Another question: I have seen the beams in pictures and all the ones that I am getting are 10" square and they are very straight, so if I milled them down to 9.25" x 9.25" and then cut them down to 9" x 1" pieces I should get 9 out of each beam. The beams are 10' long so my question is this: "Does the Doyle log rule apply to barn beams?" The reason I ask is at the figures given in that rule a 9" log will only yield 16 board feet at a 10' log.
From my figures I will end out with a 9" x 1" piece, now instead of the log rule using sq footage figures (9" x 120" = 1080 si x 9 pieces = 9720 si /144 = 67.5 sf per beam). Now I know that in milling it goes by board foot but there really is no difference in size as a square foot is 12"x12" and a board foot is 12"x12"x1" the results are the same. Am I right or am I missing something as according to the Doyle rule I would end out with 16 sf.
Little confusing for a first timer so an explanation would help.
Thanks
Rob
Doyle is one system of computing the volume of a log
you have a true rectangular shape
you would need to back in the size of the rectangular dimensions
into the smallest log possible to retrieve that shape to compare to Doyle scale.
DGdrls
I have basically a square log and now I just want to cut it into length, I dont understand how that isnt figured the way I mentioned. The Doyle rule seems to be for a round log and the interior dimension of the bark still making it a round log. I get square feet, I sell mirror in it all day long however the board feet if I am not mistaken just refers to the width of 12" and 1" thick buy 12" in length. I know this stuff takes time to understand but in order for me to do the math on if barm beams calculate into good enough profit potential I have to be able to put the yield or close to the yield into my equation. That is my problem with logs, while I think that I understand the rule I thought that everything worked off the cant and not off the waste that you cut off to get to the cant or am I again wrong.
Definition of BF: A unit of measurement of lumber represented by a board 1 foot long, 12 inches wide, and 1 inch thick or its metric equivalent. In practice, the board foot calculation for lumber 1 inch or more in thickness is based on its nominal thickness and width and the actual length. Lumber with a nominal thickness of less than 1 inch is calculated as 1 inch.
Here is a Square Foot: 12" x 12"
It is the same thing, just with a square foot you do not have to worry about the 1" thick but for wood you count that as assumed. So I guess I do understand and that as long as the blade thickness will not take more then .25" (1/4") in 7 passes on the mill then I can assume on a 10" x 10" log cut to a cant of 9" x 9.25" I will yield 67.5 sf off of a 10' beam. Math is actually the only strong suit other then sales that I have going for me. The confusing part is calculating in wear and tear on the machine, cost of blades, cost of fuel and transport, cost of kiln time and also the time to mill and mold into flooring and pick up time. The sales part of it is easy and now I think that I can figure out profit as long as I am figuring the sq ft correctly but I guess if I depreciate the mill yield by 15% I should be ok.
(https://forestryforum.com/gallery/albums/userpics/31361/beams.jpg)
Here is my best guess at this point for the cost to process the beam:
Beam cost (10" x 10" x 10') $25
Cost to Transport $2.50
Cost to unload, set up and remove nails $18
Time to mill and stack $10
Run to the kiln co and cost of drying
Rip saw/ and mold into flooring $90
Bring Back and stack $2
This is give or take: 60 sf of ready to use 100 year old Heart Pine floor $147.50 or $2.46 per sf unfinished.
This flooring retails for $7.50-$10 per sf. Not a bad turnaround or a bad savings.
By the way that is calculated into a 15% loss as the yield would be 8" wide flooring that is 3/4" thick. Now I could save a little molding the flooring myself but the guy that owns the kiln offered to mill it on a custom machine as well as drying so I just figured in his cost.
Rob
Schramm,
You are almost right. You have to count the kerf, (1/8", thickness of blade for every cut). You should get 8 1"x 9"x 10' boards which equals 7.5 bf each, for a total of 60 bf per beam.
Log scales estimate the usable lumber in a log which includes side boards. When milling beams and cants, the calculation is precise. Width x height x length minus kerf.
Dave.
Gotcha, well not bad math for a newbie and I still think that I will get 9 as I can just square 2 sides and cut them down I was assuming a loss of 3/4" making it square but these are a strong 10" meaning about 10 1/8" wide. Even at 8 sections I still will be doing ok but I will figure out what it will take to square it off to get a true figure which I cannot really do until I have the beams here. In my opinion anytime you can fabricate a product that is not done by all with a profit ratio of 100% of your cost you are doing well but from these figures I would be close to 300% and reclaimed flooring will sell in the city (Chicago) all day long. Only issue is it can turn into a large investment before a large return, but isnt that true about everything in business?
Rob 8)
Dave,
Re figuring it you are right on the money, it will be 8 per the math. The only way I will end out with 9 is in 1 only take 1/4" off 2 sides to square it as I have .875 or 7/8" in blade loss. That would put it right on 9 but you cannot count on it. Now what if I made the boards 7/8" thick then mold it to 3/4" flooring as I would really like to yield 9 boards out of each beam.
Rob
I trust what i posted made sense??
To get a 10"x10" beam you need a 15" diameter log minimum.
14.14" diagonal
in Doyle scale at 10 feet that is 76 B.F.
DGDrls
Rob,
If the beams are perfectly straight and square, with no twist or movement of any kind, then I would say yes but that is not likely. Older beams should have little or no shrinkage depending on how they have been stored but I would count on 8 and hope for 9. I don't take the time to be that precise with my manual mill. I shoot for 1" and hit it most of the time but not always.
Dave
Quote from: dgdrls on February 17, 2013, 01:24:49 PM
I trust what i posted made sense??
To get a 10"x10" beam you need a 15" diameter log minimum.
14.14" diagonal
in Doyle scale at 10 feet that is 76 B.F.
DGDrls
DGDris,
Gotcha and when you first said it I did not understand what you meant but now I get it. As you can guess when you spend your entire life dealing in both sq inches and sq ft, the rest of it all is foreign to me.
Dave,
Talked to Steve with the kiln and he said that if I took them down to 7/8's on the mill I would be just fine as I would still get the 9 that I am shooting for. While I know what you mean and I totally agree Steve (kiln guy) said 7/8"-1" thick but make them uniform or close to. He said you planes it to thickness and then runs them through the molder which molds the 3 sides. Going to be beautiful flooring at 8" wide but when I get the 12" beams I should get some nice 9-10" flooring material.
Thanks for the help in understanding.
Rob
Since I only custom saw, my situation is a bit different. I just quoted a price for custom sawing some timbers. For example, if the rough timbers are 10"X10" and are 20' long, then that figures out to 167 bf. I will measure the rough timbers to determine my sawing charges, not the lumber produced. My challenge will be to produce as much usable lumber as possible, which I will do, but internal rot/checks will be his loss, not mine.
Not to be pessimistic but probably not all the boards you cut from the beams will meet your quality standards for finished flooring. You should be able to cull these before they go to the kiln/flooring shop that will save some $$.
If you are going to plane them down to 3/4" you probably want to keep the thickness down a little, you don't want to have to plane off any more than you have to.
i don't want to shoot you hope down but, i see several things that probably wont happen. dealing in reclaimed lumber you have to figure close to 50% waste, rot, splits,ect.
when dealing with a finished size, board ft and sq ft are 2 differant measures, sq ft is using the actual size (width) bf you use the nominal size.
iv'e sawed and milled to flooring several hundred thousand sq. ft of finished product. if you sawed your lumber to 7/8 thick then wanted me to turn it into floor, the first thing i would tell you is its sawed to thin. working with old grit filled lumber your sawing never stays flat and true,leaving yourself with thick and thin boards.
the prices you see advertised are for finished flooring, back relieved ,t&g ,all defected out, what you buy is what you need to cover the waste has already been removed.
trust me if there was that much money to be made. i would just hire my help and i would over see the operation, instead i'm taking my tired beat up wore out body out of the wood buisness completly. :)
walk before you try running.
A log and a cant are two different products, so you can't possibly assume one scale is equal to the other. What you do need is a 14" log to cut a 10x10. Using 14", you come up with a footage of 63. That would be a little high to saw a 10x10, since there would also be side lumber. Log scales are designed to cut 1" boards. Cutting cants will give you overrun.
Log scales are designed around a formula. They aren't perfect by any means. Doyle scale under estimates small logs. Doyle = (diameter - 4)^2/length/16 Doyle is used for buying many types of logs, especially veneer. Its why it is widely used in the industry. Loggers understand the Doyle scale, and can easily move from timber to logs without needing to do a lot of figuring.
Quote from: terrifictimbersllc on February 17, 2013, 03:54:43 PM
Not to be pessimistic but probably not all the boards you cut from the beams will meet your quality standards for finished flooring. You should be able to cull these before they go to the kiln/flooring shop that will save some $$.
There is 2 different types of reclaimed flooring that I want to deal with 1 is select (best quality) and then rustic (that will have holes, cracks, checking, staining and so on). Personally I like rustic better then more then I like the clean material. But to each there own.
If you are cutting softwood lumber that has a final size of .75" thick by 9.25" wide (at the time of grading; this is the standard size) and let's assume it is 12' long. You can get 9 pieces. Each piece has a nominal size of 1x10, so a 12' long piece has 10 bf. So, the beam will produce 90 bf. Note that this includes plenty of wood for saw kerf. In fact, if you sell the wood rough sawn (which can be quite smooth with a good band saw) and use 1/8" kerf or less, you can get 10 pieces and 100 bf.
As stated, Doyle is an estimate for round logs. We actually deduct for oval shape, curve, etc.
Quote from: red oaks lumber on February 17, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
i don't want to shoot you hope down but, i see several things that probably wont happen. dealing in reclaimed lumber you have to figure close to 50% waste, rot, splits,ect.
when dealing with a finished size, board ft and sq ft are 2 differant measures, sq ft is using the actual size (width) bf you use the nominal size.
iv'e sawed and milled to flooring several hundred thousand sq. ft of finished product. if you sawed your lumber to 7/8 thick then wanted me to turn it into floor, the first thing i would tell you is its sawed to thin. working with old grit filled lumber your sawing never stays flat and true,leaving yourself with thick and thin boards.
the prices you see advertised are for finished flooring, back relieved ,t&g ,all defected out, what you buy is what you need to cover the waste has already been removed.
trust me if there was that much money to be made. i would just hire my help and i would over see the operation, instead i'm taking my tired beat up wore out body out of the wood buisness completly. :)
walk before you try running.
I get what your saying but what I do not understand is are you saying that if I cut 1" on the inward cut when I come out I am going to be thinner? I dont get it why would that be? Does the wood cause that? I dont mean to sound stupid but that really does not make any sence. Are you saying that you have made 100,000 sf of reclaimed flooring or hardwood flooring? I have been reserching this for better then a year, have watched the mill that own (Lt10) cut through barn beams and I never saw that happen. I guess that I can just buy 10 beams to start and see how it goes on the first set of cutting but really that doesnt make any sence to me and doesnt seem possible for the blade to jump around like that. I was told by WoodMizer "AFTER" I bought my mill (in other words they had nothing to gain) that there are a number of blades (Northwood/Timberwolf) that are COBALT as well as 1 that they sent me (for free I might add) and they said that sometimes when cutting beams you have blade dive but they said that these blades can go through nails (the Norwood one says it will go through a board riddled with nails - that seemed a little questionable). While I am always questionable about peoples intention when they have something to gain I have never heard going in thick and coming out thin. Please tell me more as with your experience in flooring I would really like to hear about it more.
Quote from: GeneWengert-WoodDoc on February 17, 2013, 05:43:26 PM
If you are cutting softwood lumber that has a final size of .75" thick by 9.25" wide (at the time of grading; this is the standard size) and let's assume it is 12' long. You can get 9 pieces. Each piece has a nominal size of 1x10, so a 12' long piece has 10 bf. So, the beam will produce 90 bf. Note that this includes plenty of wood for saw kerf. In fact, if you sell the wood rough sawn (which can be quite smooth with a good band saw) and use 1/8" kerf or less, you can get 10 pieces and 100 bf.
As stated, Doyle is an estimate for round logs. We actually deduct for oval shape, curve, etc.
Doc,
That is just about the way I was looking at it. I read all your articles that we were working in WoodMizer info that they sent me. I guess there is a lot of ways to look at it and I think that the only way for me to test everything is to just do it and see what I get. I do want to hear the BAD as well as the GOOD as I have been in business long enough to know all is not GOOD. I see what you are saying and I guess the best way to handle it is to once again call Steve with the kiln and see what he feels is best since he makes flooring daily but we are in a totally different market.
Thanks for the info, makes good sense.
Rob
I'm with those who say that if you can get 9 pieces from the 10" x 10" timber that is great, but in determining a profitable venture I would go with 8. Yes you can sell a couple different grades of the material that you cut, but some of it may be totally unusable. Some of the checks in the beams can run deep and you'll find that some of the pieces that have been cut will simply fall apart. As others have mentioned there may be some rot. There's only so far that you can take the rustic thing if you know what I'm saying. ;)
I would not try to saw it to 7/8" and plane to 3/4". As others have mentioned you may end up with some thin and thick spots in your lumber during sawing. This will show on your finished product as spots that were missed by the planer. I'm working on 1000 square feet of quarter sawn ash flooring. All said and done I'll have used almost 1800 board feet of ash to make that happen. The flooring will be top quality, but there's a surprising amount of waste along the way.
Quote from: Schramm on February 17, 2013, 05:49:45 PM
Quote from: red oaks lumber on February 17, 2013, 04:46:06 PM
i don't want to shoot you hope down but, i see several things that probably wont happen. dealing in reclaimed lumber you have to figure close to 50% waste, rot, splits,ect.
when dealing with a finished size, board ft and sq ft are 2 differant measures, sq ft is using the actual size (width) bf you use the nominal size.
iv'e sawed and milled to flooring several hundred thousand sq. ft of finished product. if you sawed your lumber to 7/8 thick then wanted me to turn it into floor, the first thing i would tell you is its sawed to thin. working with old grit filled lumber your sawing never stays flat and true,leaving yourself with thick and thin boards.
the prices you see advertised are for finished flooring, back relieved ,t&g ,all defected out, what you buy is what you need to cover the waste has already been removed.
trust me if there was that much money to be made. i would just hire my help and i would over see the operation, instead i'm taking my tired beat up wore out body out of the wood buisness completly. :)
walk before you try running.
I get what your saying but what I do not understand is are you saying that if I cut 1" on the inward cut when I come out I am going to be thinner? I dont get it why would that be? Does the wood cause that? I dont mean to sound stupid but that really does not make any sence. Are you saying that you have made 100,000 sf of reclaimed flooring or hardwood flooring? I have been reserching this for better then a year, have watched the mill that own (Lt10) cut through barn beams and I never saw that happen. I guess that I can just buy 10 beams to start and see how it goes on the first set of cutting but really that doesnt make any sence to me and doesnt seem possible for the blade to jump around like that. I was told by WoodMizer "AFTER" I bought my mill (in other words they had nothing to gain) that there are a number of blades (Northwood/Timberwolf) that are COBALT as well as 1 that they sent me (for free I might add) and they said that sometimes when cutting beams you have blade dive but they said that these blades can go through nails (the Norwood one says it will go through a board riddled with nails - that seemed a little questionable). While I am always questionable about peoples intention when they have something to gain I have never heard going in thick and coming out thin. Please tell me more as with your experience in flooring I would really like to hear about it more.
If everything is working perfectly then yes all your boards will be exactly 7/8" thick. However, in the real world stuff happens. :o If you are setting your board thickness manually, you will have slight variations from board to board. Also, when your blade starts to get a little dull it may start making wavy cuts or dive when it hits a knot or other defect in the cant. Cutting reclaimed beams will dull your blades regardless of the type blade you are using. If you want your finished product to be 3/4" and the blade dives 1/8" then you are left with nothing to plane. I agree with Red Oaks Lumber. I think you will find that you need to cut your boards thicker than 7/8" to get 3/4" planed flooring. One way to find out - saw a couple of beams, plane the boards and see what you get. :) :)
On the question of board feet vs. square feet... If you are working with 1" thick lumber then they are one in the same. However, a 2x12 that is one foot long will be one square foot on the face, but it contains 2 board feet.
Consider a 1"x12"x12' softwood lumber piece. It is 12 bf, but the surface is only 11-1/4" x 12' and it is only 3/4"1 thick. So, one board foot is not one square foot.
For hardwoods, the thickness is often 1-1/8" x 6" x 12' or 6 bf, but a piece 5-1/2" wide is also 6 bf, as is a piece 6-1/2" wide. So, again one bf is not one square foot.
Doc, Your explanation of the difference between bd. ft. and square ft. is obviously more concise precise than mine. I was simplifying (perhaps oversimplifying!) to try to explain that board thickness must be taken into account. That's why you're the Doc! :) :)
No problem.
There is really an issue when we figure cubic feet per BF.
Also, due to the smaller size of softwood lumber we find that we can get around 18 bf per cubic foot with 2x12s ... and hardwoods about 11 bf per cubic foot. That certainly affects Doyle, Scribner and International overrun.
Thanks everyone I guess the best way to figure out the true yield is to go and pick up a couple and cut them and see what I get. I understand about blades dulling faster but honestly the cobalt blades are made for this exact situation so it is better then just a normal blade. I have 8 14" round white oak logs coming tomorrow or Tuesday and I have decided to set the mill up in my backyard in the house that I am living in right now as my back yard is level and large enough to handle what I am doing but the best part it is fenced in, so no one can get to it.
I think I have a grasp on what you guys are talking about and if I was to guess a 10" x 10" x 10' log may only yeild 6-7 good pieces that will be quality lumber. I guess I understand since it is reclaimed or old wood which as been attacked by the elements for many years.
Thanks again all.
Rob
Ok since we are on the subject of yield, let me ask about the 14" round white oak logs that I have coming in. These to are 10' long and I am looking again at the Doyle log rule and I am guessing the inside diameter is going to be 12" so I am looking at the rule that woodmizer gave me and it says it should yield 40bf per log. Now from our previous conversations on the beams I am guessing that there is good select wood and there is less quality pieces. Does the RULE take that lesser piece into account. I would guess a nice semi straight log which is 14" OD would give me a 10" square cant. Cut into 10" x 1" x 10' pieces I should be able to have 75 bf of material assuming that I am going to get 9 pieces 1" thick x 10'. The RULE says 40 so you have to see why it is confusing when my logic is 10" x 120" x 9 pieces / 144 = 75 sf or BF.
Another question and this is for all but I would like DOC to chime in as well. I hear alot about oak needing to air dry for a while with the stickers in place before it can go into the kiln. Now the oak that I am speaking about is white oak (dont know if there is a difference) but there will be red oak as well. In fact I have the same guy going to bring me some 12"-14" round pin oak. How long to air dry before it can go into a kiln and once it is in the kiln how many weeks?
Thanks
Rob
If you are buying logs, the Doyle scale is the most common for hardwoods, but it does underestimate the volume for smaller logs. If you want to estimate the volume of wood you will get out of a log, use the International 1/4" scale. In my experience, band saws get about 15% better yield on 1" thick lumber because of the narrower kerf. Diameter is measured small end, inside the bark.
Using he handy log volume calculator under the "extras" tab of this forum, a 10' long, 12" diameter log yields 40 board feet on the Doyle scale (the scale you would use for buying the log), and 61 board feet on the International scale (which predicts the volume you'd get off the mill, using a saw with a 1/4" kerf). With a band mill and a 1/8" kerf, you'd get closer to 70 board feet. This assumes a straight, defect-free log.
Logs are scaled inside bark on the small end. A 14" log scales out to 14", not 12". The scale is 63, not 40. A 14" log will cut a 10x10 with no wane, depending on the straightness of the log. A 12" log will produce a 8½x8½.
The "rules" are on a formula. Yield will not be the same in all situations. It depends on sawing patterns and what product you're trying to get. Sawing for beams will give a different yield than sawing boards. The cubic volume is the same, but the waste volume is where the difference shows up. As waste volume increases, board foot recovery decreases.
there is no replacement for the training that experience will bring forth... with that being said, you will have a different opinion when you hit your first nail, regardless of which blade you have, even the fancy nail eater bands will not cut a true line when they have steel stuck on the face of the teeth.
i cant begin to describe the amount of boards that i have cut to build a house with, but i can tell you that when a single person is in charge of sawing the trees down, bucking, milling, drying,planing, installing and finishing the end product, the wood takes on a different meaning to that person. they will have a different idea of what its worth, and a different perspective of grade.
Rob:
Many have chimed in as I'm doing now. A lot of the advice is dead on.
When hitting a nail, or worse (lag bolts come to mind), in a log or cant the angle the nail is at in relation to the blade path can greatly affect the results or sawing path after you use the blade as a metal detector. It is possible to affect two boards when such an occasion occurs. You may be able to get some length out of the two boards involved, however they could be short pieces (for example two 6 foot pieces instead of two 10 footers), if you are willing to use a chop saw and do some salvaging.
I have done a few jobs where I measured all logs after loading them onto the mill and compared the board footage sawed versus the board footage per the International Scale without deducting for crooks, bends, bows, etc. and have had yields of 5 to 35% over the Int. Scale. If you take a little time and study the log to find the optimum opening spot you should have no problem getting 15% over scale which is referred to as overrun on good logs. The thicker you slabs are the less the overrun.
Concerning your cants; I would consider sawing 15/16" thick provided the cants are dry wood. If not then I would go for 1" or 1-1/16" thick, because wood shrinks as it dries. Cupping could also be a problem as wood dries.
Some people suggest using diesel fuel as a blade lubricant. I love those people that do that, as I get the repeat business if the customer used the wood inside of a home and the wood smells of diesel fuel.
I like the logs loaded onto the mill bed with the small end towards the head. For one I can see better, I'm more apt to see that my roller is up and not ruin a board by sawing a bottom taper, and I think it saws straighter because of the way branches grow on trees. When resawing cants you have no idea which end was towards the ground when growing.
I for one would sure like to know how you make out. What thickness you decided to saw etc. Wishing you the best.
Gerald
Quote from: GAB on February 18, 2013, 04:51:16 PM
Some people suggest using diesel fuel as a blade lubricant. I love those people that do that, as I get the repeat business if the customer used the wood inside of a home and the wood smells of diesel fuel.
I call BS unless they used it raw and rough cut.
There is no way it will smell of diesel after going through a planer and getting finished.
Quote from: Brad_S. on February 18, 2013, 04:58:12 PM
Quote from: GAB on February 18, 2013, 04:51:16 PM
Some people suggest using diesel fuel as a blade lubricant. I love those people that do that, as I get the repeat business if the customer used the wood inside of a home and the wood smells of diesel fuel.
I call BS unless they used it raw and rough cut.
There is no way it will smell of diesel after going through a planer and getting finished.
I agree Brad.
I do not use DIESEL as a lubricant. I use it as a blade cleaner. I lube my blade with water and Cascade dishwashing liquid. During sawing, if build up occurs on my blade, I spray it clean with Diesel and continue sawing with my lube of water and Cascade. There is absolutely NO smell of diesel whatsoever on my lumber.
I have never heard of board feet being measured as a nominal size. It is measured as the real actual size of the board. So one board foot is in fact one square foot.
One board foot equals 12"x12"x1". Anything less in width or length is not one board foot.
Anything less than 1" thick is calculated as 1". But width and length are calculated to the true measurements.
dadgum you, Charlie! boxingsmiley boxingsmiley boxingsmiley smiley_argue01
smiley_big-grin2 popcorn_smiley popcorn_smiley popcorn_smiley
If red oak (which includes pin oak) is put into a kiln green, it might take 35 days for 4/4 to get it to 7.0% MC. If it is put in at 25% MC, it will take around 8 days. So, a kiln can dry four loads of air dried or one load of green. Which kiln scenario will make four times more money?
It is indeed possible to dry oak green to 7% MC in a kiln with good controls. It is just too expensive.
board foot and sq. foot finished are 2 differant sizes . look in the hardwood book. a 5.5" wide board is still scaling 4 b.f. that is 3.33 sq. ft. if you want to sell sq.ft. at board f.t. rate you'll lose money every time.
i'm not trying to convince any one i already know the differance :)
For over 100 years, board footage of softwood lumber is measured using nominal size. It is measured that way today. A 2x4x8' has 5.33 bf. Softwood footage is given to two decimals for an individual piece.
Likewise, the instructions for hardwood lumber footage have been around for 100 years. A 2-1/8" x 3-1/2" x 8' hardwood is 4 bf. (3-1/2 times 8 divided by 12 equals 2 -- round the answer with no decimals. Then multiply by 2 for the nominal thickness to get 4 bf.)
Every definition I've read states 12"x12"x1" is one board foot. It is also one surface square foot. I wouldn't sell lumber by the square foot.
If a board foot is not calculated by the actual width and length of the board, that's news to me
Check the National Hardwood Lumber Assn rule book for the details, which are exactly as I quoted. Almost all hardwood lumber sold today uses that NHLA rule book for grading and measuring. That book has been around with the same basics for 100 years plus.
Well Doc,
I think that the NHLA should come up with a similar formula to square footage as the explanations seem so hard to understand. Everything that I have read refers to board feet as 12" x 12" x 1" and that is why I compared it to sq footage and really that is the only reason. If you measure a surface such as a floor each sq foot is figured 12" x 12" and from the definition of board foot while different is 12"w x 12"L x 1" thick but also states that 13/16" in thickness is considered 1". Now a figure in square footage is dead on meaning if you measure 10' x 12' that is 120 sf (there is no arguing that) but with wood that does not work the same as the board foot just tells you width x length x thickness and not exactly what it will cover meaning you could never grab a box of hardwood flooring at Home Depot that states it covers 27.5 sf per box as it doesnt assume waste, the installer needs to understand that there is between 10-15% waste that needs to be figured in to that figure. Same things work with tile and just about everything in construction. I do get what all of you mean and the answers are very good. I do like how the answers while different always seem to meet on enough points that it becomes understandable.
Thanks
Rob
Flooring is not lumber, so all the previous discussion does not apply.
The hardwood rules are easy to use. In fact, we seldom use the math. Instead we use a scaling stick, sometimes called a board foot rule. When placed across the width, the footage will show up in the column for the appropriate lumber length.
Softwood footage is also easy, as there are only a few nominal widths and lengths. Often softwoods are sold by the number of pieces of a given size and not the footage.
Oh God another thing to understand, WHAT? So if it starts as lumber and gets a tongue and groove it then is no longer lumber? I guess I kinda get that but it is had to believe how long I have been in the construction industry and never knew any of this. I like square feet better, so simple to do the math. smiley_sick
Quote from: tyb525 on February 18, 2013, 06:40:03 PM
Every definition I've read states 12"x12"x1" is one board foot. It is also one surface square foot. I wouldn't sell lumber by the square foot.
If a board foot is not calculated by the actual width and length of the board, that's news to me
tyb525, you are arguing with the guy who wrote the book, literally! :)
Schramm, It looks to me like you are close to a perfectionist, first by looking at your beautiful work with mirrors, secondly by your method of trying to figure how to maximize these beams, no harm no foul in my opinion. After reading all the posts, twice, all I can add to this discussion is my opinion, and it is this, however you purchase these reclaimed beams, bdft or piece, you would be well off to figure how many bdft are in them, then saw out the piece parts you need, figure what is useable and calculate your cost to produce them by the bdft, at this point, recalculate the sqft'd of the stock and then price it accordingly if that is how it will be sold. On logs, I would suggest buying by the doyle scale if possible,(not) around here, and figure as mentioned at least 15% overcut lumber scale compared to the log scale, providing you use good sawing practices, and yes the log scale includes all the good and bad that in within the log, which none of see until we get to it. It will take some time and experience to say the least to acquire the skills in sawing that you have displayed in your craft of mirrors, which are very nice, david
My apologies :) if the NHLA book says that's what it is, then that's what it is. I wasn't aware the NHLA considers a 5.5" wide board 6" wide. Thought that was a softwood thing only.
The NHLA does not consider a 5.5" piece to be 6". They want the actual width to be multiplied by the nominal length (feet, no inches) and divided by 12, rounded. This is called the surface measure, SM, and is subsequently used as the basis for grading.
So, for 4/4 lumber, 5.5" x 8' is 4 bf, 9' is 4 bf, 10' is 5 bf, 11' is 5 bf, and 12' is 6 bf the first time and the next piece of that size is 5 bf, 13' is 6 bf, 14' is 6 bf (but a 6.0" piece would be 7 bf), and 15' and 16' are 7 bf.
WoodDoc-I took hardwood lumber grading course some 30 years ago at UNH-Durham,NH and it did take a lot of time to learn all the rules and exceptions to them.As I recall,it was a 4-week "intensified"course,taught by an older gentleman from Michigan. I was fortunate to go there already knowing board feet and several tricks for figuring same,though I'd never had any experience grading either hard or softwoods. We all were given NHLA rulebooks,a set of 3x5 cards with condensed rules and a Conway-Cleveland 400N board rule. I no longer grade but still find a use for the rule especially on wide pine boards over 12". We learned a lot in a short length of time.
Mike
Quote from: GeneWengert-WoodDoc on February 18, 2013, 08:09:30 PM
So, for 4/4 lumber, 5.5" x 8' is 4 bf, 9' is 4 bf, 10' is 5 bf, 11' is 5 bf, and 12' is 6 bf the first time and the next piece of that size is 5 bf, 13' is 6 bf, 14' is 6 bf (but a 6.0" piece would be 7 bf), and 15' and 16' are 7 bf.
I have always thought that this convention was crazy. It is most likely done just for ease or convenience. Does not make logical sense at all. I don't argue that this is the way that BF is measured in the Hardwood Industry, but I still think that it is illogical and crazy.
So, I came up with my own definition of BF for hardwood. I call it
WDH Board Feet. It is simply the width in inches times the length in feet divided by 12. For 1" lumber, it is the same as the square footage. The big guys can say that a 5.5" wide by 8' board is 4 board feet and that a 5.5" wide board by 9' is also 4 board feet, but I will not do it. On the WDH scale, a 5.5" wide by 8' board is 3.7 BF and a 5.5" wide by 9' board is 4.1 BF.
3.7 does not equal 4.1 unless you are using the NEW MATH. I don't argue with the Industry standard, I just don't choose to use something so illogical. Then again, I don't have to dealing with woodworkers and my small hardwood sawmilling business. Free Will is a wonderful thing.
Softwood is just as bad. A 1.5" by 3.5" piece of wood is not a 2 x 4 except by definition only. I refuse to go there. Others can, and many have to because that is how it is done in the Industry, but I don't have to. Free Will is a wonderful thing. Just because something has evolved to be done a ceertain way, does not make it right. It is just how it is done. In many cases in life, there is No Justice.
I have been in the business for 35 years, but whew, I am glad to finally get that off my chest :)
When you stand on a pile of lumber with a grade stick, you'll see how much easier it is to use the stick vs figuring things out to decimals. You'll also see where, although the footage is the same, how the difference in width or length effects the grade.
I am glad that I do not have to stand on a pile of lumber with a grade stick.
WDH, I agree with you wholeheartedly, I scale boards the WDH way too, I just never knew it :)
Us little guys can start our own convention.
Do not shoot me, as I am the messenger only. The weights and measures department in each state has adopted the rules for measuring footage of lumber. You can certainly have your own technique, but then you cannot call it a board foot. "WDH Board Foot" is probably ok. The idea is that a BF in CA is going to be the same as in MI or NH.
I do believe that the frustration of some here is the same as people have with the US using inches and feet and miles rather than a decimal system.
Appreciate that very little lumber is sold by the single piece. Rather there are hundreds and thousands of pieces in one order. So, I suspect that it was reasoned that for hardwoods, that the method developed was great for orders of 10 pieces or more and, using the example of WDH having 3.7 and 4.1, that by rounding to the closest whole number, there would be as many under 4 bf as above, so at the end of the day, the answer will be the same. Prior to computers, the footage was hand tallied, so whole numbers were a lot easier and just as accurate at the end of the day.
Another benefit of the current system is when you have other than 4/4 or 8/4. say you have 5/4 thickness. In the standard system, to get the footage, we add all the surface measures of all the pieces in the stack and then multiply that sum by 5/4, rather than doing it for each piece.
Another advantage is that we have grading requirements that say something like "the clear area for an FAS piece must be 87% or higher (87% = 10/12) of the SM." It is easy to figure in your head what 10/12 of a whole number is. Also, the split cannot be longer than 2SM. And so on. You cannot grade hardwood lumber if you do not know the SM.
In a production situation, how would you measure a piece to get an answer like 3.7 ? Maybe it is 3.8 or 3.9. In production, this would be impossible to do at any reasonable speed. Many mills produce 12 pieces per minute, so that means 5 seconds. Why go to the extreme system if it is not more accurate?
The present system (for 12' lumber, for example) is like having a ruler that is marked only in inches without fractions. The dividing line between 5 bf and 6 bf is drawn at 5.5". The next dividing line is at 6.5" and that is the line between 6 and 7. Any piece of lumber between the lower mark and the next mark would be 6 bf (or more accurately, 6 SM). Surely any one piece could be 5.8 or 6.3, but after a few pieces are totaled, the answer will be fair to buyer and seller.
QuoteThe weights and measures department in each state has adopted the rules for measuring footage of lumber. You can certainly have your own technique, but then you cannot call it a board foot.
I can call it anything I want. I can sell it as anything I want. As long as the buyer and seller are on the same page, it makes zero difference. Where are these board foot police and what are they going to do to me if I call 144 cubic inches of wood a board foot? This is the same conversation that drove Tom Cadenhead away from a certain other website to this one about 13 years ago, where "someone" insisted it was not legal for him to call what he and I both consider a boardfoot measurement. In fact, that was about the time we came up with the whack rules. If I say its a whack, and you agree, its a whack.
Actually, the BF measurement is a means to establish value, along with the grade. So, if buyer and seller agree that pile of lumber is worth $400, the footage and grade are not relevant.
Unfortunately, you cannot call a white liquid "milk" unless it comes from cows. It cannot be called one gallon unless it is actually a gallon. You cannot redefine what milk is and what a gallon is...you must use new different terms. And the definition has a legal meaning...board foot has a legal defined meaning. The same as one gallon has, or 87 octane gasoline, or milk, etc.
We do not have bf police. Rather, much of our life is based on trust and faith. However, there are court cases where the footage has been an issue and the new definition lost in every case. Similarly with the standard grade names. Similarly for the species names...if you say red oak, it must be red oak as commonly understood. But if you want to call it Honey wheat oak, that is ok, so long as it is oak. But there is no person checking your invoices to make sure you did not go against the law as far as footage goes.
I suggest that if everyone does what they want, then we will have confusion, if not chaos. It is consistency and trust without government intervention that is best. Example: Prior to 1960, there was no consistent softwood lumber size; everyone did what they wanted. The government said that either the industry develop consistency or there will be government intervention. The industry now controls themselves and there is consistency in size.
As another court example, one mill sold a customer 1000 bf, but there was only 940 bf. the reason for the shortage was that the wood shrinks in drying, so seller increased the footage measured after drying by 6%. It would be like getting a gallon of gas, but only getting 0.96 gallon because the rest evaporated in processing. The practice was declared illegal.
I do not know how someone can regularly sell ungraded hardwood lumber. If it is graded, then we do need the SM for grading hardwoods. However, you can define new grades (if the name is not already taken or TM). Weyerhaeuser did this with alder.
Quote from: Red Clay Hound on February 18, 2013, 07:25:52 PM
Quote from: tyb525 on February 18, 2013, 06:40:03 PM
Every definition I've read states 12"x12"x1" is one board foot. It is also one surface square foot. I wouldn't sell lumber by the square foot.
If a board foot is not calculated by the actual width and length of the board, that's news to me
tyb525, you are arguing with the guy who wrote the book, literally! :)
Oh gotcha, now I know why the book is so dog gone confusing! Never a simple answer, I am not that bright and I have to Google everything that he says. I guess I am lucky I am artistic or I'd be in terrible trouble!
Speaking of Tom, I recall another discussion of this some time ago. Tom explained that the reason a 2x4 is called a 2x4, even though it is actually 1.5x 3.5 is because that is amount of wood required to make it. when you buy a 2x4, you are buying the stick plus the waste wood to make it plus the moisture that was in it. Of course Tom said much it more coherently than I and in a more comprehensive way. I can't even begin to try and find that thread.
Regarding BF, I have sold hardwood lumber that was occasionally above or below the stated width by maybe 1/8". but generally I sell based on actual size not nominal size. that is, if it is a 1x7.5, then that's how I figure it. I account for the fact that it may have been initially sawn 1.25x 8.25 by adjusting the bf price upward to reflect the amount of waste wood to make the finished board. So far, no complaints. but then again, like WDH and many others, I sell small lots, mostly to individuals and a few small Cos. I have none of the entanglements of the primary producers and can sell my wood however I please. If however, I somehow began selling large lots to the commercial market, I would have to adopt the NHLA rules, which have their own mutually agreed upon standards of measurement.
Quote from: drobertson on February 18, 2013, 07:30:13 PM
Schramm, It looks to me like you are close to a perfectionist, first by looking at your beautiful work with mirrors, secondly by your method of trying to figure how to maximize these beams, no harm no foul in my opinion. After reading all the posts, twice, all I can add to this discussion is my opinion, and it is this, however you purchase these reclaimed beams, bdft or piece, you would be well off to figure how many bdft are in them, then saw out the piece parts you need, figure what is useable and calculate your cost to produce them by the bdft, at this point, recalculate the sqft'd of the stock and then price it accordingly if that is how it will be sold. On logs, I would suggest buying by the doyle scale if possible,(not) around here, and figure as mentioned at least 15% overcut lumber scale compared to the log scale, providing you use good sawing practices, and yes the log scale includes all the good and bad that in within the log, which none of see until we get to it. It will take some time and experience to say the least to acquire the skills in sawing that you have displayed in your craft of mirrors, which are very nice, david
I like to do things right, I like to understand what is best before I waste a lot of money making bad attempts. With so many nice people here helping me out with answers (most of which I understand) and I know that only can get the real answers on what works for me and the best way to yield the most. Honestly I am more of a finisher and not so much what I am getting into, I can take anything and make it look like something that it is not and you would never know that it isnt real. But when it comes to taking a tree and turning it into lumber this is all new (exciting) but new. I am a very visual person and most of my understanding comes from seeing it in action, I am slightly dyslexic which helps me a lot working on mirror and sandblasting as all that is backwards but I read without issues but my comprehension is not 100% so when people like Doc explain things, he is more then likely right on the money but I do not understand what he is talking about and to me (not being funny) sounds like babbling. A friend of mine owns a LT40 and wednesday I am going to see him cut a couple barn beams and at that point I will understand.
You nailed me for the most part as I ask a million questions only so I can make sure that I understand what I am doing. Imagine me telling you how to take a piece of glass and make a mirror when you have never done it, its kinda the same thing!
Thanks
Rob
Dave,
My motto has always been if you cannot find the time to do it right the first time, how will you ever find the time to do it over?
I live by it and my customers depend on it. I really am not planning on doing this for my customers but since I am re-building my house I want to make sure I do it the best and make the best product.
Rob
Consider a freshly sawn hardwood piece of lumber that is 1-1/8" x 8" x 12'. This is a common thickness, width and length. Almost everyone says that this is 8 BF.
However, if you think that 144 cu inches are one BF, then multiply 1-1/8 x 8 x 144 and then divided by 144 and this gives 9 BF. Would you really count this as 9 bf?
Doc,
Now that I understand and if that is what you have been explaining all along then I really am not that bright. I just heard the 1 1/8" thick thing today from my buddy with a kiln as he said that is the best thickness for everything. So what I have been asking has nothing to do with the additional thickness it was just the surface measurements which equal out the sf but by adding the thickness make it bf and I get that.
Quote from: WDH on February 18, 2013, 10:43:51 PM
I am glad that I do not have to stand on a pile of lumber with a grade stick.
You would be surprised how much you can learn when you do it.
Surface measurement in footage is how you use the grade stick to come up with your needed cutting units. That's a new term and it has to do with figuring out the amount of clear wood in a piece of hardwood lumber and has to do with minimum sized cuts in the board. Its amazing what knot placement, size, and other factors you need to get your wood from one grade to the next. Or how a poor looking board is actually a better grade than you think.
From the conversation that bought our Tom to us.
Quote from: Tom on April 24, 2001, 08:09:57 PM
I think some folks may get a little top heavy with their importance too. We can all learn from the ignorant as well as the educated. I learned BF from a high school junior who didn't even know he had taught me something. I figured BF my way but couldn't really explain it to anybody till he was telling me about a woodworking class he had taken in his freshman year. " I think you multiply everything together and divide it by something" he said. I thought that made a lot of sense and use that terminology to explain my interpretation to folks now. I say "Height in inches times width in inches times length in feet times the number of pieces and divide the whole thing by 12. If you remember how they sell a 2x4 in the store, 2x4x8, just remember to do that and divide by 12 and you will get 5.3 feet. That's easy to remember.....Huh?"
Amen my friend.
QuoteUnfortunately, you cannot call a white liquid "milk" unless it comes from cows.
Tell that to a goat or any other mammal
Milk from a goat that is sold must say "goat milk" while cow's milk only says "milk." We are only talking about what is sold on the open market.
Since I only custom saw, it is the customer's choice what the actual measured dimensions are for his framing lumber. I provide a sawing service, not a lumber selling service. My sawing skills and the consistency of the lumber is what the customer is paying for. Whether I saw an actual 2X4 or 1½X3½, they are all scaled as 2X4's. Many times they want 2X6's sawed to 1½X6. They are still scaled as 2X6's.
With 1" flat lumber, it is easier to measure the stack or whack and use Tom's method.
The scaling method must be reviewed with the customer. As long as the sawyer and customer agree before the job is done, then all is OK.
im pretty sure i use toms method and didnt even know it.
i stack the lumber and when finnished cutting i figure it. i stack it 48 inches wide and if its 8 ft long, i say its 32 bdft per layer, if 10 ft long i go with 40 bdft per layer. i have one cedar guy that tells me when he figures it board for board at home he comes out on the better side of the deal every time by 5 bd ft or so... i tell him if he is ever short to let me know. ;D .... that Tom he was a hoot.
Tom was someone I respected as much as anyone I ever knew. He came here because he was driven away from somewhere else because it was directly insinuated that he was cheating his customers because he didn't follow the "legal" definition of board feet. I'm glad that happened, because without it, he may never have come here, and I may have never of had in my life. I miss my friend, and this conversation makes it worse.
I cannot remember the last time I scaled every board, I also scale the whole bundle, and use the give and take method, always giving, it has always worked out for both parties, even when selling lumber, a few extra boards are good insurance to a happy custormer, as far as siding goes, I know how much sqft coverage a given bundle will cover and share this information as well, there are many folks that do work in the sqft, knowing very little about bdft'd, they don't seem to care about the bdft, they just need to cover. david
SOFTWOODS
It looks like everyone agrees that for softwoods, we use the nominal size and multiply thickness in inches times width in inches times length in feet (no inches or fractions of a foot) divide by 12 and give the answer to two decimal places. As we seldom sell softwoods by the board footage of individual pieces, we usually sell by the number of pieces of a given size.
Block scaling or block tallying is perhaps an acceptable method of measuring softwood lumber, but it uses the actual width and not the nominal width. also, we would not use the pile height in inches, but, as mentioned, use the number of layers. If each layer was 2" nominal, we would multiply the surface area by 2", etc.
HARDWOODS
For hardwoods, I suspect everyone agrees that we use the nominal thickness, so that, for example, 1-1/8" thickness is counted as one inch and not 9/8". Further, I suspect that everyone agrees that the length is always the last full foot with any extra inches dropped, so, for example, a piece of lumber 8'2" is only counted as 8'. The width for hardwoods is the actual width in inches and fractions. Any disagreement here?
The only point of disagreement is when to round the answer and how many decimals. When grading hardwoods, we round the answer and use only integers when we multiply width in inches times length in feet divided by 12. This is called the surface measure, SM. The SM is required for grading hardwoods. Then SM times thickness (nominal in quarter inches, with no place within the area used to establish the grade thinner than the indicated thickness), giving the board footage. As mentioned, this has been the standard for over 100 years.
Now, consider a piece of lumber that is 1-1/8" at one end but then about halfway it becomes 1-1/2" or a bit thicker. According the the NHLA rules, this is still counted as being 1" thick when figuring the board footage. You do not use the 1-1/8" or 1-1/2" thickness as part of a calculation of board footage, although it is indeed valid to use these thicknesses if calculating the cubic volume in cubic inches. Does anyone using the cubic inch method and definition use anything besides 1.0" for thickness? If not, then you are saying that 144 cubic inches is not accurate.
The NHLA rules do say that this piece of lumber with this wide thickness variation is graded as normal, but is the given the title of "miscut" in addition to the normal grade name.
Now consider a piece of uniformly tapered lumber that is 6.0" at one end and 7.0" at the other. The NHLA rules say that the width is measured 1/3 the distance from the narrow end, which in this example is 6.33", but if using the cubic inch calculation, one would use 6.3 or 6.5" times length and thickness.
Or what about a piece of lumber with wane at one end or on the edge? If selling by the cubic inches, when calculating the BF, do you deduct for the absence of wood where there is wane or a beaver tail end? Probably not, so the cubic inches calculated is more than the amount of wood what is actually there. Again, the 144 idea is not using the volume of wood.
Hopefully,these examples show that even if one wants to use the definition of one bf equals 144 cubic inches, that it is really not done that way in practice but the extra thickness is overlooked, wane is overlooked, over-length is overlooked, etc. So, the definition of a piece of solid wood being 1"x12"x12" and equal to one BF is not done in practice by anyone consistently. So, why get so up tight when the rules say to use the SM when figuring footage? Using SM is the way our industry has been measuring hardwoods for over 100 years. If we change, then the entire grading system would have to be changed as well.
Block tallying of hardwood lumber is acceptable because the individual footage of each piece is plus or minus, so with a bunch of pieces, the method will be quite close to measuring every piece, such as 3.7 bf and 4.1 bf and then adding all these numbers. Block tally is in the rule book too.
SOFTWOODS--block tally
Consider a layer of six pieces of 2x10x12'. Each piece is 20 bf, so a layer has 120 bf. I think we all agree on this.
Now, when block tallying, a 2x10 is actually 9.25" wide. The width of the layer is 6 times 9.25" equals 55-1/2". Using the width x length x thickness divided by 144, the block tally would give 111 bf per layer which is 9bf short.
Sure seems like there is some hair splitting in this thread.
Maybe the grading system needs to be re-evaluated.
I'll use an example of a question being asked in another thread about being able to use one's own lumber for building.
For one point, if a municipality or jurisdiction requires it in the inspection process, then the visiting Inspector should bear the responsibility and burden of having said grading requirements. The self cut lumber could meet a pass or fail from that inspection verses a set " you can't use this type lumber mentality".
Who represented the little guy when these rules were applied? Were they even in the room? Or was big business the only one present.
The American Lumber Standard started in the 60s when small sawmills had not yet started to become popular. So, it was big business interests for sure. It applies to softwoods.
The WI plan for doing it yourself is an easy solution. The class is offered through the extension service. I was part of co-op extension in wood products for over 20 years in Va and Wi. Basically, all it takes is for a state law to be enacted that defines what is acceptable as far as wood goes and what training is necessary to be able to grade your own softwood structural lumber for your own use.
When you mention grading rule changes, I believe that much of the discussion here is about grading hardwoods. The rules do and did include small people. The grading rules for hardwoods are easily done by anyone and that is legal. Of course, if you use the standard grade names, you need to use the rules associated with those names. But, you do not need to be certified for hardwood grading, unless you are using hardwoods for structural construction. Many people use the rules as a starting point and then add modifications for a specific situation...such as the amount of wane or pith.
The NHLA rules are used worldwide without the government being involved in development or enforcement. They are used for as much as 10 billion bf per year in good economic times. They are over 100 years old and are revised as needed every few years, but the last big revision was 1992 when Select grade was changed.
If you haven't seen the building code, for homes, it covers many, many items and not just wood framing. It has certainly eliminated a lot of crappy construction.
Too much lecturing for me. Seems few to no-one is really interested in the disertations.
I might be wrong tho.
dadgum you, Charlie! smiley_argue01 bike_rider bat_smailey smiley_whip smiley_whip boxingsmiley
whiteflag_smiley whiteflag_smiley whiteflag_smiley
popcorn_smiley
I'll just stick with width x length x 1" for one bys. It is easier that way and even the woodworking magazine I read uses it.
Maybe if I become an NHLA certified lumbered retailer I will measure that way. But I've never had a complaint. I'd throw an extra board or two in to make them feel better.
Very interesting to me at least. Thanks for all of that info Gene...how much do I owe you? :D :D
In other news, I've got somewhere north of 3mbf of bridge timber I got a couple months ago and my plan is to resaw it into flooring. I've done plenty of this before, but they were a all full 2x12s and I was simply resawing into 1xs. The stuff I currently have varies in thickness from 2½-3" and is all 12½" wide. even though it's about 60 years old, it's in really good shape with very little rot. I'm thinking I may have enough wood to skim cut the top and bottom of each plank and split it into 1xs. By skim cut I mean that I want take off just enough to true up the timber but leave much of th weathering and defects. What I'm wondering is how many blades will I be destroying to get the look I'm after? I wouldn't try to skip plane it for fear of embedded gravel, so the saw is my only option I'm thinking. any ideas on how to minimize the blade carnage?
My first thought would be powerwashing.
Violin_smiley
Tyb525...yes, I do power wash...I should have mentioned that. Power washing gets about 80% of the dirt. Maybe there's something else I could do to get out the remaining grit? These are all tight grained doug fir, mostly knot free.
Are you using a 3000 psi unit?
Gene...3200 I think. I usually use the green (medium) tip at about 12-18". Always afraid to tear up the wood fibers on softwood.