tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754440625977916703.post6048898167391303632..comments2024-03-17T03:11:09.317-07:00Comments on Bridges To The Future: The real size of a 2 x 4?Dickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13870935149581761539noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754440625977916703.post-75018055153827440702011-02-14T11:14:18.187-08:002011-02-14T11:14:18.187-08:00The size of a 2x4 at Menards is 1.5" by 3.5&q...The size of a 2x4 at Menards is 1.5" by 3.5". Why, you ask? Well mass production and modern home building with manufactured standard size materials like plywood and drywall requires uniform thickness and width boards. Rough cut a green 2" by 4" piece, dry it and then surface it smooth and you are left with 1.5" x 3.5". What most people call a 2x4. <br /><br />At Menards a 2x6 is really 1.5" by 5.5"<br />and a 2x8 is really 1.5" by 5.25" What the...!<br />I warn you this is confusing but there is a good reason for this and a lot to learn and apply. Too much?<br />Ponder this, just how long is a 8 foot 2x4???<br />I am hoping for them to put questions like this on the ACT test soon.Dickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13870935149581761539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754440625977916703.post-52163227949742459142011-02-14T06:27:47.084-08:002011-02-14T06:27:47.084-08:00Right on Luke. I used the circumference as it is e...Right on Luke. I used the circumference as it is easier to measure than the diameter of standing timber. There is however a Doyle Log Rule for standing timber that is held out and sighted over to determine the number of certain length logs and the quantity of board feet each log will yield. For sure the logging people are specialists at this and there is much more to learn in this area. <br /><br />MC Hammer - Cant touch this ... is in the next post. EnjoyDickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13870935149581761539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754440625977916703.post-8130791658011645302011-02-13T21:29:06.861-08:002011-02-13T21:29:06.861-08:00Oops, I mean 33.94 inches. 16.97 would have been t...Oops, I mean 33.94 inches. 16.97 would have been the diameter. That is if I understand the question right.LukeWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11013137259315609794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5754440625977916703.post-69099515624650583492011-02-13T21:23:30.609-08:002011-02-13T21:23:30.609-08:0016.97 inches!
What's a "Cant"?16.97 inches!<br /><br />What's a "Cant"?LukeWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11013137259315609794noreply@blogger.com