Long closet pole
Actor123
I am doing a remodel that will result in a rather large walk-in closet.
Along one of the longer walls I would like to have a long closet pole
for hanging clothes. The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
braces or brackets during the run of the pole, just at the ends. This
is because I prefer to be able to slide all the clothes around a lot,
as it makes organization much easier.
I realize most closet poles are not strong enough to support that kind
of weight without brackets to the wall every few feet. I am looking
for approximately a 10' span with no brackets in the middle.
Has anyone encountered this situation and been able to come up with a
solution. I was thinking of a steel pole of some sort, which I imagine
I could find strong enough to support the weight. The other issue
would be the brackets on both ends, which would obviously be supporting
quite a lot of weight as well, so I was thinking not just bracing the
ends to the wall but to the floow as well.
Any suggestions?
roger...@yahoo.com
10' pole and not have it sag
RicodJour
> I think you're out of luck. You can't hang 300 pounds of clothes on a
> 10' pole and not have it sag
10' of clothes would probably weigh a lot more than 300 pounds.
As far as having a 10' pole with no intermediate supports - nope, no
way and it's not even close.
R
RicodJour
> Hi all:
>
> I am doing a remodel that will result in a rather large walk-in closet.
> Along one of the longer walls I would like to have a long closet pole
> for hanging clothes. The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
> braces or brackets during the run of the pole, just at the ends. This
> is because I prefer to be able to slide all the clothes around a lot,
> as it makes organization much easier.
>
> I realize most closet poles are not strong enough to support that kind
> of weight without brackets to the wall every few feet. I am looking
> for approximately a 10' span with no brackets in the middle.
You find a need to slide clothes more than a few inches or a foot?
Why?
I don't see how a single support in the middle would cause a major
problem. Aren't you going to have shelving above the closet rod? What
supports the shelving?
R
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>I am doing a remodel that will result in a rather large walk-in closet.
>Along one of the longer walls I would like to have a long closet pole
>for hanging clothes. The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
>braces or brackets during the run of the pole, just at the ends...
>I am looking for approximately a 10' span with no brackets in the middle.
>
>Has anyone encountered this situation and been able to come up with a
>solution. I was thinking of a steel pole of some sort, which I imagine
>I could find strong enough to support the weight. The other issue
>would be the brackets on both ends, which would obviously be supporting
>quite a lot of weight as well, so I was thinking not just bracing the
>ends to the wall but to the floow as well.
>
>Any suggestions?
I built an 8' tall x 6' wide clothes rack with 2 rods with some of my
6-ton $500 collection of P5500 Unistrut from a dismantled warehouse.
It's a large erector set, mostly in 18' 45-pound lengths of 12 ga steel
in 2x3 U-shapes with one narrow open side and internal flanges to hold
special Unistrut nuts against the inside of the flanges with 1/2" bolts
and connectors outside. B-Line also makes Unistrut-standard stuff.
The clothes rods have the open side of the U facing up, and hangers sit
and slide nicely in the slots. The ends of the rods are attached to
the 8' columns (with the webs facing out) with 1/2" Unistrut nuts and bolts
and 90 degree Unistrut fittings. Each column is bolted to a 6' floor rod
parallel to the clothes rods and a 2' floor rod perpendicular to the 6' rod
(with all the floor rods open side up) with a straight shelf connector
that I bent to 90 degrees with an oxy-acetylene torch and 3 1/2" Unistrut
nuts and bolts. Tightened up with a long-handled 1/2" socket wrench, the
nuts and bolts are as strong as welds. The beam loading table in the 2002
Unistrut General Engineering Catalog (No. 14, North American Edition) says
the rods can hold up to 1090 pounds each, with a max deflection of 0.34
inches... 10' rods could hold 660 pounds with a 0.96 inch deflection.
If that's too much, you might enjoy the P5001 shape (like 2 2x4s stacked
on edge), with a 2260 pound load and 0.31 inch deflection for a 10' span.
Its columns could each support 6950 pounds, on a strong floor.
Nick
dadiOH
You don't need a pole, you need a track...something that can be securely
mounted to the ceiling structure and which has a slot or "J" for
carriers.
If you really want to organize, split up the long wall into 3-4
sections. No problem with poles that way and you can get much more
hanging space because a section can have two poles - one high, one low -
for things that are short like suits/shirts.
--
dadiOH
____________________________
dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico
Edwin Pawlowski
"Actor123" <act...@aol.com> wrote in message
> The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
> braces or brackets during the run of the pole, just at the ends. This
> is because I prefer to be able to slide all the clothes around a lot,
> as it makes organization much easier.
>
> I realize most closet poles are not strong enough to support that kind
> of weight without brackets to the wall every few feet. I am looking
> for approximately a 10' span with no brackets in the middle.
Take the spar from the wing of an airplane.
Any pipe able to take the weight with no say is probably to thick to accept
a hanger and anything wood will sag. It may be possible to fabricate a
vertical structure that can take the weight, but it will have to be so high
that a hanger will not lay properly. I'd guess that a 6" section of 1"
plywood would work.
Personally, I'd plan on at least a center support.
--
Ed
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome/
Phisherman
hangers to be slide over the supports. It is not practical to have a
10-foot pole that is not supported in the middle--anything over 4 feet
will sag unless you are hanging feather boas.
Cliff Hartle
of rod
http://www.closetmaid.com/Look/Product_Catalog/product.cfm?item_number=5632&keyword=superslide
"Actor123" <act...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142143400.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
John Grabowski
Closetmaid has brackets for their poles that are designed to let clothes
hangers pass over them smoothly. It is sort of a "J" shaped bracket and
supports the pole from underneath. I think that it will only work with the
Closetmaid shelves. You can buy Closetmaid at Home Depot and Lowes.
<RJ>
Use a 10' length of 3/4 " galvenized ( or black ) iron pipe.
<rj>
RicodJour
Typical closet rod is at least 1" thick going up to 1 1/2" which is
about the maximum interior diameter of your average hanger. The
thinner the rod, the less stiff it will be. 3/4" daimeter anything,
even solid rod, would bend a lot if it was 10' long and fully loaded
(what closet isn't?).
R
Pat
Most households don't need more than 4 feet of rod mounted 5.5 feet from the
floor. Many times I install only 2 feet. Mostly for dresses, rain coats,
robes and coveralls. Most items (shirts, skirts, pants) can hang in 40
inches of space. Which means that you can mount a rod near the ceiling and
another half way to the floor. So I install 4 feet or less of rod 5.5 feet
from the floor and the rest near the ceiling and in the middle. I use
cupboards to break up a long wall into sections. Cupboard space is just as
important in a closet as hanging space. To divide your 10 foot wall into
two sections install a 1 foot wide cupboard on the floor in the center. Put
a shelf every foot. Great for shoes. hats, folded clothes. Make it extra
nice by adding a face frame and cupboard doors. Divide your wall into three
sections by using two cupboards. I like to use 1 1/4" electrical conduit
for rod. Super strong. I drive 1 1/4 pipe floor flanges on the ends and
screw them to the wall. 6 feet is the longest I would make them. I have
never felt a need to slide hangers on a long rod. Using this system future
adjustments are easy. You can always remove a rod or shift them to a new
height. If I build the house I put blocking behind the sheetrock for
support. Otherwise I mount a piece if 3/4 inch plywood on the face of the
sheetrock.
SQLit
Schedule 80 or better steel pipe or better a solid 1.5 inch bar.
The schedule 80 pipe will be about 100 pounds and the bar over 200 lbs.
Then comes the problem of attachment to the walls for the bar/pipe. You
definately would need backing attached to the structure to support such a
span.
Look at some floor joists span details. 10' clear with no other support at
least a 2x10.
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>Actor123 <act...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I am doing a remodel that will result in a rather large walk-in closet.
>>Along one of the longer walls I would like to have a long closet pole
>>for hanging clothes. The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
>>braces or brackets during the run of the pole, just at the ends...
>>I am looking for approximately a 10' span with no brackets in the middle.
>>
>
>... The beam loading table in the 2002 Unistrut General Engineering Catalog
>(No. 14, North American Edition) says a 10' P5500 rod can hold up to 660
>pounds with a 0.96 inch deflection.
A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
>If that's too much, you might enjoy the P5001 shape (like 2 2x4s stacked
>on edge), with a 2260 pound load and 0.31 inch deflection for a 10' span.
And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
Nick
Jeff
deflection of a beam supported on both ends is proportional to the cube of
its length.
<roger...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1142144299.7...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
The Real Bev
> A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
>
> And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
Are you sure about that?
--
Cheers,
Bev
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"I read about this syndrome called hypochondria in a
magazine. I think I've got it." -- DA
Gary Heston
>> A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
>> And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
>Are you sure about that?
Must be British pounds. 1130 pound notes might do it.
Gary
--
Gary Heston ghe...@hiwaay.net I don't need an iPod, I have an IQ.
A worthwhile endeavour:
http://www.thebrestcancersite.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/CTDSites
Jay Pique
The Real Bev wrote:
> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
> > A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
> >
> > And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
>
> Are you sure about that?
If you believe what you read...
http://tinyurl.com/qaa3n
We're all just one big Usenet family, huh?!
JP
***********************************
I'm not Jeff Davis.
RicodJour
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >
> > > A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
> > >
> > > And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
> >
> > Are you sure about that?
>
> If you believe what you read...
> http://tinyurl.com/qaa3n
What does it matter what it could hold? A hanger wouldn't fit on it.
You might as well suggest using a I-joist for closet rod.
R
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
>> A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
>>
>> And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
>
>Are you sure about that?
Oh yes. The beam loading table on page 54 of the Unistrut General Engineering
Catalog (North American Edition, No. 14, 2002) lists 1.24". Furthermore,
deflection d = 5WL^3/(384EI), and the elements of section P5001 table lists
the 1-1 axis moment of inertia I = 5.578 in^4. E = 30x10^6 psi makes
d = 5x1130lbx240^3in^3/(384x30x10^6lb/in^2x5.578in^4) = 1.22".
Page 17 of the 2001 Cooper B-Line catalog lists a max 1593 pound uniform load
and 1.563" deflection for their equivalent B11A shape, which corresponds to
a 1130/1593x1.563 = 1.11" deflection with a 1130 pound load, with a note:
Based on simple beam condition using an allowable design stress of
25,000 p[si (172 MPa) in accordance with MFMA, with adequate lateral
bracing (see page 11 for further explanation.) Actual yield point of
cold rolled steel is 42,000 psi.
Nick
RicodJour
So I guess that you'd bend up your own hangers with that strut since
any typical hanger wouldn't come close to fitting.
Kind of makes your numerical exercise pointless, don't you think?
Nevermind, you've already answered that question.
R
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>>The Real Bev <bashley1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>>>
>>>> A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
>>>>
>>>> And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
>>>
>>>Are you sure about that?
>>
>>Oh yes. The beam loading table on page 54 of the Unistrut General Engineering
>>Catalog (North American Edition, No. 14, 2002) lists 1.24". Furthermore,
>>deflection d = 5WL^3/(384EI), and the elements of section P5001 table lists
>>the 1-1 axis moment of inertia I = 5.578 in^4. E = 30x10^6 psi makes
>>d = 5x1130lbx240^3in^3/(384x30x10^6lb/in^2x5.578in^4) = 1.22".
>>
>>Page 17 of the 2001 Cooper B-Line catalog lists a max 1593 pound uniform load
>>and 1.563" deflection for their equivalent B11A shape, which corresponds to
>>a 1130/1593x1.563 = 1.11" deflection with a 1130 pound load, with a note:
>>
>> Based on simple beam condition using an allowable design stress of
>> bracing (see page 11 for further explanation.) Actual yield point of
>> cold rolled steel is 42,000 psi.
>
>So I guess that you'd bend up your own hangers with that strut since
>any typical hanger wouldn't come close to fitting.
Typical hangers fit fine on the P5500 shape. Others may require hangar
modification. Then again, few people own that many clothes :-)
Nick
ameijers
"RicodJour" <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1142217085.4...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...(snip)
> So I guess that you'd bend up your own hangers with that strut since
> any typical hanger wouldn't come close to fitting.
>
> Kind of makes your numerical exercise pointless, don't you think?
> Nevermind, you've already answered that question.
>
company always used thick-wall galvanized pipe for the closet rods- until I
saw other closets in my teens, I thought everyone did. Never saw a 10-foot
rod, but they used to make purpose-built brackets to brace the center of the
shelf that included a half-loop to support the rod, and allowed hangers to
slide past. The stiff-leg was at an angle that just barely cleared the
hanger loop plus most clothes. A thick coat might not get past it.
I do recall seeing J-shaped metal channel, like used for fire doors, that
would probably work in a closet. Make a box section or two to tie the shelf
to the ceiling, and bolt the top edge of the J-channel to the shelf. Take a
lot of art to make it pretty, though- it would definitely be an industrial
look.
Realistically, unless you can find the special brackets I remember from my
youth, I'd say bust it in to two runs, with a column of box shelves up the
middle. What sort of doors will this mega-closet have? Sounds like an
eight-foot opening, minimum, which means multiple doors or custom ones.
Bypass sliders always have an annoying dead spot in the middle anyway.
aem sends...
Michael Daly
On 12-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Typical hangers fit fine on the P5500 shape.
But the P5500 will only support 260lb over 10 feet or 26 lb/ft. That
may not be enough to support clothes for some people.
> Then again, few people own that many clothes :-)
I've know someone who converted an extra bedroom into a closet.
Four walls, none shorter than 10', covered with one (long clothes)
or two (shirts, jackets) hanger rods. Plus loads of shoe shelves
and drawers in the middle of the room.
My ex has a closet that is 12' long and full! That doesn't include
what's in the closets in the other rooms.
Something tells me that Nick isn't married to a typical woman. :-)
Mike
ms_peacock
"Michael Daly" <Micha...@foo.bar> wrote in message
news:ksmdnfKH_eN...@magma.ca...
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
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> Typical hangers fit fine on the P5500 shape.
>
>But the P5500 will only support 260lb over 10 feet or 26 lb/ft. That
>may not be enough to support clothes for some people.
No. It supports 660 pounds over 10'.
Nick
Michael Daly
On 13-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >But the P5500 will only support 260lb over 10 feet or 26 lb/ft. That
> >may not be enough to support clothes for some people.
>
> No. It supports 660 pounds over 10'.
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
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
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
RicodJour
> Michael Daly <Micha...@foo.bar> wrote:
>
> >On 13-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >
> >> >But the P5500 will only support 260lb over 10 feet or 26 lb/ft. That
> >> >may not be enough to support clothes for some people.
> >>
> >> No. It supports 660 pounds over 10'.
> >
> >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.
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.
R
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>... As Michael pointed out, a fully loaded bar that length would have
>very little stability.
That was his statment. I stated the contrary. We await proof of his claim :-)
Nick
spamT...@yahoo.com
W| O
A|______/
L| /
L|/
Make a bracket that comes out from the wall, then goes up to the bottom
of the pole. Since clothes-hangers only contact the top and sides of
the pole, the bracket won't interfere with sliding the hangers. Just
make sure it fits in the space above the top of the hanger arm.
Dave
RicodJour
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
Jay Pique
Yeah, the word "rod" confused me as well. I was just responding to
Bev's question about the deflection of P5001. I suppose he could hang
some individual sliding rods underneath it or something. Custom
hangers?
JP
The Real Bev
I still don't see how the same rod will bend more when it carries less
weight, and http://tinyurl.com/qaa3n provided no enlightenment.
--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------
"Luge strategy? Lie flat and try not to die."
Michael Daly
On 13-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> 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.
You have to brace the channel for the same reason that you brace a floor
joist. It isn't a matter of unsymmetric loading - at some load level, it can
rotate out of plane spontaneously; that's what instability is all about. Once
any instability starts, a channel section will rotate easily - they don't carry
torsional loads like a closed section. That's why the manual has the load
reduction factor.
Mike
RicodJour
Indeed. Unfortunately I'm not sure if Nick will see the obvious
validity in your concise response as you didn't include lots of
calculations. Sad, but true.
As a minor nitpick, spontaneously connotes without external influence,
which isn't exactly the case with a loaded rod.
R
Joshua Putnam
act...@aol.com says...
> Hi all:
>
> I am doing a remodel that will result in a rather large walk-in closet.
> Along one of the longer walls I would like to have a long closet pole
> for hanging clothes. The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
> is because I prefer to be able to slide all the clothes around a lot,
> as it makes organization much easier.
>
> I realize most closet poles are not strong enough to support that kind
> for approximately a 10' span with no brackets in the middle.
As others have said, better to use a bracket that supports the pole in a
way that allows the hangers to slide past the bracket. But that does
depend on your hangers -- a bracket that lets one hanger pass may block
another, depending on the shape of the hanger.
As for materials, my longer closet rods are 4130 steel aircraft tubing.
It's overkill as a material, but has a better finish than steel pipe or
conduit. Plus I have it around in appropriate sizes since it's also
good for building bicycle frames.
If it's somewhere very visible and appearance is really important, you
might want to use stainless tubing instead, though it's a bit harder to
work with and more expensive.
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>>
>>>... As Michael pointed out, a fully loaded bar that length would have
>>>very little stability.
>>
>>That was his statement. I stated the contrary. We await proof of his claim :-)
>
>You seem to have forgotten that this thread is about closet poles...
Not me. I built a P5500 version. It works fine. A practical solution.
Nick
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
Then again, bodies at rest tend to stay at rest :-) You might calculate how
much perturbation is required to make it unstable as a function of loading,
if that floats your boat...
RicodJour
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
Michael Daly
On 14-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Then again, bodies at rest tend to stay at rest :-) You might calculate how
> much perturbation is required to make it unstable as a function of loading,
> if that floats your boat...
Perhaps, instead, you should learn something about structural stability.
If you had not slept through those classes, you'd know that no perturbation
is required.
Mike
RicodJour
> Michael Daly <Micha...@foo.bar> wrote:
> >
> >On 13-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >You have to brace the channel for the same reason that you brace a floor
> >joist. It isn't a matter of unsymmetric loading - at some load level, it can
> >rotate out of plane spontaneously; that's what instability is all about. Once
> >any instability starts, a channel section will rotate easily - they don't carry
> >torsional loads like a closed section...
>
> Then again, bodies at rest tend to stay at rest :-) You might calculate how
> much perturbation is required to make it unstable as a function of loading,
> if that floats your boat...
One definition of pertubation: 1. A small change in a physical system.
If you've ever seen an overloaded closet rod with a big sway in its
back, you'd realize that people jam in as much clothes as the space
will allow. The small change, like squeezing in some new purchases,
doesn't set off a strain alarm.
The difference between you and Don Quixote is that the dear Don
attacked the windmill and got slapped to the ground. You get smacked
around defending the windmill's right to be a giant.
You defend the indefensible with half-understood sophistry, Nick. The
sad thing is that you are a smart guy who can't differentiate between
what he knows and what he thinks he knows. You are being instructed
here. Learn, or not, as is your wont.
R
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>> >>>... As Michael pointed out, a fully loaded bar that length would have
>> >>>very little stability.
This presumes Michael was correct :-)
>>>>That was his statement. I stated the contrary. We await proof of his claim :-)
>>>
>>>You seem to have forgotten that this thread is about closet poles...
>>
>>Not me. I built a P5500 version. It works fine. A practical solution.
>
>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...
I say it's correct. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Nick
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
>
>> Then again, bodies at rest tend to stay at rest :-) You might calculate how
>> much perturbation is required to make it unstable as a function of loading,
>> if that floats your boat...
>
>Perhaps, instead, you should learn something about structural stability.
>If you had not slept through those classes, you'd know that no perturbation
>is required.
You are correct, in the quantum-mechanical sense, but don't hold your breath.
Nick
RicodJour
Yes, where you wrote this admitting your error:
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> 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.
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
Michael Daly
On 14-Mar-2006, nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> You are correct, in the quantum-mechanical sense, but don't hold your breath.
Quantum mechanics has nothing to do with it. Stop being such a twit.
The requirements for bracing are based on solid structural engineering
principles backed by considerable experimental and practical evidence.
Load reduction requirements for reduced bracing are based on the same.
Mike
ms_peacock
> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>
> One definition of pertubation: 1. A small change in a physical system.
>
> If you've ever seen an overloaded closet rod with a big sway in its
> back, you'd realize that people jam in as much clothes as the space
> will allow. The small change, like squeezing in some new purchases,
> doesn't set off a strain alarm.
>
> The difference between you and Don Quixote is that the dear Don
> attacked the windmill and got slapped to the ground. You get smacked
> around defending the windmill's right to be a giant.
>
> You defend the indefensible with half-understood sophistry, Nick. The
> sad thing is that you are a smart guy who can't differentiate between
> what he knows and what he thinks he knows. You are being instructed
> here. Learn, or not, as is your wont.
>
> R
>
It's not going to matter how strong the closet rod is if there are only two
brackets holding it up and they pull out of the wall.
Ms P
RicodJour
>
> It's not going to matter how strong the closet rod is if there are only two
> brackets holding it up and they pull out of the wall.
True, but I don't think that's the weak spot in the system...unless
some Fred uses a couple or three plastic screw-in drywall anchors to
hold up the bracket.
R
nicks...@ece.villanova.edu
It's time to stop now. You seem hopelessly confused.
Nick
RicodJour
> Ricodjour wrote:
>> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> >> 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.
> >
> >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?
>
> It's time to stop now. You seem hopelessly confused.
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.
Where did you get your maximum design load for a fully loaded closet
rod?
You're Captain Random's sidekick - Bucky the Boy Number. Maybe you
should change your signature...
R
Rod Speed
> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>> Ricodjour wrote:
>>> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>
>> It's time to stop now. You seem hopelessly confused.
>
> 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.
Mindless silly stuff when the solution
handles more than any load is likely to be.
RicodJour
>
> Mindless silly stuff when the solution
> handles more than any load is likely to be.
Okay, what's your _guess_ for the upper load range for a 10' closet
pole?
R
Rod Speed
Dont need one when the solution proposed
can do better than any load is likely to ever be.
Michael Daly
On 15-Mar-2006, "Rod Speed" <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dont need one when the solution proposed
> can do better than any load is likely to ever be.
Gee, you say that as if it were a fact.
Mike
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dont need one when the solution proposed
>> can do better than any load is likely to ever be.
> Gee, you say that as if it were a fact.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.
The Real Bev
Is that an African or European closet pole?
--
Cheers, Bev
===================================================
Red ship crashes into blue ship - sailors marooned.
RicodJour
> RicodJour wrote:
>
> > Rod Speed wrote:
> >>
> >> Mindless silly stuff when the solution
> >> handles more than any load is likely to be.
> >
> > Okay, what's your _guess_ for the upper load range for a 10' closet
> > pole?
>
> Is that an African or European closet pole?
I don't know that. ARGGGGHHH! ;)
R
RicodJour
You've already made your guess as indicated by "better than any load is
likely to be", so please share. What's your guess for a likely load
for the closet rod in question?
R
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> RicodJour <rico...@worldemail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Mindless silly stuff when the solution
>>>> handles more than any load is likely to be.
>>> Okay, what's your _guess_ for the
>>> upper load range for a 10' closet pole?
>> Dont need one when the solution proposed
>> can do better than any load is likely to ever be.
> You've already made your guess as indicated
> by "better than any load is likely to be",
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.
> so please share. What's your guess for
> a likely load for the closet rod in question?
Dont need one when the solution proposed
jimm...@bellsouth.net
"Actor123" <act...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1142143400.3...@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hi all:
>
> I am doing a remodel that will result in a rather large walk-in closet.
> Along one of the longer walls I would like to have a long closet pole
> for hanging clothes. The thing is, I would prefer not to have any
> braces or brackets during the run of the pole, just at the ends. This
> is because I prefer to be able to slide all the clothes around a lot,
> as it makes organization much easier.
>
> I realize most closet poles are not strong enough to support that kind
> of weight without brackets to the wall every few feet. I am looking
>
> Has anyone encountered this situation and been able to come up with a
> solution. I was thinking of a steel pole of some sort, which I imagine
> I could find strong enough to support the weight. The other issue
> would be the brackets on both ends, which would obviously be supporting
> quite a lot of weight as well, so I was thinking not just bracing the
> ends to the wall but to the floow as well.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
Easy enough, I reinforced my closet rod with a piece of channel aluminum.
Neighbor had trashed a pile of shelf standards. Used this to stiffen the
closet shelves too. This stuff wasnt your typical channel stock though. Put
two lengths of it together back to back and it would form a hexagon. Also
used to work in te garment industry many years ago. They make special wall
mount brackets that will support a rod in the middle and allow a hangar to
slide over it. Maybe not all hangars though
jimm...@bellsouth.net
"Jay Pique" <JayP...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142213764....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
>> nicks...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
>>
>> > A 20' P5501 rod could hold 330 pounds with a 3.82" deflection.
>> >
>> > And a 20' P5001 rod could hold 1130 pounds with a 1.24" deflection.
>>
>> Are you sure about that?
>
> If you believe what you read...
> http://tinyurl.com/qaa3n
>
> We're all just one big Usenet family, huh?!
>
> JP
> ***********************************
> I'm not Jeff Davis.
I think this calculation is correct assuming all the weight is in the
middle. If the weight is distributed the full length of the rod the
deflectiomn would be a lot less. Even less if heavy items are placed toward
the ends.
Michael Daly
> I think this calculation is correct assuming all the weight is in the
> middle. If the weight is distributed the full length of the rod the
> deflectiomn would be a lot less. Even less if heavy items are placed toward
> the ends.
Another person, like Nick, who doesn't understand what he reads in a manual.
That's the problem with these manuals. They are useful for those who understand
them, but potentially dangerous in the hands of others.
Mike
hchi...@hotmail.com
Clue:
Nick is like a mathematical formula. He has wonderful theoretical
concepts, but you will NEVER get him to admit he is wrong. I tried
that over ten years ago, and for ten years I've been needling him
about the difference between theory and real world.
RicodJour
That's why the PE exam is open book. Having the book doesn't mean
someone understands it.
R
Goedjn
>Nick is like a mathematical formula. He has wonderful theoretical
>concepts, but you will NEVER get him to admit he is wrong. I tried
>that over ten years ago, and for ten years I've been needling him
>about the difference between theory and real world.
Clearly you need another hobby.