OldTools Archive

Recent Bios FAQ

262562 "yorkshireman@y..." <yorkshireman@y...> 2017‑06‑25 Re: [SPAM?] duh????
Tom ponders sizes…

It was my understanding from away way back that the timber was cut in the mill
at 2” x 4”
it then dries out, and shrinks a bit - actual amount varying according to
species and degree of drying.   But the buyer knows what species, so knows how
much it has/will shrunk/shrink
Then it needs to be surfaced, and again, the amount of surface to be removed
depends again on species, and what you’re using.  I’ll claim to lose less timber
by hand surfacing than using an el*ctr*c planer, and, as we have discussed here,
absolute sizes are less important than consistent sizes (usually) unless you are
making  things where thousands of parts are needed to be interchangeable.

So we can see why someone selling timber could only state “this timber started
as a 2x4 of oak / beech / oregon pine /sycamore / birch (pick one) “

Equally, as Tom says, nowadays, in these times of collective abrogation of
personal responsibility it's probably way past time that the industry began
catering to the current crop of ill trained and ill informed DIY newcomers who
want instant Ikea gratification and provide some accurately sized material.
Maybe it would be better if it didn’t keep expanding and contracting due to the
humidity.  Then you could guarantee it’s size.
Ah - I have the answer - we’ll use plastic.  Make your furniture from the wonder
material “plastic”  just squirt it into a mould, and out it comes.  Forget that
boring fiddly hand work - you want a chair? just buy a couple of kilos of
‘plastic’ and a mould.  Use your skill to fill the mould, wait for a half hour,
and out pops a chair.


In the EU, they’d spend five years and come out with some sort of labelling
requirement, and in the USA you start am opportunistic law suit to enrich your
lawyers.  I can see both sides of this.  Meantime, I'll just keep on taking a
tape measure to the yard and buy planks.


Richard Wilson
A galoot in Northumbria

wishing Tom a slightly belated Happy Birthday…
262566 John Ruth <johnrruth@h...> 2017‑06‑25 Re: duh????
(John runs out from under the porch with the dreaded soap box in hand!)

When I was younger, four-by lumber was missing 1/4 in thickness.  Then, another
1/8 disappeared. In recent years it's been missing a full 1/2".
 
Whose idea was it that construction lumber should be surfaced on four sides?! 

I grew up in a circa 1900 house where the rough-sawn studs were fully 2x4 after
70 years of drying.

Less is not more! 

Think of this in Board Feet!!! 

 Fair standards are not generated by trade associations!  Throughout history,
human nature has necessitated that weights and measures be dictated by fiat and
checked at frequent intervals for cheating.

How do metric countries handle this?

John Ruth
262567 Matt Williams 2017‑06‑25 Re: duh????
blockquote, div.yahoo_quoted { margin-left: 0 !important; left:1px">border-left:1px #715FFA solid !important; left:1ex">padding-left:1ex !important; background-color:white
">background-color:white !important; } I've been rebuilding an old building
and the 2x4s are full width.  Very clear and tight grain but I've had to wear
gloves, I don't usually, but it is very splintery because it wasn't sanded with
the corners rounded over like the lumber I buy today.I appreciate that the
lumber today is as surfaced as it is.  I don't have an opinion on the actual
dimensions.


Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone


On Sunday, June 25, 2017, 10:41 AM, John Ruth  wrote:

(John runs out from under the porch with the dreaded soap box in hand!)

When I was younger, four-by lumber was missing 1/4 in thickness.  Then, another
1/8 disappeared. In recent years it's been missing a full 1/2".
 
Whose idea was it that construction lumber should be surfaced on four sides?! 

I grew up in a circa 1900 house where the rough-sawn studs were fully 2x4 after
70 years of drying.

Less is not more! 

Think of this in Board Feet!!! 

 Fair standards are not generated by trade associations!  Throughout history,
human nature has necessitated that weights and measures be dictated by fiat and
checked at frequent intervals for cheating.

How do metric countries handle this?

John Ruth

------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
https://oldtools.swingleydev.com/mailman/listinfo/oldtools

To read the FAQ:
https://swingleydev.com/archive/faq.html

OldTools archive: https://swingleydev.com/ot/

OldTools@s...
262568 Erik Levin 2017‑06‑25 Re: duh????
(John Ruth's soapbox rant removed)
I also like in a domicile of pre Great War vintage, with principal construction
involving material of actual rather than nominal size. When I purchased (or,
more accurately, convinced the bank to purchase for me) the structure, there
were a fair number of joists with shear splits, spacing from 19.2" to 24" on
center, a good bit of twist in various structural elements, and a couple hard
hurricanes and winter storms (100+MPH winds the week after I closed, 18-24" of
snow on the roof that winter, and so on every year since) to prove to overall
soundness despite the structural shortcomings.
I have repaired a number of failings, most of which were due to prior owners,
such as where a section of ledger was cut out leaving a big part of the first
floor joists supported only by a single toe-nail each. This is how I learned
that you can get, in theory, Teco (or equiv) hangers in widths for a variety of
lumber sizes for just such a contingency. Of course, practice and theory don't
always match up, so I bent and/or welded up my own for some locations.
The nominal sizing goes back to WWII or before, based on some of the lumber I
have found and some of the references I have on the shelf, including pre-WWII
structural texts that give the nominal sizes for BOM, and actual sizes for
calculations. A data point in hand is 1-5/8 thick 2X lumber used for work done
in 1942. It came this way from the yard, as the mill stencil is visible on a few
pieces and has the stylishly rounded corners that came into vogue in the early
20th.

As to the lawsuit in question, I haven't read it, but there was one a few years
ago (less than 25, at least, as I was already in NJ) that the lumber was
undersized versus the standard. Every piece was at the bottom limit of the
acceptable range, when the intent of the standard was a distribution over the
range. If building so close to the spec that the few percent loss there is an
issue, things are very wrong, but I was absolutely in sympathy. Remember when
3/4 ply became 23/32 ply? and the actual size today is likely to 22/23, the
bottom of the range both then and now, IIRC. *** This message was sent from a
convenience email service, and the reply address(es) may not match the
originating address
262572 Peter Marquis-Kyle <peter@m...> 2017‑06‑25 Re: duh????
On 26/06/2017 3:40 AM, John Ruth asked:
> How do metric countries handle this?

Well, in this metric country (Australia) exact section sizes (rather 
than nominal sizes) are part of the description (measured in millimetres).

In our system, logs are rough sawn to standard sections in 25mm steps -- 
25, 50, 75, 100 etc (which correspond to your 1, 2, 3, 4 inch steps). 
Plus a few intermediate steps, such as 38mm (inch-and-a-half). 
Acceptable tolerance is plus or minus 3mm (eighth-of-an-inch).

Timber that is sold seasoned and dressed is described by the actual 
dimensions -- so a stick of plantation-grown pine that started as a 
75x50 is sold as a 70x45.

Peter Marquis-Kyle
A fan of the millimetre
262574 Ed Minch <ruby1638@a...> 2017‑06‑25 Re: duh????
I ”apprenticed” on 2 large jobs over a 9 month stretch with a finish carpenter
born in 1900.  In the Philadelphia area.  In 1974 we were getting 2X lumber
anywhere from 1-3/4 to 1-9/16" thick and similar variation on width.  In the mid
80’s it seems to stabilize at 1-5/8”.  then in the 90’s it went to 1-1/2”.

With more accurarte cutting technology, are they cutting it thinner before
finishing?

Ed Minch

Recent Bios FAQ