going metric
- Thread starter glass1
- Start date
pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
Snippets from cyberspace on Wim's posting:
"As you all know the polar explorer space craft plunged into Mars because the calculations of foot pounds and of thrust kilo watts were not done correctly. If the metric system had been applied to the building and test programs the error could not have happened."
"The proximate cause of the loss of the orbiter was the inaccurate units conversion caused by one team developing in one system and the other team computing thrust in the other. That is a units conversion problem. One can dig deeper to find what caused that problem, and trace it back to the root cause, which was poor management. But that doesn't negate that the physical and immediate cause of the loss was too much thrust because the computer was given values in one system and treated them as values in another."
"As you all know the polar explorer space craft plunged into Mars because the calculations of foot pounds and of thrust kilo watts were not done correctly. If the metric system had been applied to the building and test programs the error could not have happened."
"The proximate cause of the loss of the orbiter was the inaccurate units conversion caused by one team developing in one system and the other team computing thrust in the other. That is a units conversion problem. One can dig deeper to find what caused that problem, and trace it back to the root cause, which was poor management. But that doesn't negate that the physical and immediate cause of the loss was too much thrust because the computer was given values in one system and treated them as values in another."
pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
At least one thing the metric is way better than imperial is volume units:
1 cc = 1 ml This is a lot easier than trying to figure out how many cubic inches in a pint.
A litre of water equals a kilo (1000 grams i.e. 1 Kg) having a measure of one cubic decimeter. A litre of water is also 1000ml or if you want to 1000cc.
(A L is a metric measure of capacity that, by definition, is equal to the volume of a kilogram of water at 4 degrees centigrade and at standard atmospheric pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury.)
When calculating box volumes (which we express in liters) you simply take W x H x D in decimetres an get liters directly.
So, a box which is 40cm x 30 cm x 50cm is 4dm x 3dm x5dm = 60L. No calculator needed for that.
Another snippet from a Kiwi fellow:
"One day on the building site we needed to find the center of a garage opening for a center pole fixture. The older fallow used the trusted imperial system of feet and inches. I used my own metric tape measure. divided by two gave me the center point quicker than it took me to type this. While the boss was still converting feet to inches. I put the jug on for another coffee."
1 cc = 1 ml This is a lot easier than trying to figure out how many cubic inches in a pint.
A litre of water equals a kilo (1000 grams i.e. 1 Kg) having a measure of one cubic decimeter. A litre of water is also 1000ml or if you want to 1000cc.
(A L is a metric measure of capacity that, by definition, is equal to the volume of a kilogram of water at 4 degrees centigrade and at standard atmospheric pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury.)
When calculating box volumes (which we express in liters) you simply take W x H x D in decimetres an get liters directly.
So, a box which is 40cm x 30 cm x 50cm is 4dm x 3dm x5dm = 60L. No calculator needed for that.
Another snippet from a Kiwi fellow:
"One day on the building site we needed to find the center of a garage opening for a center pole fixture. The older fallow used the trusted imperial system of feet and inches. I used my own metric tape measure. divided by two gave me the center point quicker than it took me to type this. While the boss was still converting feet to inches. I put the jug on for another coffee."
Maybe these links may be of some help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_Netherlands_Satellite
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOMQ374OD_index_0.html
My brother-in law (then) worked at the ANS-satellite. He works now at JPL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_Netherlands_Satellite
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOMQ374OD_index_0.html
My brother-in law (then) worked at the ANS-satellite. He works now at JPL.
One of my customers - recently deceased - would like to talk while I worked. He would bring up all sorts of things for discussion and one day he noticed me using a metric tape measure. I explained why I was using it and then a discussion ensued. I knew that he was into astronomy and following space explorations and asked if there hadn't been a problem with the use of two measurement systems resulting in a crash of something. He got quite and then disappeared. Little did I know that he worked for NASA at the time of the crash. OOPS.
Peter
Peter
pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
Tallgrass: (EDIT touchE! At least we have now established which is the dark side... ...it's ok to be a servant but don't become a worshipper! ;D
When I was adding the snippets about the Mars Polar Explorer crash I did not do it to trash Imperial, as of my understanding the fault was the conversion of units - and not the units themselves. But it is one of those occasions you had wished there had been ONE standard to adhere to.
touchE! At least we have now established which is the dark side... ...it's ok to be a servant but don't become a worshipper! ;DWhen I was adding the snippets about the Mars Polar Explorer crash I did not do it to trash Imperial, as of my understanding the fault was the conversion of units - and not the units themselves. But it is one of those occasions you had wished there had been ONE standard to adhere to.
The following is probably of no use to anybody. I'm not trying to put anybody down here as we all have our ways to measure that suits each of us best. I, personally, do not have a feeling for metrics, altho I am trying. till I get a feel, I will continue with what is easy for me and when all of my suppliers start useing metric.
Story:
My brother, who has a Masters in ART is also sometimes an intellectual snob. (Me, I made it thru HS) For years, he tried to belittle my efforts as being somewhat stupid to put it mildly. He insisted i should go metric with my work. No matter that all of my materials used, the blueprints I had to read and decipher, distances and weights etc, etc were all printed, ordered and sent out in imperial units. I was somewhat sub inteligent for not learning the metric system which was far more eficient.
One day, i was asked for the assistance of one of my backhoes to move and set up a couple of his most recent concrete & iron sculptures. I took my 10 year old son with me to operate the machinery while i was to do all of the rigging and chaining. One of the pieces was somewhat irregular and presented problem with rigging so as to not do damage. I finally figured a way to rope and chain and gave my son the thumbs up to start lifting. BUT BE VERY CAREFUL.
My illustrious brother was getting more and more impatient by the minute and finally, as the sculpture started to rise from the ground, he very foolishly jumped in and grabbed a corner and tried to lift it faster. As he heaved, he let out a yelp and ended up writhing on the ground in great pain from a back spasm. I helped him to his feet as he would not listen to any advice from me about staying put until he could determine something of the extent of his pain. While I helped him into his house, My son continued the slow swing to the point where we wanted to place the sculpture. He, of course waited til I came back outside to help twist the sculpture to its desired final location.
While I was helping my brother to lie on a couch, I recalled that even tho it was somewhat stupid for me to be working with imperial units for my business, while he was of more lofty inspiration and had long ago converted to metrics, all of his measuring and weighing tools in his shop were, you might have guessed, IMPERIAL. As he was trying to get comfortable, I asked how much he weighed. "160 pounds" "Oh my goodness." I replied. "you must have made a bad calculation between your weight and how many kilos that sculpture weighed." I was definitely not on my brothers list of most desireable acquaintances for that day.
BTW: My own uneducated estimate of weight for the sculpture my brother had attempted to lift was in the neighborhood of 1000 pounds. Damn, I don't have the proportion of sculpture weight to human body weight down pat right now, nor did I that day, but I sure did know that there were, or are not, too many people in this world who could have lifted that sculpture. Did not make a bit of difference what method used for calculations. My 10 year old son knew it too.
Tinker
Story:
My brother, who has a Masters in ART is also sometimes an intellectual snob. (Me, I made it thru HS) For years, he tried to belittle my efforts as being somewhat stupid to put it mildly. He insisted i should go metric with my work. No matter that all of my materials used, the blueprints I had to read and decipher, distances and weights etc, etc were all printed, ordered and sent out in imperial units. I was somewhat sub inteligent for not learning the metric system which was far more eficient.
One day, i was asked for the assistance of one of my backhoes to move and set up a couple of his most recent concrete & iron sculptures. I took my 10 year old son with me to operate the machinery while i was to do all of the rigging and chaining. One of the pieces was somewhat irregular and presented problem with rigging so as to not do damage. I finally figured a way to rope and chain and gave my son the thumbs up to start lifting. BUT BE VERY CAREFUL.
My illustrious brother was getting more and more impatient by the minute and finally, as the sculpture started to rise from the ground, he very foolishly jumped in and grabbed a corner and tried to lift it faster. As he heaved, he let out a yelp and ended up writhing on the ground in great pain from a back spasm. I helped him to his feet as he would not listen to any advice from me about staying put until he could determine something of the extent of his pain. While I helped him into his house, My son continued the slow swing to the point where we wanted to place the sculpture. He, of course waited til I came back outside to help twist the sculpture to its desired final location.
While I was helping my brother to lie on a couch, I recalled that even tho it was somewhat stupid for me to be working with imperial units for my business, while he was of more lofty inspiration and had long ago converted to metrics, all of his measuring and weighing tools in his shop were, you might have guessed, IMPERIAL. As he was trying to get comfortable, I asked how much he weighed. "160 pounds" "Oh my goodness." I replied. "you must have made a bad calculation between your weight and how many kilos that sculpture weighed." I was definitely not on my brothers list of most desireable acquaintances for that day.
BTW: My own uneducated estimate of weight for the sculpture my brother had attempted to lift was in the neighborhood of 1000 pounds. Damn, I don't have the proportion of sculpture weight to human body weight down pat right now, nor did I that day, but I sure did know that there were, or are not, too many people in this world who could have lifted that sculpture. Did not make a bit of difference what method used for calculations. My 10 year old son knew it too.
Tinker
Henrik....do not worry about hurting my feelings. i have a quite ample supply of tissue paper. 
the problem with the project you mentioned is a huge problem, of mixing systems. do not want to name drop but i actually know a great deal about the incident in question do to the engineering work that i do. i think mixing the systems is just stupid.i wish i could talk more about that situation it was quite a funny.
since you live in the metric zone, i have a couple of dumb questions. did you guys change the size of basic materials so that they conform more easily to the metric system or did you just measure the old stuff and just use the metric measurement. do you have 2x4s or is it a 50.8x 101.6? that would be a mouth full. same with 4x8 sheets of plywood or is it the same size just in metric. One last thing here a 2x4 is not a 2x4 it is about 1.5x3.5 ish
do you t least get a more accurate measurement of the actual dimensions of the wood. you see in the distant past a 2x4 was a 2x4 but not know
the problem with the project you mentioned is a huge problem, of mixing systems. do not want to name drop but i actually know a great deal about the incident in question do to the engineering work that i do. i think mixing the systems is just stupid.i wish i could talk more about that situation it was quite a funny.since you live in the metric zone, i have a couple of dumb questions. did you guys change the size of basic materials so that they conform more easily to the metric system or did you just measure the old stuff and just use the metric measurement. do you have 2x4s or is it a 50.8x 101.6? that would be a mouth full. same with 4x8 sheets of plywood or is it the same size just in metric. One last thing here a 2x4 is not a 2x4 it is about 1.5x3.5 ish
do you t least get a more accurate measurement of the actual dimensions of the wood. you see in the distant past a 2x4 was a 2x4 but not know pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
Inches / Equiv.Size in mm raw cuts if bought unplaned / Dimensional lumber as sold (planed)
2 x 4" 50 x 100 mm 45 x 95 mm
1 x 3" 25 x 75 mm 22 x 70 mm
3 x 3" 75 x 75 mm 70 x 70 mm
2 x 7" 50 x 175 mm 45 x 170 mm
2 x 3" 50 x 75 mm 45 x 70 mm
1 x 4" 25 x 100 mm 22 x 95 mm
1 x 5" 25 x 125 mm 22 x 120 mm
2 x 5" 50 x 125 mm 45 x 120 mm
2 x 6" 50 x 150 mm 45 x 145 mm
2 x 7" 50 x 180 mm 45 x 170 mm
2 x 8" 50 x 200 mm 45 x 195 mm
2 x 9" 50 x 225 mm 45 x 220 mm
Lenghts vary but are usually up to 5M (5000mm) and most lumberyards sell in lengths around 3/4/5M.
The lumber in Sweden (can't vouch for the rest of Europe) is sold within specs, i.e. no shorting out on the mm's they are sized as advertised. Which is a good thing, at least.
Yes it strikes me as odd that the dimensional lumber in the US is 2x4" Nominal, but the actual dimensional size is 1 1/2x3 1/2"?
What gives? Are you being ripped on that 1/2" per side? I found this explanation and wonder if it is true:
"The nominal size of a board varies from the actual size of the board. This is NOT due to shrinkage as the board is dried. Rather, it is done intentionally. Two-by's are widely used in construction. When faced with 1/2" sheetrock, the resulting combination is a true 2 inches (1.5" two-by-four + 0.5" sheetrock = 2.0 inches). The size difference has nothing to do with shrinkage. That is separate issue entirely."
2 x 4" 50 x 100 mm 45 x 95 mm
1 x 3" 25 x 75 mm 22 x 70 mm
3 x 3" 75 x 75 mm 70 x 70 mm
2 x 7" 50 x 175 mm 45 x 170 mm
2 x 3" 50 x 75 mm 45 x 70 mm
1 x 4" 25 x 100 mm 22 x 95 mm
1 x 5" 25 x 125 mm 22 x 120 mm
2 x 5" 50 x 125 mm 45 x 120 mm
2 x 6" 50 x 150 mm 45 x 145 mm
2 x 7" 50 x 180 mm 45 x 170 mm
2 x 8" 50 x 200 mm 45 x 195 mm
2 x 9" 50 x 225 mm 45 x 220 mm
Lenghts vary but are usually up to 5M (5000mm) and most lumberyards sell in lengths around 3/4/5M.
The lumber in Sweden (can't vouch for the rest of Europe) is sold within specs, i.e. no shorting out on the mm's they are sized as advertised. Which is a good thing, at least.
Yes it strikes me as odd that the dimensional lumber in the US is 2x4" Nominal, but the actual dimensional size is 1 1/2x3 1/2"?
What gives? Are you being ripped on that 1/2" per side? I found this explanation and wonder if it is true:
"The nominal size of a board varies from the actual size of the board. This is NOT due to shrinkage as the board is dried. Rather, it is done intentionally. Two-by's are widely used in construction. When faced with 1/2" sheetrock, the resulting combination is a true 2 inches (1.5" two-by-four + 0.5" sheetrock = 2.0 inches). The size difference has nothing to do with shrinkage. That is separate issue entirely."
While I was still doing mason contracting, I reused lumber as often as possible. Anything that was usable for formwork or scaffolding was brought home and carefully stacked to protect from weather. Often, I was involved in teardowns before i could begin my part of a job. consequently, i had lumber piled up covering many many years of use.
In late 70's, i did an addition on my own house. We had no closet space, so the remodel included much closet space. Since i had a lot of good used lumber on hand, I made use of it. Since the stack included lumber that had been cut and used over many years, I had 2x4 that were 2x4. I had 2x's that were 1-3/4 x 3-7/8 and 1-3/4 x 3-3/4. The next stage were 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 The latest were 1-1/2 x 3-3/8.
I had no problem in mixing the thicknesses, but I had to plan for the 3+ sizes and would make change in size from one closet wall to the next. All of the closets, because there was lack of floor space and was limites by P&Z in the footprint of house, were along the outside of the house. The outer sides of the framing was lined up to be perfectly straight, but the inner sides were a jumble of sizes. If anybody in future ever decides to rip out those closets, and make straight walls along outside, they will go crazy. A lot of shimming will be needed.
Tinker
In late 70's, i did an addition on my own house. We had no closet space, so the remodel included much closet space. Since i had a lot of good used lumber on hand, I made use of it. Since the stack included lumber that had been cut and used over many years, I had 2x4 that were 2x4. I had 2x's that were 1-3/4 x 3-7/8 and 1-3/4 x 3-3/4. The next stage were 1-5/8 x 3-5/8 The latest were 1-1/2 x 3-3/8.
I had no problem in mixing the thicknesses, but I had to plan for the 3+ sizes and would make change in size from one closet wall to the next. All of the closets, because there was lack of floor space and was limites by P&Z in the footprint of house, were along the outside of the house. The outer sides of the framing was lined up to be perfectly straight, but the inner sides were a jumble of sizes. If anybody in future ever decides to rip out those closets, and make straight walls along outside, they will go crazy. A lot of shimming will be needed.
Tinker
pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
Yup, that's what I was guessing. It would be more honest if they sold it as 1.5x3.5" - but hey - it's a global thing isn't it? And it doesn't look as good in print as 2x4".
How valid is that "construction site size adjustment" remark? Shouldn't builders be able to assert proper thickness anyway and lumber sold in "correct sizes", i.e as advertised?
I wouldn't be happy to be conned out of half an inch - on two sides - on my lumber but they can always get by with saying "it is priced accordingly".
EDIT:
Tinkers reply came in just as I was posting. That is exactly the kind of Babels Tower one is hoping to avoid, it has nothing to do with Imperial but with "common" (and sometimes stupid) practice.
Think of what would have happened if a less experienced woodchip, like me, would have had the same predicament. Monumental would be a word fitting the anxiety arising. Enough to pop a vein.
I have had similar predicaments on a smaller scale in a house where no wall as straight and all that was available was ... leftovers. It ended up dead straight where needed and pleasing to the eye where needed but I'd hate to be the guy to alter anything... ;D
How valid is that "construction site size adjustment" remark? Shouldn't builders be able to assert proper thickness anyway and lumber sold in "correct sizes", i.e as advertised?
I wouldn't be happy to be conned out of half an inch - on two sides - on my lumber but they can always get by with saying "it is priced accordingly".
EDIT:
Tinkers reply came in just as I was posting. That is exactly the kind of Babels Tower one is hoping to avoid, it has nothing to do with Imperial but with "common" (and sometimes stupid) practice.
Think of what would have happened if a less experienced woodchip, like me, would have had the same predicament. Monumental would be a word fitting the anxiety arising. Enough to pop a vein.
I have had similar predicaments on a smaller scale in a house where no wall as straight and all that was available was ... leftovers. It ended up dead straight where needed and pleasing to the eye where needed but I'd hate to be the guy to alter anything... ;D
I think that a better possible answer as to why framing lumber is the reduced size versus the nominal size relates to the planing process and changes in the construction process. In years of old framing lumber was only cut / surfaced on two edges. Floor joists measured a full 6, 8, 10 12 inches. Their thickness varied. That is why framing is based on center. Didn't matter if the joists etc were 2 or 2.25 inches thick. If there were to be any differences in the thickness / flatness of walls, well after lathe there always were differences anyway, plaster smoothed it all out.
As the wall finishing methods changed and plaster became less common, it became necessary to standardize the framing material to achieve a better finish. That allowed for faster construction and required that the framing material be planed on all sides. So the sizes result from cutting rough and then allowing for Jointing and planing on all sides. .25 per side. Because the movement during drying is greater for the wider boards, the allowances were greater for the edges - an extra 1/8 per edge. That is why a 2 x 10 is really 1.5 x 9.25.
Make sense?
Peter
As the wall finishing methods changed and plaster became less common, it became necessary to standardize the framing material to achieve a better finish. That allowed for faster construction and required that the framing material be planed on all sides. So the sizes result from cutting rough and then allowing for Jointing and planing on all sides. .25 per side. Because the movement during drying is greater for the wider boards, the allowances were greater for the edges - an extra 1/8 per edge. That is why a 2 x 10 is really 1.5 x 9.25.
Make sense?
Peter
pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
Peter, thank you for the clarification. The planing process has evolved over here too, though we have the option of either/or, which is a good thing (unplaned/planed). Also, the planed lumber (three sides, I think) are sized as advertised.
I wonder why they didn't change the raw cuts to accommodate for the new way of planing the lumber so that the end result would be the same?
I wonder why they didn't change the raw cuts to accommodate for the new way of planing the lumber so that the end result would be the same?
Peter is correct.
Those 2x4 that were 2x4 were not planed. They needed to be handled with care as they were rough and lots of splinters. The 1-3/4 x 3-3/4 were planed on only two sides. Beyond that, they were planed on all four sides.
I have worked with both plaster and sheetrock. In the days we used plaster, we, at first used wood lathe. When i was just starting in the trades, it was soon after that we went to "rock lathe" which was like sheetrock, only 16 x 48" sheets (I think) with a slightly rough surface. When we were using woodlathe and plaster, it did not make much difference if the framing lumber was perfectly straight, but it was desireable. If there was a slight bow, it was made up in the way we used the tools. we had stright edges called "Darbies" that we used to true up by dragging over the freshly applied "brown coat" plaster. White coat plaster was then applied over walls and ceilings that had already been trued. If wall was crooked when white coat was applied, the finish was crooked.
Once we went to new sheetrock, it became more important for the framing to be perfect. Any bows in the framing showed up in the
finished walls. It was even worse with ceilings. Those had to be perfect. I think the implimentation of sheet rock made it more necessary to standardize lumber sizes.
Note about old plaster>>> off topic: When I first went into business for my self, I did some plastering and sheetrocking. As time went on, we started doing plaster patches by cutting out plaster and replacing with sheetrock, even if only small patches in mid wall or ceiling. I figured a small patch in a kitchen ceiling that was plaster over wood lathe. When I priced it out, i priced as if i were to take out entire ceiling. The owners screamed it was robbery. I explained that when we start to patch old plaster of wood, there is no way to be sure the entire ceiling won't come down. they still grumbled but finally agreed to me working if i could give a little break on price if I only had to do a patch.
The day I started, I got my staging all set up and hard hat in place on top of my head. (In those days, the hard hat was strictly optional) The owners insisted they stay in the room to watch me cut out the patch. I told them no way. After heated discussion, they finally retreated into other room but insisted they leave a door open so they could watch. I advized against the open door, but could not persuade them not to.
As I walked the staging out to center of just under the ceiling patch to be, I reached up with my flat bar in preparation to tap with hammer to loosen edges. i did not even get the chance to swing the hammer when the entire ceiling came down >>> all at once. Those people realized then how lucky they were the ceiling had not fallen on them before while family were all in the room. They ended up with lage cleaning bill to get rid of the dust that floated thruout the entire first floor. I ended up doing the entire room, walls and all. They decided on new sheetrock for entire house, but I told them to get a larger crew for that.
Tinker
Those 2x4 that were 2x4 were not planed. They needed to be handled with care as they were rough and lots of splinters. The 1-3/4 x 3-3/4 were planed on only two sides. Beyond that, they were planed on all four sides.
I have worked with both plaster and sheetrock. In the days we used plaster, we, at first used wood lathe. When i was just starting in the trades, it was soon after that we went to "rock lathe" which was like sheetrock, only 16 x 48" sheets (I think) with a slightly rough surface. When we were using woodlathe and plaster, it did not make much difference if the framing lumber was perfectly straight, but it was desireable. If there was a slight bow, it was made up in the way we used the tools. we had stright edges called "Darbies" that we used to true up by dragging over the freshly applied "brown coat" plaster. White coat plaster was then applied over walls and ceilings that had already been trued. If wall was crooked when white coat was applied, the finish was crooked.
Once we went to new sheetrock, it became more important for the framing to be perfect. Any bows in the framing showed up in the
finished walls. It was even worse with ceilings. Those had to be perfect. I think the implimentation of sheet rock made it more necessary to standardize lumber sizes.
Note about old plaster>>> off topic: When I first went into business for my self, I did some plastering and sheetrocking. As time went on, we started doing plaster patches by cutting out plaster and replacing with sheetrock, even if only small patches in mid wall or ceiling. I figured a small patch in a kitchen ceiling that was plaster over wood lathe. When I priced it out, i priced as if i were to take out entire ceiling. The owners screamed it was robbery. I explained that when we start to patch old plaster of wood, there is no way to be sure the entire ceiling won't come down. they still grumbled but finally agreed to me working if i could give a little break on price if I only had to do a patch.
The day I started, I got my staging all set up and hard hat in place on top of my head. (In those days, the hard hat was strictly optional) The owners insisted they stay in the room to watch me cut out the patch. I told them no way. After heated discussion, they finally retreated into other room but insisted they leave a door open so they could watch. I advized against the open door, but could not persuade them not to.
As I walked the staging out to center of just under the ceiling patch to be, I reached up with my flat bar in preparation to tap with hammer to loosen edges. i did not even get the chance to swing the hammer when the entire ceiling came down >>> all at once. Those people realized then how lucky they were the ceiling had not fallen on them before while family were all in the room. They ended up with lage cleaning bill to get rid of the dust that floated thruout the entire first floor. I ended up doing the entire room, walls and all. They decided on new sheetrock for entire house, but I told them to get a larger crew for that.
Tinker
Henrik,
I don't have an answer to your question, but my guess is that when the change over started, there was resistance to the new ways and by offering the new and the old it would be possible to make all carpenters as happy as possible. It could also be that reduction in size really did not have a significant impact onn the strength. I'm not an engineer, but I suspect especially for wall framing the size reduction just didn't matter.
I will ask the question though. I am fortunate that my local family owned lumberyard ( I live in a semi-rural area) just stopped cutting and manufacturing all their own lumber and moldings in the early 1980s. They did it all from owning the land to harvesting the trees all the way to the finished product. I believe that I could still get them to supply full thickness framing lumber - primarily floor joists - if requested. I'll ask the question and report back on why not the change in the original rough sizes when the change over.
Peter
I don't have an answer to your question, but my guess is that when the change over started, there was resistance to the new ways and by offering the new and the old it would be possible to make all carpenters as happy as possible. It could also be that reduction in size really did not have a significant impact onn the strength. I'm not an engineer, but I suspect especially for wall framing the size reduction just didn't matter.
I will ask the question though. I am fortunate that my local family owned lumberyard ( I live in a semi-rural area) just stopped cutting and manufacturing all their own lumber and moldings in the early 1980s. They did it all from owning the land to harvesting the trees all the way to the finished product. I believe that I could still get them to supply full thickness framing lumber - primarily floor joists - if requested. I'll ask the question and report back on why not the change in the original rough sizes when the change over.
Peter
pingvinlakrits
Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2007
- Messages
- 1,093
Tinker - that is quite a story! 
Peter: that would be interesting to hear!
Peter: that would be interesting to hear!
