Clive George wrote:

On 26/05/2017 09:02, John Rumm wrote:
On 26/05/2017 05:40, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/05/2017 21:34, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 25/05/17 21:27, Bill Wright wrote:
On 25/05/2017 19:16, misterroy wrote:
found this test lurking in the filing cabinet at work, some of the
questions might need a bit more context.


https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_U...N1c0U/view?usp
=sharing




Is the gate question a trick? H has the brace the wrong way round.

Bill
tesnd to work either way.

No the force has to be compression on the brace.

It does not *have* to be. Granted that is the traditional way, but it
will also work in tension if its well fixed. What is required to prevent
racking of the gate is a triangulated cross member. Having it in
compression works well since it can be notched into the other timbers
and will hence work and stay put even without much in the way of
fixings. In tension it relies more heavily on the fixings, but will
still work.

As has been said though, in the context of the question, where all the
other alternatives simply had variations on right angle joints and no
brace, its the only clear correct answer.

The joints were clearly pins able to take compression or tension as well.

But too near the end of the strut to last long in tension without
splitting the wood. Agree with you re the answer.

--

Roger Hayter