Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked with
two red triangles..

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG

Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ? 


Cheers
Mal
Oz
(Perth to be more precise)

Malcom,
In the US, 2x4 studs in stick framed construction is a standard 16" center to
center.  Pre marked tape measure makes for quick/accurate layout.

Cheers

Alan
On Thursday, April 17, 2014 4:33 PM, Malcolm Thomas  wrote:
  

Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked with
two red triangles..

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG

Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ? 


Cheers
Mal
Oz
(Perth to be more precise)

In construction framing (at least here in the USA) standard spacing of wall
studs, floor joists, as well as some other things is 16" on center. Those
marks are to help framing carpenters that are mathematically challenged to
easily know where to mark for spacing framing members.

Doc

On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Malcolm Thomas  wrote:

>
> Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked
> with two red triangles..
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.J
PG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
>
> Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ?
>
>
> Cheers
> Mal
> Oz
> (Perth to be more precise)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... 
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>


-- 
John Holladay
205-229-8484
docholladay0820@g...
Sent from Gmail Mobile on iOS

ah ha, i presumed it might be something like that...

thanks for the enlightenment.

Cheers,
Mal

Sent using Mail on iPad 2

> On 17 Apr 2014, at 18:34, John Holladay  wrote:
> 
> In construction framing (at least here in the USA) standard spacing of wall
studs, floor joists, as well as some other things is 16" on center. Those marks
are to help framing carpenters that are mathematically challenged to easily know
where to mark for spacing framing members.
> 
> Doc
> 
>> On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Malcolm Thomas  wrote:
>> 
>> Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked with
two red triangles..
>> 
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.
JPG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
>> 
>> Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ?
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mal
>> Oz
>> (Perth to be more precise)
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
>> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
>> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
>> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>> 
>> To change your subscription options:
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> 
>> To read the FAQ:
>> http://swingleydev.com/arch
ive/faq.html
>> 
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>> 
>> OldTools@r...
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Holladay
> 205-229-8484
> docholladay0820@g...
> Sent from Gmail Mobile on iOS

As Doc said: "In construction framing (at least here in the USA) standard
spacing of wall
studs, floor joists, as well as some other things is 16" on center. "

But never having thought about it  - only built many structures to this
requirement - it begs the question where did 16" come from? Why not 12"? I
understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from. But if we framed
to 12, 18, or 24 inch all engineered beams and calculations would have
easily accommodated - spans et al would simply be different and plywood
might be sized differently though 48 x 96 is still easily and completely
divisible by all but 18.

Completely useless question but I find myself intrigued nonetheless by the
answer. And it isn't just "Because"

Scott in Duluth

Like a lot of things, it's a compromise.

12" would produce more strength and rigidity, but use lots more wood.
24" would make the wood go further, but would lack the stiffness 
usually desired in house construction.

Other intervals make for messy arithmetic.

There's a book somewheres that discusses the transition to balloon 
framing from post and beam construction, and it apparently took a 
while for the industry to settle on the current practice, but of 
course I've forgotten the name of the book, and whether or not I 
still have a copy.  These senior moments seem to last longer and longer.

Milt, the Clamp Guy


At  4/17/2014 07:55 AM, Scott Garrison wrote:
>As Doc said: "In construction framing (at least here in the USA) standard
>spacing of wall
>studs, floor joists, as well as some other things is 16" on center. "
>
>But never having thought about it  - only built many structures to this
>requirement - it begs the question where did 16" come from? Why not 12"? I
>understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
>likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from. But if we framed
>to 12, 18, or 24 inch all engineered beams and calculations would have
>easily accommodated - spans et al would simply be different and plywood
>might be sized differently though 48 x 96 is still easily and completely
>divisible by all but 18.
>
>Completely useless question but I find myself intrigued nonetheless by the
>answer. And it isn't just "Because"
>
>Scott in Duluth
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
>aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
>value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
>traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
>To change your subscription options:
>http://ruckus
.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
>To read the FAQ:
>http://swingleydev.com/archiv
e/faq.html
>
>OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
>OldTools@r...
>http://ruckus
.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

Milt, The Clamp Guy

Scott,

I too am curious as to where the 16" standard began.  When I was in
Honduras last summer, I saw a few wood frame buildings and they were built
using techniques more like timber frame construction. Standard framing
timbers (which are not standard and are milled on site) are more in the 4x4
size and are spaced closer to 3 feet apart. Also, they used interlocking
horizontal framing members every 3 feet or so. To this framing, they attach
the siding which is roughly 4/4 boards oriented vertically simply nailed
side by side. They don't bother with overlaps to allow for expansion and
contraction.  The wood is wet when the building is built (did I mention the
timber is milled on site from trees taken from the site) so I guess they
aren't worried that it will expand. Also, they don't do much to seal
buildings. Considering how humid and wet it gets there, I suppose maximum
ventilation is good in order to prevent mold and mildew growth. However, it
messes with your personal modesty when the walls of the room you might be
sleeping in have 1" wide gaps between the boards on the wall.  What I did
not mention, is how they mill the timber. They mill it with a chain saw.
Not a chain saw mill, but a chainsaw free hand. They use a string that has
been pulled through old dirty engine oil to mark a straight line down the
length of the log and then they follow that line with a chain saw. It's
amazing to me how accurately they cut the lumber using this method.   As
for actual construction tools, lots of hand tools are used because there
isn't electricity in many if the areas where we were working.

Doc

On Thursday, April 17, 2014, Scott Garrison  wrote:

> As Doc said: "In construction framing (at least here in the USA) standard
> spacing of wall
> studs, floor joists, as well as some other things is 16" on center. "
>
> But never having thought about it  - only built many structures to this
> requirement - it begs the question where did 16" come from? Why not 12"? I
> understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
> likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from. But if we framed
> to 12, 18, or 24 inch all engineered beams and calculations would have
> easily accommodated - spans et al would simply be different and plywood
> might be sized differently though 48 x 96 is still easily and completely
> divisible by all but 18.
>
> Completely useless question but I find myself intrigued nonetheless by the
> answer. And it isn't just "Because"
>
> Scott in Duluth
>
>
>
>

-- 
John Holladay
205-229-8484
docholladay0820@g...
Sent from Gmail Mobile on iOS

Actually that has been mostly de-bunked.  Rail width may have generally been
influenced by the Horse’s A**” theory, however, until the American Civil War,
there were a couple of dozen track widths in use in the US.  In the North, it
was basically one size, while in the South with much less industrialization,
there were many.  For railroads, it was lucky the North won the war (not for my
SIL in Atlanta, though).

For that “winning” gauge, the rails were 5 feet, center to center, But when it
became obvious that larger rails were needed to carry larger loads, using that
measure would make the distance between the rails different for each size of
rail, so they used the measure between those 5' rails and it ended up 4’8-1/2”.

Free advice is worth what you paid for it

Ed Minch





On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:55 AM, Scott Garrison  wrote:

> I
> understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
> likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from.

My house (in central Missouri) was built in 1983.  Passive solar was the big
thing back then, and the desire to increase insulation R value on the walls was
rampant.

Outside walls were framed with 2x6 on 24" centers.  Too lazy right now to
calculate the total wood consumption difference, and don't have the engineering
background to determine the relative stiffness of the two options.  2x6 allowed
thicker batts of fiberglass insulation in the walls.  Probably reduced labor
costs also since fewer framing elements needed to be assembled.

--Scott

On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:24 AM, Milt the Clamp Guy  wrote:

> Like a lot of things, it's a compromise.
> 
> 12" would produce more strength and rigidity, but use lots more wood.
> 24" would make the wood go further, but would lack the stiffness usually
desired in house construction.
> 
> Other intervals make for messy arithmetic.
> 
> There's a book somewheres that discusses the transition to balloon framing
from post and beam construction, and it apparently took a while for the industry
to settle on the current practice, but of course I've forgotten the name of the
book, and whether or not I still have a copy.  These senior moments seem to last
longer and longer.
> 
> Milt, the Clamp Guy
> 
> 
> At  4/17/2014 07:55 AM, Scott Garrison wrote:
>> As Doc said: "In construction framing (at least here in the USA) standard
>> spacing of wall
>> studs, floor joists, as well as some other things is 16" on center. "
>> 
>> But never having thought about it  - only built many structures to this
>> requirement - it begs the question where did 16" come from? Why not 12"? I
>> understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
>> likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from. But if we framed
>> to 12, 18, or 24 inch all engineered beams and calculations would have
>> easily accommodated - spans et al would simply be different and plywood
>> might be sized differently though 48 x 96 is still easily and completely
>> divisible by all but 18.
>> 
>> Completely useless question but I find myself intrigued nonetheless by the
>> answer. And it isn't just "Because"
>> 
>> Scott in Duluth
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depending on whether they used single or double top plates, the board footage
can be the same.  Wood usage and wall thickness are not the only considerations.
The wood used has a relatively low R-value (insulation value, Jeff) per inch, so
the overall efficiency of the wall is helped by reducing the amount of wood that
is exposed to the outside - fewer studs, less exposure.  This is called thermal
bridging.

And now it is recognized that a thin layer of rigid insulation is a good way to
further break the thermal bridge.  Even though an inch of this foam board is
only R-6 and boosts the insulated part of the wall by a third, it more than
doubles the R-value of the framing.

Ed Minch
If it's true that we are here to help others, then what are they here for?


On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:49 AM, Stager, Scott P.  wrote:

> My house (in central Missouri) was built in 1983.  Passive solar was the big
thing back then, and the desire to increase insulation R value on the walls was
rampant.
> 
> Outside walls were framed with 2x6 on 24" centers.  Too lazy right now to
calculate the total wood consumption difference, and don't have the engineering
background to determine the relative stiffness of the two options.  2x6 allowed
thicker batts of fiberglass insulation in the walls.  Probably reduced labor
costs also since fewer framing elements needed to be assembled.
> 
> --Scott

On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:32 AM, John Holladay  wrote:

>  What I did
> not mention, is how they mill the timber. They mill it with a chain saw.
> Not a chain saw mill, but a chainsaw free hand. 

You can get pretty good with a chainsaw.  In the mid-90’s, the Kalmar Nyckel
(17th c. ship reproduction in case I haven’t mentioned it enough, Jeff) was the
first modern ship built all with South American Hardwoods.  There is over 40
tons of purpleheart in it and almost the same weight in Jatoba.  The shipbuilder
is still an importer of this wood for other ship projects.

He has an amazing slide show showing the the local residents in Belize hiking
into the mountains barefoot, and then felling 3 trees that he selected.  They
then cut timbers out of the 5+ feet across logs with chainsaws, some at 30 feet
long.  The timbers were mostly 5” thick and 30” wide because the bars on the
chainsaws were 30”.  When the wood arrived after a boat ride to Baltimore, the
timbers were absolutely amazing - straight and consistent thickness, and you
could see the chain marks from the round end of the chain all along one edge of
the timber.

The coolest shot was of a fellow standing on a log making the first cut the
length of the log with his chain bar buried in the log and sawdust flying.  He
was barefoot, straddling a line marked down the log.

I might call these guys galoots.

Ed Minch
Murphy was a sailor before he was a lawyer -  David Hiott

It's a code requirement in California for any dwelling space.  Every 
house
I've lived in has 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  My great-grandfather built 
all
houses this way.  My house now was built in 1925 -- 2X4s on 16 inch 
centers.
The 1906 house I lived in had 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  The Victorians 
I've
worked on had 2X4s on 16 inch centers, so the standard has been around 
for
a very long time.  Fiberglass insulation specifically for walls comes in
16 inch wide rolls.  Roof insulation comes in 24 inch wide rolls.

Why?  You'd need to ask a structural engineer for the rational.

Mike in Sacto

I have no specific knowledge or source (would love to see the real history)
but I suspect that the 16" standard came about as a result of engineering,
in combination with the standardization of the lumber production industry.

We've all heard of the 2x4 and we all know that today it isn't 2"x4". 16"
is a logical progression of the 2x4 sequence and so may, mathematically
have something to do with it (along with the standard of 8' ceiling
heights, perhaps?). I know in older homes the 2x4s ARE 2"x4".

I'm guessing an engineer did the math and calculated that, at an 8' ceiling
standard, and a 16" on-center wall panel stud standard, the necessary
strength could be provided by less material in the stud (and the lumber
industry could get more material from the same tree) and so the 1-1/2" x
3-1/2" 2x4 was born. (Leaving the 16" on-center standard alone).

But, like I said, this is all conjecture. I'd love to see the history of
the development somewhere.

A man understands one day that his life is built on nothing, and that's a
bad, crazy day. - Cosmo Castorini, Moonstruck


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Michael Blair  wrote:

> It's a code requirement in California for any dwelling space.  Every house
> I've lived in has 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  My great-grandfather built all
> houses this way.  My house now was built in 1925 -- 2X4s on 16 inch
> centers.
> The 1906 house I lived in had 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  The Victorians I've
> worked on had 2X4s on 16 inch centers, so the standard has been around for
> a very long time.  Fiberglass insulation specifically for walls comes in
> 16 inch wide rolls.  Roof insulation comes in 24 inch wide rolls.
>
> Why?  You'd need to ask a structural engineer for the rational.
>
> Mike in Sacto
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>

In America, this is a very important length.  It was the distance between
Benjamin Franklin’s wrist and his elbow, and is the basis of the now defunct
system of measure that he devised.  He based this system on the cubit mentioned
in earlier texts, but later found that it was the ideal length of the key that
he strung from his kite to prove that electricity resided in the sky.  Turns out
it is an exact fraction of the length of a lightning bolt and worked like a
harmonic to attract those bolts..

These little red marks are now more a matter of tradition than actual function,
although I have found them handy when I am making windsor chairs, using this
length as the height of the back of the seat off the floor.  Occasionally I find
that it is also the depth of a table or the width of a drawer, and then they
come in handy for repeatability.

Safe to ignore them.

Ed Minch





On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:34 AM, John Holladay  wrote:

> 
> 
> Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked
> with two red triangles..
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.J
PG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
> 
> Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ?
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Mal
> Oz
> (Perth to be more precise)

I “apprencticed” under  an older carpenter - name of Joe Shingle! - who was born
in 1900 - this was 1972-74.  He actually gave me a few cool tools that I still
use - Stanley 95 corner plane, and a Stanley 65 low angle block plane.

He used a tape to lay out a whole wall, but he had his hammer handle cut off to
make the tool measure 14-1/2” from tip-to-toe so if he had to fit in an odd stud
he didn’t need to take his tape out.

Ed Minch





On Apr 17, 2014, at 9:32 AM, CheekyGeek  wrote:

> I have no specific knowledge or source (would love to see the real history)
> but I suspect that the 16" standard came about as a result of engineering,
> in combination with the standardization of the lumber production industry.

On 04/17/14, CheekyGeek wrote:

[snip]

I'm guessing an engineer did the math and calculated that, at an 8' ceiling
standard, and a 16" on-center wall panel stud standard, the necessary
strength could be provided by less material in the stud (and the lumber
industry could get more material from the same tree) and so the 1-1/2" x
3-1/2" 2x4 was born. (Leaving the 16" on-center standard alone).

But, like I said, this is all conjecture. I'd love to see the history of
the development somewhere.

[snip]


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Michael Blair  wrote:

> It's a code requirement in California for any dwelling space. Every house
> I've lived in has 2X4s on 16 inch centers. [snip]
>
> Why? You'd need to ask a structural engineer for the rational.
>
[snip]
>

I wonder which came first, 16" spacing or 4' sheet stock, sort of a chicken
and egg type of deal.
  What's the framing practice in metric countries, guessing it's not 16"
centers and 4' plywood?

Phil


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, CheekyGeek  wrote:

> I have no specific knowledge or source (would love to see the real history)
> but I suspect that the 16" standard came about as a result of engineering,
> in combination with the standardization of the lumber production industry.
>
> We've all heard of the 2x4 and we all know that today it isn't 2"x4". 16"
> is a logical progression of the 2x4 sequence and so may, mathematically
> have something to do with it (along with the standard of 8' ceiling
> heights, perhaps?). I know in older homes the 2x4s ARE 2"x4".
>
> I'm guessing an engineer did the math and calculated that, at an 8' ceiling
> standard, and a 16" on-center wall panel stud standard, the necessary
> strength could be provided by less material in the stud (and the lumber
> industry could get more material from the same tree) and so the 1-1/2" x
> 3-1/2" 2x4 was born. (Leaving the 16" on-center standard alone).
>
> But, like I said, this is all conjecture. I'd love to see the history of
> the development somewhere.
>
> A man understands one day that his life is built on nothing, and that's a
> bad, crazy day. - Cosmo Castorini, Moonstruck
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Michael Blair  wrote:
>
> > It's a code requirement in California for any dwelling space.  Every
> house
> > I've lived in has 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  My great-grandfather built
> all
> > houses this way.  My house now was built in 1925 -- 2X4s on 16 inch
> > centers.
> > The 1906 house I lived in had 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  The Victorians
> I've
> > worked on had 2X4s on 16 inch centers, so the standard has been around
> for
> > a very long time.  Fiberglass insulation specifically for walls comes in
> > 16 inch wide rolls.  Roof insulation comes in 24 inch wide rolls.
> >
> > Why?  You'd need to ask a structural engineer for the rational.
> >
> > Mike in Sacto
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> > aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> > value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> > traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> >
> > To change your subscription options:
> > http://ruc
kus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> >
> > To read the FAQ:
> > http://swingleydev.com/arc
hive/faq.html
> >
> > OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> >
> > OldTools@r...
> > http://ruc
kus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>

Definitely the 16" spacing came first. (Ask any owner of a plaster & lath
home).

Some of these things were innovation driven (like the invention and
adoption of plywood, chipboard, sheetrock, etc.) I was discussing this with
the engineer here at work and he said that some things are failure driven
(Steve's dance on the 2nd floor, for example). Some things were engineering
driven, Some things were material driven (think of truss plate and steel
hangers invention in trusses, for example). Increased computerization has
driven a lot of innovation, like truss design (and the related design of
the roof). One can't ignore the "regulatory momentum" of some things (like
requiring engineer approval on new truss designs), codes, inspectors,
permits, etc.

And at the bottom of all this is economics. The builder is going to use
whatever saves him money or gives him some sort of an edge.



A man understands one day that his life is built on nothing, and that's a
bad, crazy day. - Cosmo Castorini, Moonstruck


On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:27 AM, Phil Schempf  wrote:

> I wonder which came first, 16" spacing or 4' sheet stock, sort of a chicken
> and egg type of deal.
>   What's the framing practice in metric countries, guessing it's not 16"
> centers and 4' plywood?
>
> Phil
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, CheekyGeek  wrote:
>
> > I have no specific knowledge or source (would love to see the real
> history)
> > but I suspect that the 16" standard came about as a result of
> engineering,
> > in combination with the standardization of the lumber production
> industry.
> >
> > We've all heard of the 2x4 and we all know that today it isn't 2"x4". 16"
> > is a logical progression of the 2x4 sequence and so may, mathematically
> > have something to do with it (along with the standard of 8' ceiling
> > heights, perhaps?). I know in older homes the 2x4s ARE 2"x4".
> >
> > I'm guessing an engineer did the math and calculated that, at an 8'
> ceiling
> > standard, and a 16" on-center wall panel stud standard, the necessary
> > strength could be provided by less material in the stud (and the lumber
> > industry could get more material from the same tree) and so the 1-1/2" x
> > 3-1/2" 2x4 was born. (Leaving the 16" on-center standard alone).
> >
> > But, like I said, this is all conjecture. I'd love to see the history of
> > the development somewhere.
> >
> > A man understands one day that his life is built on nothing, and that's a
> > bad, crazy day. - Cosmo Castorini, Moonstruck
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Michael Blair 
> wrote:
> >
> > > It's a code requirement in California for any dwelling space.  Every
> > house
> > > I've lived in has 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  My great-grandfather built
> > all
> > > houses this way.  My house now was built in 1925 -- 2X4s on 16 inch
> > > centers.
> > > The 1906 house I lived in had 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  The Victorians
> > I've
> > > worked on had 2X4s on 16 inch centers, so the standard has been around
> > for
> > > a very long time.  Fiberglass insulation specifically for walls comes
> in
> > > 16 inch wide rolls.  Roof insulation comes in 24 inch wide rolls.
> > >
> > > Why?  You'd need to ask a structural engineer for the rational.
> > >
> > > Mike in Sacto
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> > > aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> > > value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> > > traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> > >
> > > To change your subscription options:
> > > http://r
uckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> > >
> > > To read the FAQ:
> > > http://swingleydev.com/a
rchive/faq.html
> > >
> > > OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> > >
> > > OldTools@r...
> > > http://r
uckus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> > aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> > value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> > traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> >
> > To change your subscription options:
> > http://ruc
kus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> >
> > To read the FAQ:
> > http://swingleydev.com/arc
hive/faq.html
> >
> > OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> >
> > OldTools@r...
> > http://ruc
kus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>

On Apr 17, 2014, at 12:32 AM, Malcolm Thomas wrote:

> 
> Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked with
two red triangles..
> 
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.J
PG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
> 
> Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ? 

Yes! Lots of tapes are marked this way. It gives a quick reference to setting
wall studs, which are always placed 16" apart. On this side of the
pond.------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Apr 17, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Scott Garrison wrote:
> 
> But never having thought about it  - only built many structures to this
> requirement - it begs the question where did 16" come from? Why not 12"? I
> understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
> likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from. But if we framed
> to 12, 18, or 24 inch all engineered beams and calculations would have
> easily accommodated - spans et al would simply be different and plywood
> might be sized differently though 48 x 96 is still easily and completely
> divisible by all but 18.
> 
> Completely useless question but I find myself intrigued nonetheless by the
> answer. And it isn't just "Because"

My thinking is that sheet goods are made 4 feet wide, and 3 times 16 is 48. Thus
the sheet goods do not require trimming to fit framing on 16" centers.

James has the right of it.  These spacings - including 12" - get used for a
variety of things.  16" happens to yield a solid enough structure while
still maintaining 8' spaces.  In floor framing I've had to deal with 12",
16", 19.2" and 24".  In roof framing I've also dealt with 48" and 96".

-Ken

On Thursday, April 17, 2014, James Thompson  wrote:

>
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 4:55 AM, Scott Garrison wrote:
> >
> > But never having thought about it  - only built many structures to this
> > requirement - it begs the question where did 16" come from? Why not 12"?
> I
> > understand that railroad tracks in 2014 are sized to Roman chariots of
> > likely 500 BC - so that's where that standard came from. But if we framed
> > to 12, 18, or 24 inch all engineered beams and calculations would have
> > easily accommodated - spans et al would simply be different and plywood
> > might be sized differently though 48 x 96 is still easily and completely
> > divisible by all but 18.
> >
> > Completely useless question but I find myself intrigued nonetheless by
> the
> > answer. And it isn't just "Because"
>
> My thinking is that sheet goods are made 4 feet wide, and 3 times 16 is
> 48. Thus the sheet goods do not require trimming to fit framing on 16"
> centers.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r... 
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>

I wonder too if the 16" doesn't have something to do with the walls
being able to take the weight.  Those of us who live in the northern
climates get a lot of snow on our roofs in the winter.  Spring snow,
like we've had the last few days, is wet and heavy.  Like someone
said, while 12" would give more strength and 24" less strength, 16"
seems like a good compromise.  Just my 2 cents.

Andrew

Before the listmoms jump in and remind us all that there are no old tools 
being
discussed in this thread...

16" is very convenient when 24" is your "other standard":

16x3=48
24x2=48

Tends to work out amazingly well when using 4'x8' sheets of drywall, 
sheathing etc.

Later,

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Andrew Stonina" 
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2014 1:06 PM
To: "Old Tools E-Mail List" 
Subject: [OldTools] Re: Why is 16" so important?

> I wonder too if the 16" doesn't have something to do with the walls
> being able to take the weight.  Those of us who live in the northern
> climates get a lot of snow on our roofs in the winter.  Spring snow,
> like we've had the last few days, is wet and heavy.  Like someone
> said, while 12" would give more strength and 24" less strength, 16"
> seems like a good compromise.  Just my 2 cents.
>
> Andrew
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

Snip
From: John Pesut

16" is very convenient when 24" is your "other standard":

16x3=48
24x2=48

Tends to work out amazingly well when using 4'x8' sheets of drywall, 
sheathing etc.
Unsnip
 

My house in Union City was built in 1891 from wood cut at the Union City water
powered sawmill. The house has full sized 2x4’s. Not planed to size just sawn.
The outside of the house is covered with 1” oak planks with clapboard over the
top. The wall, ceiling, and floor joists are on 16” centers. The first year we
lived there a storm came through and knocked down a silver maple that was 5’
thick at the base. The tree hit the ground next to the house just outside our
bedroom window. We both slept through the storm and didn’t know the tree was
down until we went outside.
The big barn is 30 feet to the peak and built in a C shape. With the sawmill in
town the barn was built with dimensional lumber instead of post and beam like a
lot of barns in the area. The barn studs are full sized 2x6 on 24” centers and
run the height of the wall on the ends for the full 30’. The roof is at a 30 deg
pitch and covers 60’ long with a span of 25 feet. Even with the heaviest snows I
never had a problem with the barn roof during the 20 years I lived there.
The hog barn that I converted into my workshop was full sized 2x4’s on 16”
centers.
Long way around the barn to get to my point but the 16” centers must have
predated plywood by at least a year or two.
16” centers works out well for door and window widths too.  30” window or door?
Just cut out the center stud and put a header in. 24” centers and you have to
stub in a stud under one end of the header. Of course you could install 48”
doors and windows instead.

Dave N. 
aka Old Sneelock

> In America, this is a very important length.  It was the distance
> between Benjamin Franklin’s wrist and his elbow,

This is utter nonsense.  16 inches from elbow to wrist?  I'm taller
than Ben, and that measurement on me is 11 inches.  At 16 inches,
his knuckles would have been dragging on the ground.

> My thinking is that sheet goods are made 4 feet wide, and 3 times 16
> is 48. Thus the sheet goods do not require trimming to fit framing on
> 16" centers.

That's why sheet goods are made 48" wide -- so they don't need trimming
or fitting over standard 16" on center framing. The 16" was standard 
long
before sheet goods, back when walls were covered with lath and plaster.

Mike in Sacto

Phil, GGs

Here in Australia where metric is spoken universally and fluently by all,
450mm is the standard stud spacing. That's 18 inches.

Stud spacings came first, sheet lengths/widths to suit came later.

There's plenty of documentation around about the development of timber
framed buildings. I've got a dozen books at least. It's an interesting
subject for a carpenter.

Mick Dowling
Melbourne
Member, Hand Tool Preservation Association of Australia Inc.



On 18/04/2014 12:27 am, "Phil Schempf"  wrote:

> I wonder which came first, 16" spacing or 4' sheet stock, sort of a chicken
> and egg type of deal.
>   What's the framing practice in metric countries, guessing it's not 16"
> centers and 4' plywood?
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 5:32 AM, CheekyGeek  wrote:
> 
>> I have no specific knowledge or source (would love to see the real history)
>> but I suspect that the 16" standard came about as a result of engineering,
>> in combination with the standardization of the lumber production industry.
>> 
>> We've all heard of the 2x4 and we all know that today it isn't 2"x4". 16"
>> is a logical progression of the 2x4 sequence and so may, mathematically
>> have something to do with it (along with the standard of 8' ceiling
>> heights, perhaps?). I know in older homes the 2x4s ARE 2"x4".
>> 
>> I'm guessing an engineer did the math and calculated that, at an 8' ceiling
>> standard, and a 16" on-center wall panel stud standard, the necessary
>> strength could be provided by less material in the stud (and the lumber
>> industry could get more material from the same tree) and so the 1-1/2" x
>> 3-1/2" 2x4 was born. (Leaving the 16" on-center standard alone).
>> 
>> But, like I said, this is all conjecture. I'd love to see the history of
>> the development somewhere.
>> 
>> A man understands one day that his life is built on nothing, and that's a
>> bad, crazy day. - Cosmo Castorini, Moonstruck
>> 
>> 
>> On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Michael Blair  wrote:
>> 
>>> It's a code requirement in California for any dwelling space.  Every
>> house
>>> I've lived in has 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  My great-grandfather built
>> all
>>> houses this way.  My house now was built in 1925 -- 2X4s on 16 inch
>>> centers.
>>> The 1906 house I lived in had 2X4s on 16 inch centers.  The Victorians
>> I've
>>> worked on had 2X4s on 16 inch centers, so the standard has been around
>> for
>>> a very long time.  Fiberglass insulation specifically for walls comes in
>>> 16 inch wide rolls.  Roof insulation comes in 24 inch wide rolls.
>>> 
>>> Why?  You'd need to ask a structural engineer for the rational.
>>> 
>>> Mike in Sacto
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
>>> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
>>> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
>>> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>>> 
>>> To change your subscription options:
>>> http://ruc
kus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>>> 
>>> To read the FAQ:
>>> http://swingleydev.com/arc
hive/faq.html
>>> 
>>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>>> 
>>> OldTools@r...
>>> http://ruc
kus.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
>> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
>> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
>> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>> 
>> To change your subscription options:
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> 
>> To read the FAQ:
>> http://swingleydev.com/arch
ive/faq.html
>> 
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>> 
>> OldTools@r...
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> 
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

Didn't they used to use. 16 foot chain for surveying? It's in one of my Eric
Sloane books. 16 divides into acres and miles and such evenly. They also used to
use a 10 foot pole so maybe not.

Sent from my
iPhone------------------------------------------------------------------------

This thread is about to morph into an Imperial vs Metric debate which 
(sadly) has already been settled in most of the world....

Don, in Calgary, where Metric rules, at least in theory...

On 4/17/2014 7:16 PM, Andrew Baughn wrote:
> Didn't they used to use. 16 foot chain for surveying? It's in one of my Eric
Sloane books. 16 divides into acres and miles and such evenly. They also used to
use a 10 foot pole so maybe not.
>
> Sent from my
iPhone------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

Subject:Re: [OldTools] Re: Why is 16" so important?

 Metrics are inherently dangerous. The vast super majority of 
 industrial accidents occur when people are using the metric system.
 Don't use metrics. It causes injury.

 ..... If I may interject, or chuck in my 2 bob's worth,
Philips versus Pozidrv. Now there is a situation where injury
can be readily caused. Mix one driver bit type with the other 
screwhead type, and you'd best keep your fingertips right 
away from the work. DAMHIKT!! Whatever was the inventor 
of the -second- bit type thinking?

Cheers
Peter H in Perth
It's not the blood, it's the pain.

On Apr 17, 2014, at 7:35 PM, Peter H  wrote:

>  Subject:Re: [OldTools] Re: Why is 16" so important?
> 
> Metrics are inherently dangerous. The vast super majority of 
> industrial accidents occur when people are using the metric system.
> Don't use metrics. It causes injury.
> 
> ..... If I may interject, or chuck in my 2 bob's worth,
> Philips versus Pozidrv. Now there is a situation where injury
> can be readily caused. Mix one driver bit type with the other 
> screwhead type, and you'd best keep your fingertips right 
> away from the work. DAMHIKT!! Whatever was the inventor 
> of the -second- bit type thinking?

Yeah! There are driver sets available in every Borg containing what appears to
be 40 or 50 different drivers of several different breeds. I have a small set of
30, and am usually confused. How did we get here? Are all these different
systems necessary?

Andy, I think the surveyor's chain was/is 66'. I read a book called "Measuring
America" which was an excellent read. It was a while ago, and I loaned it to
someone that never returned it...
Cheers,
Wes


> On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:16 PM, Andrew Baughn  wrote:
> 
> Didn't they used to use. 16 foot chain for surveying? It's in one of my Eric
Sloane books. 16 divides into acres and miles and such evenly. They also used to
use a 10 foot pole so maybe not.
> 
> Sent from my
iPhone------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> 
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

Snip
From: Michael Blair
>> In America, this is a very important length.  It was the distance
>> between Benjamin Franklin’s wrist and his elbow,
>
>From: Ed Minch
>This is utter nonsense.  16 inches from elbow to wrist?  I'm taller
>than Ben, and that measurement on me is 11 inches.  At 16 inches,
>his knuckles would have been dragging on the ground.
Unsnip

Could it be that Ben’s body was only 16” in length in compensation for his legs
and arms being 5” over the average human length?

or it might be that Ed was stretching all of our legs. 



Dave N.
aka Old Sneelock

They are if you want to sell more stuff!

FWIW
Don

On 4/17/2014 9:22 PM, JAMES THOMPSON wrote:
> Yeah! There are driver sets available in every Borg containing what appears to
be 40 or 50 different drivers of several different breeds. I have a small set of
30, and am usually confused. How did we get here? Are all these different
systems necessary?

On Apr 17, 2014, at 8:47 PM, Wesley Groot  wrote:

> Andy, I think the surveyor's chain was/is 66'. I read a book called "Measuring
America" which was an excellent read. It was a while ago, and I loaned it to
someone that never returned it...

>From Wikipedia:

"A chain is a unit of length. It measures 66 feet, or 22 yards, or 100 links, or
4rods. There are 10 chains in a furlong, and 80 chains in onestatute mile. An
acre is the area of 10 square chains (that is, an area of one chain by one
furlong). The chain has been used for several centuries in Britain and in some
other countries influenced by British practice."

Back in the days of slide rules, 1960 as I recall, I worked with a surveyor for
about one year. We were not working on flat ground. We both kept separate notes
on everything we did, and at the end of the day, we both did all the
calculations. My calculations had to match his exactly, or we had to re-survey
what we did that day. Lots of fun, and good trig practice. I learned to keep
good clean notes, and to be very precise.

I remember reading somewhere that in the great survey of India, way back when,
using theodolites, that it took years to complete, and at the end they were only
off by a matter of inches, in some 800 miles. I am truly impressed with that.

Metrics are  inherently dangerous.  The vast super majority of 
industrial accidents occur when people are using the metric system.
Don't use metrics. It causes injury.



On 4/17/2014 9:39 PM, Don Schwartz wrote:
>
> This thread is about to morph into an Imperial vs Metric debate which 
> (sadly) has already been settled in most of the world....
>
> Don, in Calgary, where Metric rules, at least in theory...
>
> On 4/17/2014 7:16 PM, Andrew Baughn wrote:
>> Didn't they used to use. 16 foot chain for surveying? It's in one of 
>> my Eric Sloane books. 16 divides into acres and miles and such 
>> evenly. They also used to use a 10 foot pole so maybe not.
>>
>> Sent from my 
>>
iPhone------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
>> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
>> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
>> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>>
>> To change your subscription options:
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>>
>> To read the FAQ:
>> http://swingleydev.com/arch
ive/faq.html
>>
>> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>>
>> OldTools@r...
>> http://ruck
us.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
>
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
>
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
>
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
>

On 18/04/2014 3:37 PM, JAMES THOMPSON wrote (in part):
> >From Wikipedia:
>
> "A chain is a unit of length. It measures 66 feet, or 22 yards, or 100 links,
or 4rods.

Jim,

Don't forget the poles and perches, each of which is the same length as 
a rod, 16'6".

The physical iron or steel gunter's chain which was once used by 
surveyors contains 100 individual links, each of length7.92 inches (that 
is a fraction under 7 15/16ths of an inch for those who have mastered 
neither metrics nor decimals), with a loop handle on each end to stretch 
it out straight, and brass tags at intervals along the chain, each 
differently shaped to allow easy recognition.

By the time I started  (and finished) as a "chain-man", a surveyor's 
off-sider, gunter's chains were of mainly historical interest, albeit I 
used them on, along with a chainmans' staff and axe for the preliminary 
laying out of  survey lines. Short of a malicious act a gunter's chain 
is just about indestructible, an advantage in rough going.  By then the 
gunter's chain was superseded in use for most purposes by thin steel 
bands, marked in feet and inches on one side and links on the other, 
carried on a roll, like a huge cloth tape (but still one chain in 
length).  I can still remember the fun we had when several of these 
bands were brought in by the local surveying firm to be checked and 
recertified.  There was a testing rig set up along one wall of the 
car-park under the Lands Department building and we would upset people 
by closing the car-park for the morning while we set heaters going to 
bring the air, and the test rig, up to the certification temperature.  
The actual certification was done by a licensed surveyor.

As the lackey, my role in this production was to run around turning 
heaters on and off, unroll and re-roll bands, fetch tea and coffee from 
across the street and to be blamed.  Someone must be at fault if the 
gear is too hot or cold (ditto the tea or coffee).  The person who gets 
blamed may not like it, but it allows the licensed surveyor to blow off 
steam if things are not going well.

Here in Australia the early land grants by which the government 
parcelled out lands to settlers were all described in "metes and 
bounds".  Starting from an established point, usually a corner of a 
previously granted parcel of land the new plot boundary would be 
described thus:  "From the north corner of the parcel previously granted 
to Mr Jas Smith, In a north-westerly direction for 1 mile, 2 furlongs 
and three chains to a stone cairn, thence in a south westerly direction 
to the north bank of Hobbs Creek, thence by the northern bank of the 
said creek, thence by a continuation of the northwest boundary of the 
parcel previously granted to the said Jas Smith to the point of 
commencement."  And these descriptions could run to several pages for a 
block with more than four corners.

Now with reflectors, lasers, rangefinders, dimensionally corrected 
aerial photographs and differential GPS some of the magic has gone out 
of cadastral surveying.  But it is still possible to get an unacceptably 
large "error of close" and have to start the job again from scratch, or 
to spend several days trying to find some indication of the one-time 
existence of the afore mentioned "stone cairn".  And many of the long 
established agricultural properties have not had their boundary 
descriptions converted to modern format, so Aus surveyors still need to 
be able to think in terms of otherwise obsolete measurement systems.

Any surveyors on the Porch?

Regards,

Tony Blanks
in Hobart, Tasmania, and reaching back 40+ years.......

Michael

I must have heard the story wrong.

Ed Minch





On Apr 17, 2014, at 5:23 PM, Michael Blair  wrote:

>> In America, this is a very important length.  It was the distance
>> between Benjamin Franklin’s wrist and his elbow,
> 
> This is utter nonsense.  16 inches from elbow to wrist?  I'm taller
> than Ben, and that measurement on me is 11 inches.  At 16 inches,
> his knuckles would have been dragging on the ground.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> I must have heard the story wrong.

More likely it's just the wrong story or a garbled story.  There are
so many that make the rounds.  Another story that makes the rounds is
that a "square meal" comes from trenchers, which sometimes were square
boards, dished in the middle.  But not all trenchers were square.  In
actuality, the idea of "square" meaning good or proper comes from
Freemasonry, meaning a true measure.  American English uses a lot of
Masonic jargon, as well as gambling related jargon, as in "You bet!"

16 inches is not far from a cubit, which is the measurement from the
elbow to the tips of the fingers.  Still a bit short, I think, but
closer.  My cubit is 18 1/2 inches.  The body is a measuring tool
you're never without, and so there are a number of measurements that
are based on the body.  Like measuring a horse's height in hands, now
standardized as four inches.

Mike in Sacto

On 4/17/2014 9:27 AM, Phil Schempf wrote:
> I wonder which came first, 16" spacing or 4' sheet stock, sort of a chicken
> and egg type of deal.

The 16" as tetified by the standard being there  before sheet stock.

Mike Graf

Tony,

Help me here, was there also a surveyor's measuring device
which was a steel band that had brass markers clamped to it
at predetermined intervals?

Somewhere in the fog of my memory I remember seeing something 
like that rolled up single file in a very narrow canvas "spool".  

Cheers
Peter H in Perth
---------------------------------

From: "Tony Blanks" 
To:"JAMES THOMPSON" 
Cc:"oldtools List" 
Sent:Fri, 18 Apr 2014 17:53:49 +1000
Subject:Re: Chains: was [OldTools] Why is 16" so important?

 On 18/04/2014 3:37 PM, JAMES THOMPSON wrote (in part):
 > >From Wikipedia:
 >
 > "A chain is a unit of length. It measures 66 feet, or 22 yards, or
100 links, or 4rods.

 Jim,

 Don't forget the poles and perches, each of which is the same length
as 
 a rod, 16'6".

 The physical iron or steel gunter's chain which was once used by 
 surveyors contains 100 individual links, each of length7.92 inches
(that 
 is a fraction under 7 15/16ths of an inch for those who have mastered

 neither metrics nor decimals), with a loop handle on each end to
stretch 
 it out straight, and brass tags at intervals along the chain, each 
 differently shaped to allow easy recognition.

 By the time I started (and finished) as a "chain-man", a surveyor's 
 off-sider, gunter's chains were of mainly historical interest, albeit
I 
 used them on, along with a chainmans' staff and axe for the
preliminary 
 laying out of survey lines. Short of a malicious act a gunter's chain

 is just about indestructible, an advantage in rough going. By then
the 
 gunter's chain was superseded in use for most purposes by thin steel 
 bands, marked in feet and inches on one side and links on the other, 
 carried on a roll, like a huge cloth tape (but still one chain in 
 length). I can still remember the fun we had when several of these 
 bands were brought in by the local surveying firm to be checked and 
 recertified. There was a testing rig set up along one wall of the 
 car-park under the Lands Department building and we would upset
people 
 by closing the car-park for the morning while we set heaters going to

 bring the air, and the test rig, up to the certification temperature

 The actual certification was done by a licensed surveyor.

 As the lackey, my role in this production was to run around turning 
 heaters on and off, unroll and re-roll bands, fetch tea and coffee
from 
 across the street and to be blamed. Someone must be at fault if the 
 gear is too hot or cold (ditto the tea or coffee). The person who
gets 
 blamed may not like it, but it allows the licensed surveyor to blow
off 
 steam if things are not going well.

 Here in Australia the early land grants by which the government 
 parcelled out lands to settlers were all described in "metes and 
 bounds". Starting from an established point, usually a corner of a 
 previously granted parcel of land the new plot boundary would be 
 described thus: "From the north corner of the parcel previously
granted 
 to Mr Jas Smith, In a north-westerly direction for 1 mile, 2 furlongs

 and three chains to a stone cairn, thence in a south westerly
direction 
 to the north bank of Hobbs Creek, thence by the northern bank of the 
 said creek, thence by a continuation of the northwest boundary of the

 parcel previously granted to the said Jas Smith to the point of 
 commencement." And these descriptions could run to several pages for
a 
 block with more than four corners.

 Now with reflectors, lasers, rangefinders, dimensionally corrected 
 aerial photographs and differential GPS some of the magic has gone
out 
 of cadastral surveying But it is still possible to get an
unacceptably 
 large "error of close" and have to start the job again from scratch,
or 
 to spend several days trying to find some indication of the one-time 
 existence of the afore mentioned "stone cairn". And many of the long 
 established agricultural properties have not had their boundary 
 descriptions converted to modern format, so Aus surveyors still need
to 
 be able to think in terms of otherwise obsolete measurement systems.

 Any surveyors on the Porch?

 Regards,

 Tony Blanks
 in Hobart, Tasmania, and reaching back 40+ years.......

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
 OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
 aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history,
usage,
 value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
 traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.

 To change your subscription options:
 http://ruckus
.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

 To read the FAQ:
 http://swingleydev.com/archiv
e/faq.html

 OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/

 OldTools@r...
 http://ruckus
.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

SNIP

My thinking is that sheet goods are made 4 feet wide, and 3 times 16 is 48.
Thus the sheet goods do not require trimming to fit framing on 16" centers.

END SNIP

Jim:

You are very close.  Although I do not recall why, modern construction
materials are designed to a 4" module; that is, standard materials are all a
multiple of 4."

J

Ed beat me to the punchline!

Oh well, back to lurking.

Gary
...............................
Gary Roberts
http://toolemera.com
http://toolemerabooks.com

"I'ld rather read a good book, than write a poor one." Christopher Morley




On Apr 17, 2014, at 10:04 AM, Ed Minch  wrote:

> In America, this is a very important length.  It was the distance between
Benjamin Franklin’s wrist and his elbow, and is the basis of the now defunct
system of measure that he devised.  He based this system on the cubit mentioned
in earlier texts, but later found that it was the ideal length of the key that
he strung from his kite to prove that electricity resided in the sky.  Turns out
it is an exact fraction of the length of a lightning bolt and worked like a
harmonic to attract those bolts..
> 
> These little red marks are now more a matter of tradition than actual
function, although I have found them handy when I am making windsor chairs,
using this length as the height of the back of the seat off the floor.
Occasionally I find that it is also the depth of a table or the width of a
drawer, and then they come in handy for repeatability.
> 
> Safe to ignore them.
> 
> Ed Minch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Apr 17, 2014, at 6:34 AM, John Holladay  wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> Purchased a MF No 1506 tape measure, arrived today.  Every 16” is marked
>> with two red triangles..
>> 
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.
JPG">https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37914238/wood/MF%201506%20marks.JPG
>> 
>> Any clues as to why every 16” is marked this way ?
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers
>> Mal
>> Oz
>> (Perth to be more precise)
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> 
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

GGs

I just downloaded W E Bells, Carpentry Made Easy (Chicago 1857);
http://tinyurl.com/mj4ucxb

On page 47 he mentions marking out the plates for studs at 14 inches apart,
or 16" centres. He then goes on to say that the end spacing might be more or
less than 14" but that 'it is better to have the odd space all at one end
for the plasterers in lathing.'

To me this suggests that laths came in stock lengths back then, maybe in
easy to handle bundles 4' long.

Btw. The common drywall hammer is a descendant of the lathing hatchet used
to chop laths to length.

Page 9 has a telling section title, 'Why Apprentices do not Learn'.

Mick Dowling
Melbourne
Member, Hand Tool Preservation Association of Australia Inc.

And you can buy a hard copy from Gary Robert's Toolemara Press.

Mick Dowling


On 21/04/2014 9:17 am, "Mick Dowling"  wrote:

> GGs
> 
> I just downloaded W E Bells, Carpentry Made Easy (Chicago 1857);
> http://tinyurl.com/mj4ucxb

1857 - looks like we have a handle on it.  I wonder if the Romans - who
standardized so many things - had a similar set of standards.

Ed Minch





On Apr 20, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Mick Dowling  wrote:

> On page 47 he mentions marking out the plates for studs at 14 inches apart,
> or 16" centres. He then goes on to say that the end spacing might be more or
> less than 14" but that 'it is better to have the odd space all at one end
> for the plasterers in lathing.'
> 
> To me this suggests that laths came in stock lengths back then, maybe in
> easy to handle bundles 4' long.

Ed and GGs

I keep looking, I keep finding.

Here¹s an excerpt from Early Stud frames in Australia, a paper by Melbourne
Heritage Architect Miles Lewis.

ŒAt the Tide Surveyor's house at Moreton Bay [Brisbane], of 1858, the studs
were of pine, measuring 4 by 3 inches [100 x 75 mm], and there is no
specific reference to larger corner studs. They were spaced at 18 inch [450
mm] centres, which is closer even than at Waitangi, and is the modern
dimension. The studs were tenoned into the plates, and 'batten braces' were
halved into the studs. In some examples the spacing is as low as sixteen
inches [400 mm], and it would be interesting to know whether this is related
to the period of importation of sawn pine plastering laths from the United
States in the early 1850s. In America these laths came in a standard length
of four feet [1.2 m], and thus constrained the spacing of the studs to
sixteen inches (or, presumably, two feet)¹.

I downloaded this off the web quite a while ago. If anyone is interested
I¹ll track it down and send the link.

Mick Dowling




On 21/04/2014 10:39 am, "Ed Minch"  wrote:

> 1857 - looks like we have a handle on it.  I wonder if the Romans - who
> standardized so many things - had a similar set of standards.
>

I wish I saved the lathe from the wall I demo'd in our 1914 house in California.
The studs were 2x3" dimensional, and 16" o.c. It was non-bearing, and I never
got into a bearing wall. My recollection is that the lathe probably came in 4'
lengths.

Doing renovations in Boston many years ago, in walls that could have been 30 or
300 years old, I remember that 16" was nothing more than a good bet.

Best,
Max in Austin 

> On Apr 20, 2014, at 10:34 PM, Mick Dowling  wrote:
> 
> Ed and GGs
> 
> I keep looking, I keep finding.

> Doing renovations in Boston many years ago, in walls that could have
> been 30 or 300 years old, I remember that 16" was nothing more than a
> good bet.

I think that it is significant that in those Boston buildings that 16"
was even a good bet.

Mike in Sacto

>On 21/04/2014 10:39 am, "Ed Minch"  wrote:
>
> >1857 - looks like we have a handle on it.  I wonder if the Romans - who
>> standardized so many things - had a similar set of standards.





My father always worked two jobs. He worked at the foundry in skilled trades and
after work he was a electrical contractor. As a boy I was a valuable asset
because I could fit into attics and crawl spaces so I went with him. Since Dad
usually did smaller jobs we would be putting an outlet in a spare bedroom or
adding a porch light in mostly older homes. In Coldwater, MI the houses on
Chicago St. were built in the 1830’s or later.  After a hundred years of changes
and additions the plan of the houses varied with the owners fortunes.  I got to
see the back side of a lot of attic walls and learned how to cut holes in and
patch plaster around outlet boxes and the occasional rat wall.
The lath in the wall depended on what was at hand when the wall was built. Most
was about 5/16” thick and 1 1/4 to 1 1/2” wide. Usually just rough sawn. Most
walls had the lath run horizontally across the room and the length varied so the
joints were staggered across the span. A few were nailed diagonally. Those were
a special pain because the angle left the lath unsupported for a longer length
and chances of the outlet hole breaking out while sawing was much greater. I got
pretty good with a keyhole saw.
Stud spacing was at best random. The studs were native lumber and dried in
place. I think the lath held them square while they were drying but once dry
they gripped the nails so tightly that the nails would break off before they
would pull.
With the native lumber and random placement square corners in the room were the
responsibility of the plasterer. A layer of horsehair reinforced plaster would
be laid up and used to build up low spots with a skim coat of harder plaster
over it. Since the lath was there only to provide a frame for the plaster to be
hung on, stub ends of lath in the corners were common. Fortunately most
homeowners didn’t want outlets in the corners. The hard ones to cut were switch
boxes.
Most people want a light switch near the door entering the room. Door ways
require headers and vary from 29” to 36” wide. That usually meant there was a
stud on one side and a stud and a cripple or short stud on the other side next
to the door, to support the header. In the early 1800’s there were gas lines and
valves installed next to doorways for the gas lights but no one thought of
switch boxes.  With the spacing of the doorway related to esthetics and
convenience more that code restrictions, the cripple usually had stub ends of
lath bridging the gap between the stud and the cripple. It was almost guaranteed
to break the plaster when I cut into it. If there was a cripple it meant there
wasn’t room for a switchbox. We had to chisel an opening in the stud. Native oak
and lath nails meant the chisel had a rough life.
As to stud spacing, most were roughly 16” on center. +- 4”. Unless it was a
corner or someone added a door/window/dumb waiter to the building. In one house
we found a 8’ wide fireplace that had been covered with lathe and plaster. The
owner wanted an outlet in the wall so I chiseled a channel through the brick for
a piece of emt and we put in the outlet.
I’ve lived in 3 houses that were built in the 60’s or newer and they all have
been on 16” centers.
The 4th house was built in 1891 and that was on 16” centers. So it could have
started sometime between 1800 and 1891.

Yup, Bell, while not the first to mention balloon frames, was the first to write
a book that everyone could understand! Just about that time there was
standardization of lumber sizes allowing for carpenters and builders to work
from pre drawn plans. Stock was real size, not planed size.

I’ve seen lumber bills that include specific sized lathe along with the framing
timber. I suspect this was to allow the carpenter to build according to the
plans that were purchased from the various companies that sold them to people
moving west.

That section on Why Apprentices Do No Learn is a gas to read! Bell was a
practicing builder for well over 40 years so I guess he had a right to be
grumpy.

Gary
...............................
Gary Roberts
http://toolemera.com
http://toolemerabooks.com

"I'ld rather read a good book, than write a poor one." Christopher Morley




On Apr 20, 2014, at 7:17 PM, Mick Dowling  wrote:

> GGs
> 
> I just downloaded W E Bells, Carpentry Made Easy (Chicago 1857);
> http://tinyurl.com/mj4ucxb
> 
> On page 47 he mentions marking out the plates for studs at 14 inches apart,
> or 16" centres. He then goes on to say that the end spacing might be more or
> less than 14" but that 'it is better to have the odd space all at one end
> for the plasterers in lathing.'
> 
> To me this suggests that laths came in stock lengths back then, maybe in
> easy to handle bundles 4' long.
> 
> Btw. The common drywall hammer is a descendant of the lathing hatchet used
> to chop laths to length.
> 
> Page 9 has a telling section title, 'Why Apprentices do not Learn'.
> 
> Mick Dowling
> Melbourne
> Member, Hand Tool Preservation Association of Australia Inc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> OldTools is a mailing list catering to the interests of hand tool
> aficionados, both collectors and users, to discuss the history, usage,
> value, location, availability, collectibility, and restoration of
> traditional handtools, especially woodworking tools.
> 
> To change your subscription options:
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools
> 
> To read the FAQ:
> http://swingleydev.com/archi
ve/faq.html
> 
> OldTools archive: http://swingleydev.com/archive/">http://swingleydev.com/archive/
> 
> OldTools@r...
> http://rucku
s.law.cornell.edu/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

For members of the Stud Spacing Interest Group only. All others hit delete.

Found this in ŒA Building History of Northern New England¹ by James L.
Garvin. ŒSince the 18th Century or earlier laths had been sold in bundles of
just over 4ft. By spacing members of a balloon frame so that a 4 ft lath
would extend across 3 stud, joist, or rafter intervals, carpenters arrived
at a standard spacing of 16 inches for all elements of a balloon frame ­ an
interval that has remained unchanged to the present day for all American
framing.¹ 

So it appears that the length of laths determined stud spacings in North
America.

What I haven¹t been able to establish is why in Australia stud spacings
settled on 18², and have been for 130 years at least that I know off.

I have some timber merchant flyers from the early 1920s. James Moore and
Sons of South Melbourne. They advertise Oregon (Douglas Fir) 4ft 6in laths
for walls in bundles of 90, 14 shillings. 4ft 6in for ceilings in bundles of
96, 11 shillings 6 pence.

Under a section titled useful information;

Laths. A bundle of 4ft 6in American covers 6 1/2 square yards. A bundle of
4ft 6in Ceiling laths covers 5 square yards.
Lath and Plaster-100 square yards requires 4 bags of lime, 3 yards of sand,
16 bundles 4ft 6in American Laths, 8lbs 1 1/4 nails, half a bag of hair.

Mick Dowling
Melbourne
Member, Hand Tool Preservation Association of Australia Inc.






On 23/04/2014 3:46 am, "Gary Roberts"  wrote:

> Yup, Bell, while not the first to mention balloon frames, was the first to
> write a book that everyone could understand! Just about that time there was
> standardization of lumber sizes allowing for carpenters and builders to work
> from pre drawn plans. Stock was real size, not planed size.
> 
> I¹ve seen lumber bills that include specific sized lathe along with the
> framing timber. I suspect this was to allow the carpenter to build according
> to the plans that were purchased from the various companies that sold them to
> people moving west.
> 
> That section on Why Apprentices Do No Learn is a gas to read! Bell was a
> practicing builder for well over 40 years so I guess he had a right to be
> grumpy.
> 
> Gary
> ...............................
> Gary Roberts
> http://toolemera.com
> http://toolemerabooks.com
> 
> "I'ld rather read a good book, than write a poor one." Christopher Morley
> 
>

GG's,
Now may be the right time to remember that building codes are there to protect
neighbors and future owners from builders that scoff at building codes.
Wes


> On Apr 24, 2014, at 1:00 PM, "Cliff Rohrabacher, Esq" 
wrote:
> 
> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> And now it's the law that you can't go  larger absent  larger lumber.
> All based on a defunct plastering technique.
> Ohhh what a world, what a world.

On 4/24/2014 6:46 AM, Mick Dowling wrote:
> So it appears that the length of laths determined stud spacings

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
And now it's the law that you can't go  larger absent  larger lumber.
All based on a defunct plastering technique.
Ohhh what a world, what a world.
http://www.youtube.com/watc
h?v=j7GJcKuVGm8

On 4/24/2014 5:46 AM, Mick Dowling wrote:
> 
>
> What I haven¹t been able to establish is why in Australia stud spacings
> settled on 18², and have been for 130 years at least that I know off.
>
> 
My impression is that Australian woods have greater strength than do 
American woods, especially softwoods typically used in framing.  I 
wonder if that additional strength might not have provided adequate 
resistance to deflection, thus allowing the use of less material that 
using 18" centers over 16" centers would provide.  Most old-time 
carpenters that I have known were concerned about the strength and 
durability of their work and equally concerned about economy.  For some 
reason, it seems to me that today's framers know more about codes than 
about reasons that underlie them.  Old-time carpenters would have 
scorned modern, fast growth, 1-1/2 x 3-1/2 two-by-fours as suitable only 
for outhouses and temporary structures, I suspect.

Bob Hutchins
Temple, TX, USA

On 25/04/2014 6:11 am, "RH Hutchins"  wrote:

> My impression is that Australian woods have greater strength than do
> American woods, especially softwoods typically used in framing.

Hi Bob

Here in Melbourne where most houses are timber framed, houses built up to
about WW2 are more likely to be Oregon (Douglas Fir), than Australian
Hardwood. The section sizes and spacings are all the same. Studs were 4 X 2
at the sides of openings, or 4 X 1 1/2 elsewhere, spaced at 18" centres.

The earliest positively dated timber framed house I have worked on was built
in 1889, and seems to be mostly Oregon.

My house (a Californian Bungalow) was built in 1927, and has a hardwood
frame. My parents place (also a Californian Bungalow) was built in 1926 and
has a frame entirely of Oregon except for the sub floor.

The house I've been working on for the last 6 months was built (woefully
badly) around 1907. Mostly Oregon, and low grade Oregon at that.

After the war, Australian hardwoods became the normal building material in
Melbourne. OBHW (ordinary building hardwood) is a term that I'm glad I never
hear any more. OB was supplied unseasoned and is incredibly heavy.
INCREDIBLY HEAVY. I can't stress that enough. Unloading a truck load of
timber, or standing completed walls up was back-breaking, energy draining
work. The only good thing about OB was that it was easy to saw, nail, and
chisel. Oh, and it smells great.

On drying it shrinks, twists, bows, and cracks. I think generally it was
seen as being a lower quality material.

According to my 1922 James Moore and Sons flyer, Oregon was 37 shillings 6
pence per 100 super foot, Australian Hardwood 27 shillings 6 pence. So a
premium was paid for Oregon.

Now that we seem to have established that bundles of 4ft laths are
responsible for North American 16" stud centres, wouldn't it be a hoot if it
turns out that unwanted 4ft 6" laths were shipped off to Australia, and that
determined our 18" stud centres! It's plausible.

Mick Dowling

Building codes, electrical codes, plumbing codes, they were all 
invented over time as the safe minimum. Going below code is scary. 
That's why they are there.
  Fortunately there is not much reason to go below code. I find most all 
codes to be a practical minimum. Sometimes I won't even go that low, 
really.

  In a completely perfect world it might be understood that one piece of 
wood may be 5 times stronger, or 5 times weaker, even though its the 
same kind of wood.
   Wood is --not-- a uniform substance (tm).
   But codes are meant to cover the average margin of safety.

  oh PS.. Stickers, for stacking units of wood, are the same 4' standard 
here.
  Besides lath, they cut stickers at 4 foot too.
   Made it easy at the sawmill.
   Are stickers 4' 6" in AU?
I love that you guys simply call our wood Oregon....I just love that.
       yours Scott


-- 
*******************************
    Scott Grandstaff
    Box 409 Happy Camp, Ca  96039
    scottg@s...
    http://www.snowcrest.n
et/kitty/sgrandstaff/
    http://www.snowcr
est.net/kitty/hpages/index.html



-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4570 / Virus Database: 3920/7391 - Release Date: 04/24/14