Measure from the taint and add an extra inch to the measurement for standard wood shrinkage.
What if there’s a … um … protuberance on the bottom where the branch meets the trunk? What’s the correct measuring procedure in that case?
Wrap all the way around that and down to the tree roots and back around and up to the top branches. To be sure.
I would use 0,5x(A+B) because chicks dig a big branch.
I just ask OP’s mom.
The only way to get an accurate measurement is to cut the branch off first.
It is imperative that the cylinder and the larger object remain unharmed.
The cylindet MUST stay intact!
But you’re supposed to measure it twice before that!
I just had some serious flashbacks to all the fucking Handy Manny I’ve watched. Thanks for that. 👍🏻
One each side I guess?
The branch cannot be cut.
The branch is ~4.5" in girth and attempting to cut it off could cause discomfort
🎵Detachable tree branch🎵
4.1 inches is 10.4cm
5.1 inches is 13cm
7 inches is 17.8cm
Method A on account that that would be the maximum usable length
As a skilled carpenter who’s used to measuring wood, this is the only answer.
Well… It kinda depends. If I were to be ordering stock to recreate the branch or even if I were making a covering for the branch. I’d have to order at least 6 inches of material to cut down.
So I think it matters most how you are intending to use it.
Oh you’re a skilled carpenter? How much wood have you cut in your time
Half as much as they have measured, is my guess.
THIS ia getting philosophical… i mean, first of all, things don’t need to be cut perfectly in half every time they’re cut.
But then your answer is probably an estimate/approximation.
HOWEVER… when you cut one piece of wood into two, is not 100% of the wood cut into?
So either this carpenter measures 50% of his wood aimlessly, or you, sir, are a LIAR
I believe they were alluding to “measure twice, cut once”
🫠 I concede
Measure twice, cut once
That’s not how it works with soft bodies though, method B represents potential useable length when pointing down. It’s only distorted because it’s pointing up. For rigid bodies, I’d agree.
So… Non rigid?
Personally I start measuring from the middle of my taint 😌
Since the internet began it’s been known that you always measure asshole to tip.
Literally how every guy on Grindr measures…
That’s a shoddy way of doing it. There are measurement standards.
Branches and other small cylinders can be sized using M&M tubes
Banana for scale
The generally accepted method used by scientists is to firmly push your ruler against the base of tree at the top of the branch. This is called BPEL, or bark-pressed erect length.
Hehe hehe erect
If you trim the bushes the branch looks bigger. Pro tip.
I can’t use method B, the tree fruit are in the way.
This can be easily calculated by the formula [(length x diameter) + (Weight / Girth)] / Angle of Tip^2
This is the way. You have to account for the yaw of the shaft
What if there is a knot at the base of the branch?
Burl wood can be quite valuable so you should try to keep that part in one piece
Then you might be measuring a werewolf. Seek professional help.
(I am a professional and can help you measure the knot.)
;)
They are using the wrong measuring unit, instead they should measure the force needed to pull it level.
You’re saying rigidity/turgidity trump sheer length and girth?
Most arborists prefer branches that can handle the load, and avoid sagging branches or ones that snap off.
