3/16 with buckets

[Dale Sparrow]

Just wondering if anybody has tried tapping up high (7-8') and running 3/16 to a bucket on the ground for a little natural gravity. If you get an inch per foot eight feet will give eight inches. So according to theory eight inches at a 5% increase per inch would be a total increase of 40%. Yes, no?

[RileySugarbush]

Pretty much no. According to the good Dr. Tim, a similar pressure gradient exists inside the tree as well, so the gain from the drop is at least partly lost in a reduced internal pressure in the tree with the higher tap. At least that is what I understand from a different thread here.

[Dale Sparrow]

Pretty much no. According to the good Dr. Tim, a similar pressure gradient exists inside the tree as well, so the gain from the drop is at least partly lost in a reduced internal pressure in the tree with the higher tap. At least that is what I understand from a different thread here. So tapping down low will give more sap?

[psparr]

So tapping down low will give more sap?

Not on 3/16. But yes in general.

[Russell Lampron]

Just wondering if anybody has tried tapping up high (7-8') and running 3/16 to a bucket on the ground for a little natural gravity. If you get an inch per foot eight feet will give eight inches. So according to theory eight inches at a 5% increase per inch would be a total increase of 40%. Yes, no?

Set up an experiment next season. If you have 3 trees that produce a similar amount of sap tap 1 with a conventional bucket or bag. Tap another one with 5/16 and tap the third one with 3/16. When you have a warm spell after a freeze monitor each tree to see how long each one runs before they stop. Don't try measuring vacuum at the taps or do anything to disturb the flow. Let us know how it works for you.

[Dale Sparrow]

Set up an experiment next season. If you have 3 trees that produce a similar amount of sap tap 1 with a conventional bucket or bag. Tap another one with 5/16 and tap the third one with 3/16. When you have a warm spell after a freeze monitor each tree to see how long each one runs before they stop. Don't try measuring vacuum at the taps or do anything to disturb the flow. Let us know how it works for you. Was thinking exactly that. I have a group of 10 trees that are all the same size, same soil and same sun exposer that I think will do nicely. Was thinking 4 trees tapped up high with 3/16, four trees down low with buckets no tubing and two trees with pressure/vacuum gauges at 3' and 8'. Was think somebody must have already done this.

[SWEETER CREATIONS]

Just wondering if anybody has tried tapping up high (7-8') and running 3/16 to a bucket on the ground for a little natural gravity. If you get an inch per foot eight feet will give eight inches. So according to theory eight inches at a 5% increase per inch would be a total increase of 40%. Yes, no?

No . You wont see 40 % . After you reach 20 inches of vacuum you may gain 5 % more in production for every inch of vacuum .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[325abn]

With such a short run you will not have a sufficient column of sap to pull vacuum.

[mountainvan]

https://www.themaplenews.com/story/results-in-from-2016-3-16%E2%80%9D-tubing-research/81/

This story has research about 3/16 and buckets. I have my Sasquatch tubing which is 12 ft up and does fantastic sapflow.

[MapleMark753]

Following is just a quote from that story- -A second experiment involved tapping trees six and a half to seven feet high and running the long drop line to a bucket on the ground. In this case each tree had two taps. One tap a regular 5/16” spout attached to 3/16” tubing and the second tap a regular 5/16” spout connected to a 5/16” drop line. This was repeated six times for a total of twelve buckets, 6 with 3/16” drop and 6 with 5/16” drop. See the pictures below. The season long yield difference between the two systems was 43% more sap in the buckets collecting sap from the 3/16” drop lines or 6.4 more gallons of sap per tap. See the bar chart below.
Could not find it this morning, but there's also a video that seems to show that you get more sap from tapping high using tubing vs a regular bucket tap. Have not tried it myself tho.

[DrTimPerkins]

Following is just a quote from that story- [B]-A second experiment involved tapping trees six and a half to seven feet high and running the long drop line to a bucket on the ground.

In the real world, most people don't tap with buckets 6.5-7 ft off the ground. Typically they are hung only a couple of ft high. A more realistic comparison would be a bucket tree with buckets on the ground and drop lines 2 ft high.

Using 3/16" will gain you about 0.75" Hg per ft of drop. Tapping higher will lose you about 0.75" Hg per ft of additional height. The end result is close to a wash, except for the fact that sap sugar also increases (very slightly) as you go up the stem.

I also am not sure that the method (2 taps per tree) is a good comparison. The taphole with any amount of vacuum will cannibalize the sap from the non-vacuum taphole, and artificially depress the total yield from the non-vacuum side, making the comparison seem larger than it would otherwise be. I've not read the article yet though, so am not sure exactly what the methods are.

[Dale Sparrow]

In the real world, most people don't tap with buckets 6.5-7 ft off the ground. Typically they are hung only a couple of ft high. A more realistic comparison would be a bucket tree with buckets on the ground and drop lines 2 ft high.

Using 3/16" will gain you about 0.75" Hg per ft of drop. Tapping higher will lose you about 0.75" Hg per ft of additional height. The end result is close to a wash, except for the fact that sap sugar also increases (very slightly) as you go up the stem.

I also am not sure that the method (2 taps per tree) is a good comparison. The taphole with any amount of vacuum will cannibalize the sap from the non-vacuum taphole, and artificially depress the total yield from the non-vacuum side, making the comparison seem larger than it would otherwise be. I've not read the article yet though, so am not sure exactly what the methods are. Would agree, vacuum and gravity experiments should not be conducted on same the tree.

[MapleMark753]

Its never a good idea to argue against physics, or science...lol And its just about a bad idea for a layman to question a Doctor.
But...
Something about that equation don't seem to make sense. What is the vacuum and production on a 10 foot high drop line with 3/16 (ending up in a bucket on the ground). Verses, what is the vacuum and production on a regular height bucket tap?
If the andecdotal stories are true, tons of at least hobbiests would give this a shot I bet.

[Super Sapper]

In the real world, most people don't tap with buckets 6.5-7 ft off the ground. Typically they are hung only a couple of ft high. A more realistic comparison would be a bucket tree with buckets on the ground and drop lines 2 ft high.

Using 3/16" will gain you about 0.75" Hg per ft of drop. Tapping higher will lose you about 0.75" Hg per ft of additional height. The end result is close to a wash, except for the fact that sap sugar also increases (very slightly) as you go up the stem.

I also am not sure that the method (2 taps per tree) is a good comparison. The taphole with any amount of vacuum will cannibalize the sap from the non-vacuum taphole, and artificially depress the total yield from the non-vacuum side, making the comparison seem larger than it would otherwise be. I've not read the article yet though, so am not sure exactly what the methods are.

I would agree on elevation difference equaling out but what about frictional losses in the tree compared to the tubing? I would think that this would offset some of the loss of pressure due to height difference and create a pressure differential for a longer time period during a run.

I agree on a two tap tree that the difference would be less if you had both methods going on the same tree but it seems to indicate that there would be a benefit for a single tap tree to go with the higher tapping and 3/16.

[DrTimPerkins]

I would agree on elevation difference equaling out but what about frictional losses in the tree compared to the tubing?

Frictional losses within the tree are immaterial. The sap isn't located in one spot some distance away, and by changing position will not alter the distance or the amount of friction the sap encounters in moving. The sap is throughout the tree, so frictional losses tend to be quite stable, at least until you've run vacuum on a tree for many days. In that case, you would have little or no flow in the bucket tree, but that is not related to friction....it is related to gravity (sap won't flow uphill unless there is a force moving it in that direction).

We actually have an undergraduate student doing some studies looking at frictional losses in flow in maple stems as it is related to wounding. The question is basically aimed at understanding whether a build-up of compartmentalized non-functional (in terms of sap movement) wood due to tapping will increase the resistance to sap movement across that stem section. Most likely it will not have any real effect until the tree is very heavily compartmentalized. This is due to the fact that tree vessels are highly redundant....there are a lot of them and losses in some (due to wounding or natural cavitation during dry periods) is compensated for by the excess tissue and by increases in the rate of sap movement in the stem. The same methods we are using can also be used to test the efficiency of different types of spouts, spout depth, etc.

[DrTimPerkins]

.. but it seems to indicate that there would be a benefit for a single tap tree to go with the higher tapping and 3/16.

This is true ONLY if the tubing tap and the bucket tap are placed at the same height, which is not the typical way it is done. Not many people I know hang their buckets 6.5 ft up on the stem (unless the snow is 4 ft deep), but because of the lateral line/dropline configuration, this is the normal place tubing taps are placed. Normally you might only see a 2-3 ft difference (tubing tap 6-7 ft up and bucket 2-3 ft up).

[mountainvan]

My Sasquatch tubing is 3/16" tubing run to four trees 14' off of the ground, across a driveway, and then down to 1/2" mainline. Before I did the bypass with my Shurflo the I was pulling 12" off vacuum on the regular 5/16" tubing and 22" on the Sasquatch line. After the bypass, 18" regular and gauge spiked on Sasquatch. Tapping high worked for me.

[WESTVIRGINIAMAPLER]

I'll put a little different spin on this that may be why you can get more sap off of high lines off the ground. It would be simply that it is farther for air to travel back up the very long line to get to the taphole and there is less contamination in the taphole, thus the taphole runs longer and produces more sap.

[psparr]

A little off topic, but there was discussion on here about digging a 30' hole and running your 3/16 line down it to get the elevation needed for you flat landers.

[Super Sapper]

This is true ONLY if the tubing tap and the bucket tap are placed at the same height, which is not the typical way it is done. Not many people I know hang their buckets 6.5 ft up on the stem (unless the snow is 4 ft deep), but because of the lateral line/dropline configuration, this is the normal place tubing taps are placed. Normally you might only see a 2-3 ft difference (tubing tap 6-7 ft up and bucket 2-3 ft up).

I did not read carefully enough and see that both taps were at the same height. I was thinking that the 3/16 was at a higher spot on the tree. It would be interesting to see if there is a difference between say 10 feet up with 3/16 and 2 to 3 feet up with the normal 5/16 into buckets.

[DrTimPerkins]

It would be interesting to see if there is a difference between say 10 feet up with 3/16 and 2 to 3 feet up with the normal 5/16 into buckets.

I agree....that would be interesting. I suspect the difference would not be as large as some people might want to think.

[Dale Sparrow]

A little off topic, but there was discussion on here about digging a 30' hole and running your 3/16 line down it to get the elevation needed for you flat landers. Awesome. :)

[325abn]

/\ /\ Thats funny don't care who you are.