Yep.....but I would change the planting angle so that the trunk comes out of the soil at about a 45degree angle to the right the the apex of the tree goes left but not as far as it does now.
Japanes maple opinions sought
- Thread starter davetree
- Start date
Yep.....but I would change the planting angle so that the trunk comes out of the soil at about a 45degree angle to the right the the apex of the tree goes left but not as far as it does now.
Yamadori
Shohin
Al said, "Three inches in circumference would be about 7/8 inch across". That is wrong. He had it in reverse. If it is three inches across(diameter) it would would be about 7/8 inches circumference. Now if it is three inches circumference then it would be only one inch diameter. The formula for circumference is C=pi x d therefore, if d=3 then C=3.14 x 3 and that means C=9.42 or 9".
Al simply had the numbers reversed and I was playfully correcting him. I am correct.
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
Al said, "Three inches in circumference would be about 7/8 inch across". That is wrong. He had it in reverse. If it is three inches across(diameter) it would would be about 7/8 inches circumference. Now if it is three inches circumference then it would be only one inch diameter. The formula for circumference is C=pi x d therefore, if d=3 then C=3.14 x 3 and that means C=9.42 or 9".
Al simply had the numbers reversed and I was playfully correcting him. I am correct.
uhhh....no your not.
The circumference of the earth in miles is 24,859.82
The diameter of the earth at the equater is 7926.28.
Circumference is around the object...while diameter is across the object.
so..... I am correct
BTW, you are correct I must deal with diameter and circumference on a daily basis...I have to be correct...my job depends on it.I do stand corrected about the tree though. Since now that the tree is up to 40 inches tall that 3inch diameter seems more plausible. I would think about reducing it by half though since it seems skinny and that is what seems unplausible. Of course skinny trunks with full crowns is what we find in nature, so this may be a "naturalistic tree"
Last edited:
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
Barbara, a better analogy would be when you buy pants.
When I buy a pair of 38 inch waist pants it is 38 inches around my waist, yet easily we can see that I am not 38 inches across........yet!
My diameter is only 16 inches. Of course if we make this a 360 degree view then my profile above the waist may be closer to 20 inches. You do the math! I just made myself sick.
When I buy a pair of 38 inch waist pants it is 38 inches around my waist, yet easily we can see that I am not 38 inches across........yet!
My diameter is only 16 inches. Of course if we make this a 360 degree view then my profile above the waist may be closer to 20 inches. You do the math! I just made myself sick.
Yamadori
Shohin
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
I didn't say it was 7-8" across I said it was a fraction, 7/8 inch across
Seven eighths of an inch. I did not use a hyphon, I used a slanty thingy.
Do you need my glasses?
Regardless, your formula is backwards. Circumference is always larger than diameter.
Smoke
Ignore-Amus
Ohhnh I got it now...your misunderstood me. See, thats what you get for trying to correct me.
Yamadori
Shohin
7/8" vs. 7"-8". Yes I read the "/" wrong. Duh. But if it was 7"-8", which I mistakenly thought, then I would have been right. Glasses you ask? Ya, I need them.
milehigh_7
Mister 500,000
tisk tisk tisk--I told you Al was always correct... That'll teach you.
Yamadori
Shohin
tisk tisk tisk--I told you Al was always correct... That'll teach you.
Al always correct... welllllll I don't know about that. Right this time, for sure.
