New Tree - Printable Version

New Tree - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: New Tree (/thread-9970.html)

Pages: 1 2 3

Re: New Tree - Rally - 09-24-2015

(09-24-2015, 09:08 PM)81alum link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12914.msg130412#msg130412 date=1443151856]
[quote author=CowboyIndian link=topic=12914.msg130403#msg130403 date=1443139090]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12914.msg130391#msg130391 date=1443135066]
Is (was?) the real Palo Alto a sequoia?Â If so then fine.

c

Are you sure you spent 4 years at Stanford?
[/quote]

I can't remember.
[/quote]
El Palo Alto is a coastal redwood, whose scientific name is Sequoia sempervirens .Â So it is not what people normally call Sequoia.Â The Sequoia tree is Sequoiadendron giganteum.Â But both the redwood and the sequoia have the word "sequoia" in their scientific names, so you are not far off.
[/quote]

I like it.Â Everyone is a winner and get a Kewpie Doll!Â (No more goldfish.Â Politically incorrect.)

Re: New Tree - yvonne - 09-24-2015

Redwood National Park: http://www.nps.gov/redw/index.htm (the tallest living things)

Sequoia & King's Canyon: http://www.nps.gov/seki/index.htm (really, really fat)

Re: New Tree - dabigv13 - 09-24-2015

I really liked the video, interesting to see the work that goes into it. The concept I think is ok actually, and I think with the appropriate dancing style the long willow ....fronds (?) .... could have a good visual impact.

Two issues though- It need to have a longer trunk. Or at least don't wear pink pants. The transition just looks stupid.

Secondly, the dancing is not Tree enough. Too mild. Hopefully she grows into the role.

Re: New Tree - GoodGrief - 09-24-2015

(09-24-2015, 05:14 PM)Yvonne link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12914.msg130380#msg130380 date=1443133568]

I don't want to see it live.Â I did see it briefly on TV and frankly assumed it was some student messing around not the "real" tree.Â Is Good Grief the person I see more and more on the Chik- commercials?Â If so, can we have a professional Tree?Â No way.

We were in a hotel room in Colorado and I saw the commercial "for real." I started yelling, "Hey, I know that guy!" I think the boyfriend thought I was nuts.
[/quote]

Ha, thanks folks. Yes Ferrari, that is me, and thanks Yvonne for getting excited to see me. It's funny because I've been blessed to be on a fair number of commercials, but I have to say that I get more excited for that commercial than any other one that I've done.

I've never had too much interest in actually being Tree (although I was quite fond of the version that was a classic Redwood with boxing gloves). The trees have always been pretty limited in what they could do physically, so being Tree had less appeal to me than cheerleading which is what I did at Stanford. Of course, now that I'm older and am losing a little bit of that athleticism, less mobile mascots are looking a little more appealing...

Re: New Tree - CompSci87 - 09-24-2015

(09-24-2015, 03:26 PM)ferrari link Wrote:[quote author=needle link=topic=12914.msg130378#msg130378 date=1443133144]
I don't hate it, but I haven't seen it live.

I don't want to see it live.Â I did see it briefly on TV and frankly assumed it was some student messing around not the "real" tree.Â Is Good Grief the person I see more and more on the Chik- commercials?Â If so, can we have a professional Tree?Â No way.
[/quote]

I saw the new tree live and my reaction was "What a weird looking Tree!" I can put up with it for a year.

Re: New Tree - JJJ - 09-25-2015

(09-24-2015, 04:03 PM)TreesAndBirds link Wrote:The weeping willow is a symbol of mourning etc in many cultures. I think El Palo Alto redwood is the way to go, although I think a palm tree works well also.

That said, lets the kids do their thing. There is a Willow exit off 101 so I guess there is some connection. I appreciate the spirit and effort.

I have to agree with this sentiment. Let the kids do their thing. It's not only *our* school--it is theirs as well.Â And we're probably out of touch, whether we own up to it or not.Â 8)

Re: New Tree - stupac2 - 09-25-2015

Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two brobdingnagian redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Re: New Tree - rudruff - 09-25-2015

We have redwoods (as well as oaks and walnut) in our neighborhood. The redwoods are nice unless they are in your neighbors yard and the roots destroy your driveway.

Re: New Tree - PrinceLightfoot - 09-25-2015

Any tree is an improvement over bicycle shorts tree from last year.

Re: New Tree - teejers1 - 09-25-2015

I'm an LSJUMB and Tree supporter - and in favor of letting kids be kids (to a certain extent, anyway).

And this Tree is fine by me (though agree with longer trunk).

There was one version of the Tree that was not, however.Â About 15 years ago there was a tree that looked like one of those froofy shower sponges that I've seen before (but had no use for).Â Now THAT thing was heee-inus.Â Anything is an upgrade from that one (and apologies if I've offended the designer of that particular Tree).

Re: New Tree - BostonCard - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 08:41 AM)stupac2 link Wrote:Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two of exceedingly large proportions redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Re: New Tree - Rally - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 11:22 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12914.msg130468#msg130468 date=1443195665]
Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two of exceedingly large proportions redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Measure your trees' shadows while measuring the shadow of an object of known height.Â The shadows are proportionate to their height, so your trees' height = trees shadow length * object height / object shadow length.

BC
[/quote]

Whatever you do don't cut them down.Â Our daughter's home in Pacifica has a redwood that a previous owner had cut down.Â They have a rapidly spreading redwood forest trying it's best to take over the back yard.

Re: New Tree - Roberton3 - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 11:22 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12914.msg130468#msg130468 date=1443195665]
Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two of exceedingly large proportions redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Measure your trees' shadows while measuring the shadow of an object of known height.Â The shadows are proportionate to their height, so your trees' height = trees shadow length * object height / object shadow length.

BC
[/quote]

This method works great if one can measure a shadow cast by the top of a tree.Â But if there's nowhere that Stupac can stand where he can see the tops of the trees,Â that means there's also no place he can get to where he can measure the shadow cast by the tops of the trees.

Re: New Tree - Bruce Wang - 09-25-2015

I was hoping the kids would get inspired by Groot, who is much more imposing looking than this wussy willow thing,

Re: New Tree - 2 for 2028 - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 11:34 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12914.msg130502#msg130502 date=1443205373]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12914.msg130468#msg130468 date=1443195665]
Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two of exceedingly large proportions redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Â
Measure your trees' shadows while measuring the shadow of an object of known height.Â The shadows are proportionate to their height, so your trees' height = trees shadow length * object height / object shadow length.

BC
[/quote]

This method works great if one can measure a shadow cast by the top of a tree.Â But if there's nowhere that Stupac can stand where he can see the tops of the trees,Â that means there's also no place he can get to where he can measure the shadow cast by the tops of the trees.
[/quote]

You don't need a shadow.Â Lots of ways to do it if you can reasonably see top of the tree from the ground somewhere.Â I had to walk down the street to do it, but I was able to measure the height of a tree in my back yard before Sandy hit since I was worried that the tree could land on my daughter's room.

Re: New Tree - BostonCard - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 11:34 AM)Roberton3 link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12914.msg130502#msg130502 date=1443205373]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12914.msg130468#msg130468 date=1443195665]
Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two of exceedingly large proportions redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Measure your trees' shadows while measuring the shadow of an object of known height.Â The shadows are proportionate to their height, so your trees' height = trees shadow length * object height / object shadow length.

BC
[/quote]

This method works great if one can measure a shadow cast by the top of a tree.Â But if there's nowhere that Stupac can stand where he can see the tops of the trees,Â that means there's also no place he can get to where he can measure the shadow cast by the tops of the trees.
[/quote]

Good point.Â My next suggestion would be to get a drone with either a GPS or barometer and fly it to the top of the canopy and measure its altitude.

BC

Re: New Tree - Rally - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 11:42 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:[quote author=Roberton3 link=topic=12914.msg130504#msg130504 date=1443206065]
[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=12914.msg130502#msg130502 date=1443205373]
[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=12914.msg130468#msg130468 date=1443195665]
Sort of related, the house I bought this year has two of exceedingly large proportions redwoods in the back yard. There's nowhere that I can stand (including on my roof) where I can see their tops. I'd love to know how tall/old they are, but I'm not sure how to do that. I really like having them around (though it's too bad they're on the north line so they don't give a ton of shade), but holy crap do they drop a lot of cones/twigs/branches. It's like the pine trees I grew up with on the east coast, but times 20.

Simple, really.Â Climb to top training a rope or something.Â Have someone mark the bottom when you holler.Â Fall from tree.Â Now, string rope down middle of street for measurement.Â Final step, donate rope to some kids outdoor program, like Ft. Miley in San Francisco.Â Use tax deduction to pay hospital deductible.Â

Measure your trees' shadows while measuring the shadow of an object of known height.Â The shadows are proportionate to their height, so your trees' height = trees shadow length * object height / object shadow length.

BC
[/quote]

This method works great if one can measure a shadow cast by the top of a tree.Â But if there's nowhere that Stupac can stand where he can see the tops of the trees,Â that means there's also no place he can get to where he can measure the shadow cast by the tops of the trees.
[/quote]

Good point.Â My next suggestion would be to get a drone with either a GPS or barometer and fly it to the top of the canopy and measure its altitude.

BC
[/quote]

Re: New Tree - stupac2 - 09-25-2015

(09-25-2015, 11:42 AM)Boston Card link Wrote:Good point.Â My next suggestion would be to get a drone with either a GPS or barometer and fly it to the top of the canopy and measure its altitude.

Given the topography around my I think this is seriously my best option. Which I think says something. My neighborhood is hilly and, typical of Oakland, completely built out with homes.

If the lowest branches weren't 30 feet in the air I'd just climb it with a long piece of string, but I think getting to those lowest branches would be pretty dangerous.

Re: New Tree - Robbie - 09-25-2015

(09-24-2015, 04:58 PM)CowboyIndian link Wrote:[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12914.msg130391#msg130391 date=1443135066]
Is (was?) the real Palo Alto a sequoia?Â If so then fine.

Are you sure you spent 4 years at Stanford?
[/quote]

He did, but the Palo Alto was only a sapling back then, and nobody paid it any attention.

Re: New Tree - fullmetal - 09-25-2015

(09-24-2015, 11:21 PM)GoodGrief link Wrote:[quote author=Yvonne link=topic=12914.msg130404#msg130404 date=1443140064]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=12914.msg130380#msg130380 date=1443133568]

I don't want to see it live.Â I did see it briefly on TV and frankly assumed it was some student messing around not the "real" tree.Â Is Good Grief the person I see more and more on the Chik- commercials?Â If so, can we have a professional Tree?Â No way.