## 4 Discussion  
In the measurements, the results obtained with the TS 50 appear to be most consistent with the static calculation, which was to be expected since the TS 50 instrument is also the most accurate geodetic instrument. The TS 50 has an angular accuracy of 0.5\" (015 mgon) and a length accuracy of 0.6 mm +1 ppm, providing very accurate measurements. Given the length (7.05 m in the laboratory and 5.55 m outdoors) between the stand and the beam, the length error is negligible. In addition, the instrument was placed perpendicular to the midpoint which allowed clear reflection and minimal angular error. The smallest standard deviation of the measurements, which provides the precision of measurements from the calculated displacements of the static analysis, was at the center of the beam (target 3), where the largest vertical displacement for the single beam was also measured. For the measurements performed with RTC 360 LT, the absolute value of the difference between the calculated displacement and the measured displacement was less than 1 mm: 0.8 mm for beam TL_01 or 8.70% of the size of the calculated displacement, for beam TO _01 0.200 mm or 2.47%, and for beam TW_01 0.9 mm or 9.88%. Calculations of deformations of timber beams were performed by SCIeng analysis, in order to compare the obtained results. If we compare only the highest obtained results--i.e., the results on the core of the carrier--we can see that the static analysis at TL_01 coincides with the results obtained with Nikon DTM 700 and RTS TS 50; at TO_01 it is comparable with RTS TS 50 and at TW_01 with Nikon DTM 700. We conclude that these two instruments could be the most authoritative. Further analyses have also confirmed this, but more detailed analyses would certainly require further investigations, which will also be carried out if the need arises. Table 6 shows the comparison of measurement accuracy between the Leica RTC 360 LT and the Leica RTS NOVA TS 50, so as to consider the most accurate non-contact method. The results are presented for the midpoint of the beams. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Beam** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Leica RTC 360 LT**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Leica RTS NOVA TS 50**} \\ \hline  & \(\mid\Delta z\mid\mid\)**[mm]** & \(\mid\Delta z\mid\)**[\%]** & \(\mid\Delta z\mid\)**[mm]** & \(\mid\Delta z\mid\)**[\%]** \\ \hline TL\_01 & 1.2 & 17.42 & 0.3 & 3.93 \\ TO\_01 & 0.7 & 11.65 & 0.1 & 2.54 \\ TW\_01 & 0.9 & 15.00 & 0.2 & 8.40 \\ \hline Average & 0.9 & 14.69 & 0.2 & 4.957 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Comparison of measurement precision. Measurements made with the Leica RTC 360 LT terrestrial laser scanner, as a good laboratory alternative and contactless method, were found to be less accurate than those made with the Leica TS Nova TS 50. Furthermore, the difference between the calculated value and the measured value of the vertical displacement was on average 0.2 mm or 4.957% (Leica TS Nova TS 50), while this difference was 0.955 mm or 14.69% of the vertical displacement for the measurements with the RTC 360 LT. Analysis of the measurement results of our experiment showed larger measurement errors for points that the scenario did not automatically detect. These points were entered manually into the program. The results thus show that the absolute value of the difference between the measured and calculated displacement value for these points was greater than 20%. Table 6 shows that the lowest deviation from the displacements acquired from the static analysis was obtained for the measurements of TO_01 (11.65%). For the mentioned beam, the tripod was placed at a distance of 7.05 m, while for the other measurements the tripod was 5.55 m away from the beam. These distances are within a radius of 10 m, where the manufacturer guarantees maximum accuracy and minimum sampling scanning noise.