top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 136 points 5 months ago (17 children)

Method A on account that that would be the maximum usable length

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    As a skilled carpenter who's used to measuring wood, this is the only answer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 7 points 5 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 49 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Half as much as they have measured, is my guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 5 points 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Nobody cares how long the limp branches are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 76 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Branches and other small cylinders can be sized using M&M tubes

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 54 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 183 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    The only way to get an accurate measurement is to cut the branch off first.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Method C. Sounding rod depth required to hit the prostate.

    I know it sounds odd to do this on a tree, but trust me, it works.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Tear off the branch and measure the total length.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 62 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    It is imperative that the branch not be damaged

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Ok chop down the tree and cut a line perpindicular to the bottom of the branch into the tree. Then measure the branch with watever remains of the tree attached.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 5 months ago

    If you trim the bushes the branch looks bigger. Pro tip.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    THE CYLINDER MUST NOT BE HARMED!!!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Half the length plus seven

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago*

    I would use 0,5x(A+B) because chicks dig a big branch.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago

    I'll ask the branch manager.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 5 months ago

    I can't use method B, the tree fruit are in the way.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago

    You have to push the branch down with one hand, such that it is perpendicular to the trunk. With the other hand place a ruler to measure trunk to tip via method A. This gives the honest expectation of ''usable" length.

  • source
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

    The correct answer is "between 114 and 152 millimeters" because both measures are relevant and necessary from an engineering standpoint: For the purposes of sizing something such that it can utilize the branch for support, it must be made clear that the branch is solid and whole up to 114 millimeters from the trunk. For the purpose of accidental collision clearance, it is necessary to know the furthest extent of the branch's reach no matter how damaged or disrupted it is. Furthermore if the branch may break and fall off, giving it at least 152mm of clearance means that it is unlikely to accidentally catch upon something in its descent even if it "hinges" away from the trunk at the base.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    But then you'd need to know the angle, too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The larger length, even if it's at a near vertical acute angle, is likely to tumble if it breaks--which means the whole reason we're interested in its measurement is a situation where the angle is no longer fixed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    Then you'd still be interested in the length at 45 degrees, the farthest possible distance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The radius of a circle is a fixed distance from its origin at every angle.It's still the same number of milimeters distal of the trunk from the pivot point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    The concern regarding clearance would be horizontal, parallel to the surface of the Earth, roughly perpendicular to the trunk, so perpendicular distance from the trunk would be what matters. If the branch were fifty miles long but only went straight up, there would be zero horizontal clearance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    What if there is a knot at the base of the branch?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 25 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    it took me way to long to realize y'all talking about penises ...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    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?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    Measure from the roots

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

    The correct way is to see how deep into a Pringle can it can go. For an accurate measure, you'll need to prevent angled entry. You can help it slide in straight by using a couple guiding sponges on either side of a latex glove attached to the rim pushed up inside it. Put a bit of Vaseline in the glove to prevent tearing the glove with the rough bark. For maximum safety, put the jar of Vaseline in a warm water bath for a few minutes beforehand to make the viscosity better for smooth entry and exit.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago*

    This changes everything

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    I just ask OP's mom.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    I measured like this when my first girlfriend asked what my size was. I told her it was 10". Suffice to say, she was definitely not impressed when the pants came off for the first time. 😅

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    Shine a light directly down on it from above. Measure the shadow

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago*
    [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    Wrap the measuring tape until the entire branch is wrapped. For more accurate measurements, use thinner tape.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    Loggers should be called arbortionists.

  • source
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Personally I start measuring from the middle of my taint 😌

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    This can be easily calculated by the formula [(length x diameter) + (Weight / Girth)] / Angle of Tip^2

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (1 child)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›