3 ms·

Do consider the value of the wood in relation to your cuts. A well-placed cut not only guarantees safety but will also take the maximum board feet from the tree

by 1970-01-01 2y ago

Do consider the value of the wood in relation to your cuts. A well-placed cut not only guarantees safety but will also take the maximum board feet from the tree.

dyauspitr 2y ago
Seems insignificant. What are you optimizing for- an extra foot or two?
- 1970-01-01 2y ago
  Yes, board feet is usually measured by the inch.
  - mon_ 2y ago
    Aren't longer boards worth more per boardfoot too?
    - trollbridge 2y ago
      Yes, but most trees are plenty tall enough.
    - jermaustin1 2y ago
      Yes, and the wider the more it costs per bf as well. I have a couple products I make that require 12" widths, which means I pay a whole lot more per bf than < 10" widths at my hardwood supplier.
  - dyauspitr 2y ago
    Then just make the cut as low to the ground as possible. You don’t need a lot of complex math for that.
    - oslem 2y ago
      No offense, but this comment is very reductionist. The problem isn’t nearly as simple as you’re making it out to be.
    - boogieknite 2y ago
      the right cuts at the right heights while working down the tree from a specific max height of the tree to still produce viable board feet while maximizing boards per cut. in most places, unless youre pulping the entire tree, its quite a bit more complicated than cut as low as possible. its surprising to me how little work is done to make the tools which do this accessible considering how much money and open data there is. it gets less open and more complicated is when you consider certain mills only can make certain cuts, produce certain products, and accept certain logs. then factor in distance between mills and the products they can make, and also log lengths accepted by the trucks which can travel those routes. its all solvable and should be, but its so niche and that i still think there isnt an accessible solution
  - skeeter2020 2y ago
    with dimension lumber it's way more about the width you can cut than length; sometimes shorter is more valuable depending on supply & demand (and transport). Accounting for the fact that trees are not perfect cylinders (or cones, really) is where all the fun optimization comes from anyways.
    - boogieknite 2y ago
      good ol conical frustum
boogieknite 2y ago
i work a lot with NVEL for this. one time even tried porting nvel to wasm for fun and client accessibility. we "virtually buck" trees which seems like could be applied to your proposed use case. if op wants to go down this path: https://github.com/FMSC-Measurements/VolumeLibrary/tree/77d402d539375758f8a4cba5402f7ddebeddf1ff https://github.com/FMSC-Measurements/VolumeLibrary/tree/77d4...

Do consider the value of the wood in relation to your cuts. A well-placed cut not only guarantees safety but will also take the maximum board feet from the tree.

dyauspitr 2y ago

Seems insignificant. What are you optimizing for- an extra foot or two?

1970-01-01 2y ago
Yes, board feet is usually measured by the inch.
- mon_ 2y ago
  Aren't longer boards worth more per boardfoot too?
  - trollbridge 2y ago
    Yes, but most trees are plenty tall enough.
  - jermaustin1 2y ago
    Yes, and the wider the more it costs per bf as well. I have a couple products I make that require 12" widths, which means I pay a whole lot more per bf than < 10" widths at my hardwood supplier.
- dyauspitr 2y ago
  Then just make the cut as low to the ground as possible. You don’t need a lot of complex math for that.
  - oslem 2y ago
    No offense, but this comment is very reductionist. The problem isn’t nearly as simple as you’re making it out to be.
  - boogieknite 2y ago
    the right cuts at the right heights while working down the tree from a specific max height of the tree to still produce viable board feet while maximizing boards per cut. in most places, unless youre pulping the entire tree, its quite a bit more complicated than cut as low as possible. its surprising to me how little work is done to make the tools which do this accessible considering how much money and open data there is. it gets less open and more complicated is when you consider certain mills only can make certain cuts, produce certain products, and accept certain logs. then factor in distance between mills and the products they can make, and also log lengths accepted by the trucks which can travel those routes. its all solvable and should be, but its so niche and that i still think there isnt an accessible solution
- skeeter2020 2y ago
  with dimension lumber it's way more about the width you can cut than length; sometimes shorter is more valuable depending on supply & demand (and transport). Accounting for the fact that trees are not perfect cylinders (or cones, really) is where all the fun optimization comes from anyways.
  - boogieknite 2y ago
    good ol conical frustum

boogieknite 2y ago

i work a lot with NVEL for this. one time even tried porting nvel to wasm for fun and client accessibility. we "virtually buck" trees which seems like could be applied to your proposed use case. if op wants to go down this path: https://github.com/FMSC-Measurements/VolumeLibrary/tree/77d402d539375758f8a4cba5402f7ddebeddf1ff https://github.com/FMSC-Measurements/VolumeLibrary/tree/77d4...