Why can't we have square trees?

wulkowicz

It would be smart if we could have square and rectangular trees. Grow them to the lunber size we needed; cut them off the length we wanted; debark them and send them to the lumber yards...

Maybe we could get a patent?


Bob Wulkowicz

treevet

Send the sapling up thru a metal 2x4x8 foot casing, then when the growth years fill up the casing cut it off on either side and start building your house, skyscraper, etc., or whatever. Kind of like a wood sausage . There you go Bob, go get the patent.

TreeDimensional

OK, I think we finally found the guy that's trying to stick the round peg into the rectangular hole.

The only issue I see as being difficult to overcome is, how do we get the form off the trunk? I believe a torch might be counter-productive.

There have been lots of home owners and old school arborist that have used a tree as a cement form, that didn't work to well either.

Good luck with your experiment wulkowicz, sounds like treevet might like to assist you, I'm sittin' this on out.

Pigdog

The government probably wouldn't allow using square trees to build with. Where's the grade stamp?

TreeDimensional

They would be easy to quarter saw, without a bunch of waste. LOL

newguy18

hmmm intrsting but i'm also sitting out on this one.

__________________
Have your say join us today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzfzb...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OqK...eature=related

bigshea13

either that or we could just go back to the old fashioned log cabins. cabin skyscrapers. thatd be interesting. giant linkin logs...man they were fun. kept my feeble mind occupied for a long time

bigshea13

funny that they never tried using a cellulose based paste cast...like bricks. put the entire tree in a huge grinder and add something sticky that hardens

TreeDimensional

After chatting with Bob last week, I think he might have something else in mind. The principle of a round structure (like a tree or cylinder) being more suited to withstanding multiple external forces, compaired to the one or two dimensional forces that a two planed structure ( ie 2X4).

I just can't figure out where he is going with this, but I'm going to guess that it has something to do with the existance of object in a three dimensional world.

Or maybe I should just shut up!

wulkowicz

The whole purpose of this thread is to open up.

Why didn't nature create a different structural shape for trees? Two hundred million years is a reasonable proof, even for Ekka, of successful design evolution.

And actually, your first thought is an excellent one; circles (cylinders) are very resistant to external forces that can't be predicted. Wind blowing on a flat surface has more to push against than the flow-around quality of a cylinder (circle). So, the "unsquare" tree has an advantage.

But advantages aren't purposes. They can be significant in their additional numbers, but the tree didn't likely put together the vascular cambium design because wind was a worry.

If external forces (wind, perhaps), need to have less effect, why aren't trees triangles?



Bob Wulkowicz


PS: Those of you sitting it out; try to get a little agitated. Thinking isn't all it's made out to be, but having your own personal epiphanies can be a memorable joy.

TreeDimensional

Oh! Like the circle of life thing. The rings of a tree are like the circle of life, not unlike the minister performing a marriage ceremony. The preacher gets to the part about the symbolism of the ring....... never mind, that doesn't seem to work for nearly 50% of North Americans.

If you think about it, the significance of a circle is the ease in which materials can transfer around the circumference. Compared to the restrictions at the square corners of a square or rectangle. Now a parallelogram or a triangle would be most difficult to maneuver.

I must be the type of person to be living in a circle. I spin my wheels (circle) and never seem to get anything finished. (continuity of perpetual work). But hopefully I am on a spiral up to my ultimate career path.

Ekka

What time period is considered reasonable for trees to make evolutionary changes?

Well, lets look at Australia, we have those fire hardy eucs and trees with proteoid root systems so they cope with the poor soils.

But they were the last to appear, out of nowhere as the climate changed to arid and the fires swept the land.

This site is fantastic.

Australian rainforests - Botanic Gardens Trust - Sydney, Australia

__________________

Free Tree and Green Industry Link Directory

Qualified Brisbane Tree Lopping | Stump Grinding and Stump Removal Brisbane

Brisbane Tree Care, Consultations, Developer, Tree and Arborist Reports

Forum Sponsors

Treelore

Evolution adapts for not always the right reasons, only influnces and instinct. Many reasons for evolution are counterintuitive to survival for the species. Peacocks are a classic example of this. Trees are not neccesarily immune to this form of inverse evolution. Just because trees are the way they are does not necessarily make them right nor fully evolved.

treevet

If we re going to get serious on such a silly topic as this premise, then how about reaction wood being just a fairly adequate evolutionary reaction?

Treelore

what would you consider to be a better response should you be in control treevet?

treevet

I was just being sarcastic, Treelore. This is a way better response than square or triangular stems, or anything else I can think of. Trees, having evolved from living in water would have none of these stresses/forces in there.

newguy18

Yep i'm staying out of this one as i don't believe in evolution.

__________________
Have your say join us today.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzkd_m4ivmc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzfzb...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-OqK...eature=related