TruPulse360 and Macroscope 45 dbhg-@comcast.net Aug 30, 2007 19:08 PDT
 Ed,    Unfortunately, I don't own it yet. It is only borrowed. However, by mid-September when LaserTech announces its availability, my order will be one of the first.             On the serious side, the TruPulse 360 is a potentially very valuable instrument to us. It adds easy 3-dimensional measuring to our reparatory of methods. Imagine two points in space with no particular orientation. Add a third point representing the measurer. There is no requirement as to the location of the 3rd point with respect to the first two. The TruPulse 360 allows the measurer to determine the linear distance between the first two points. The 360 also returns the vertical distance and horizontal distance between the the points and azimuths from the observer's position.             The two points could be the ends of a limb or the extremities of the opposite sides of a tree representing the maximum crown spread. The 360 could be used to create a 3-dimensional map of a tree. Although, the TruPulse 360 will not perform like an Impulse Laser, it is sufficiently versatile to allow us to efficiently explore 3-dimensional territory. In the next several days, I'll be testing the 360 for a limited type of ground-based canopy mapping and dutifully report the results.             The weakness of the TruPulse is that it doesn't shoot through narrow canopy gaps. With reflectors, that might be less of a problem, but reflectors can't be put on the ends of branches 50 feet up in the air. So, additional mathematics will be necessary. Nonetheless, for us, the 360 appears to be a big addition. Unfortunately, it is expensive, costing \$1,600. Were it priced at half that, it would be a steal, but \$1,600 is expensive for the level of accuracy it allows for distance (within a foot), azimuth (within a degree), and vertical angle (within 0.25 degrees).             On to another gizmo. My new Macroscope 45 is proving to be a challenge. Its reticle is scaled to 3 millimeters instead of 5 like the Macroscope 25, so one must be farther from a tree to get the same diameter coverage. The factor used to compute width is not 75, as it is with the Macroscope 25, but appears to be 45 (3/5*75?). I say appears to be. I have to get more exact measurements to know.             At this point my advice to any of you contemplating a purchase is to stick with the Macroscope 25. Bob
 True Pulse 360 dbhg-@comcast.net Sep 01, 2007 07:44 PDT