Long closet pole

Page 2 of 4
• posted on March 13, 2006, 5:54 am

wrote:

I worked with a woman for about a year and never saw her wear the same outfit twice. That's a lot of clothes.
Ms P
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 13, 2006, 8:24 am

No. It supports 660 pounds over 10'.
Nick
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 13, 2006, 8:50 pm
On 13-Mar-2006, snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

You haven't factored in the unsupported length. Unless it is braced, it will not support the full load. That data is in the rightmost column. It wouldn't take much to get a channel like that to twist.
Mike
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 13, 2006, 9:28 pm

I see a reduction to about 27% for a 10' span with no lateral bracing on page 61 of my Unistrut catalog, ie 0.27x660 = 178 pounds, but that seems unimportant in this case. Unmodified hangars can rest on both vs one U-edge, but if they were all hung from one edge vs over both edges or on alternate edges, that's only 660x0.375 = 248 in-lb of torsional load, hardly enough for serious longitudinal instability.
If you were a serious pedant, you might estimate how much this would reduce the 660 lb load, given the P5500 polar moment of inertia, with a 3rd order(?) differential equation.
Nick
When we play tennis or walk downstairs we are actually solving whole pages of differential equations, quickly, easily and without thinking about it, using the analogue computer which we keep in our minds. What we find difficult about mathematics is the formal, symbolic presentation of the subject by pedagogues with a taste for dogma, sadism and incomprehensible squiggles.
from Structures: Why Things Don't Fall Down, by J. E. Gordon
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 13, 2006, 10:23 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

People slide clothes back and forth by the bunches and exert quite a sizable force to squeeze something in. I particularly like your two sided solution to the non-uniform loading. Having to push the hanger/clothes under and behind the rod and then pulling the hanger back and up to hang it on the back edge of your kludge-rod certainly sounds convenient to me.
You couldn't read the specs in the manual correctly. That's pretty sad for someone who lives for numbers. As Michael pointed out, a fully loaded bar that length would have very little stability. There are dynamic loads, not just static, in play with a closet rod.
R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 13, 2006, 11:32 pm

That was his statment. I stated the contrary. We await proof of his claim :-)
Nick
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 13, 2006, 11:44 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

You seem to have forgotten that this thread is about closet poles, not playing games with numbers and bad assumptions. I suppose I shouldn't object - at least it keeps you from getting into trouble somewhere else.
R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 14, 2006, 2:56 pm

Not me. I built a P5500 version. It works fine. A practical solution.
Nick
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 14, 2006, 3:07 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

You have the most curious circular reasoning. The thread was about a long closet pole - 10'. You mentioned your solution with the Unistrut, provided an erroneous load number for the 10' length, suggested an unworkable oversized solution, dismissed your 30% error as insignificant indicating you know little about the weight of clothing (not sure how that's possible for an adult), and then returned to your original unworkable solution as a "practical solution". It may have worked for you with your multiple-support system, but it is not a practical solution for the OP's situation.
You sure you're not in politics? You're a master of waffling and dazzling with bullshit. Consider a career change.
R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 14, 2006, 7:34 pm

This presumes Michael was correct :-)

I say it's correct. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Nick
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 14, 2006, 8:27 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Yep, that's some swift engineering. A 35% overestimation of the strength, and to you that's unimportant.
BTW, where are you getting your data for the maximum design load?
R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 11:02 am

It's time to stop now. You seem hopelessly confused.
Nick
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 1:45 pm
snipped-for-privacy@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

You've recommended a designed solution. It's impossible to calculate a solution without a design load. If you don't have a design load from empirical testing, or a standards organization which has conducted such testing, you made an assumption - a guess. A guessed at solution is neither designed nor a solution.
You're Captain Random's sidekick - Bucky the Boy Number. Maybe you should change your signature...
R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 7:02 pm

Mindless silly stuff when the solution handles more than any load is likely to be.

<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 7:23 pm
Rod Speed wrote:

Okay, what's your _guess_ for the upper load range for a 10' closet pole?
R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 8:21 pm

Dont need one when the solution proposed can do better than any load is likely to ever be.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 10:56 pm

Gee, you say that as if it were a fact.
Mike
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 15, 2006, 11:12 pm

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2006, 2:28 am
Rod Speed wrote:

R
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
• posted on March 16, 2006, 3:20 am

No I didnt. If a particular solution could handle 10 tons, literally, even someone as stupid as you should realise that that will never be exceeded in real life.

Dont need one when the solution proposed can do better than any load is likely to ever be.