McQualude wrote in news:Xns9432E7CBE3C78mcqualude@
24.25.9.43:

todd said:

folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way
of what you think is right.

I'm listening, explain why a round or square wooden fence post is
stronger if the width of the post is not a factor.

I, and one or two others, postulated that the round post would be
stronger because it maintains the integrity of the tree (assuming the
post started as a whole tree). No engineers have responded to rebut
any of those comments.

Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same. Therefore, the
square post contains all of the material of the round post, plus the
material in the square corners. Unless you can explain how added material
in the corners weakens the post, consider your postulate rebutted.

Note I haven't spent much time talking about whether a square post is an
efficient means of making a post (though I did touch on this point a couple
of posts ago). You could probably make an argument of why the hell are we
talking about this anyway. How much load is a fence post likely to see in
the first place? I answered a general question with a general answer. We
would have to have a *lot* more information to arrive an an in-depth
answer. A notable example would be what would the failure mode of a wooden
post in bending be? It could fail in tension (at the top of the post
(opposite side to the direction of load), in compression at the bottom of
the post, or in shear in the center. You could make a case for being
concerned about the shear strength of a post with the center of the tree
(not an area known for high strength) being located at the area of highest
shear stress. Unless you're prepared to enter into such a discussion, I'd
leave the postulating alone.

todd