How many Taylors from a single Acacia

[Von Beerhofen]

or trying to measure the tree's circumference from the guitar's grain pattern. I think this must be reasonably close but it'll probably open a can of worms, which is exactly why I posted it,
Now you can walk by a tree and roughly calculate how many Taylors are in it.



Ludwig

[Gutch]

Here's an interesting video that discusses how they saw a spruce log...

Part 1:  http://youtu.be/5EpVIEyYiSs


Part 2:  http://youtu.be/1DTY2bUoxwo

Granted, this is spruce, but it can give you an idea of how much/little of a tree it actually takes to make a guitar...

[Von Beerhofen]

OK, we'll have to deduct that from when I'll try to determine how high the tree was by stacking the pictures on top of each other in 3D.
Nice videos, not much left for a Taylor is there? I guess the rest of it goes to Martin! Just joking,
Ofcourse a lot of investigating went into the research of Koa and how it's grown/harvested (if that's the right word) and which pieces are the most valuable. Took me to many luthier websites which was very interesting too, to say the least.
Dang I just see that I made a mistake in the layout of the body positions, they should be upright instead of lying down.
Back to the drawing board. Can't say I'm an expert now but it's a start.

Ludwig

[michaelw]

the links Gutch mentioned are for the tops & bracing, but he brings up a very good point (what's usable) -
if i recall correctly, a good bit of the koa that's deemed instrument grade grows on the big
island above 5000 ft (6500?), with volcanic ash being conducive to help support a rapid growth rate

Bob Taylor about koa

until the tree is felled & the logs are split, there isn't any way to know
with any certainty how much wood is usable & how figured or plain it is -
the SB, T5/T3 & LTD koa models help utilize the yield from a koa log
as much as possible, for both tops only & the less figured sets

in order to determine possible yield, one would need to know the diameter & height (length)
of the log & the process/cuts made for both tops (backs would be similar i imagine) & sides -
it also depends on the size of the top & back (JM, GS, DN, GA, GC) & width (depth) of the sides

i'll let someone else do the math

[Von Beerhofen]

No worries, I'm on it. Just designing a new mathematical model to proceed with, taking into account the latest acquired knowledge and introducing some fixed values to compensate for different shapes of trees,

Ludwig

[Cindy]

or trying to measure the tree's circumference from the guitar's grain pattern. Now you can walk by a tree and roughly calculate how many Taylors are in it.

Ludwig

I dunno, Ludwig. Some of your guitar overlays are crooked to the grain pattern. You need to take that into consideration when counting the total number.

I think this must be reasonably close but it'll probably open a can of worms, which is exactly why I posted it.

Ludwig

Hee-hee! You little trouble-maker!

[Von Beerhofen]

Crooked? You sure? Must be a flaw in Photoshop then. Took me more then 2 hours to line em up as precise as possible, then I found out they should stand upright and now they're crooked too?
Maybe I can bypass those errors in my 3D program, but I won't promise anything.
Work and more work, it's not easy to satisfy the world.

Ludwig

[Cindy]

Crooked? You sure? Must be a flaw in Photoshop then. Took me more then 2 hours to line em up as precise as possible, then I found out they should stand upright and now they're crooked too?
Maybe I can bypass those errors in my 3D program, but I won't promise anything.
Work and more work, it's not easy to satisfy the world.

Ludwig

The way some of them are laid out, it appears the grain would run diagonally across the tops. I'm not a guitar builder so I don't know if that is a factor...

[Von Beerhofen]

Naaaaah, that's only because the grain just looks like an X pattern because of the mirrored halves.
It forms the shape of a butterfly but on each 1/2 the main dark line is more or less bending outward at the top. Down at the bottom the line is more straight, so initially I mirrored two pictures and joined those at the bottom because the line is straight. At the neck the more angled line was matched with yet another mirrored picture so two neck joints meet in the centre.
I reasoned that the more angled line may not truely follow the tree's circumference, whereas the other one was probably a little too straight. This was compensated for by a little more rotation on the curved side of the grain.
However as Gutch noticed, I forgot about the quarter sawing. The more white sapwood is on the outside of the tree but it's not running from left to right as in my picture. Quartersawn means it runs from lower down the tree to higher up on the outside of the tree and then to the centre, the tops should be sitting upright in a starshaped pattern.
I should've known that but wasn't thinking properly at the moment I had to idea to calculate the tree's circumference.
If I had been aware of it I probably wouldn't even have started this can of worms, because it's nearly impossible to set the pictures on their sides and get an idea about the tree's circumference. That's because the grain runs to the centre of the tree and all you can say is that the top is just a thickness taken out of a circumference which can be any size and this thickness is only about 0.25 of an inch of the entire circumference.
Perhaps it's easier with Mahogany, it sure doesn't work for Koa.
Case closed.
Don't worry about not being a luthier Cindy, neither am I,

BTW the flames darker and brighter parts are perpendicular to the grain, it's the dark band and the white sapwood's direction which mark the running of the grain, those are in line with the yearrings, I think?

Ludwig

[cigarfan]

It forms the shape of a butterfly ...

But I don't see in the formula how you subtract the ones that fly away. Certainly you don't count those. 

[Von Beerhofen]

Right, even more problems now. Thx a lot!
Obviously those which flew away never made it to Bob Taylor and therefore can not be taken into the equasion. Surely they'd been part of the total circumference before they flew the coup and all I can think of is to add a reasonable estimation of them.
I'd say about 100% of butterflies fly away at some time or other, unless it's dead, which leaves me with a blank sheet, which was exactly what I started with in the first place. This means I can start all over again with a completely fresh aproach, which is what I was about to do in the first place. This time taking into account all aforementioned **** ups and I've just finnished this new aproach and guess what!
This time the outcome shows that the tree has a circumference of zero and that can't be right can it? So it must lie somewhere in between this and the previous outcome. That can only mean that the true circumference is aproximately!
I think there's a scientific sign for this, was it ~ ? Also known as more or less, or around, not quite, I'm not sure about it.

Ludwig

[cigarfan]

Sounds like it's time to go play that Koa LTD some more.   

[Von Beerhofen]

sorry, double post

[Von Beerhofen]

I'm allready on it and started with my 2nd composition for this guitar. It's called Butterfly, a very lifely piece, seems an apropiate name for it,
Hope my fingers come back to life to make it work.

Ludwig

[mcookoc]

ask bob. i bet he can tell just by looking at a tree, at least a good estimate.

this might be a good topic for the wood and ( steel ask bob) section.