Talk:Feller buncher
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Untitled
editI think someone got this one wrong: "Additional features include a type of holder that strips branches off the tree and measures trees for specific lengths, cutting the tree at the specific point." Methinks this is no "additoinal features" but instead an example of a feller-buncher (or tracked excavator) which has been equipped with a full blown harvestor-head. But I'm no expert in full-tree logging. Maybe the are feller-buncher head with this kind of features but that would appear to be rather self-defeating.. Narym 00:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Images
editThere are two images available for this page, the one I started with that I created:
and the one that was put in by another user, this one:
The other guy complains the image is "cartoon like." I disagree. I made the image from cutting and pasting different pictures so as to get a better view of the grabber arm, and changed the background to make it less busy and make the fellerbuncher stand out more. Now, perhaps if I had better tools to edit the picture or had taken more time it would look perhaps less "choppy" than it does, at least you can see the machine.
The problem I have with the second image is that you can't see the machine! The contrast between the machine and the trees is almost nil. If someone has a better picture that one can see the subject of the picture, that's fine. But showing a picture of an object that is virtually invisible is silly.
Image quality is shamefully poor
editThe quality of this composite image is well below Wikipedia's standards, and the file must be replaced immediatly. Rfc1394, do not dispair. Everyone was a beginner once. Here are some pointers:
- Match the scale of the images you are combining. The tool is of a much larger scale than the tractor.
- Find high-res source images. This will save you loads of trouble.
- Find source images with the same lighting pattern, and be careful of shadows or the lack thereof.
- Mind the angles of the two pieces.
Using a composite image in such a situation is possibly dubious. Ideally, someone should find and photograph such a machine. If time permits, I might get around to creating a rendered diagram of a Feller Buncher, which would be another solution. --Casito 21:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed a link hidden in comments to this image. I also uploaded and linked a new image from a US military site. kmccoy (talk) 02:31, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Feller vs. Feller Buncher
editSomeone familiar with the machine I just added pictures of called it a "feller" rather than a "feller buncher" since it can only fell trees, not do anything else with them. Is that a real distinction? —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Uses other than pulpwood harvesting?
editThe article Harvester (forestry) makes a distinction between cut-to-length and full-tree logging. I'm familiar with the feller-buncher as being common in pulpwood harvesting (for paper mills etc.), which is full-tree. Anyone know of other uses? I think this ought to be in the article. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
History
editI plan to talk about the history of the feller buncher, including the first patent. Tcblank1 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Felling heads
editMost of the articles I read saying that disc saw head is widely used as it can provide high productivity compared to other two felling heads. Just wondering what factors would determine the use of shear blade head and the chain saw head in the industry? Siupunpun1234 (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Former Productivity Section
editHere's the original content of the Productivity section on the Feller Buncher page. I'm removing it from the page and storing it here in the Talk page because while I do think it cites a good number of relevant and interesting sources related to the productivity of feller bunchers, (1) the section misrepresents the content of the studies and (2) doesn't read super well and could use more general copy editing. e.g. in point 1: the citation attributed to the first sentence does not compare feller bunchers to other harvesting methods at all, it merely evaluates the performance of feller bunchers based on different site factors. Later the section also claims "The weekly production of the feller buncher was 627 cubic meters" however in the study the feller buncher is only one part of a feller buncher/grapple skidder system (and thus the comparison for productivity purposes is weakened).
Productivity
editComparing other harvesting systems such as chainsaw and harvester, feller buncher has the relatively high productivity among them.[1] The weekly production of the feller buncher was 627 cubic meters of usable logs, while the chainsaw system and harvester system could produce 163 cubic meters and 239 cubic meters respectively.[2] There are several factors affecting the level of productivity of the feller buncher. They include characteristics of stand, terrain conditions, operation location, and the performance of the operator.[3] Many studies indicated that the trees size and the gradient of the slope are the major factors impacting the overall productivity.[4][2] There was a research suggested that productivity has a significant positive relationship with the tree size which means the larger stem size, larger tree height or larger diameter at breast height (DBH) results in a high productivity of the feller buncher.[5] Terrain conditions such as ground slope and terrain roughness have a significant negative relationship to the productivity of feller buncher which means the steeper of the land or rough terrain condition can bring negative effect to the productivity.[5][1][4] One of the studies had found that feller buncher might reduce its productivity when performing operation on a very uneven surface with slopes of more than 20%.[1] However, larger tree size does not necessarily lead to high productivity. The same study compared the operation time when performing clear-cut of the stands with two different average DBH, 24.6 cm and 34.3 cm respectively.[2] Result showed that the productivity when operating the second stand decreased by 32.3% because the time consumption was doubled when larger stands required two-stage of cutting operation.
- ^ a b c Bilici, Ebru; Akay, Abdullah E.; Abbas, Dalia (August 2019). "Assessing the effects of site factors on the productivity of a feller buncher: a time and motion analysis". Journal of Forestry Research. 30 (4): 1471–1478. doi:10.1007/s11676-018-0696-4. S2CID 90298768.
- ^ a b c Li, Yaoxiang; Wang, Jingxin; Miller, Gary; McNeel, Joe (March 2006). "Production economics of harvesting small-diameter hardwood stands in central Appalachia". Forest Products Journal. 56 (3): 81–87. Gale A144298809 ProQuest 214625700.
- ^ Ovaskainen, Heikki; Uusitalo, Jori; Väätäinen, Kari (June 2004). "Characteristics and Significance of a Harvester Operators' Working Technique in Thinnings". International Journal of Forest Engineering. 15 (2): 67–77. doi:10.1080/14942119.2004.10702498. S2CID 62898965.
- ^ a b Visser, Rien; Spinelli, Raffaele (October 2012). "Determining the shape of the productivity function for mechanized felling and felling-processing". Journal of Forest Research. 17 (5): 397–402. doi:10.1007/s10310-011-0313-2. S2CID 17735642.
- ^ a b Hiesl, Patrick (2013). Productivity Standards for Whole-Tree and Cut-To-Length Harvesting Systems in Maine (Thesis).