[DJ Delorie]

People often have problems understanding what a "board foot" is. It's
not a linear distance, despite the term "foot" in it. Yes, we all
know its 144 cubic inches, that doesn't always help people understand
it's a volume measure.

Today I went off on a tangent and came up with a new way of describing
"board feet" to newbies.

It's just over half a gallon of tree (~5/8 gal)

Next time you're trying to describe "board feet" to someone and
they're not getting it, try that and see if it helps.

DJ

[DS[_2_]]

DJ Delorie wrote:
People often have problems understanding what a "board foot" is. It's
not a linear distance, despite the term "foot" in it. Yes, we all
know its 144 cubic inches, that doesn't always help people understand
it's a volume measure.

Today I went off on a tangent and came up with a new way of describing
"board feet" to newbies.

It's just over half a gallon of tree (~5/8 gal)

Next time you're trying to describe "board feet" to someone and
they're not getting it, try that and see if it helps.

DJ

Or you could tell them that it's about a fortieth of a cubic cubit.
Or a fourth of a peck.
Or a sixteenth of a bushel.

[Han]

DS wrote in news:05cMj.64291$TT4.9888@attbi_s22:

DJ Delorie wrote:
People often have problems understanding what a "board foot" is. It's
not a linear distance, despite the term "foot" in it. Yes, we all
know its 144 cubic inches, that doesn't always help people understand
it's a volume measure.

Today I went off on a tangent and came up with a new way of describing
"board feet" to newbies.

It's just over half a gallon of tree (~5/8 gal)

Next time you're trying to describe "board feet" to someone and
they're not getting it, try that and see if it helps.

DJ

Or you could tell them that it's about a fortieth of a cubic cubit.
Or a fourth of a peck.
Or a sixteenth of a bushel.

I had trouble with the concept of board feet too. Until I started
remembering that it is a measure of volume, 1x1 ft by whatever number of
linear feet, but I don't think it has to be a square foot in cross
section. Just like liters don't have to be 10x10 cm in cross section by
some number of decimeters high. (Yes, I grew up decimal).


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Ross Hebeisen]

I don't think it will work very well to go to the lumber yard and ask
for four and a half gallons of red oak, unless your looking for sawdust.
if you have trouble with lumber scale you should ponder log scale for a
while. example an 8 ft log 16" in dia. is 72 board feet on doyle scale
or 80 ft on scribner. ross

[Leon]

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

People often have problems understanding what a "board foot" is. It's
not a linear distance, despite the term "foot" in it. Yes, we all
know its 144 cubic inches, that doesn't always help people understand
it's a volume measure.

Today I went off on a tangent and came up with a new way of describing
"board feet" to newbies.

It's just over half a gallon of tree (~5/8 gal)

Next time you're trying to describe "board feet" to someone and
they're not getting it, try that and see if it helps.

DJ


Or, a cube of wood that is 5.25" across, high, and deep.

[Han]

Han wrote in
:

DS wrote in news:05cMj.64291$TT4.9888@attbi_s22:

DJ Delorie wrote:
People often have problems understanding what a "board foot" is.
It's not a linear distance, despite the term "foot" in it. Yes, we
all know its 144 cubic inches, that doesn't always help people
understand it's a volume measure.

Today I went off on a tangent and came up with a new way of
describing "board feet" to newbies.

It's just over half a gallon of tree (~5/8 gal)

Next time you're trying to describe "board feet" to someone and
they're not getting it, try that and see if it helps.

DJ

Or you could tell them that it's about a fortieth of a cubic cubit.
Or a fourth of a peck.
Or a sixteenth of a bushel.

I had trouble with the concept of board feet too. Until I started
remembering that it is a measure of volume, 1x1 ft by whatever number
of linear feet, but I don't think it has to be a square foot in cross
section. Just like liters don't have to be 10x10 cm in cross section
by some number of decimeters high. (Yes, I grew up decimal).



Oops I was wrong again, board feet are 12 inch wide by 1 inch thick by
whatever number of feet long. Not 1x1 ft by whatever number of feet
long. Sorry!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[Mike Marlow]

"DJ Delorie" wrote in message
...

People often have problems understanding what a "board foot" is. It's
not a linear distance, despite the term "foot" in it. Yes, we all
know its 144 cubic inches, that doesn't always help people understand
it's a volume measure.

Today I went off on a tangent and came up with a new way of describing
"board feet" to newbies.

It's just over half a gallon of tree (~5/8 gal)

Next time you're trying to describe "board feet" to someone and
they're not getting it, try that and see if it helps.



That's just plain foolish. Translate that to the number of 6 packs and
you'll have something that will make a lot more sense.

--

-Mike-

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 13:23:57 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

That's just plain foolish. Translate that to the number of 6 packs and
you'll have something that will make a lot more sense.

You may have something there.

I'll take 388 beers of cherry and 125 beers of poplar, please.

For Andy D., that would be 291 and 93.75, based on pints! G

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:26:18 -0500, "Upscale"
wrote:


"B A R R Y" wrote in message
I'll take 388 beers of cherry and 125 beers of poplar, please.

Considering what wood costs these days, it often comes down to a choice of
wood OR beer.



Did you hear about the hop shortage?

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/whatsontap/archives/123826.asp

Damn!

---------------------------------------------
** http://www.bburke.com/woodworking.html **
---------------------------------------------

[Upscale]

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
I'll take 388 beers of cherry and 125 beers of poplar, please.

Considering what wood costs these days, it often comes down to a choice of
wood OR beer.

[Mike Marlow]

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

"B A R R Y" wrote in message
I'll take 388 beers of cherry and 125 beers of poplar, please.

Considering what wood costs these days, it often comes down to a choice of
wood OR beer.



That'll be enough of that talk Mister. Woodies and beer always went hand in
hand. That's how all the ugly women got to feel good at closing time. Oh -
wait - you said "wood" or beer. Sorry, my bad...

--

-Mike-

[Ross Hebeisen]

when I get board feet my legs fall to sleep.
ross

[Lew Hodgett[_2_]]

"Mike Marlow" wrote


That'll be enough of that talk Mister. Woodies and beer always went
hand in hand. That's how all the ugly women got to feel good at
closing time. Oh - wait - you said "wood" or beer. Sorry, my
bad...

Here in California we have an airhead legislator who is attempting to
legislate morality by trying to get a law passed to levy an additional
$030/12 OZ can tax.

Don't hold your breath.

Have noticed that a 12 pack has gone from $9.00 to $12.00 in less than
a month.

Wonder if that is the brewer's "fuel surtax charge"?

Lew

[Mark & Juanita]

Lew Hodgett wrote:


"Mike Marlow" wrote


That'll be enough of that talk Mister. Woodies and beer always went
hand in hand. That's how all the ugly women got to feel good at
closing time. Oh - wait - you said "wood" or beer. Sorry, my
bad...

Here in California we have an airhead legislator who is attempting to
legislate morality by trying to get a law passed to levy an additional
$030/12 OZ can tax.

Don't hold your breath.

Have noticed that a 12 pack has gone from $9.00 to $12.00 in less than
a month.

Wonder if that is the brewer's "fuel surtax charge"?

Lew

Everything with grain in it is going up. It's part of the
feel-good "alternate fuels" plan. Instead of drilling in ANWR, off-shore,
the North Dakota oil fields, or in various other areas of the country in
which significant oil reserves exist, we are taking what should be food,
converting it to fuel with a fairly low efficiency rate and proclaiming
ourselves "green".

We don't have an oil shortage, we have an intelligence shortage.


--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

[Han]

Mark & Juanita wrote in
m:

Everything with grain in it is going up. It's part of the
feel-good "alternate fuels" plan. Instead of drilling in ANWR,
off-shore, the North Dakota oil fields, or in various other areas of
the country in which significant oil reserves exist, we are taking
what should be food, converting it to fuel with a fairly low
efficiency rate and proclaiming ourselves "green".

We don't have an oil shortage, we have an intelligence shortage.

We also have a surplus of greed.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid