I am going to build some oak shelves and would like to know how to calculate maximum
allowable load. The size approximately 15" deep by 45" wide, thickness 3/4". Thanks.

HN

1369.44.49.110 wrote:

Hey he catches less **** then I do...........................

I've seen one post from him lately. You on the other hand seem to be a
serial jackass. Plus, aside from the inflamatory sig, HE actually had
somehing useful to say (or ask).

That all depends... See you look to help people who for the most part are to
ignorant to help themselves..... We're talking wood here not rocket science.

As for jackass I think guy's dying for lies and bull**** with **** poor
armor and saving money by using humvees instead of APC's is a ****ing waste
of good soldiers! If any of these morons ever seen someone blown to ****,
they'd be upchucking for a week.....................

mediocre isn't my speed!




"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
1369.44.49.110 wrote:

Hey he catches less **** then I do...........................

I've seen one post from him lately. You on the other hand seem to be a
serial jackass. Plus, aside from the inflamatory sig, HE actually had
somehing useful to say (or ask).

1369.44.49.110 wrote:

As for jackass I think guy's dying for lies and bull**** with ****
poor armor and saving money by using humvees instead of APC's is a
****ing waste of good soldiers! If any of these morons ever seen
someone blown to ****, they'd be upchucking for a
week.....................

If you feel so strongly about about these things, why don't you
actually try to DO something about making changes in this country
rather than blowing hard in a woodworking newsgroup of all places?

What makes you think I don't? Things are certainly changing!

The only reason I'm here is because Tom W. and I found him rather
knowledgeable, had posted something anti-war and the little rats all got
excited and started running in their cages.... No respect for
him.................... So I have no reason or desire to show any respect to
the morons here who want to bark.


"Joe Barta" wrote in message
.. .
1369.44.49.110 wrote:

As for jackass I think guy's dying for lies and bull**** with ****
poor armor and saving money by using humvees instead of APC's is a
****ing waste of good soldiers! If any of these morons ever seen
someone blown to ****, they'd be upchucking for a
week.....................

If you feel so strongly about about these things, why don't you
actually try to DO something about making changes in this country
rather than blowing hard in a woodworking newsgroup of all places?

Bruce T wrote:

The simple way to do this is to multiply the length by the width
times the standard load capacity of 10 lbs. per square inch. Of
course, in your case, since the shelf is only 3/4" thick, you have
to divide by 0.75. Simple!

15 * 45 * 10 / 0.75 = 9000

9000 pounds?

One of us is missing something here.

Span is the important issue here that is missing. If you add a center
support in the shelf, you can assume that the span is halved and more
than double the load.

9000 lbs is wrong.

My framing book offers the following advise...for 3/4 inch plywood with
48 inch spacing between supports plan for a load of 40 lbs per square
foot.

Now there are several issues with this.

1) this assumes the load is live, not dead.
2) It assumes that the supports are down both sides
3) It assumes that the support offers a resting area of at least 1 inch
on each side
4) It does not assume a constant load

You will see some sag in the shelf boards on a constant load over a long
period of time.

A shelf tab in the center back of the shelf will help a lot.

Doug

In article ,
Joe Barta wrote:

Bruce T wrote:

The simple way to do this is to multiply the length by the width
times the standard load capacity of 10 lbs. per square inch. Of
course, in your case, since the shelf is only 3/4" thick, you have
to divide by 0.75. Simple!

15 * 45 * 10 / 0.75 = 9000

9000 pounds?

One of us is missing something here.

On Sat, 17 Dec 2005 12:46:29 -0500, Doug Houseman
wrote:

Span is the important issue here that is missing. If you add a center
support in the shelf, you can assume that the span is halved and more
than double the load.

9000 lbs is wrong.

My framing book offers the following advise...for 3/4 inch plywood with
48 inch spacing between supports plan for a load of 40 lbs per square
foot.

Now there are several issues with this.

1) this assumes the load is live, not dead.
2) It assumes that the supports are down both sides
3) It assumes that the support offers a resting area of at least 1 inch
on each side
4) It does not assume a constant load

You will see some sag in the shelf boards on a constant load over a long
period of time.

A shelf tab in the center back of the shelf will help a lot.

Doug


Also, something else I've done in the past is to glue a strip into a
dado which is located not far from the front edge of the shelf. Also,
I further assume that the rear edge of the shelf is fixed to the back
(plywood or somesuch) and the ends are themselves located in dados.
That'll hold up pretty well.

However, the look of the shelf is definitely affected by adding that
strip. It might not be acceptable for his design.

1369.44.49.110 wrote:
snip
The only reason I'm here is because Tom W. and I found him rather
knowledgeable, had posted something anti-war and the little rats all got
excited and started running in their cages.... No respect for
himsnip

Tom is intelligent and a good writer. His message you refer to,
however, was not merely anti-war, it was partisan. I suspect even a
mere anti-war message would attract some opponents, but a partisan
message is sure to attract negative attention, especially on a
non-partisan NG. When that anti-war argument is connected to a partisan
attack, it will attract even more negative attention.

Linking anti-war messages with partisan snipes is a difficult
rhetorical task for anyone, but more so in this particular war, since
even the democratic presidential candidate, senator Kerry, voted for
the war along with most other democrats. It seems that both parties are
equally susceptible to the accusation of whoredom, and might therefore
be more reasonable to isolate issues and discuss them one at a time,
then talk of connections to parties.

In this respect, I think you share in Tom's unfortunate decision to use
a "scatter-gun" technique, only you have neither Tom's style, sense of
decorum, nor courage (i.e., posting under his own name). You have made
your argument a very tough sell.

H.

Joe Barta wrote:
Bruce T wrote:


The simple way to do this is to multiply the length by the width
times the standard load capacity of 10 lbs. per square inch. Of
course, in your case, since the shelf is only 3/4" thick, you have
to divide by 0.75. Simple!


15 * 45 * 10 / 0.75 = 9000

9000 pounds?

One of us is missing something here.

Certainly is. the standard load is not 10 per
square inch. That's higher than the load for a
floor. Shelves would be more like 10-20 pounds
per linear foot.

your right I'm not here to finese you morons....

Who the **** elected you to feel you could tell me who what where I can
speak or post whateverI****ing want!

See Tom is a nice guy! I'm a Prick! Unlike many of you It's the part that
makes men men.....

look moron my friends know me..............and so far I haven't met anyone
here I would consider..................

so ****head when a moron posts "hylourgos" don't run your ass sucking coward
**** to me over a real name dickweed!

h.????? Get real!


"hylourgos" wrote in message
oups.com...

1369.44.49.110 wrote:
snip
The only reason I'm here is because Tom W. and I found him rather
knowledgeable, had posted something anti-war and the little rats all got
excited and started running in their cages.... No respect for
himsnip

Tom is intelligent and a good writer. His message you refer to,
however, was not merely anti-war, it was partisan. I suspect even a
mere anti-war message would attract some opponents, but a partisan
message is sure to attract negative attention, especially on a
non-partisan NG. When that anti-war argument is connected to a partisan
attack, it will attract even more negative attention.

Linking anti-war messages with partisan snipes is a difficult
rhetorical task for anyone, but more so in this particular war, since
even the democratic presidential candidate, senator Kerry, voted for
the war along with most other democrats. It seems that both parties are
equally susceptible to the accusation of whoredom, and might therefore
be more reasonable to isolate issues and discuss them one at a time,
then talk of connections to parties.

In this respect, I think you share in Tom's unfortunate decision to use
a "scatter-gun" technique, only you have neither Tom's style, sense of
decorum, nor courage (i.e., posting under his own name). You have made
your argument a very tough sell.

H.

1369.44.49.110 wrote:
your right I'm not here to finese you morons....

Who the **** elected you to feel you could tell me who what where I can
speak or post whateverI****ing want!

As soon as you can show me where I told you "who what where [you] can
speak or post whatever[you] want", then I'll tell you who elected me.

I did point out what a difficult path it is you've chosen, and why. For
you to infer that I was barking orders that compelled you to get so
defensive...well, that's sad.

See Tom is a nice guy! I'm a Prick! Unlike many of you It's the part that
makes men men.....

See, I always thought it was the brain and the soul. Any male can have
a dick--doesn't make him a man. And I have no idea if Tom is a nice
guy, I've never had the opportunity to make his acquaintance. I did say
he was eloquent and showed decorum and courage. I should also point out
that I have never called you a name. Why would I? I don't know you.

look moron my friends know me..............and so far I haven't met anyone
here I would consider..................

I'm glad you have friends. I wonder if you act or speak towards them as
you write towards others on this NG. I wonder because you use the
metaphor of "meeting" people on a NG, which strikes me as odd. Have you
participated in NGs for long?

so ****head when a moron posts "hylourgos" don't run your ass sucking coward
**** to me over a real name dickweed!

h.????? Get real!

Ha. Hey, 1369.44.49.110, you're a funny guy....

H, still H.

Joe Barta wrote in news:Xns972F1D40A7661jbartaapknet@
207.115.17.102:

Bruce T wrote:

The simple way to do this is to multiply the length by the width
times the standard load capacity of 10 lbs. per square inch. Of
course, in your case, since the shelf is only 3/4" thick, you have
to divide by 0.75. Simple!

15 * 45 * 10 / 0.75 = 9000

9000 pounds?

One of us is missing something here.

Assuming the rest of the calc is true it should be multiply by 0.75 not
divide?

this is useful; http://www.woodworkersweb.com/sagulator.htm