Re: horiz. diaph. blk'g.[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- To: <seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org>
- Subject: Re: horiz. diaph. blk'g.
- From: "Mark Baker" <shake4bake(--nospam--at)earthlink.net>
- Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000 21:23:08 -0800
Thank you John for this information. I certainly concur that the traditional approach is to apply blocking flat, a tradition that each framer whom I have asked in my personal survey replied "I've always laid them in flat, no, I was never told to, thats just the way I've always done it".
Until recently (and why I was thinking about it I do not know) I had never questioned it, no one ever told me otherwise, I had never read otherwise, and thats just the way I had always assumed it done.
I guess the next question to follow would be, am I the only naive fellow out there... how many of you have ever adjusted horiz. diaph. capacities given in the UBC based on blocking nail penetration?
- Prev by Subject: Re: horiz. diaph. blk'g.
- Next by Subject: RE: horiz. diaph. blk'g.
- Previous by thread: Re: horiz. diaph. blk'g.
- Next by thread: RE: horiz. diaph. blk'g.