[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)