Tree check sonic decay detector...

After watching the video, I thought it was designed to tune my violin and mandolin .

Seems like that reference chart could be digitized somehow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I saw it the other day. Looks very interesting. The issue in my mind is it's going back to quantitative assessment (maybe the wrong term). It gives you a number to judge your assessment on. I think it's great for pre climb inspections but not enough data is provided to give a client a definitive answer to "is my tree safe". Maybe the video didn't explain the chart very well enough which makes me question it.
If used for the pre climb insp and it saved one guy from making a bad decision it's worth every penny. As an assessment tool... as the only decay detecting device an Arborist may have, I don't think it provides enough data to satisfy its cost or our clients. But it would be interesting to try!
 
flyingsquirrel25 said:
The issue in my mind is it's going back to quantitative assessment (maybe the wrong term). It gives you a number to judge your assessment on. I think it's great for pre climb inspections but not enough data is provided to give a client a definitive answer to "is my tree safe". Maybe the video didn't explain the chart very well enough which makes me question it....I don't think it provides enough data to satisfy its cost or our clients. But it would be interesting to try!
Click to expand...

That was my exact gut reaction



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
flyingsquirrel25 said:
I saw it the other day. Looks very interesting. The issue in my mind is it's going back to quantitative assessment (maybe the wrong term). It gives you a number to judge your assessment on. I think it's great for pre climb inspections but not enough data is provided to give a client a definitive answer to "is my tree safe". Maybe the video didn't explain the chart very well enough which makes me question it.
If used for the pre climb insp and it saved one guy from making a bad decision it's worth every penny. As an assessment tool... as the only decay detecting device an Arborist may have, I don't think it provides enough data to satisfy its cost or our clients. But it would be interesting to try!
Click to expand...

It's better than a level one assessment or mallet whacking.
 
Gorman said:
It's better than a level one assessment or mallet whacking.
Click to expand...
How so? Mallet sounding is also based on sound waves which sound different going through sound or decayed wood. Sound waves traveling through sound wood emit a higher pitch, while decayed wood emits a lower pitch. Starting with presumed sound wood to get a reference pitch, you then strike the mallet around different areas of a tree, while listening for differences in pitch, and depth and can often map areas of decay quite effectively. I'd like to see Treecheck used head-to-head against an experienced risk assessor with a good ear for mallet soundings. One of the best tree risk assessors I know said "Now that I've got a resistograph, it's basically given me a lot more confidence in my findings from using a mallet."
 
Them the boys that been whacking in my RV...

How well can this thing map out decay compared to other toys? Is it just spitting out a number to be interpreted and then you move on to the next measurement point?
 
Gorman said:
It's better than a level one assessment or mallet whacking.
Click to expand...

I would respectfully disagree, as @cerviarborist states a mallet is a very useful tool when the one swinging it knows what is being heard. If you look at it, tree check is a high tech mallet wacking device. And is quite possibly just as subjective. Because it does not give you measurements as to the size, shape or severity of the decay column. It basically tells you how much time the sound wave required to travel the set distance.
 
Right. So one would need data as to how long sound waves should move through healthy wood for that species based on trunk diameter to really make it worthwhile. Sound about right?
 
JD3000 said:
Right. So one would need data as to how long sound waves should move through healthy wood for that species based on trunk diameter to really make it worthwhile. Sound about right?
Click to expand...
Correct and I think that chart is provided... the subjectivity comes in when the Arborist interprets the reading. I'm not an accountant I don't interpret numbers but more how it looks, feels and sounds. Which of course is subjective in its own ways, but I'm also not selling decay detection either.
If anyone has used or sat through a class about sonic tomography they will know the more points the better and even then the most minor defect can make a tree look worse than it is. I just think 2 points just isn't enough to map a defect adequately.
 
This device can build your reliability as you calibrate your interpretations of mallet whacking with numbers.

When the tree is 3' thick with 3" of bark, I wonder about mallet testing.


We could barely hear each other from 40', screaming over road noise in the rain. I don't think I could hear a mallet very well in such a situation.
 
southsoundtree said:
This device can build your reliability as you calibrate your interpretations of mallet whacking with numbers.

When the tree is 3' thick with 3" of bark, I wonder about mallet testing.


We could barely hear each other from 40', screaming over road noise in the rain. I don't think I could hear a mallet very well in such a situation.
Click to expand...
That's when a $10 mechanics stethoscope can help with your mallet work.
 
I haven't used the mechanics stethoscope for mallet soundings, but I haven't had to worry about high levels of ambient noise when I'm assessing a tree. The stethoscope is a trick I learned from a mentor for listening for the characteristic clicking of the mandibles of palm weevils in trees. Place the probe on the trunk and listen for the clickety-clack and you know you've got weevils. Although I haven't tried it, it seems as though you could place the stethoscope probe against the trunk of the tree and then tap with your mallet. With the earpieces of the stethoscope in your ears, I can't help but think you'd hear a lot more of the tree and a lot less of the background noise. It'll only cost you $10 to try it out, so perhaps it's worth giving a go before sinking $650 into the Treecheck. Also there are mallets and then there are mallets. If you've got a lot of bark to penetrate before you get to wood....as they say in the machine shop business....get a bigger hammer! I haven't tried one yet, but a lot of my colleagues are suddenly very enthusiastic about double ended mallets with a soft rubber side opposite a hard plastic side. They like the soft side for thin-barked trees, so as not to mar the bark, and the hard side for trees with thicker bark. Another colleague is quite happy using a croquet mallet, which gives him higher reach and wood-on-wood tonality. I've used a $20 soil probe from Vermeer for the same purpose. It lets you sound wood up to about ten feet above grade, as well as probe cavities to see how deep and wide they are.

Now I'm going to have to dig my stethoscope out of the bottom of my bag and thump on some trees!:hueco:
 
Mallet sounding is a bit more subjective than getting a set number for the speed a sound wave takes to travel through the trunk. In my experience mallet sounding works great if the tree is very, very hollow. If it has a cavity deep inside then you may not be able to hear it.

Maybe you just have a good ear, but most tree guys have hearing difficulties due to running saws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom