measure twice cut once

Page 2 of 3  


I buy plywood

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 05/31/2015 8:16 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Last I checked on their web sites, the nominal manufacturers' exterior dimensions were still listed in inches...well, let's check again...
Ayup...
<http://www.buildgp.com/plytanium-plywood-sheathing
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Check the thickness. See if it is a real 3/4" or 1/2".
So much is metric that is close. Trimmed down and that is it.
If you have a local ply mill then the buyers might buy from it.
Depends on where the forest they use is. If in South America then the ply comes from there. Lower cost to ship.
If from a local forest and mill structure - it might be metric or Imperial.
And cutting a 96" board in half won't give you 48" x 48".
Martin
On 6/4/2015 7:47 AM, dpb wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/05/2015 8:22 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Check the manufactuer's website spec's given earlier...they're in English units, 48x96 at thicknesses 1/32" under the nominal historical dimensions.
Nobody's claiming you can take a length and remove a kerf thickness and have the initial total length and my only comment was that US manufacturers are still using English nominal measurements for at least construction ply; some furniture/cabinet-grade products are otherwise.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So the 1/2" sheet measures out at a 12mm sheet that has large dimensions. They don't take 1/32 away from you for nothing. 1/32 of a sheet of 1/2" is a loss of a layer. Loss of material and the dato blades have to be tuned less than the 1/2" of years ago.
Martin
On 6/5/2015 11:38 PM, dpb wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06/06/2015 9:20 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:

Well, doh!
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Martin Eastburn" wrote in message

It's not the loss of a layer per se... it's the difference between the nominal thickness (e.g., 1/2" performance category) and the actual thickness after sanding (e.g., 15/32"). To confound things there is actual 1/2" plywood available... There are also performance ratings for structural uses, e.g., that 15/32" sheet may perform as a 1/2" sheet in structural applications. I'm not sure that stores like Home Depot that list the actual dimensions rather than the nominal dimensions help the situation... locally if I go into a yard that primarily caters to the trades and ask for 1/2" CDX (I can get fir or pine) they know what I want. Ask the same question in Home Depot and you may be told they don't have 1/2" CDX (as I have been though I finally did locate it on my own).
This situation is not different from the nominal and actual sizes of dimension lumber... as we all know a S4S 2"x4" is never 2"x4" but rather the actual size is close to 1.5"x3.5" However, the actual size of a nominal 2"x4" is not a sure thing either as surfacing can occur before drying (noted as S-GRN on the grade stamp) or after drying depending on the source. In either surfacing case it's close enough for rough framing!
http://www.apawood.org/plywood has lots of information on plywood!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/31/2015 2:27 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Nope, not if you cut it "in half", as clearly stated.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/1/2015 8:26 AM, Swingman wrote:

half, assuming the saw blade is a typical 1/8" thick, the pieces won't be 48", they'll be 47 15/16".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/1/2015 11:37 AM, Just Wondering wrote:

;~) Hey, YOU "get it" too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Leon" wrote in message

I guess we need to invent a "zero kerf/zero swarf" cutting method to solve this problem... maybe a hydraulic "paper cutter" or "pizza cutter" device would work? ;~)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'd suggest a giant "LAY-ZER". I'll use it to cut your wood unevenly unless you pay me... ONE MILLION DOLLARS!!!
Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/3/2015 9:07 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

When building base cabinets that are traditionally 24" deep, I minimize waste (IOW, getting two, correctly grain oriented, end panels for the cabinet sides out of one 48" width sheet) by cutting the end panels 23 15/16" wide, then cut the dadoes in the FF's to receive the end panels 3/16" deep, instead of 1/4".
That way I end up with an assembled base cabinet that is precisely 24" deep.
Sounds a bit anal, but we often build for spaces that don't yet exist, so religiously maintaining that type of precision throughout a project keeps cumulative errors from causing problems during installation.
--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wouldn't that make the cabs precisely 24-1/2" deep?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

How thick is the face frame? Assume it's 3/4:
23-15/16 panel 12/16 face frame 3/16 dado
23-15/16 + 12/16 - 3/16 = 23-24/16 or 24-1/4
If the face frame is 1/2, then it works out to 24 exactly.
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/4/2015 9:39 AM, John McCoy wrote:

Nope! 24-1/2" as I stated. 23-24/16 does not reduce to 24-1/4.
23-24/16 reduces to 24-8/16

I could be wrong here but I don't think any "normal" cabinet face frames are 1/2" thick.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're right. That's what I get for trying to do math in my head :-(
John
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/6/2015 1:38 PM, John McCoy wrote:

;~) I think Swingman might have misstated. He and I have built 50+ of those cabinets and face frames together. But he and I are both pretty anal about cutting down waste.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/31/2015 2:27 PM, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

Actually I believe you end up with just shy of 60" for each piece, not 48". ;~) To end up with two, 48" long pieces the sheet would have to be 96" + the width of your saw blade kerf.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 5/28/2015 10:07 PM, Contrarian wrote:

You should now consider that a lesson learned. Let me guess, you did not consider the kerf.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.