I have a small copse of very tall trees and right in the middle is a
dead one. Cutting it down in sections will be pretty hairy so what are
your thoughts on burning it down? I have read that it is possible to
burn an old stump by drilling holes and filling them with sodium
chlorate weed killer, leaving it for a few months and then lighting it.
If I drill holes high up and do the same thing, the fire should then
burn what is above it. At least that's my theory: what do you think?
Paul

peejos wrote:

I have a small copse of very tall trees and right in the middle is a
dead one. Cutting it down in sections will be pretty hairy so what are
your thoughts on burning it down? I have read that it is possible to
burn an old stump by drilling holes and filling them with sodium
chlorate weed killer, leaving it for a few months and then lighting it.
If I drill holes high up and do the same thing, the fire should then
burn what is above it. At least that's my theory: what do you think?

I think you are an idiot. Sodium chlorate is hydroscopic. The problem
is getting the tree down is it not? Call in an experienced tree
surgeon if you are afraid of causing damage or getting killed or
maimed.

Yes I know this is D-I-Y but the price of kitting up to do a safe job
is less than an expert's wages and the expert might have had a modicum
of training.

peejos wrote:
I have a small copse of very tall trees and right in the middle is a
dead one. Cutting it down in sections will be pretty hairy so what are
your thoughts on burning it down? I have read that it is possible to
burn an old stump by drilling holes and filling them with sodium
chlorate weed killer, leaving it for a few months and then lighting it.
If I drill holes high up and do the same thing, the fire should then
burn what is above it. At least that's my theory: what do you think?

I think you'll burn down the whole copse.

David

peejos wrote:

I have a small copse of very tall trees and right in the middle is a
dead one. Cutting it down in sections will be pretty hairy so what are
your thoughts on burning it down? I have read that it is possible to
burn an old stump by drilling holes and filling them with sodium
chlorate weed killer, leaving it for a few months and then lighting it.
If I drill holes high up and do the same thing, the fire should then
burn what is above it. At least that's my theory: what do you think?
Paul

What a daft idea. Theres nothing difficult about cutting down tall
trees, just cut them part way though then use a rope from ground level
to snap the top section off. Rinse & repeat. Cutting them into 8' plus
a bit sections is just right for saw into useful sizes.

But dont undertake tree felling unless you understand what youre doing,
they dont call the branches widow makers for nothing.


NT

On 21 Jan 2007 02:07:06 -0800, wrote:

Theres nothing difficult about cutting down tall
trees, just cut them part way though then use a rope from ground level
to snap the top section off.

Haynes
Reassembly is the reverse of dismantling...
/Haynes

--
Frank Erskine

wrote:

peejos wrote:

I have a small copse of very tall trees and right in the middle is a
dead one. Cutting it down in sections will be pretty hairy so what are
your thoughts on burning it down? I have read that it is possible to
burn an old stump by drilling holes and filling them with sodium
chlorate weed killer, leaving it for a few months and then lighting it.
If I drill holes high up and do the same thing, the fire should then
burn what is above it. At least that's my theory: what do you think?
Paul

What a daft idea. Theres nothing difficult about cutting down tall
trees, just cut them part way though then use a rope from ground level
to snap the top section off. Rinse & repeat. Cutting them into 8' plus
a bit sections is just right for saw into useful sizes.

But dont undertake tree felling unless you understand what youre doing,
they dont call the branches widow makers for nothing.


NT

How true, but apart from the difficulty in getting a straight pull
vertically and horizontally the 8 ft secions will wipe off a number of
branches from the surrounding trees, which I am trying to avoid. If it
was that easy I would n't have asked.

Accepting that the weed killer is hygroscopic, how does it work in
enabling stumps to be burnt out?

peejos wrote:
wrote:

peejos wrote:

I have a small copse of very tall trees and right in the middle is a
dead one. Cutting it down in sections will be pretty hairy so what are
your thoughts on burning it down? I have read that it is possible to
burn an old stump by drilling holes and filling them with sodium
chlorate weed killer, leaving it for a few months and then lighting it.
If I drill holes high up and do the same thing, the fire should then
burn what is above it. At least that's my theory: what do you think?
Paul

What a daft idea. Theres nothing difficult about cutting down tall
trees, just cut them part way though then use a rope from ground level
to snap the top section off. Rinse & repeat. Cutting them into 8' plus
a bit sections is just right for saw into useful sizes.

But don't undertake tree felling unless you understand what youre doing,
they don't call the branches widow makers for nothing.

How true, but apart from the difficulty in getting a straight pull
vertically and horizontally the 8 ft sections will wipe off a number of
branches from the surrounding trees, which I am trying to avoid. If it
was that easy I wouldn't have asked.

What you do if you haven't coppiced the grove properly and don't intend
to is build a scaffold and saw the top of the trunk at an angle steep
enough to take the top story straight down. It's a skilled job that
requires good timing. Modern mountaineering techniques allow the same
sort of thing to be done without a scaffold but using ropes and etc.

Accepting that the weed killer is hygroscopic, how does it work in
enabling stumps to be burnt out?

I hadn't heard that it does. Perhaps there is another nitrate involved.
Nitric acid should do it but where would you get that?

You haven't mentioned the type of trees involved. If they are a
valuable timber, root them out. Walnut is worth more money with the
rootstocks attatched. They use that for gunstocks. (Hence the term
stock.)

Accepting that the weed killer is hygroscopic, how does it work in
enabling stumps to be burnt out?

When you start to burn the wood the Sodium Chlorate gives off large
quantities of oxygen so aiding the combustion process. Be aware that Sodium
Chlorate sold as weed killer has a fire retardent added to prevent its use
in IED's ( improvised explosive devices)

Dave

peejos wrote:

How true, but apart from the difficulty in getting a straight pull
vertically and horizontally the 8 ft secions will wipe off a number of
branches from the surrounding trees, which I am trying to avoid. If it
was that easy I would n't have asked.

Accepting that the weed killer is hygroscopic, how does it work in
enabling stumps to be burnt out?

It's a very effective oxidising agent when near red hot.

I wouldn't follow the original theory - I've played with chlorate and
potassium nitrate on stumps. You *could* burn then out if you were happy to
keep pouring the oxidiser on (it will take loads IMO). It also gives rise,
at least in one case, to a load of molten oxidiser by-product at near red
heat temperatures dripping everywhere. I wouldn't do any of this above head
height, not to mention the fire risk to other trees.

Cheers

Tim

peejos wrote:

Accepting that the weed killer is hygroscopic, how does it work in
enabling stumps to be burnt out?


Meow is full of half understood factoids.

Mostly he is best ignored.

Theres nothing difficult about cutting down tall
trees

dont undertake tree felling unless you understand what youre doing,
they dont call the branches widow makers for nothing.

What's this, multiple choice? Make your mind up

peejos wrote:

How true, but apart from the difficulty in getting a straight pull
vertically and horizontally the 8 ft secions will wipe off a number of
branches from the surrounding trees, which I am trying to avoid. If it
was that easy I would n't have asked.


How high is this tree?