the load and butt hangs up on stump. also when takin a big top, ill use a humbodlt, then cut thru the hinge so the spring is less on the spar. use it once in a while for random other situations, but being an east coaster..conventional is my move most of the time. Except (as stated by Reg) the Humboldt is easier to make due to positioning, in tree logistics.

 

[Worthaug]

I'm not sure if this has been mentioned (and I'm not gonna go back and read through) but the Humboldt yields the maximum amount of butt log when harvesting timber.


Reed Wortley
ISA CA# SO-6953A
CTSP # 01739

 

[Travis E.]

I was taught to fell trees by redwood loggers in Humboldt and the most common justification I've heard for using the Humboldt is more linear footage. But, if you'r using a "standard" 45 degree cut you end up with the same squared off board footage either way. Think about it, draw a picture if you need to.
It does provide more protection from kick back's and more control on down hill fell's. Increasing the angle allows more time for weight twisting but once it hits your face cut... Thats where its going, as is... If you don't know how to use the sights on your saw(or what they are), let alone judging the weight, grain and health of a tree, you have no buisness felling trees to begin with, let alone debating the when and hows of different felling technique's.

 

[Dragonslayer]

I have absolutely no experience with redwoods but have read that besides a squared butt, another reason for the Humboldt's use was to allow the notch wood (which might weigh several hundred pounds) to slide out instead of having to be lifted and pried.

 

[JeffGu]

With the Humboldt, the wedge of "missing" wood is in the stump, close to the ground, and in the area that contains the root flare... not the butt log. You save a bit of wood in the more straight sided, valuable wood.

 

[TimberJack]

I use the humbult when climbing as i can back bar the entire cut flinging the chips away from me rather than in my lap.

 

[nicoleb]

Reg;
I'm talking about vertical limbs with foliage.
I think it can be used with logs at height also but I haven't spent any time with it.
What I do know is when you leave hinge wood and allow the tops to come over too far you've lost much of the control.

When dropping/ chunking out trunk wood, I've found that the Humboldt does tend to pop the pieces off away from the trunk and more often than not, land flat.
... 60% of the time, it works every time.
Living on the east coast, preserving millable wood isn't a huge concern, but not putting large divets in Mr or Mrs "old money"'s lawn is.

But I've only been doing this a year, so it could still totally be a lack of varying experiences, but for now, I agree with Kevin. Definitely enjoying all the things I've learned from this thread already. Keep feeding my brain y'all!

 

[Travis E.]

I use the hunboldt cut as my standard felling cut and you get absolutely no more wood from it than a conventional cut. Again, draw a picture if you need. Once you square it off you end up with the same linear footage. It does save you some saw gas if your cutting for the mill and from my experience gives more control before your fell hits the face cut. Also, again, learning to read a trees weight health and grain takes years, dont start dropping trees till your honestly comfortable doing so.

 

[JeffGu]

With the Humboldt cut, all of the wedge from the face cut is in the waste wood (stump)... with a conventional cut, it is all in the butt log (millable lumber).