American measurements

go $fsck yourself

More pixels

[email protected]

And I also forgot about the Mainers and their two-by-faws

[email protected]

Can you make it bigger? I don't want to have to get my reading glasses, they're in the other room

[email protected]

I was hungry

[email protected]

go $fsck yourself

[email protected]

Sorry, I'm still having trouble reading it, can you make it a little bit bigger? Maybe also change the colors a bit, like inverted or something

go $fsck yourself

go $fsck yourself

[email protected]

It's because the actual cut is 2x4, and the wood shrinks. The typical shrinkage is known and accounted for. It is a treat when a house has an actual 2x though, i.e., it was cut divided by the shrinkage ratio, or cut dry.

[email protected]

The European mind cannot comprehend that as wood expands, dicks also expands

This makes total sense

[email protected]

You can't convince me that wood shrinks by 35% by crossection. No way.

[email protected]

That’s not from shrinkage (well the 1/16 might be, especially newer fast heated junk at the Homely Despot). It’s from when they mill the rough sawn 2x4 down to “finished size”. You can buy actual 2x4s, but they won’t have the nice planned surfaces or beveled edges.

I’m not wondering why it’s that sized, I’m annoyed why they insist on calling both rough saw and finished items 2x4s.

[email protected]

Username checks out!

[email protected]

I had to go back and re-read the history of dimensional lumber. 2x4 was an actual 2x4 cut until recommendations by the Forest Products Laboratory (American Lumber Congress?) in 1919 to balance functional and economic requirements (1 5/8 x 3 5/8). It's neither the shrinkage nor just milling after drying (and if my last 20 trips to big box stores with lumber are any indication, they don't care about cupping or warpage).

[email protected]

Yup, that was wrong.

[email protected]

That's why pools are so expensive.

[email protected]

Worse still, the pattern does not continue like one would expect.

Nominal: 2x4 -- Actual: 1.5" x 3.5"
Nominal: 2x6 -- Actual: 1.5" x 5.5"
Nominal: 2x8 -- Actual: 1.5" x 7.25"
Nominal: 2x10 -- Actual: 1.5" x 9.25"
Nominal: 2x12 -- Actual: 1.5" x 11.25"

There's just an arbitrary point where they decided to take an extra 1/4" bite out of it. I'm not sure whether that's more of an effect of shrinkage from kiln drying being proportional to the original length or an effect of industry practice to mill smaller boards to eke out more cuts per tree.

And for the record, yes, I am aware the discrepancy is not entirely explained by shrinkage. They do a planing step after drying. But the shrinkage is a not insignificant part of it. They have to round down to the nearest convenient dimension from wherever the shrinkage stops.

If longer boards shrink more, the finished boards would necessarily have to be smaller. I question whether that's the effect at play, though, because I believe there was a phase in the industry where that extra quarter inch wasn't taken off, and they changed their minds about it later.

[email protected]

Yeah whenever I need lumber I plan to set aside at least half an hour to dig through the piles to find OK boards.

[email protected]

You got the leap year rule wrong.

Every fourth year unless the year is divisible by 100 unless the year is also divisible by 400