[HN Gopher] U.S. Forest Service - History of Yard Lumber Size St... ___________________________________________________________________ U.S. Forest Service - History of Yard Lumber Size Standards (1964) [pdf] Author : walterbell Score : 14 points Date : 2022-08-21 20:33 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.fpl.fs.fed.us) (TXT) w3m dump (www.fpl.fs.fed.us) | h2odragon wrote: | the long answer to "why is a 2x4 board actually 1.5 inch by 3.5 | inch" | | considering the inputs, modern lumber is a stunningly consistent | and reliable product. | bradly wrote: | 2x4 in the rough is 1.5 x 3.5 inch when milled square. | Depending on the moisture content when milled and how it is | stored/dryed there could be considerable stray from the full, | nominal size. | kevin_thibedeau wrote: | > stunningly consistent | | Except now they've found a new way to cheat by putting | excessively large radii on the corners of construction grade | lumber. | dmckeon wrote: | I worked in a retail lumber yard in the mid-1970s and learned | to be very patient with crochety old pharts who complained that | "a 2x4 used to be a full 2"x4" dagnabbit..." Am now a somewhat | crochety old phart myself, and was surprised to find that 1.5" | x 2.5" actual (2"x3" nominal) is considered adequate for some | studs. Source: https://www.homedepot.com/p/2-in-x-3-in-x-96-in- | Select-White... | | Am pleased to see that effective hacking has a long history: | | > Dimension was fitted into place by the carpenter, more often | than not with his hatchet. | walterbell wrote: | https://www.harvarddesignmagazine.org/issues/45/nominal-vers... | | _> Size standards, maximum moisture content, and nomenclature | were agreed upon only as recently as 1964. The nominal 2x4 thus | became the actual 11/2 x 31/2, imperceptibly, a fraction of an | inch at a time. It was a 34 percent reduction in actual volume; | as those in the trade would say, it's "selling air." | | > Today, everyone in the construction industry knows that nominal | size is not actual size--despite the fact that the 2x4 | designation persists in the marketplace. So, why does the | awareness about the "slimming" of its actual size matter? For | one, we must dispel any notion that the current size is a perfect | utility equation of structural performance in terms of strength- | to-size ratio. | | > Instead, let's recognize that the evolution of the 2x4 resulted | from economic compromise based on simplifying differences and | creating a nationwide standard for customers. It is utility | optimized for construction speed--speed in shooting together | single-family light-stick stud homes which represent more than 90 | percent of the residential housing market._ | bombcar wrote: | By | | L. W. SMITH, Wood Technologist and | | L. W. WOOD, Engineer | | Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture | | Strangely appropriate. | hpkuarg wrote: | Every day there's more evidence that we live in a simulation. | ;-) | tschwimmer wrote: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-21 23:00 UTC)