On 13-Mar-2006, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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(?)
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
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.
Once again your assumptions and oversights obviate your calculations.
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
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.
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 guessed at solution is neither designed nor a solution.
Where did you get your maximum design load for a fully loaded closet
You're Captain Random's sidekick - Bucky the Boy Number. Maybe you
should change your signature...
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.