Just wondering how to attack the tree
Don't know. Imaging the trunk of a mighty oak in situ could be a trick. From what I understand, a CT scan source rotates around the target with the sensor always 180 degrees out. The imaging is put together in the software.
I really couldn't tell you if it's even possible. I've never seen the equipment. But if there's a way to do it that is affordable, I wanna try.
From what my son has told me this equipment is pretty tough. Lots of refinery work and the sort. A big ol' tree should be a cake-walk.
Increment boring of potential BT blazes
I wish you cold hop on you motorsickle and head out this way Paden. I know lots of good test trees.
Along clearcut’s line of thought... we’ve done some tests using increment borers to probe healed-over blazes. We hoped to be able to bore into the blaze area and (1) see if the core definitively shows the blaze and (2) see if we could count the rings to get an idea of the age of the blaze.
The test we did was on a confirmed Juniper bearing tree blaze 100 years old that was still 1/4 inch from being completely closed. Through the scar’s “window” we identified axe marks and scribing:
The theory was to bore near what we believed to be the outer part of the blaze where the earliest healing would have occurred and the oldest ring count would be derived as opposed to near the center of the blaze where the ring count would be less:
Since Junipers grow so slow and the rings are so freaking tight it was difficult to get an exact count of rings on the newer growth, but the blaze face showed up well – it was a thick, weathered gray-colored shear plane in the core, separating the pre-blaze wood from the post blaze wood:
On our 100 year old Juniper blaze we took three borings – one was 85 years, one was 75 and the third we bored a couple inches outside of the suspected blaze to purposely miss the blaze and get a “clean” boring with no weathered shear plane. We did not shoot for the center of the tree.
I spoke to a friend of mine who was a forester for 30+ years and he said that 85 to 75 years was about the accuracy they expected on slow growing, tight ringed gnarly trees such as junipers.
Another method we have not tried yet would be to bore through the center of the blaze, ignoring the older “overgrowth” and on into the tree’s center and see how old the tree was when blazed. Then on another side of the tree bore to tree center again and if that boring is clean (all good wood, no blaze indication or other scars) you could determine the tree’s total age and subtract the age when it was scribed to come close to a date the tree was blazed (note – this will likely take numerous attempts as trying to hit the tree’s center is like a game of “Battleship”)
Of course, this is just a minor step in determining if you might have a blazed tree. There are so many healed scars in the woods from logging or farming activities, pruning, branches breaking off, trees falling and “barking” standing trees, lightning, etc. A coring can help confirm if the underlying damage is about the right age, say 100 years old compared to 25 years. If it is near the age of blaze date, then the work has really just begun to further confirm it is manmade AND the surveyor’s blaze you are looking for.
If Paden’s tree tri-coder works it would be a huge boon to retracing surveyors. I bet it would not be cheap at first, until it becomes a $0.99 phone app. Count me in.
Increment boring of potential BT blazes
.. a 99 cent phone app - I love it!
In the meantime, here's my solution:
I'd use a borer, but I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to chuck them in a power drill. Until then, negatori compadre.
Increment boring of potential BT blazes
>
> In the meantime, here's my solution
I use the same borer! When being discrete doesn't matter.
> I'd use a borer, but I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to chuck them in a power drill. Until then, negatori compadre.
I've seen on-line where they do make gas powered borers.
