Weight of wall cabinet

[The Natural Philosopher]

Ah well. You see when me and me mates from Uni drove up to me mates farm. in 1972 or thereabouts and put his car in their shed, which had 9" brick walls and a 4x2 beam going across, which we slung a '5 ton' pulley block on and tried to lift the engine of his car out, and succeeded in bending the pulley and lifting the front of the car off the floor, I realised that brick and timber is a lot stronger than we give it credit for..;-)

The beam DEFLECTION was however quite unacceptable from a building control point of view..about 5" IIRC :-)

The bricks shrugged it off.

I once drilled a whole (half) brick out of a single 4 1/2" thick wall..trying to mount a TV stand.

Filled the hole with mortar and put half the half brick back outside for cosmetic purposes. Stuck a rawlplug thing in the setting mortar, came back and screwed the stand on, a couple of days later. A small gorilla could swing from it.

[Roger]

The message from "The Medway Handyman" contains these words:

Accord "Gauge and letter size drills are no longer recommended British Standard drill sizes. Every effort should be made to use the Metric or Fractional drill sizes ...".

I suspect that the current handbook would omit the reference to Fractional sizes. :-(

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

Not if they are made of mild steel.

UTS of mild steel 30 tons per sq. inch. 2 tons would require 1/15 (.066) square inch section (with no safety margin) which would give a diameter of about 0.29". I don't have any wood screws I can identify as No 10 but a No 10 posidrive I have has a shank diameter of 0.145" (coincidentally half 0.29"?) which should thus fail in sheer at about half a ton.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No 10 is 0.2" diameter..so about a ton for a single no 10.

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

Do you mean shear?

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

If you need to ask that question you didn't understand the problem.

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

Sorry, I didn't realise you're dyslexic. It's not always easy to tell and I was thoughtless.

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

You're building sand castles on the basis of a simple spelling mistake.

Incidentally the problem is slightly more complex than just plain shear. In addition to the shearing force there would also be a bending moment (certainly significant if the screw was in a normal wall with a thick coating of plaster) and with a wood screw at least the place of failure would not be on the shank but on the threaded portion where the cross sectional area is much smaller and the sharp bottom of the thread an excellent stress raiser.

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

Really? Oh well, if you say so.

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Guy King typed

Just as well, cos 6-year-olds don't stay 3-4 stone for ever and most peole like to go on swings etc.

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

What else is it then? It's not as though you need any great intellect to notice I had spelt it wrong or indeed that The NT had already flagged the error.

Sheer had to be a spelling error as it made no sense in that context while shear made perfect sense but The NT had pointed out the error in responding to my post long before you woke up to it. Your message added nothing.

"dyslexia // n. a disorder marked esp. by severe difficulty in reading and spelling."

Since one simple spelling mistake in no way constitutes dyslexia I can only conclude that your cod apology was just a simple minded sneer just as your first post was but never mind I am not going to waste my time scanning your messages for spelling errors.

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

Nope, your over the top reaction to someone pointing out a spelling mistake reminded me strongly of the reaction people sometimes give when they're dyslexic. I assumed this was the case and apologised accordingly. If that offends you, then I don't really know what else I can do.

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

Don't make such pointless posts in the first place.

Unless you are a good deal thicker than I think you are you didn't need to pose the question in the first place. Ergo you did it so that you could demonstrate how clever you were and how thick I was but The NT had already stolen your thunder and if you really are so much cleverer than me how come I picked up on that over strained screw and you didn't?

And if you can't see the difference in the level of insult between pointing out a spelling error and suggesting I might not have a clue then perhaps you really are thicker than I have so far given you credit for.

[Andy Wade]

I don't think there's any connection between the number sizes for masonry drills and for metalworkers' twist drills. For one thing the former get larger as the number increases, while the latter get smaller!

For masonry drills the number corresponds to the wood screw gauge when used with the original fibre rawlplugs: for a no. 8 screw you used a no.

8 plug and no. 8 drill. These days of course, with a wide range of plug types available, it's better to forget the number sizes and just use millimetres. The corresponding sizes are approximately as follows:

Drill Metric

------ ------ No. 6 4.0 mm No. 8 4.5 mm No. 10 5.5 mm No. 12 6.5 mm No. 14 7.0 mm No. 16 8.0 mm

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

Thank you for that sage advice. Now, if you're over your little tantrum I'll go yawn somewhere.

[Roger]

The message from Andy Wade contains these words:

Interesting.

Endless scope for confusion if ordinary twist drills could be used for drilling masonry. Perhaps metrication is a good thing after all. :-)

[Roger]

The message from Guy King contains these words:

The boot is very much on the other foot.

You categorised my response to your pointless post as "over the top" but "If you need to ask that question you didn't understand the problem" was nothing more than a statement of fact. If you really needed my assurance that I meant shear rather than sheer then you didn't understand the problem. If you wanted (for whatever egotistical reason) merely to highlight my spelling error you wouldn't have asked that question.

And as for dyslexia either you really don't have a much of a clue about the condition or you just used it as a handy insult.

[Helen Deborah Vecht]

Andy Wade typed

Not Standard Wire Gauge then is it? This was the way knitting needles, crochet hooks, bicycle spokes and medical needles were sized...

Medical Cyclist (f) Retired...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Nor yet American Wire Gauge..

they both go in t'other direction. Smaller is a *higher* number.

Those are gauges derived from the darwing operations on them...themore drawn, the higher he number and the thinner the wire. No idea what screw sizes mean AT ALL.

[Guy King]

The message from Roger contains these words:

Don't you think you're taking this all a little seriously?