mickyd's Woodworking Projects

[beeg]

[quote="JPG40504"]In order for cu in to be 144 per board foot, one must use 'nominal' cu in, not actual. Thus a 1"x4"x3ft (1x4x36 = 144) is one board foot, not (.75x3.5x36 =0.656) board foot.

I find it interesting that the 'lumber industry' sells a 'finished' product priced by the 'unfinished' dimension of the raw material prior to ANY processing.]


Like you said, you PAY FOR a board foot, but get 0.0656 bf. So your paying for the finishing and waste of what they buy.

[mickyd]

Decided that this is going to be my next project. It's a pegboard storage rack. Liked this one due to the simplicity, need, and that fact that I already have the material.
.
[ATTACH]9089[/ATTACH]
.
.
With all that 'extra time' this past long Memorial Day weekend, I recreated this design in sketchup from a 1996 ShopNotes magazine. The original plan calls for a 2' x 4' for the wall mount unit but I am going to instead mount it on the side of my workbench so I need to bring the size down to about 24" x 31".

Nice feature is the two swinging doors each with 2 mounting surfaces. I'll be able to add a 5th fixed surface in back of it facing the inside of the workbench.

Used my trusty board foot calculator website. Comes out to about 7.5 B.F. I'll use Douglas Fir 2 x 4's

Instead of diving in and starting to cut without a full plan, like I did with the candle lanterns, I also did a cutting layout. It will take just two 2" x 4" x 8'.
.
.
[ATTACH]9174[/ATTACH]
.
.
Should take me less than 3 months to complete this one.....I hope!!

UPDATES

Lessons learned.....

• Doors use bushings as the hinge. Bushing prices vary significantly based on quality. See this post. You don't need the expensive $3+ bushings for this application. Pay less than $1.
• Make sure to use featherboards, both vertical or horizontal, OR use a 'shoe' when cutting the rabbets on the stiles and rails. Chances of getting your hand into in the blade is great. I did but was lucky enough to not get seriously injured. Too close!!!!!
• Sand end grains prior to assembly of laps
• Try measuring less and fitting to size more.

Post locator

• Wood Identification Guides - 369
• Completed project - 440

[JPG]

Decided that this is going to be my next project. Liked this one due to the simplicity, need, and that fact that I already have the material.
.
[ATTACH]9056[/ATTACH]
.
.
With all that 'extra time' this past long Memorial Day weekend, I recreated this design in sketchup from a 1996 ShopNotes magazine. The original plan calls for a 2' x 4' unit but I am going to instead mount it on the side of my workbench so I need to bring the size down to about 20" x 24".

Nice feature is the two swinging doors each with 2 mounting surfaces. I'll be able to add a 5th fixed surface in back of it facing the inside of the workbench.

Used my trusty board foot calculator website. Comes out to about 8.5 B.F. I'll use Douglas Fir 2 x 4's

Instead of diving in and starting to cut without a full plan, like I did with the candle lanterns, I also did a cutting layout. It will take just two 2" x 4" x 8"'s.
.
.
[ATTACH]9057[/ATTACH]

.
.
[ATTACH]9058[/ATTACH]
.
.
Should take me less than 3 months to complete this one.....I hope!!

Ya gonna rip them with a laser??? I do not see kerf waste. If yer thinking bandsaw, go slow and watch(closely) for blade 'drift'.

BTW yer gonna buy 2-2x4-8' at 5 1/3 bf each = 10 2/3 bf @ 0.56 = $5.97 You may/should consider a more gooder grade of 2x4!

[charlese]

[quote="JPG40504"]Another 'mistake is mis-typing the data! 384 makes more sense than 129.85!!!!!

Also ALWAYS use 'nominal' dimension when doing board foot calculations.

Thus a 1x8 is not 3/4" x 7.5"! You think that is confusing, a 2 x 4 used to be 1 5/8" x 3 5/8". Same for larger sizes.

In order for cu in to be 144 per board foot, one must use 'nominal' cu in, not actual. Thus a 1"x4"x3ft (1x4x36 = 144) is one board foot, not (.75x3.5x36 =0.656) board foot.

I do not understand any reason for 'endless discussions' if the procedure above is adhered to.

However when we delve into 'shrinkage' due to saw kerfs and moisture content, it does get a bit murky. Fortunately for us 'consumers' the nominal dimensions are pretty standard(for a given moisture content which most folks don't know or care about).

I find it interesting that the 'lumber industry' sells a 'finished' product priced by the 'unfinished' dimension of the raw material prior to ANY processing.]
Wow! didn't know I was going to write a book, but here goes!

Well - You caught me!:o Yep! These little numbers sometimes get mis read or mis typed. I've since fixed my post which should now make more sense!

Not understanding the reason(s) for endless discussions is understandable for folks not making a living dealing with turning trees into lumber, or fiber products or even pulp. Although tree measurements and log measurements (log scale) is not what we woodworkers are interested in. It probably never affects us, until we go sawmilling. However, this is where the confusing discussions begin. Let me throw in a couple of examples:

Even the measuring (log scales) I am aware of use a separate measure (different rules) for determining the measure of usable wood in trees. Sometimes even in the tree! Scribner scale rule as opposed to Doyle scale rule. There starts the confusion. Other rules are applied to the bd. ft. measure of boards. Softwoods measuring rules are are even different than hardwoods.

I have had a few occurrences when researchers (mostly university researchers) tried to solve the above measuring differences by converting to different measures such as CORDS (again cu. ft.) and weight. As you can appreciate, weight of wood, particular green wood in log form can vary because of a lot of factors relating to water. We did finally go to a system of measuring that involved the volume measurements (scales) of logs coming from a particular stand of trees statistically to their weight per thousand Board Feet (MBF). Then we could scale (measure) a smaller sample of log loads and weigh the rest. Depending on the consistency of the statistics, the actual scaling (measuring) would come out to be every 3RD, 4Th or 5Th load. Those loads would also be weighed. The un-scaled loads would just be weighed. The measured loads were scaled (measured) on the basis of a blind drawing of the pre-determined amount. This was to avoid loggers purposefully piling the heavy logs on some loads and and light loads on others.

Even the cord or other cubic foot measures didn't work very well and in my experience were mostly thrown out. Sizes of logs vs. produce-able wood products varied too much.

Where boards are concerned - if you want to express the volume in terms of cubic feet, I agree that one way is to use nominal rather than actual measurements. But whether that is the most proper to use depends on what use the cubic measurements are intended for. I disagree that if this procedure is always followed, there would be no discussions necessary. Use of those measurements can sometimes get awkward. Conversions such as I did above are pretty questionable:eek: . That's why the disclaimer.

A board foot remains the size of a board when rough sawn. If one were to measure such a board in cubic inches, he would never be able to produce that number of 1 inch cubes from it. Similarly, a board measured in Bd.Ft. will not yield a board foot of product, not only because of the saw kerf and waste, but also the board foot measuring rules.

A board foot is just a board foot. It is nothing else! A cubic inch is just a cubic inch! It is nothing else. To convert from one to another just doesn't factor with accuracy. I am aware that cu. inches are a measure that has a solid unchangeable volume. However a board foot does not. (eg.; 3ea. 1"X4"X12' boards to not equal the same volume as 1ea. 1"X12"X12' board. You get an extra 1" of width on the 12" board) We need to accept this and just go with the the volume of wood in the board feet we have for our use. When buying by the board foot - we can gain wood by buying wider boards.

[JPG]

Wow! didn't know I was going to write a book, but here goes!

Well - You caught me!:o Yep! These little numbers sometimes get mis read or mis typed. I've since fixed my post which should now make more sense!

Not understanding the reason(s) for endless discussions is understandable for folks not making a living dealing with turning trees into lumber, or fiber products or even pulp. Although tree measurements and log measurements (log scale) is not what we woodworkers are interested in. It probably never affects us, until we go sawmilling. However, this is where the confusing discussions begin. Let me throw in a couple of examples:

Even the measuring (log scales) I am aware of use a separate measure (different rules) for determining the measure of usable wood in trees. Sometimes even in the tree! Scribner scale rule as opposed to Doyle scale rule. There starts the confusion. Other rules are applied to the bd. ft. measure of boards. Softwoods measuring rules are are even different than hardwoods.

I have had a few occurrences when researchers (mostly university researchers) tried to solve the above measuring differences by converting to different measures such as CORDS (again cu. ft.) and weight. As you can appreciate, weight of wood, particular green wood in log form can vary because of a lot of factors relating to water. We did finally go to a system of measuring that involved the volume measurements (scales) of logs coming from a particular stand of trees statistically to their weight per thousand Board Feet (MBF). Then we could scale (measure) a smaller sample of log loads and weigh the rest. Depending on the consistency of the statistics, the actual scaling (measuring) would come out to be every 3RD, 4Th or 5Th load. Those loads would also be weighed. The un-scaled loads would just be weighed. The measured loads were scaled (measured) on the basis of a blind drawing of the pre-determined amount. This was to avoid loggers purposefully piling the heavy logs on some loads and and light loads on others.

Even the cord or other cubic foot measures didn't work very well and in my experience were mostly thrown out. Sizes of logs vs. produce-able wood products varied too much.

Where boards are concerned - if you want to express the volume in terms of cubic feet, I agree that one way is to use nominal rather than actual measurements. But whether that is the most proper to use depends on what use the cubic measurements are intended for. I disagree that if this procedure is always followed, there would be no discussions necessary. Use of those measurements can sometimes get awkward. Conversions such as I did above are pretty questionable:eek: . That's why the disclaimer.

A board foot remains the size of a board when rough sawn. If one were to measure such a board in cubic inches, he would never be able to produce that number of 1 inch cubes from it. Similarly, a board measured in Bd.Ft. will not yield a board foot of product, not only because of the saw kerf and waste, but also the board foot measuring rules.

A board foot is just a board foot. It is nothing else! A cubic inch is just a cubic inch! It is nothing else. To convert from one to another just doesn't factor with accuracy. I am aware that cu. inches are a measure that has a solid unchangeable volume. However a board foot does not. (eg.]3ea. 1"X4"X12' boards to not equal the same volume as 1ea. 1"X12"X12' board[/color]. You get an extra 1" of width on the 12" board) We need to accept this and just go with the the volume of wood in the board feet we have for our use. When buying by the board foot - we can gain wood by buying wider boards.

How somever, they are both considered to be 12 bf both at the time of creation when rough sawn AND at the lumber yard after being dressed. You are getting more for the wider board since less is lost to sawing and finishing(only one 'loss' per surface)(the 1x4 loses 6 'loss'(one each for six finished surfaces).

I agree one is wasting their time attempting to quantify it more precisely etc.

Those lumber barons actually knew how to deal with a natural, varying product.

Those other things you mentioned are an attempt to ESTIMATE the yield from a wildly varying source of raw material(pun intended!).

[mickyd]

[quote="charlese"]As my Son reminds me - many engineer's errors ......

So - I now understand (I think) the wood from mccabinetmaker was approximately 128 cu.in. Added to this was the 256 cu.in. of wood you bought locally. And the total of these pieces, expressed in Cubic inches is]
As I mentioned in my prior post, my initial 2 B.F. was based on actual dimensional measurement of the wood, not nominal. I agree 100% with your calculation of 2.67 B.F. based on nominal size but to use that number and compare it to the B.F. weight estimate of the scrap pieces wouldn't have been accurate. The 1 B.F. of scrap is as good an estimate as I can get based on weight and Nick's density value of 2.19 lbs / B.F. I couldn't estimate the scrap based on [(l x w x t) / 144] since it was pieces.

Sooooo, I started with a true volume equal to 2 B.F. of wood, I had 1 B.F. of scrap, my lanterns weigh 15-1/2 oz total which equates to about 1/2 B.F. of lumber, leaving about 1/2 B.F. or ~1 lb. of sawdust.

Total actual waste is 75%. Total waste based on 2.67 B.F. nominal is about 80%. WOW!!!

[mickyd]

But how many ounces of sawdust???
.
.
.

15-1/2 oz. Ironically, the sawdust weighed the same amount as the finished lanterns!!:eek:

[mickyd]

Ya gonna rip them with a laser??? I do not see kerf waste. If yer thinking bandsaw, go slow and watch(closely) for blade 'drift'.

BTW yer gonna buy 2-2x4-8' at 5 1/3 bf each = 10 2/3 bf @ 0.56 = $5.97 You may/should consider a more gooder grade of 2x4!

Gonna use the table saw and split the difference on the kerf, taking away 1/16 off each of the widths of the mating parts. My 2" wide pieces will be 1-15/16" and the 1-1/2" wide pieces will be 1-7/16". Driving my 50 mph, no one will ever know!!!!

Couldn't you tell I was using a table saw based on the layout?? Notice the strategically placed cross cuts so that I don't have to rip too long a piece. Don't feel comfortable doing that yet.

More gooder grade???? That price is for the kiln dried stuff that I thought WAS the gooder stuff'.....$2.98 per 2" x 4" x 8'.

[mickyd]

Wow! didn't know I was going to write a book, but here goes!..........

Thanks for the book version Chuck. Interesting read. I totally understand your point about cu. in. vs. B.F. when it comes to the purchase or estimation as it relates to lumber.....

[charlese]

...More gooder grade???? That price is for the kiln dried stuff that I thought WAS the gooder stuff'.....$2.98 per 2" x 4" x 8'.

2"X4"X8' at $2.98- - is equivalent to a little more than $1,710/MBF That sounds pretty high alright, but it is an imported hardwood. Still the price of wood for remains competitive to alternatives, for fine woodworking. Also wood is not usually the price breaker to making a hobby project. In making furniture pieces, one can buy a lesser grade and using only the parts of a board that are desired. In other words, we can increase the grade of our shop lumber by accepting the loss of some volume. "Buy big and saw smart."

About grade - In the above post ("book") I didn't even touch on grade -- In brief - grade starts by grading standing timber (trees) - then goes on to log grading - and of course, what we are all familiar with, lumber grading. All three grading systems are confusing but necessary to correctly price this changeable commodity during the lengthy production process. There are books and periodic publications dealing with current grades and prices of lumber by species. "Random Lengths" is one weekly publication about Western softwoods dealing with such information. http://www.randomlengths.com/base.asp?s1=daily_woodwire&s2=market_news&s3=random_lengths
eg]guess[/U] that select grade would bring in about $1,000 or more.

I know this is more info than we need. I'm thinking hardwood data would be more variable.