Tree Nazis

Don Ross · 14th December 2008, 06:37 PM

Hello Eric,

Three pictures that show some of the fundamental blunders that Professor Doctor Herr Claus Mattheck has made in Figure 77 and Figure 78 of his book “The Body Language of Trees” have been attached herewith.

I welcome any person from anywhere in the world to defend Dagmar Erb’s and Claus Mattheck’s elementary blunders in “The BLOT”.

Ciao Don Ross

Don Ross · 25th December 2008, 05:55 AM

Could you please consider the following quotation and the single attachment.

Quote:

Christmas Recognition of Cover-ups of Improper Arboricultural Practices.
In Queensland there have been many people acting unlawfully to ensure the following attachments remain a Smart Legal Ploy State secret.

In order that the public be informed about the TORRO wind scale shown in the quotation and the risk of trees overturning from wind canopy forces which ethical civil engineers, that is, not BCC engineers, do not discount, I should not need to take defamation action against a former employee of a former Premier of Queensland.

TORRO intensity Wind speeds Limits for VTA Proponent Arborist with Damage description

For T1 Intensity: USA limit for VTA proponent arborists is 70 mph Deckchairs, small plants, heavy litter becomes airborne; minor damage to sheds. More serious dislodging of tiles, slates, chimney pots. Wooden fences flattened. Slight damage to hedges and trees.

T1 25 - 32 m/s
87 - 115 km/h
55 - 72 mph

USA Limit is 1:8 based on Brisbane wind climate.

German limit for VTA proponent arborists is 34 metres/second.
(1:12 risk limit)

T2 Intensity: Heavy mobile homes displaced, light caravans blown over, garden sheds destroyed, garage roofs torn away, much damage to tiled roofs and chimney stacks. General damage to trees, some big branches twisted or snapped off, small trees uprooted.

T2 33 - 41 m/s
116 - 147 km/h
73 - 92 mph

T3 Intensity: Mobile homes overturned / badly damaged; light caravans destroyed; garages and weak outbuildings destroyed; house roof timbers considerably exposed. Some of the bigger trees snapped or uprooted.

Maximum Limit is 1:200. In Brisbane at 193 Birdwood Terrace design wind speed is 51.4 m/sec.

T3 42 - 51 m/s
148 - 184 km/h
93 - 114 mph

The above table (did not show as originally set-out) shows why the newspaper reporters, editors and the Lord Mayor, a civil engineer, wants to keep secret that the rule of law requires a 1:200 annual risk for Brisbane City Council protected trees whereas 1:12 is the best any VTA proponent arborist can achieve.

Please see the attachment.

No insurance company, arborist, BCC engineer, Queensland politician or any other cover-up merchant wants the hoi polloi to know about the TORRO table, the 45 degree rule and lateral load testing.

But the truth will always get out if people keep on pushing in the public interest.

Ciao Don Ross

Don Ross · 1st January 2009, 08:02 AM

Eric,

As you know from our private correspondence, some of which has been made public by me, Eric, I have had the experience of two VTA arborists and one ISAAC arborist from Melbourne playing dirty arboricultural tricks on me.

Firstly, I had a report from the ISAAC man dated 15/12/2004.

On 21/06/2006, the Melbourne-based ISAAC arborist claimed he was changing page numbers in the 15/12/2004 report.

However, what he did was to add the "gone missing" disclaimer stating the tallowwood tree could fail at any time but he had never seen the tree and the tree is a brown bloodwood tree as well.

Clearly, to balance this damning disclaimer being added to the report he added an extra sentence to his recommendations as follows:

"This tree has a SULE of 100+ years."

This sentence opens a can worms for 14 lawyers claiming this "arborist" did not falisfy a government certificate.

The attachment shows you when arborists, BCC engineers, lawyers (fourteen off), Premiers (two off) and journalists fail to comply with the rule of law, an engineer can take dishonest people to legal positions which become bizarrely absurd.

Eric, as you know, I have no objection if you delete this message because dozens of people teeter on the edge of public naming and shaming downfalls.

Though you might know that every assertion of mine has been tested by putting these assertions in the hands of many journalists, the ways of the law in Queensland leave much to be desired by honest people.

Ciao, Prosperous New Year, and Eric, let us hope politicians reform in 2009 and not become inmates,

Don Ross

Eric Frei · 1st January 2009, 08:33 AM

I dont know how anyone can give a SULE of 100 years, that's plain crazy.

Then you say also written is that the tree could fail at any given time but that is in the disclaimer.

That's exactly what we have been talking about, perfectly good trees failing anyway due to storms etc. So in the disclaimer many arborists write that. What we are looking for is predictability of failure.

Some trees are more likely to fail than others though, could be due to defects, species, location etc. Sometimes people ask if the failure is likely to be broken branches or uprooting? Pull tests wont determine branch failures, trunks snapped off, forked branches torn off ... these situations are a lot more common.

There's preventative measures that can be put in place to, pruning, fall arrest, cabling and bolting.

So what is the total of errors here.

1/ Incorrect Species
2/ Inappropriate SULE
3/ Incorrect target value assigned to house (I think, you'll have to expand on that).

Any others? Lets get them all down, the lot of them.

Don Ross · 5th January 2009, 08:08 AM

Hello Eric,

Force a Politician to act in the Public Tree Safety Interest.
Better still wait for Pigs to fly!

The way to change things according to Professor Doctor Herr Lothar Wessolly is sound logical reasoning.

In Germany, Professor Doctor Herr Lothar Wessolly has been trying to expose Professor Doctor Herr Claus Mattheck's false theories without luck since 1994.

I pointed out to Lothar Wessolly via email that I am forced only to deal with politicians, journalists, public servants, arborists and journalists and sound logical arguments are not their style.

Their style is falsehood followed by cover-up followed by falsehood followed by cover-up ad infinitum.

The two marked-up photographs attached show what it is like dealing with one Lord Mayor and one Premier trying to use sound logical arguments.

The outcome so far is nothing achieved.

Of course, under Queensland law with politicians' crimes covered-up by dishonest journalists, nothing can be achieved until I force them both, that is, the "engineering fellow" Lord Mayor and the Premier, Ms Anna Bligh, into a court of law.

Now this is a very slow (4.75 years so far) and unneccessarily destructive process.

It requires the destruction of many people's (normally honest) reputations but that is how fourteen lawyers can destroy good engineering and arboricultural practice reforms by delaying by all manner of supposedly smart legal ploys.

Ciao and have Good Luck in 2009,

Don Ross

Don Ross · 6th January 2009, 04:29 AM

From: Jaroslav Kolařík
Date: 05/19/06 03:16:16
To: don_ross@optusnet.com.au

Subject: RE: Hello Dr Ing Petr Horacek, Could you consider the claims made in this e-mail, see if you can understand the seriousness of the issues for engineers and arborists in Australia and suggest a way of resolving the legal issues can be sorted out ... Regards

Dear Mr. Ross,

I got your letter with description of your concerns about credibility of the VTA method in the Australia. I’ll just shortly tell you my general opinion.

If you need a more complex statement, don’t hesitate to contact me again.

The VTA method doesn’t take in account the variability of wind forces acting upon trees at all. It presumes that no changes in the crown shape and wind speed or direction occurred in a period of time, which doesn’t exceed the tree ability to react. Only in this way can be used the mentioned “Axiom of constant stress” as a basis for an expert decision.

- The basic VTA approach doesn’t take in account any differences in material properties of wood of the investigated tree species.

- This means in fact, that the real calculation based on VTA method can’t be used outside Central Europe, where the basic research (even if unpublished) was carried out by Mr. Mattheck. Due to strong variability of the wind loading in the real world we tend not to use the VTA approach for anything more complicated than the first opinion. For closer investigation we use more advanced approaches like SIA method, WindLoadAnalysis method (WindLoadAnalysis.com - en) or device supported tests (pulling test, Picus etc.)

I hope that this information is of any assistance to you.

Kind regards

Jaroslav Kolarik

treeseer · 6th January 2009, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Don Ross

... Due to strong variability of the wind loading in the real world we tend not to use the VTA approach for anything more complicated than the first opinion. For closer investigation we use more advanced approaches...

I think most arborists in the US would agree with this as well. VTA is great as far as it goes but it does not go very far. Hard to imagine how trees could be judged by that method alone, without trying to see more than exterior, unmoving characteristics.

btw, Jaroslav/Jarek is "Jack" in the attached. He inspired much of the story's arboricultural aspects; the music and the beer and the women got added later. I never did hear whether the Czech pruning standards really got changed...

Eric Frei · 17th March 2011, 09:53 AM

Quote:

"These tree people have got to be put on a leash because they can't go around willy nilly annoying good citizens"

LOL, the 3m tall rule, what a cracker that one is.

Now one of their own is under the investigation. He better hope the criteria fits one of those exemptions like this as I see a fence and a road ....

Quote:

Exemptions
III. Any tree or shrubs within six (6) metres of an external boundary fence or any trees or shrubs within three (3) metres of a permanent internal stock fence on lands zoned Rural 1 (a)

Probe over pruning Councillor under investigation - Local News - News - General - Port Stephens Examiner

Quote:

16 Mar, 2011
PORT Stephens councillor Ken Jordan is under investigation for a possible breach of the tree preservation order.

If found guilty he faces a fine or court action for pruning the row of bushes on his property.

According to Cr Jordan he received a 'knock on the door' last week from a council employee who claimed he had broken the law by pruning several bottlebrush bushes without council approval.

He said the council staffer claimed the plants were originally above the three metre height limit which requires approval for pruning or removal.

But Cr Jordan vehemently disagrees and said he will fight this claim to the end.

"I have been renovating my house and have photos that prove the trees were not above three metres in height," he said.

"Surely Port Stephens Council has more things to worry about than some pruned trees."

Cr Jordan is also angered because he spent time and money fertilising the bushes to ensure they regenerate.

Fellow councillor Bruce MacKenzie has spoken out about the threat of a fine.

"These tree people have got to be put on a leash because they can't go around willy nilly annoying good citizens," he said.

"He [Cr Jordan] has made these trees look 100 per cent better and I for one will not be putting up with it."

Cr Jordan is yet to receive a letter notifying him of the fine and possible court date.

1st January 2009, 08:33 AM	#34
Eric Frei Admin - Owner Palm & Tree Services in Brisbane Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Brisbane Posts: 12,996	Re: Tree Nazis I dont know how anyone can give a SULE of 100 years, that's plain crazy. Then you say also written is that the tree could fail at any given time but that is in the disclaimer. That's exactly what we have been talking about, perfectly good trees failing anyway due to storms etc. So in the disclaimer many arborists write that. What we are looking for is predictability of failure. Some trees are more likely to fail than others though, could be due to defects, species, location etc. Sometimes people ask if the failure is likely to be broken branches or uprooting? Pull tests wont determine branch failures, trunks snapped off, forked branches torn off ... these situations are a lot more common. There's preventative measures that can be put in place to, pruning, fall arrest, cabling and bolting. So what is the total of errors here. 1/ Incorrect Species 2/ Inappropriate SULE 3/ Incorrect target value assigned to house (I think, you'll have to expand on that). Any others? Lets get them all down, the lot of them. __________________ Protect your rights to work - Join Australian Tree Association My businesses:- Qualified Brisbane Palm and Tree Lopping \| Stump Grinding Brisbane \| Brisbane - Gold Coast Consulting Arborist

6th January 2009, 04:29 AM	#36
Don Ross Former Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toowong Posts: 27	World Expert gives his Opinion on VTA Theory. From: Jaroslav Kolařík Date: 05/19/06 03:16:16 To: don_ross@optusnet.com.au Subject: RE: Hello Dr Ing Petr Horacek, Could you consider the claims made in this e-mail, see if you can understand the seriousness of the issues for engineers and arborists in Australia and suggest a way of resolving the legal issues can be sorted out ... Regards Dear Mr. Ross, I got your letter with description of your concerns about credibility of the VTA method in the Australia. I’ll just shortly tell you my general opinion. If you need a more complex statement, don’t hesitate to contact me again. The VTA method doesn’t take in account the variability of wind forces acting upon trees at all. It presumes that no changes in the crown shape and wind speed or direction occurred in a period of time, which doesn’t exceed the tree ability to react. Only in this way can be used the mentioned “Axiom of constant stress” as a basis for an expert decision. - The basic VTA approach doesn’t take in account any differences in material properties of wood of the investigated tree species. - This means in fact, that the real calculation based on VTA method can’t be used outside Central Europe, where the basic research (even if unpublished) was carried out by Mr. Mattheck. Due to strong variability of the wind loading in the real world we tend not to use the VTA approach for anything more complicated than the first opinion. For closer investigation we use more advanced approaches like SIA method, WindLoadAnalysis method (WindLoadAnalysis.com - en) or device supported tests (pulling test, Picus etc.) I hope that this information is of any assistance to you. Kind regards Jaroslav Kolarik

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode