Speaking of home wood-related repairs...

"Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sort of a woodworking post...
>
> When the choice is given to me to use a nail or a screw, I almost always
> choose the screw. Only time I choose a nail is when it is a finishing
> nail and the head is meant to sort of disappear on the application.
>
> My logic is that screws don't eventually walk out if there are temperature
> fluctuations, people walking on the surface, etc.
>
> When is a nail a better choice?
>
One obvious place is when you are constructing something quick and dirty. I
have some basic racks Ihave to build into a garage in the next week or so. I
have one day. Sooo...., I just bang it together with nails. It ain't pretty.
But it is fast. I am going to glue everything though. I figure the extra
strength from the glue justifies the small amount of time to apply the glue.

"Jerry - OHIO" wrote:

>I was given a 50lb. box of dry wall screws by my buddy. So I screw
> everything ..

We won't go there<G>.

Lew

"Richk" wrote:

Ok - I'll chime in . . Structural Engineer, with degrees and official
License who has designed many buildings.

the 90# for a 16d box nail is about right on . . to start with.
There's a lot of factors that could increase or decrease that number
by a factor of two or so depending on exactly what's going on and what
kind of loads you are holding up (for example:short duration loads
like wind, multiply by 1.6; hot, wet conditions might be multiplied by
about 0.6 or so)

Steel strength for get's pretty meaningless since it's wood that
always fails in a proper joint, but the minimum steel yield strength
for both nails and wood screw is 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi. Neither
nails or screws are usually heat treated.

Normal screews are usually not hardened; however, this thread started
somewhere way back when talkung about dry wall screws which are a
different ball game.

SFWIW, also have the shingle issued by the state hanging on the wall.

Lew

"Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

*snip*

> When is a nail a better choice?
>
> Regards,
> Joe Agro, Jr.

When visiting some family, we took a trip out on their boat. The dock
had been recently redone, using new material and nails. The only reason
we could think of using nails instead of screws was that they figured the
dock would rot fairly quickly anyway, and the nails would be easier to
get back up.

All speculation, of course, but might we have been on the right track?

Puckdropper
--
"The potential difference between the top and bottom of a tree is the
reason why all trees have to be grounded..." -- Bored Borg on
rec.woodworking

To email me directly, send a message to puckdropper (at) fastmail.fm

Bill wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f47bf1f7-7a90-4f88-bda0-c7837d7c29b7@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out having to
>>save and reuse any parts. I get about 20 years out of galvanized nails in
>>a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about ready to
>>go
>>also.
>
>
> BINGO!
>
> I couldn't agree more. I can't imagine taking a fence apart to save
> some old screws. I am tight, but not that tight.
>
> Right on the spot as usual, Leon.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that, in the pioneering days, people would take apart
> whole houses when they moved
> to save the nails (for the next one)!
>
> Bill
>
>

Back then each nail had to be hand forged. IIRC, they'd burn the old
house down and sift through the ashes.

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA
[email protected]

"Dave in Houston" wrote
>
> How many of us as kids had the job of straightening the bent nails to
> be re-used?
>
<raises hand>

My grandfather was a great junkman/recycler. I built a couple garages with
him. Every nail was bent, recycled and in big buckets. We pullled the nail
out, straightened it and drove it into the wood.

On Oct 9, 12:32=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > Your point that a common nail is stronger in shear than adrywall
> > screw is not coming under fire. =A0It is the 16,000 lbs thing. =A0
>
> I still swear I've seen that number and it surprised the crap out of me,
> too.
> I've been looking through some of my textbooks and publications, but
> don't have any more time to look.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

>>>>> I still swear I've seen that number and it surprised the crap out of=
me, too.
I've been looking through some of my textbooks and publications, but
don't have any more time to look.<<<<<<

Mike-

Your recollection is wrong...we all make mistakes.


Your 16,000 lb number is nonsense, please don't continue to quote
unless oyu can cite it.

You can take all the time in the world...you;re not going to find a
shear strength of a 16d nail to be 16,000 lbs...ain't gonna happen.

cheers
Bob

ps I agree that often nails are much stronger than screws and as
Rico noted there are times to use each.

I was given a 50lb. box of dry wall screws by my buddy. So I screw
everything ..

Jerry


http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/MyWoodWorkingPage



http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/1974RuppCentair

On Oct 6, 3:55=A0pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I think screws are popular for two reasons.
>
> First, most people can't drive a nail anymore. I have carpenters that
> work for me from time to time that think their hammers are just
> adjustment tools. =A0Without airtools, they beat the crap out of
> material, can't get joints to line up, and it in some cases they
> simply can't get the job done at all. =A0I am now at an age where many
> younger "carpenters" have never worked solely with hammer and nails
> all day for any reason. =A0I always make sure we have pneumatic
> equipment on the job now, and have for years.
>
> Second, with the differences in today's materials screws are an
> important part of different aspects of construction. =A0They are
> invaluable in my repairs as I don't vibrate or move things around like
> I do when driving large nails. =A0Also, when using mdf, crappy plywood,
> etc., nails simply won't hold. =A0Some mdf is too hard to nail together,
> and the nails won't hold if you get them in at all.
>
> I still use a lot of nails. =A0I use pneumatic and hand nails, and my
> stuff doesn't fall apart. =A0Just think how many old houses aren't
> screwed together <anywhere>, from framing to cabinets and trim, and
> they are still standing...
>
> I cannot explain that to my idiot neighbor. =A0He spend an untold amount
> of money and time screwing fence boards onto his new fence. =A0He was
> out there forever, thinking his fence would last as well as The
> Pyramids if it was screwed together. =A0He had something like $275 bucks
> in screws, when he could have borrowed my utility nailer and bought a
> box of ring shanked galvanized nails for $55 and been through in a
> day.
>
> It took him four weekends, working both days to attach with screws. =A0I
> could only surmise he was just doing it for the fun.
>
> Robert

A good screw costs money. What I like about them is that I get the
'suck' when screwing two boards together. An airnailer just doesn't do
that...I find I'm invariably driving those home with an after blow
from my trusty 26 oz Estwing. I really do like those nifty self-
drilling stainless screws for out-door projects.

On Oct 9, 3:26=A0pm, "Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Seriously though, I got your point about nails being stronger than screws=
.
> It has a lot to do with the fact there are grooves in a screw.

More to do with what's done to the steel during manufacture. The
drywall screw is hardened and thus brittle.

R

On Oct 9, 3:42=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > -MIKE- wrote:
> >> dpb wrote:
> >>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
> >>>> original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
> >>>> that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
> >>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>
> >>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
> >>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
> >>> little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
> >>> nail or screw...
>
> >> How?
>
> >> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
> >> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>
> >> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. =A0It will
> >> bend. Do the same to the screw. =A0It will "shear" right off.
>
> > You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.
>
> I'm not. =A0It relates enough to get the point across.
>
> I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.
>
> bye
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike-

If these tests & lectures were involved in process that lead to a
technical degree (physics or engineering)....please let me know so I
can notify your alma mater to begin the "degree recall process".

You have, in the later part of this thread, violated "the first rule
of holes"..........which is "stop digging".

shear & impact tests are used to determine different properties....

btw find that 16,000 lb number yet?


cheers
Bob

On Oct 11, 1:46=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says =
to
> >> try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>
> >> I honestly want to know what the real number is. =A0Since we had some
> >> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
> >> I've been trying to ask them.
>
> > Oh, you mean like... Bob?
>
> >> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters=
'
> >> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
> >> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whateve=
r?
>
> >> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>
> > Sheesh. =A0Will you give it the fuck up already? =A0Don't you understan=
d?
> > Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. =A0I first ran
> > into him probably close to ten years ago on
> > alt.building.construction. =A0He knows his shit, and was pointing out
> > that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.
>
> I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
> There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.

Perhaps you were looking for a Stuart Smalley newsgroup...? I'll see
if I can help.
You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like
you!

You were still wrong about the 16000 lbs. ;)

R

On Oct 9, 5:41=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > -MIKE- wrote:
> >> fftt wrote:
> >>> Huh? =A0 Care to take another try?
>
> >>> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of
> >>> 16,000 psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>
> >> No. =A0I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>
> >> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
> >> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
> >> tears the other end. =A0This shear test has both jaws right next to
> >> each other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the
> >> length of the nail.
>
> >>> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
> >>> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>
> >> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code,
> >> to be held by a single nail. =A0That has nothing to do with the shear
> >> strength limit of the nail. =A0If the two were the same, then every
> >> house would collapse before finished.
>
> >> You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.
>
> > A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. =A0That gives an area
> > of about 0.02 inches.
>
> > To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could
> > take a sheer stress of 800,000 psi. =A0 This is beyond the range of
> > even exotic ultra high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk
> > that is typically used in modern nails. =A0For a typical mild steel the
> > shear strength woulde be around 60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02
> > and you have 1200 pounds.
>
> Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds
>
> http://74.125.113.132/search?q=3Dcache:jPPGP54rgrEJ:www.fireserviceslt...=
.
>
> That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will bre=
ak
> the nail.

>>>>> That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you wil=
l break the nail. <<<<<<

?????? Your tool belt weighs 150 pounds?

cheers
Bob

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 23:08:21 -0700, the infamous "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>
>"Jerry - OHIO" wrote:
>
>>I was given a 50lb. box of dry wall screws by my buddy. So I screw
>> everything ..
>
>We won't go there<G>.

What, you don't think a coarse 1-5/8" tool is exciting to girls?
Poor Jer...

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

On Oct 11, 9:15=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> fftt wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 10:03 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> fftt wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
> >>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
> >>>>> allowable =A0in timber like ~100lbs
> >>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably =A0400lbs
> >>>>> ultimate =A0load in a test machine...depending on the steel
> >>>>> condition =A0/ =A0alloy; =A0maybe 800+ lbs
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> Bob
> >>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never=
was.
> >>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being c=
ut,
> >>>> or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
> >>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
> >>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/=
test.
> >>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? =A0 Mounte=
d
> >>> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
> >>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
> >>> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitpl=
y
> >>> by .02
> >>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
> >>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
> >>> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower=
.
> >>> cheers
> >>> Bob
> >> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
> >> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
> >> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>
> >> --
>
> >>>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real=
world, but they still do the tests. :-) =A0 <<<<
>
> > Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
> > holes.
>
> > The tests are done for a reason, to confirm or determine material
> > properties. =A0To determine system performance.
> > Perhaps you could give an example as to one of these "tests".
>
> > You pulled a BS number out of your ass (or faulty memory) then
> > continued to insisted it was right & that it made sense.
>
> > You then switched to hoping your number was "close to right" .....at
> > least in "some" situation.
> > Even considering the number from the most optimistic & unrealistic
> > condition ....you're still off by a factor more than 10.
>
> > cheers
> > Bob
>
> Get over yourself, Bob.
> So every stress test done in the lab is a replication of a real life
> application, huh?
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply


Mike-

You continue to post unsubstantiated BS. back pedaling & back
filling as you go, changing the subject and obfuscating

On Oct 11, 11:22=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> RicodJour wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 1:46 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> RicodJour wrote:
> >>> On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob say=
s to
> >>>> try to make himself feel superior in some way.
> >>>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. =A0Since we had som=
e
> >>>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of test=
s,
> >>>> I've been trying to ask them.
> >>> Oh, you mean like... Bob?
> >>>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwrite=
rs'
> >>>> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
> >>>> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whate=
ver?
> >>>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
> >>> Sheesh. =A0Will you give it the fuck up already? =A0Don't you underst=
and?
> >>> Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. =A0I first ra=
n
> >>> into him probably close to ten years ago on
> >>> alt.building.construction. =A0He knows his shit, and was pointing out
> >>> that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.
> >> I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
> >> There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.
>
> > Perhaps you were looking for a Stuart Smalley newsgroup...? =A0I'll see
> > if I can help.
> > You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like
> > you!
>
> > You were still wrong about the 16000 lbs. =A0;)
>
> > R
>
> Great, I'm over that. =A0I've been over that. =A0I'm not the one who keep=
s
> bringing it up.
>
> What I'm interested in are the real numbers. I thought others might be,
> too, but all you seem to be interested in is pointing out what an idiot
> you think I am, which says much more about you than me.
>
> I saw that Bob was an expert and asked about three times and got nothing
> more than finger pointing.
>
> I asked that other guy, Richk Structural Engineer, to explain his
> numbers a little more.
> Haven't heard from him, but maybe he'll add something after he reads it.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>


Mike-

I sorry you're pissed off. Lots of guys provided good comments & good
information

One of my later posts gave you range of answers

reposted here:

>>>>>>>


depends on the loading conditions & assembly

an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?

allowable in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs

ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs

<<<<<<<

I failed (fail) to see how this answer didn't satisfy your
questions.

Seems to me it covered all the bases, pretty much

except the 800+ lbs number, which was a bit imprecise & dependent on
alloy & heat treat.

But the truth be told, nails (in timber construction, where they are
mostly used) fail in bending not shear or combination with withdrawal.
I'm thinking of shear wall applications which are one of the few where
nailed connections are taken beyond the system yield point.

Your continuing to pursue the subject after this answer was
interpreted by me (perhaps incorrectly) that you were "shopping the
answer"
......by changing the conditions until you got the answer you
wanted.

If I was wrong about that, my apologies.

Perhaps we just we use different language to describe this situation
and were talking "passed each other"

...unfortunately (for you) the language I use (or try to use) is that
agreed upon by engineering & construction pros.
The use of precise language in these situations is important otherwise
mis-communication occurs.

wrt to the "douche bag" comment...... I sometimes have that effect on
people but I still invited to my fair share of parties so I'm not too
worried. :)

cheers
Bob

On Oct 10, 4:54=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> > depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>
> > an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>
> > allowable =A0in timber like ~100lbs
>
> > ultimate load in timber, probably =A0400lbs
>
> > ultimate =A0load in a test machine...depending on the steel
> > condition =A0/ =A0alloy; =A0maybe 800+ lbs
>
> > cheers
> > Bob
>
> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.
>
> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
> or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>
> Is that what that 800 number is?
> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply



Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?

A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
by .02

But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.

cheers
Bob

cheers
Bob

On Oct 6, 6:47=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> CW wrote:
> >> A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as =
a
> >> nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.
>
> > Why a heat treated screw? Nails are dead soft.
>
> Tru dat. =A0A standard framing nail has a shear streangth of something
> like 16,000lbs.
> A screw designed for strength (like a cabinet screw, not a drywall
> screw) is probably a 1/3 that.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

>>>>>>Tru dat. A standard framing nail has a shear strength of something
like 16,000lbs. <<<<<<




First comment; some (many) nails are dead soft but not all nails are
dead soft.


Huh? Care to take another try?

Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
psi (lbs / sq in) ?

Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range

so........ your units are off, your concept is wrong or your number
is off by 100x.

cheers
Bob

On Oct 9, 3:09=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. =A0That gives an area=
of
> > about 0.02 inches.
>
> > To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could ta=
ke a
> > sheer stress of 800,000 psi. =A0 This is beyond the range of even exoti=
c ultra
> > high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk that is typically us=
ed in
> > modern nails. =A0For a typical mild steel the shear strength woulde be =
around
> > 60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02 and you have 1200 pounds.
>
> I don't get what psi has to do with anything.
> You put half a nail in a clamp, the other half of the clamp moves down
> with the weight of 8 tons. That is well within many testing machines.
> They test steel beams and concrete sections way, way, beyond that weight.
>
> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my original
> point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger that a
> fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?

Lighten up, Mike. You're talking about relative strengths, which
inherently incorporates the differing material properties. It is not
an irrelevant detail to correct an obvious error in shear strength, as
this is what we are talking about, and shear strength is figured in
PSI, which incorporates the area. It is not a question of whether a
testing machine can exert such force, it is a question of whether the
item being tested has the material properties to withstand that force.

Your point that a common nail is stronger in shear than a drywall
screw is not coming under fire. It is the 16,000 lbs thing. Here's a
little video for you to back up your point:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/967794/shear_strength_of_nails_drywall_screws=
_construction_screw/

As an aside, the malleability of a framing nail goes a long way to
contributing the long term strength, and longevity, of a structure.
I'm sure you've seen framing where the pieces have pulled away a bit,
the nail has bent a bit, but it is still firmly embedded in the wood
pieces. A framing screw has no such give and will be more likely to
split the wood when the building inevitably begins to move.

There are many reasons to use screws, but there are also reasons not
to.

R

On Oct 11, 9:22=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > -MIKE- wrote:
> >> fftt wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
> >>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
> >>>>> allowable =A0in timber like ~100lbs
> >>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably =A0400lbs
> >>>>> ultimate =A0load in a test machine...depending on the steel
> >>>>> condition =A0/ =A0alloy; =A0maybe 800+ lbs
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>> Bob
> >>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
> >>>> never was.
>
> >>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
> >>>> cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>
> >>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
> >>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
> >>>> machine/test.
>
> >>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? =A0 Mounte=
d
> >>> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>
> >>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
> >>> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
> >>> mutlitply by .02
>
> >>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
> >>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
> >>> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
> >>> mower.
>
> >>> cheers
> >>> Bob
>
> >> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
> >> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
> >> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>
> > If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture tha=
t
> > fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. =A0Seems like a strange th=
ing to
> > do when a nail would not normally be used that way. =A0Do you recall th=
e
> > circumstances under which the test was conducted?
>
> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
> try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>
> I honestly want to know what the real number is. =A0Since we had some
> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
> I've been trying to ask them.
>
> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
>
> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

I'm far from superior....... I come to this newsgroup to learn stuff
(as I assume most others do)

when people (like you) post unsupported & unsupportable claims it
reduces the value of this forum

you asked for info, people provide it (you disbelieved it) ....you
were asked for cites or examples & you provided none...just more hand
waving

On 10/09/2009 02:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:

> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>
> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will bend.
> Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

That's why I specified "properly heat-treated". The heat treatment
keeps it from being brittle due to work-hardening from rolling the threads.

Just for fun, I tried your experiment with a #10 Spax brand exterior
screw. (Lee Valley carries them.) The screw bent. I then pounded it
back straight and removed it with a power driver.

I then tried it with a #10 "Precision" brand decking screw from Home
Depot. The screw snapped.

Chris

"Joe AutoDrill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sort of a woodworking post...
>
> When the choice is given to me to use a nail or a screw, I almost always
> choose the screw. Only time I choose a nail is when it is a finishing
> nail and the head is meant to sort of disappear on the application.
>
> My logic is that screws don't eventually walk out if there are temperature
> fluctuations, people walking on the surface, etc.
>
> When is a nail a better choice?
>
When you wear flannel shirts and speak with a Bahston accent.

B.

On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:39:20 -0500, the infamous -MIKE-
<[email protected]> scrawled the following:

>dpb wrote:
>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my original
>>> point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger that a
>>> fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
>>
>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>>
>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has little, if
>> anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a nail or screw...
>>
>
>How?
>
>Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
>Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>
>Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will bend.
>Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

That's not shearing, that's bending, and the screw isn't built for
that. True shearing test is to screw 2 2x4s together and hold on in
the vise while you hit the other on directly on the 2" side, along the
4" plane. (dims referential)

I've tried shearing two 3" deck screws that way and couldn't do it
with my 220 lbs + a jumping stomp.

They're brittle enough to bend and break in your test, though, because
the end is unsupported. But try lagging a 2x4 to an upright 4x4 post,
then screwing a 2x4 to it. Now lay a 2x6 on top and screw it to the
outer 2x4 and jump on the 2x6 with your heaviest buddy. I'll bet you
don't shear it if they are all securely tightened. No fair if the
2-by splits first. That means you put a torsion force on it, not a
shear force.

Go on. I double dare ya! ;)

--
"Giving every man a vote has no more made men wise and free
than Christianity has made them good." --H. L. Mencken
---

On Oct 9, 8:41=A0pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds
>
> http://74.125.113.132/search?q=3Dcache:jPPGP54rgrEJ:www.fireserviceslt...=
.
>
> That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will bre=
ak
> the nail.

Right...if you're wearing the belt at the time.

R

I think screws are popular for two reasons.

First, most people can't drive a nail anymore. I have carpenters that
work for me from time to time that think their hammers are just
adjustment tools. Without airtools, they beat the crap out of
material, can't get joints to line up, and it in some cases they
simply can't get the job done at all. I am now at an age where many
younger "carpenters" have never worked solely with hammer and nails
all day for any reason. I always make sure we have pneumatic
equipment on the job now, and have for years.

Second, with the differences in today's materials screws are an
important part of different aspects of construction. They are
invaluable in my repairs as I don't vibrate or move things around like
I do when driving large nails. Also, when using mdf, crappy plywood,
etc., nails simply won't hold. Some mdf is too hard to nail together,
and the nails won't hold if you get them in at all.

I still use a lot of nails. I use pneumatic and hand nails, and my
stuff doesn't fall apart. Just think how many old houses aren't
screwed together <anywhere>, from framing to cabinets and trim, and
they are still standing...

I cannot explain that to my idiot neighbor. He spend an untold amount
of money and time screwing fence boards onto his new fence. He was
out there forever, thinking his fence would last as well as The
Pyramids if it was screwed together. He had something like $275 bucks
in screws, when he could have borrowed my utility nailer and bought a
box of ring shanked galvanized nails for $55 and been through in a
day.

It took him four weekends, working both days to attach with screws. I
could only surmise he was just doing it for the fun.

Robert

On Oct 11, 4:47=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Actually, I buried the hole up and moved on.

Yeah, cats do that to when they take a shit. :)~

R

On 10/11/2009 07:09 PM, CW wrote:

> Typical wood screws are not heat treated. They are made of a low carbon,
> cold work steel. The rolling and heading process compact the steel
> increasing toughness without making it britle.

What's a "typical" wood screw? Spax screws are definitely heat-treated,
and they're actually cheaper than the junk at big box stores. Same
thing for the Robertson screws available at Lee Valley. I imagine the
ones from McFeeleys' are also heat-treated, they certainly did well in
the test in Woodworking magazine.

I've basically given up on low-grade screws and will only use the
premium stuff.

Chris

On Oct 6, 10:47=A0pm, [email protected] (Jerry - OHIO) wrote:
> I was given a 50lb. box of dry wall screws by my buddy. So I screw
> everything ..
>
> Jerry
>
> http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/MyWoodWorkingPage
>
> http://community.webtv.net/awoodbutcher/1974RuppCentair

Jerry-

Drywall screws are meant to install drywall, that's it.
They are not a general purpose fastener, esp not for any kind of
serious load.
Drywall screws are hard & brittle....they pretty much suck but do work
for drywall.

Drywall screws have ruined countless redwood or cedar fences.
The fence might look ok when you drive away but a few months later the
face boards will be streaked with rust.

I wonder how many kitchen cabinets installed in the last 15 years with
drywall screws will come down in the next big SoCal earthquake.

Don't be hack; use drywall screws for drywall.
And get some decent screws for general work.

cheers
Bob

On Oct 10, 10:07=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> fftt wrote:
> > On Oct 9, 3:42 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> J. Clarke wrote:
> >>> -MIKE- wrote:
> >>>> dpb wrote:
> >>>>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
> >>>>>> original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronge=
r
> >>>>>> that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
> >>>>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
> >>>>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
> >>>>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
> >>>>> little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
> >>>>> nail or screw...
> >>>> How?
> >>>> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
> >>>> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
> >>>> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. =A0It wil=
l
> >>>> bend. Do the same to the screw. =A0It will "shear" right off.
> >>> You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.
> >> I'm not. =A0It relates enough to get the point across.
>
> >> I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.
>
> >> bye
>
> >> --
>
> >> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> >> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> >> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> >> =A0 --
> >> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> >> =A0 [email protected]
> >> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
>
> > Mike-
>
> > If these tests & lectures were involved in process that lead to a
> > technical degree (physics or engineering)....please let me know so I
> > can notify your alma mater to begin the "degree recall process".
>
> > You have, in the later part of this thread, violated "the first rule
> > of holes"..........which is "stop digging".
>
> > shear & impact tests are used to determine different properties....
>
> > btw find that 16,000 lb number yet?
>
> > cheers
> > Bob
>
> Bob, I heard you the first time.
> Do you know what the number (lbs) is, since you ran the tests?
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

depends on the loading conditions & assembly

an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?

allowable in timber like ~100lbs

ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs

ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs

cheers
Bob

On Oct 9, 9:36=A0am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> fftt wrote:
> > Huh? =A0 Care to take another try?
>
> > Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
> > psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>
> No. =A0I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>
> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
> tears the other end. =A0This shear test has both jaws right next to each
> other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
> of the nail.
>
> > Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
> > 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>
> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code, to
> be held by a single nail. =A0That has nothing to do with the shear
> strength limit of the nail. =A0If the two were the same, then every house
> would collapse before finished.
>
> You and I can exertmuchmore than 150lbs with our bare hands.
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Mike-

I know all about "those giant machines".......I ran a research lab for
nearly 20 years, we had one.

And there is NO WAY a single 16d name can do ANYTHING that involves
16,000 lbs other than be destroyed at a WAY lower number.

You're latest post is mostly nonsense. :(

cheers
Bob

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/06/2009 11:43 AM, Joe AutoDrill wrote:
>> Sort of a woodworking post...
>>
>> When the choice is given to me to use a nail or a screw, I almost always
>> choose the screw.
>
>> When is a nail a better choice?
>
> Nails are cheaper.
>
> A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as a
> nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.
>
Why a heat treated screw? Nails are dead soft.

J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> fftt wrote:
>>> Huh? Care to take another try?
>>>
>>> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of
>>> 16,000 psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>>>
>>
>> No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>>
>> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
>> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
>> tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to
>> each other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the
>> length of the nail.
>>
>>
>>> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
>>> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>>>
>>
>> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code,
>> to be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
>> strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every
>> house would collapse before finished.
>>
>> You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.
>
> A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. That gives an area
> of about 0.02 inches.
>
> To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could
> take a sheer stress of 800,000 psi. This is beyond the range of
> even exotic ultra high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk
> that is typically used in modern nails. For a typical mild steel the
> shear strength woulde be around 60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02
> and you have 1200 pounds.


Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds

http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:jPPGP54rgrEJ:www.fireserviceslt.com/files/Shoring_for_Structural_Collapse_Brian_Ward_1_.ppt+shear+strength+16d+nail&cd=4&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break
the nail.

"PDQ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...



I don't know about your "idiot neighbor", but I put in stainless steel
screws so they would rot a greatly reduced rate and, maybe, be reused when
the boards rotted.

Other than this 1 item, I concur.

Everywhere one looks one sees the next generation knowing less about manual
labour and more about ??????????

P D Q

My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out having to
save and reuse any parts. I get about 20 years out of galvanized nails in
a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about ready to go
also.

There are fairly rare occasions when the sheer value of a nail is
necessary to know. I was given the number 90# in sheer for a 16d
box nail once when it really did matter, this number was from a
structural engineer who I am sure had quite a safety factor in his
figures. Of course, common nails are higher.

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
[email protected]



"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> fftt wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 9:36 am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> fftt wrote:
>>>> Huh? Care to take another try?
>>>> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress
>>>> of 16,000
>>>> psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>>> No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>>>
>>> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that
>>> hold
>>> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or
>>> pulls or
>>> tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next
>>> to each
>>> other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to
>>> the length
>>> of the nail.
>>>
>>>> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I
>>>> checked) for a
>>>> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>>> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed,
>>> by code, to
>>> be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the
>>> shear
>>> strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then
>>> every house
>>> would collapse before finished.
>>>
>>> You and I can exertmuchmore than 150lbs with our bare hands.
>>
>> Mike-
>>
>> I know all about "those giant machines".......I ran a research
>> lab for
>> nearly 20 years, we had one.
>>
>> And there is NO WAY a single 16d name can do ANYTHING that
>> involves
>> 16,000 lbs other than be destroyed at a WAY lower number.
>>
>> You're latest post is mostly nonsense. :(
>>
>> cheers
>> Bob
>>
>
> Cool. Any idea what it can take?
>
>
> --
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in
> life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
> [email protected]
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I think screws are popular for two reasons.

> It took him four weekends, working both days to attach with screws. I
> could only surmise he was just doing it for the fun.

Maybe the only screwing he ever gets to do. Or, he's an engineer of some
sort; they typically like to overbuild stuff.

Dave in Houston

On 10/06/2009 01:55 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> I cannot explain that to my idiot neighbor. He spend an untold amount
> of money and time screwing fence boards onto his new fence.

My local lumberyard has an interesting tool/fastener. It goes in with a
pneumatic tool like an air nailer, but it has spiral threads and a
phillips head and comes out like a screw.

Alternately, you can get auto-feed screw guns for use with collated screws.

Chris

Why not take two steel blocks of the same size. Drill a clearance
hole through each, offset about a 1/4". Place a nail through the
holes. Place both blocks in a vise and close until the nail
shears. Once you are sure of the set up, it should be fairly easy
to devise a means of measuring the force. I've not ever had a
need for the data short of meeting a particular structural rating
that an engineer designed and specified.


I do wish I had kept the drawing of that project. It required
nailing a series of 2x6 blocks onto existing 2x10 joists with a
set number of 10d common nails. The block was to be 1 foot long
as I recall with over 40 nails in it. I asked how he came up with
the numbers, etc; and expressed my concern that the board(s) would
shatter or split from the sheer number of shear nails. He was
worried about the forces (known and unknown) that he wanted to
overcome and not necessarily the limits of the material. We
arrived at a reasonable compromise that satisfied each of us. It
seems to me the compromise involved a longer 2x6, use of 16d, and
some predrilling. I don't believe the number of fasteners changed
much. I had offered using steel, bolts, etc. I think the main
reason not to change had to do with not wanting to
redraw/recalculate.

--
______________________________
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)
[email protected]



"-MIKE-" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> fftt wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load)
>>>>>> number?
>>>>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything...
>>>>> I
>>>>> never was.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like
>>>>> being
>>>>> cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d
>>>>> nail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>>>> machine/test.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
>>>> Mounted
>>>> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>>>
>>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
>>>> poster's
>>>> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
>>>> mutlitply by .02
>>>>
>>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a
>>>> test
>>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be
>>>> used in
>>>> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a
>>>> lawn
>>>> mower.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the
>>> real
>>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>>
>> If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a
>> fixture that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it.
>> Seems like a strange thing to do when a nail would not normally
>> be used that way. Do you recall the circumstances under which
>> the test was conducted?
>>
>
> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob
> says to try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>
> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had
> some engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those
> types of tests, I've been trying to ask them.
>
> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
> (Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a
> material way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears,
> pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
>
> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this
> happens.
>
>
> --
>
> -MIKE-
>
> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in
> life"
> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
> --
> http://mikedrums.com
> [email protected]
> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:f47bf1f7-7a90-4f88-bda0-c7837d7c29b7@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out having to
>> save and reuse any parts. I get about 20 years out of galvanized nails in
>> a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about ready to
>> go
>> also.
>
> BINGO!
>
> I couldn't agree more. I can't imagine taking a fence apart to save
> some old screws. I am tight, but not that tight.
>
> Right on the spot as usual, Leon.
>
> Robert
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that, in the pioneering days, people would take
> apart whole houses when they moved
> to save the nails (for the next one)!

How many of us as kids had the job of straightening the bent nails to be
re-used?

Dave in Houston

On Oct 6, 3:27=A0pm, Steve Turner <[email protected]> wrote:

> Well I wouldn't want to do what your neighbor did, but I can tell you tha=
t ring shank nails
> in Western Red Cedar fences (that are *everywhere* here in Texas) don't h=
old forever,
> probably because of extreme drying and shrinking in the boards. =A0When t=
hat happens, all my
> repair work is done by pulling out the nails and driving screws in their =
place. =A0Works for me.

Works for me, too. As far as fences go (odd.... I am replacing about
50 boards on a client's house this week as part of other work) the
reason I see most verticals become loose is because they installers
used 1 1/2" nails. I have used 2" for years, and no problems yet.
*knocks on wood*

The repair of a fence is a perfect home for screws. The fence is
probably already older, maybe a bit rickety, and not something that
will take any kind of vibration from my 22 oz hammer. So screws are
the perfect choice. Plus, screws make the homeowners feel really good
about having high quality repairs at their home.

Screws also work great for deck repairs, and I couldn't imagine a
better solution for loose or deformed deck boards. Plenty of places
to use screws, no doubt.

Robert

On Oct 11, 12:22=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
> try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>
> I honestly want to know what the real number is. =A0Since we had some
> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
> I've been trying to ask them.

Oh, you mean like... Bob?

> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
>
> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

Sheesh. Will you give it the fuck up already? Don't you understand?
Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. I first ran
into him probably close to ten years ago on
alt.building.construction. He knows his shit, and was pointing out
that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.

You're just getting twisted up over something YOU don't understand.
If you want an education, go get it - it's not someone else's job to
give it to you. DAGS "nail shear strength testing". BTW, do not be
mislead by that idiot's video on YouTube and Metacafe that shows him
swatting nails and screws and calling that a shear strength test.
Swatting them with a hammer is not a shear test (though it can be
indicative of the shear strength).

R

On Oct 10, 10:03=A0pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> fftt wrote:
> > On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
> >>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
> >>> allowable =A0in timber like ~100lbs
> >>> ultimate load in timber, probably =A0400lbs
> >>> ultimate =A0load in a test machine...depending on the steel
> >>> condition =A0/ =A0alloy; =A0maybe 800+ lbs
> >>> cheers
> >>> Bob
> >> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never w=
as.
>
> >> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut=
,
> >> or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>
> >> Is that what that 800 number is?
> >> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/te=
st.
>
> > Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? =A0 Mounted
> > in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>
> > A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
> > calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
> > by .02
>
> > But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
> > machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
> > that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.
>
> > cheers
> > Bob
>
> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>
> --
>
> =A0 -MIKE-
>
> =A0 "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
> =A0 =A0 =A0--Elvin Jones =A0(1927-2004)
> =A0 --
> =A0http://mikedrums.com
> =A0 [email protected]
> =A0 ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply


>>>>There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real wor=
ld, but they still do the tests. :-) <<<<

Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
holes.

The tests are done for a reason, to confirm or determine material
properties. To determine system performance.
Perhaps you could give an example as to one of these "tests".

You pulled a BS number out of your ass (or faulty memory) then
continued to insisted it was right & that it made sense.

You then switched to hoping your number was "close to right" .....at
least in "some" situation.
Even considering the number from the most optimistic & unrealistic
condition ....you're still off by a factor more than 10.

cheers
Bob

On Oct 10, 1:18=A0pm, "DanG" <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are fairly rare occasions when the sheer value of a nail is
> necessary to know. =A0I was given the number 90# in sheer for a 16d
> box nail once when it really did matter, this number was from a
> structural engineer who I am sure had quite a safety factor in his
> figures. =A0Of course, common nails are higher.

http://www.mcvicker.com/offtech/smnail.htm

R

>
> allowable =A0in timber like ~100lbs
>
> ultimate load in timber, probably =A0400lbs
>
Ok - I'll chime in . . Structural Engineer, with degrees and official
License who has designed many buildings.

the 90# for a 16d box nail is about right on . . to start with.
There's a lot of factors that could increase or decrease that number
by a factor of two or so depending on exactly what's going on and what
kind of loads you are holding up (for example:short duration loads
like wind, multiply by 1.6; hot, wet conditions might be multiplied by
about 0.6 or so)

Steel strength for get's pretty meaningless since it's wood that
always fails in a proper joint, but the minimum steel yield strength
for both nails and wood screw is 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi. Neither
nails or screws are usually heat treated.

Rich K

On Oct 6, 9:43=A0pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out having to
> save and reuse any parts. =A0 =A0I get about 20 years out of galvanized n=
ails in
> a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about ready to=
go
> also.

BINGO!

I couldn't agree more. I can't imagine taking a fence apart to save
some old screws. I am tight, but not that tight.

Right on the spot as usual, Leon.

Robert

In =
news:[email protected],
[email protected] <[email protected]> dropped this bit of =
wisdom:
> I think screws are popular for two reasons.
>=20
> First, most people can't drive a nail anymore.=20
>=20
> <SNIP>

Ain't it da truth=20

> I cannot explain that to my idiot neighbor. He spend an untold amount
> of money and time screwing fence boards onto his new fence. He was
> out there forever, thinking his fence would last as well as The
> Pyramids if it was screwed together. He had something like $275 bucks
> in screws, when he could have borrowed my utility nailer and bought a
> box of ring shanked galvanized nails for $55 and been through in a
> day.
>=20
> It took him four weekends, working both days to attach with screws. I
> could only surmise he was just doing it for the fun.
>=20
> Robert

I don't know about your "idiot neighbor", but I put in stainless steel =
screws so they would rot a greatly reduced rate and, maybe, be reused =
when the boards rotted.

Other than this 1 item, I concur.

Everywhere one looks one sees the next generation knowing less about =
manual labour and more about ??????????

P D Q

Robatoy wrote:
> A good screw costs money. What I like about them is that I get the
> 'suck' when screwing two boards together. An airnailer just doesn't do
> that...I find I'm invariably driving those home with an after blow
> from my trusty 26 oz Estwing. I really do like those nifty self-
> drilling stainless screws for out-door projects.

I still will occasionally use the nail-by-nail technique to get that suck.

Hit one nail, pulls the piece in a bit, then hit the other nail... back
and forth.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> I cannot explain that to my idiot neighbor. He spend an untold amount
> of money and time screwing fence boards onto his new fence. He was
> out there forever, thinking his fence would last as well as The
> Pyramids if it was screwed together. He had something like $275 bucks
> in screws, when he could have borrowed my utility nailer and bought a
> box of ring shanked galvanized nails for $55 and been through in a
> day.
>
> It took him four weekends, working both days to attach with screws. I
> could only surmise he was just doing it for the fun.
>
> Robert

Well I wouldn't want to do what your neighbor did, but I can tell you that ring shank nails
in Western Red Cedar fences (that are *everywhere* here in Texas) don't hold forever,
probably because of extreme drying and shrinking in the boards. When that happens, all my
repair work is done by pulling out the nails and driving screws in their place. Works for me.

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

CW wrote:
>> A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as a
>> nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.
>>
> Why a heat treated screw? Nails are dead soft.
>

Tru dat. A standard framing nail has a shear streangth of something
like 16,000lbs.
A screw designed for strength (like a cabinet screw, not a drywall
screw) is probably a 1/3 that.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

[email protected] wrote:
> On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out
>> having to save and reuse any parts. I get about 20 years out of
>> galvanized nails in
>> a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about
>> ready to go also.
>
> BINGO!
>
> I couldn't agree more. I can't imagine taking a fence apart to save
> some old screws. I am tight, but not that tight.
>
> Right on the spot as usual, Leon.

FWIW, I put some scaffolding together with SPAX screws a while back. They
worked fine and I highly recommend them. When I went to take it down things
went as planned--other than a few buggered up heads they came right out.
Then I went to knock some more together using the same screws and was
surprised at how many of them broke going in--not one broke the first time
but maybe 1 in 10 broke the second time.

On that basis I wouldn't bother trying to reuse screws.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
>I think screws are popular for two reasons.
<...snipped...>
>I could only surmise he was just doing it for the fun.
>
<...snipped..>


So? Lots of people thing screwing is fun.



--
There are no stupid questions, but there are lots of stupid answers.

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:f47bf1f7-7a90-4f88-bda0-c7837d7c29b7@m11g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 6, 9:43 pm, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:

> My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out having to
> save and reuse any parts. I get about 20 years out of galvanized nails in
> a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about ready to
> go
> also.

BINGO!

I couldn't agree more. I can't imagine taking a fence apart to save
some old screws. I am tight, but not that tight.

Right on the spot as usual, Leon.

Robert



It is my understanding that, in the pioneering days, people would take apart
whole houses when they moved
to save the nails (for the next one)!

Bill

Dave in Houston wrote:
...

> How many of us as kids had the job of straightening the bent nails to be
> re-used?
...

More to the point, how many still _have_ the job? :)

I reuse stuff routinely, including structural material and nails,
screws, etc., as long as still sound.

For one thing, nails >20 years old are far better straightened than most
new ones and old finish nails actually have a real dimple for the nail
set and a neat, finished round head (instead of A sorry clipped chunk of
soft wire w/ a blob mashed onto the end for a head... :( )

--

"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message =
news:[email protected]...
>=20
<SNIP>>=20
> My experience is that replacing a fence is enough work with out having =
to=20
> save and reuse any parts. I get about 20 years out of galvanized =
nails in=20
> a fence application and typically the rest of the fence is about ready =
to go=20
> also.=20
>=20
>=20

Thought about that when I built my deck and only used screws that were =
guaranteed not to rust, bust, or spring leaks.

Not even 10 years into it some boards needed replacing, cedar does not =
last that long either, the screws were just about a rotted out as the =
wood. That is why SS Screws in the fence.

BTB, all deck replacements are SS as well.

SWMBO, decreed that the gates in the fence needed to be lighter. I =
backed out the screws, cut the wood in half, reinstalled the screws and =
rehung lighter gates. SWMBO is ecstatic, I have a lot of new Brownie =
Points and all it cost was some manual labour. Can't beat the cost.

P D Q

fftt wrote:
> Huh? Care to take another try?
>
> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
> psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>

No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.

Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to each
other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
of the nail.


> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>

I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code, to
be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every house
would collapse before finished.

You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> fftt wrote:
>> Huh? Care to take another try?
>>
>> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
>> psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>>
>
> No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>
> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
> tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to each
> other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
> of the nail.
>
>
>> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
>> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>>
>
> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code,
> to be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
> strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every
> house would collapse before finished.
>
> You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.

A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. That gives an area of
about 0.02 inches.

To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could take a
sheer stress of 800,000 psi. This is beyond the range of even exotic ultra
high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk that is typically used in
modern nails. For a typical mild steel the shear strength woulde be around
60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02 and you have 1200 pounds.

J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> fftt wrote:
>>> Huh? Care to take another try?
>>>
>>> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
>>> psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>>>
>> No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>>
>> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
>> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
>> tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to each
>> other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
>> of the nail.
>>
>>
>>> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
>>> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>>>
>> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code,
>> to be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
>> strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every
>> house would collapse before finished.
>>
>> You and I can exert much more than 150lbs with our bare hands.
>
> A 16d nail has a nominal diameter of .162 inches. That gives an area of
> about 0.02 inches.
>
> To get 16,000 pounds out of that area would require steel that could take a
> sheer stress of 800,000 psi. This is beyond the range of even exotic ultra
> high strength steels, let alone the the cheap junk that is typically used in
> modern nails. For a typical mild steel the shear strength woulde be around
> 60,000 psi, so multiply that by .02 and you have 1200 pounds.
>

I don't get what psi has to do with anything.
You put half a nail in a clamp, the other half of the clamp moves down
with the weight of 8 tons. That is well within many testing machines.
They test steel beams and concrete sections way, way, beyond that weight.

IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my original
point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger that a
fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

RicodJour wrote:
> Your point that a common nail is stronger in shear than a drywall
> screw is not coming under fire. It is the 16,000 lbs thing.

I still swear I've seen that number and it surprised the crap out of me,
too.
I've been looking through some of my textbooks and publications, but
don't have any more time to look.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
...

> I don't get what psi has to do with anything.

Then you don't understand what shear is all about...

<http://emweb.unl.edu/NEGAHBAN/Em325/13-Shear-stress-in-beams/Shear%20stress%20in%20beams.htm>

consider the nail to be a small-diameter round beam.

> You put half a nail in a clamp, the other half of the clamp moves down
> with the weight of 8 tons. That is well within many testing machines.
> They test steel beams and concrete sections way, way, beyond that weight.

SO???

I don't follow what you're trying to describe, anyway, and sounds like
perhaps you're confusing tensile strength w/ shear...

> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my original
> point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger that a
> fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?

How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?

The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has little, if
anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a nail or screw...

--

dpb wrote:
>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my original
>> point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger that a
>> fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
>
> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>
> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has little, if
> anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a nail or screw...
>

How?

Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.

Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will bend.
Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> dpb wrote:
>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
>>> original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
>>> that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
>>
>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>>
>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
>> little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
>> nail or screw...
>>
>
> How?
>
> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>
> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
> bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.

You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.

J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> dpb wrote:
>>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
>>>> original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
>>>> that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
>>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>>>
>>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
>>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
>>> little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
>>> nail or screw...
>>>
>> How?
>>
>> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
>> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>>
>> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
>> bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.
>
> You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.

I'm not. It relates enough to get the point across.

I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

bye


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> dpb wrote:
>>>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
>>>>> original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times
>>>>> stronger that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
>>>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>>>>
>>>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
>>>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
>>>> little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
>>>> nail or screw...
>>>>
>>> How?
>>>
>>> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
>>> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>>>
>>> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
>>> bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.
>>
>> You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.
>
> I'm not. It relates enough to get the point across.

Yes, you are. You may think otherwise but what you think and what is true
are not necessarily the same. When you hit something with a hammer you are
testing its impact strength--this is exactly the technique that is used in
the laboratory, with the velocity and mass of the hamner and the point of
contact carefully standardized (your experiment does neither). When shear
strength is measured a steady load is applied.

If you know anything about metallurgy you'll know that when you harden steel
you increase its tensile and shear strengths and reduce its impact strength.

When you talk about "shear strength" you are using a technical term which
has a specific meaning, and the test that you describe does not measure that
quantity no matter how mucg you may want it to.

> I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.

What tests and what lectures?

RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 9, 8:41 pm, "HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Shear strength of a 16d nail is 150 pounds
>>
>> http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:jPPGP54rgrEJ:www.fireserviceslt....
>>
>> That means if you hang your tool belt on a nail in the wall, you will break
>> the nail.
>
> Right...if you're wearing the belt at the time.
>
> R

And it would still hold you.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

fftt wrote:
> On Oct 9, 9:36 am, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> fftt wrote:
>>> Huh? Care to take another try?
>>> Do you mean the nail material has an allowable shear stress of 16,000
>>> psi (lbs / sq in) ?
>> No. I mean it takes 16,000lbs to shear a nail.
>>
>> Have you seen those tests they do with the giant machines that hold
>> piece of whatever in one jaw while the other jaw pushes or pulls or
>> tears the other end. This shear test has both jaws right next to each
>> other, coplanar, while one jaw moves down, perpendicular to the length
>> of the nail.
>>
>>> Because the code allowable shear loading (last time I checked) for a
>>> 16d common is somewhere in the 150 lb range
>> I'm guessing that has to do with how much weight is allowed, by code, to
>> be held by a single nail. That has nothing to do with the shear
>> strength limit of the nail. If the two were the same, then every house
>> would collapse before finished.
>>
>> You and I can exertmuchmore than 150lbs with our bare hands.
>
> Mike-
>
> I know all about "those giant machines".......I ran a research lab for
> nearly 20 years, we had one.
>
> And there is NO WAY a single 16d name can do ANYTHING that involves
> 16,000 lbs other than be destroyed at a WAY lower number.
>
> You're latest post is mostly nonsense. :(
>
> cheers
> Bob
>

Cool. Any idea what it can take?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

fftt wrote:
> On Oct 9, 3:42 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> dpb wrote:
>>>>>> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my
>>>>>> original point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger
>>>>>> that a fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?
>>>>> How do you reach that astounding conclusion in general?
>>>>> The relative strength of a nail and a screw will depend on their
>>>>> relative sizes and the material of which each is made and has
>>>>> little, if anything, to do w/ the difference between simply being a
>>>>> nail or screw...
>>>> How?
>>>> Drive a common 16d nail 2/3 into a 2x4.
>>>> Do the same with a common screw of the same diameter shaft.
>>>> Take sledge hammer and swing it directly down on the nail. It will
>>>> bend. Do the same to the screw. It will "shear" right off.
>>> You're confusing impact strength with shear strength.
>> I'm not. It relates enough to get the point across.
>>
>> I've seen the tests, I've sat through the lectures.
>>
>> bye
>>
>> --
>>
>> -MIKE-
>>
>> "Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
>> --Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
>> --
>> http://mikedrums.com
>> [email protected]
>> ---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
>
> Mike-
>
> If these tests & lectures were involved in process that lead to a
> technical degree (physics or engineering)....please let me know so I
> can notify your alma mater to begin the "degree recall process".
>
> You have, in the later part of this thread, violated "the first rule
> of holes"..........which is "stop digging".
>
> shear & impact tests are used to determine different properties....
>
> btw find that 16,000 lb number yet?
>
>
> cheers
> Bob

Bob, I heard you the first time.
Do you know what the number (lbs) is, since you ran the tests?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

>
> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>
> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>
> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>
> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>
> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>
> cheers
> Bob


I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.

I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.

Is that what that 800 number is?
Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

Richk wrote:
>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>
>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>
> Ok - I'll chime in . . Structural Engineer, with degrees and official
> License who has designed many buildings.
>
> the 90# for a 16d box nail is about right on . . to start with.
> There's a lot of factors that could increase or decrease that number
> by a factor of two or so depending on exactly what's going on and what
> kind of loads you are holding up (for example:short duration loads
> like wind, multiply by 1.6; hot, wet conditions might be multiplied by
> about 0.6 or so)
>

This was never the issue, nor what I was referring to.
I was speaking of the weight required to shearing off the nail.


> Steel strength for get's pretty meaningless since it's wood that
> always fails in a proper joint, but the minimum steel yield strength
> for both nails and wood screw is 70,000 psi to 100,000 psi.

Can you explain this more?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

fftt wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>> cheers
>>> Bob
>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.
>>
>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
>> or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>>
>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.
>>
>
>
> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>
> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
> by .02
>
> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.
>
> cheers
> Bob
>

Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
world, but they still do the tests. :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> fftt wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>> cheers
>>>> Bob
>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
>>> never was.
>>>
>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
>>> cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>>>
>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>> machine/test.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
>> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>
>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
>> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
>> mutlitply by .02
>>
>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
>> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
>> mower.
>>
>> cheers
>> Bob
>>
>
> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
> world, but they still do the tests. :-)

If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture that
fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a strange thing to
do when a nail would not normally be used that way. Do you recall the
circumstances under which the test was conducted?

fftt wrote:
> On Oct 10, 10:03 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> fftt wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>>>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Bob
>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I never was.
>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being cut,
>>>> or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the machine/test.
>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
>>> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
>>> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress & mutlitply
>>> by .02
>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
>>> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn mower.
>>> cheers
>>> Bob
>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>>
>> --
>
>
>>>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real world, but they still do the tests. :-) <<<<
>
> Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
> holes.
>
> The tests are done for a reason, to confirm or determine material
> properties. To determine system performance.
> Perhaps you could give an example as to one of these "tests".
>
> You pulled a BS number out of your ass (or faulty memory) then
> continued to insisted it was right & that it made sense.
>
> You then switched to hoping your number was "close to right" .....at
> least in "some" situation.
> Even considering the number from the most optimistic & unrealistic
> condition ....you're still off by a factor more than 10.
>
> cheers
> Bob
>

Get over yourself, Bob.
So every stress test done in the lab is a replication of a real life
application, huh?


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> fftt wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>>>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Bob
>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
>>>> never was.
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
>>>> cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>>>>
>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>>> machine/test.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber? Mounted
>>> in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>>
>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another poster's
>>> calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear stress &
>>> mutlitply by .02
>>>
>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used in
>>> that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
>>> mower.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>> Bob
>>>
>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>
> If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture that
> fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a strange thing to
> do when a nail would not normally be used that way. Do you recall the
> circumstances under which the test was conducted?
>

I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
try to make himself feel superior in some way.

I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
I've been trying to ask them.

Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?

Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> fftt wrote:
>>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>>>>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
>>>>> never was.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
>>>>> cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>>>> machine/test.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
>>>> Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>>>
>>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
>>>> poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
>>>> stress & mutlitply by .02
>>>>
>>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
>>>> in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
>>>> mower.
>>>>
>>>> cheers
>>>> Bob
>>>>
>>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>>
>> If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
>> that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
>> strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that way.
>> Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was conducted?
>>
>
> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says
> to try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>
> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
> I've been trying to ask them.
>
> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
> (Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
> way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
> shatters, or whatever?

They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its limits
are.

And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them and
analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in a fixture
intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not something that I
can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were perhaps quality control
people in a nail factory or lawyers trying to prove that a batch of nails
was defective. In most engineering you don't care how strong the _fastener_
is, you care how strong the _joint_ is and to test that you make up sample
joints and test them.

> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.

No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".

J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> fftt wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load) number?
>>>>>>> allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
>>>>>> never was.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like being
>>>>>> cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a 16d nail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>>>>> machine/test.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
>>>>> Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>>>>
>>>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
>>>>> poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
>>>>> stress & mutlitply by .02
>>>>>
>>>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>>>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
>>>>> in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a lawn
>>>>> mower.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>> Bob
>>>>>
>>>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>>>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>>> If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
>>> that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
>>> strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that way.
>>> Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was conducted?
>>>
>> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says
>> to try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>>
>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
>> I've been trying to ask them.
>>
>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
>> (Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
>> way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
>> shatters, or whatever?
>
> They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its limits
> are.
>

Wow. More semantics policing.
You couldn't take for granted that we were talking about the same thing?


> And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them and
> analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in a fixture
> intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not something that I
> can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were perhaps quality control
> people in a nail factory or lawyers trying to prove that a batch of nails
> was defective. In most engineering you don't care how strong the _fastener_
> is, you care how strong the _joint_ is and to test that you make up sample
> joints and test them.
>
>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>
> No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".
>

I'll quote...

me:
>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
him:
> Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
> holes.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
>> try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>>
>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
>> I've been trying to ask them.
>
> Oh, you mean like... Bob?
>
>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
>> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
>> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
>>
>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>
> Sheesh. Will you give it the fuck up already? Don't you understand?
> Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. I first ran
> into him probably close to ten years ago on
> alt.building.construction. He knows his shit, and was pointing out
> that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.
>

I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.



--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

RicodJour wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:46 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>> RicodJour wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 12:22 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob says to
>>>> try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>>>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
>>>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
>>>> I've been trying to ask them.
>>> Oh, you mean like... Bob?
>>>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
>>>> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
>>>> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
>>>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>>> Sheesh. Will you give it the fuck up already? Don't you understand?
>>> Bob IS one of the guys that did such testing for years. I first ran
>>> into him probably close to ten years ago on
>>> alt.building.construction. He knows his shit, and was pointing out
>>> that you were mistaken about that number, as did many other people.
>> I did ask him, and he went off on me out digging the hole further.
>> There's a pile-on mentality in here that cracks me up.
>
> Perhaps you were looking for a Stuart Smalley newsgroup...? I'll see
> if I can help.
> You're good enough, you're smart enough, and doggone it, people like
> you!
>
> You were still wrong about the 16000 lbs. ;)
>
> R

Great, I'm over that. I've been over that. I'm not the one who keeps
bringing it up.

What I'm interested in are the real numbers. I thought others might be,
too, but all you seem to be interested in is pointing out what an idiot
you think I am, which says much more about you than me.

I saw that Bob was an expert and asked about three times and got nothing
more than finger pointing.

I asked that other guy, Richk Structural Engineer, to explain his
numbers a little more.
Haven't heard from him, but maybe he'll add something after he reads it.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-MIKE- wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> fftt wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load)
>>>>>>>> number? allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
>>>>>>> never was.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like
>>>>>>> being cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a
>>>>>>> 16d nail.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>>>>>> machine/test.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
>>>>>> Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
>>>>>> poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
>>>>>> stress & mutlitply by .02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>>>>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
>>>>>> in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a
>>>>>> lawn mower.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>>>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the
>>>>> real world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>>>> If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
>>>> that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
>>>> strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that
>>>> way. Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was
>>>> conducted?
>>>>
>>> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob
>>> says to try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>>>
>>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
>>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of
>>> tests, I've been trying to ask them.
>>>
>>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
>>> (Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
>>> way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
>>> shatters, or whatever?
>>
>> They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its
>> limits are.
>>
>
> Wow. More semantics policing.
> You couldn't take for granted that we were talking about the same
> thing?

Nope, one thing I learned in many years of engineering is that when someone
is throwing around words as loosely as you do, its best to press for all the
precision that one can get out of them, otherwise they get very upset when
what was delivered was not what they wanted.

>> And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them
>> and analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in
>> a fixture intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not
>> something that I can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were
>> perhaps quality control people in a nail factory or lawyers trying
>> to prove that a batch of nails was defective. In most engineering
>> you don't care how strong the _fastener_ is, you care how strong the
>> _joint_ is and to test that you make up sample joints and test them.
>>
>>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>>
>> No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".
>>
>
> I'll quote...
>
> me:
>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
> him:
> > Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
> > holes.

The sad thing is that you don't even try to recognize the hole you're
digging.

>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of tests,
>> I've been trying to ask them.
>>
>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs (Underwriters'
>> Labs might be one example) where they take a material way beyond its
>> limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart, shatters, or whatever?
>>
>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>>
>> --
>>
>> -MIKE-
>>
>
> I'm far from superior....... I come to this newsgroup to learn stuff
> (as I assume most others do)
>
> when people (like you) post unsupported & unsupportable claims it
> reduces the value of this forum
>
> you asked for info, people provide it (you disbelieved it) ....you
> were asked for cites or examples & you provided none...just more hand
> waving
>

When you entered the discussion, you made it apparent that you were an
expert who had done testing like that, and that I was way off.

I wrote, "Cool. Any idea what it can take?" That's me moving on.

You gave me numbers. I didn't "disbelieve" anything. I tried to clarify
what the tests were and wanted to start a discussion about lab tests
that are done to test materials until they break, not until they lose
their grip in wood.

I suggesting that tests are done on materials that go way beyond what
those materials will ever handle in real life application and you called
that "nonsense."

It's clear to me that you're only interested in telling me how wrong I am.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

J. Clarke wrote:
> -MIKE- wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>> fftt wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 4:54 pm, -MIKE- <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> depends on the loading conditions & assembly
>>>>>>>>> an ultimate number or an allowable (like a working load)
>>>>>>>>> number? allowable in timber like ~100lbs
>>>>>>>>> ultimate load in timber, probably 400lbs
>>>>>>>>> ultimate load in a test machine...depending on the steel
>>>>>>>>> condition / alloy; maybe 800+ lbs
>>>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>> I'm not talking about working loads or allowable anything... I
>>>>>>>> never was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm talking about the weight requite to shear (tear off like
>>>>>>>> being cut, or whatever the proper scientific terminology is) a
>>>>>>>> 16d nail.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is that what that 800 number is?
>>>>>>>> Can you point me to any video.pics on the web that show the
>>>>>>>> machine/test.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you asking about the nail ...all by itself, no timber?
>>>>>>> Mounted in steel test machine by some sort of fixturing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A 16d nail has about .02 sq in cross section (as per another
>>>>>>> poster's calc) ....so pick your nail material ultimate shear
>>>>>>> stress & mutlitply by .02
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But the shear strength of a 16d nail isolated by itself in a test
>>>>>>> machine is pretty meaningless since a 16d nail will never be used
>>>>>>> in that fashion unless you plan to use it as a shear pin in a
>>>>>>> lawn mower.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>> Bob
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, the test situation, mounted in a testing machine.
>>>>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the
>>>>>> real world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>>>>> If you're testing shear strength then you need to make up a fixture
>>>>> that fits the nail, with a nail-sized hole in it. Seems like a
>>>>> strange thing to do when a nail would not normally be used that
>>>>> way. Do you recall the circumstances under which the test was
>>>>> conducted?
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not trying to justify my number, despite what douche bag Bob
>>>> says to try to make himself feel superior in some way.
>>>>
>>>> I honestly want to know what the real number is. Since we had some
>>>> engineers come in here, saying they've conducted those types of
>>>> tests, I've been trying to ask them.
>>>>
>>>> Have you honestly never seen those tests they do at labs
>>>> (Underwriters' Labs might be one example) where they take a material
>>>> way beyond its limits to see when it crack, shears, pulls apart,
>>>> shatters, or whatever?
>>> They don't "take it way beyond its limits", they determine what its
>>> limits are.
>>>
>> Wow. More semantics policing.
>> You couldn't take for granted that we were talking about the same
>> thing?
>
> Nope, one thing I learned in many years of engineering is that when someone
> is throwing around words as loosely as you do, its best to press for all the
> precision that one can get out of them, otherwise they get very upset when
> what was delivered was not what they wanted.
>
>>> And I've not just seen such tests, I've planned and monitored them
>>> and analyzed the results. Never had occasion to do one on a nail in
>>> a fixture intended to determine its shear strength though. I'ts not
>>> something that I can imagine anybody wanting to do unless they were
>>> perhaps quality control people in a nail factory or lawyers trying
>>> to prove that a batch of nails was defective. In most engineering
>>> you don't care how strong the _fastener_ is, you care how strong the
>>> _joint_ is and to test that you make up sample joints and test them.
>>>
>>>> Apparently, Bob thinks I'm full of it for suggesting this happens.
>>> No, for arguing about things like the definition of "shear".
>>>
>> I'll quote...
>>
>> me:
>>>> There are a lot of testing situations that never happen in the real
>>>> world, but they still do the tests. :-)
>> him:
>> > Back to your old behavior, I see .....writing nonsense & digging
>> > holes.
>
> The sad thing is that you don't even try to recognize the hole you're
> digging.
>

Actually, I buried the hole up and moved on.
You guys are back there with shovels, trying to throw me back in.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

fftt wrote:
> Your continuing to pursue the subject after this answer was
> interpreted by me (perhaps incorrectly) that you were "shopping the
> answer"
> ......by changing the conditions until you got the answer you
> wanted.
>

My condition never changed. I tried to get past the false terminology
by saying, "shear (tear off like being cut,
or whatever the proper scientific terminology is)" in the hopes that
someone would understand what I was getting at.

You started to help and provide some helpful information with that
lawnmower portion and said the info was meaningless..

I replied that there are "...testing situations that never happen in the
real world..." and I even used a smiley face to try to convey that I
wasn't being argumentative. And you said I was, "writing nonsense."

That is when I perceived that you weren't interested in a dialog
anymore, and so I reverted to name calling.

> If I was wrong about that, my apologies.
>

Accepted. I apologize to you for the name calling.


> Perhaps we just we use different language to describe this situation
> and were talking "passed each other"
>
> ...unfortunately (for you) the language I use (or try to use) is that
> agreed upon by engineering & construction pros.
> The use of precise language in these situations is important otherwise
> mis-communication occurs.

As I explained above, I was trying to get there, but everyone just
thought I was backpedaling.
I guess we've spent too much time listening to politicians.


>
> wrt to the "douche bag" comment...... I sometimes have that effect on
> people but I still invited to my fair share of parties so I'm not too
> worried. :)
>
> cheers
> Bob
>
>


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"Steve Turner" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> I cannot explain that to my idiot neighbor. He spend an untold amount

>
> Well I wouldn't want to do what your neighbor did, but I can tell you that
> ring shank nails in Western Red Cedar fences (that are *everywhere* here
> in Texas) don't hold forever, probably because of extreme drying and
> shrinking in the boards. When that happens, all my repair work is done by
> pulling out the nails and driving screws in their place. Works for me.


Cant say that I agree. I have probably replaced 15-20 fences and the nails
are still holding well enough that we cut the rails from the posts and carry
the section to the trailer. Typically the boards rot out on the bottom and
begin sagging. I see galvanized nails lasting a good 20 years.

> IN ANY CASE, this irrelevant detail has nothing to do with my original
> point that a nail is many, many, many, many times stronger that a
> fu@&!ng screw! forest, trees? hello? anyone home?

So... You're saying nails and screws shouldn't be used in forests or trees
due to them being ... what? <G>

Seriously though, I got your point about nails being stronger than screws.
It has a lot to do with the fact there are grooves in a screw.

As a machine builder, I know all to well that the weakest point on a shaft
or spindle is almost always where there is an undercut or snap ring groove,
etc. You'd be amazed at how often something fails because a machined sharp
angle or right angle is there on a steel or aluminum part instead of a
machined curve of some sort.

Screws have lots of these stress points and thus break more easily.
However, they do avoid coming loose with vibration, are more easily used to
"suck" parts tight and all that jazz.

The strength of nails is way beyond what almost any home engineering job
would need. If you don't believe me, drive some small finishing nails deep
enough to be 50% in one piece of strong wood and 50% in the other... Maybe
use two or three at most. Now try to "sheer" the nails by whatever manual
method (toolless) you can think of. I bet they bend and come loose before
you break any of them unless you bend them back and forth.

The screws will be even harder to break because you won't be able to work
them loose by hand in most cases.

So... Depending on where you live, what you need the fastener for, etc.
determines which to use. Personally, I like doing things the "right way"
the first time which means the quality way even if there is some loss or
waste.

Would I build a farm fence with screws? Probably not. Would I build a deck
with nails? Probably not except for maybe the framework - but even then,
I'd probably opt for screws here in NJ where we get hot, cold, wet, dry and
generally a lot of traffic.

Just for grins... Let's assume your screw is similar to a 1/4-20 threaded
bolt... That bolt, in the cheapest grade often used has a maximum weight
bearing capacity of 2350 lbs. The suggested limit is lower because of
vibration and other movement and is generally recognized to be around
200-300 lbs. That means a man my size can hang from a 1/4"-20 bolt all day
long and pretty much move around all I want.

A 1/2" bolt is approximately 450% stronger on average.

Now, let's presume the screw's shank is 1/8" diameter and similar in quality
to the Grade 2 bolt... That means that it is probably capable of holding
500 lbs or so with a safety rating of around 40-50 lbs.

Given the fact that screws are not machined out of quality materials, I'd
divide those numbers by two for the average steel screw. The numbers will
be slightly higher for a nail as there are no grooves.

This is all based on average quality bolts (Grade 2). Grage 5, Grade 8 and
even higher grades for aircraft use, etc. are significantly stronger with a
1/4" bolt sometimes having a weight bearing capacity near 10,000 lbs.

Bottom line? Unless you are using big fat "gutter nails" made of steel,
you're not going to have a 16,000 lb. shear limit on the average nail.

What trees? What forest?

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Production Tapping: http://Production-Tapping-Equipment.com/
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/AutoDrill

V8013-R

On Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:43:47 -0400, "Joe AutoDrill"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sort of a woodworking post...
>
>When the choice is given to me to use a nail or a screw, I almost always
>choose the screw. Only time I choose a nail is when it is a finishing nail
>and the head is meant to sort of disappear on the application.
>
>My logic is that screws don't eventually walk out if there are temperature
>fluctuations, people walking on the surface, etc.
>
>When is a nail a better choice?
>

I typically use screws, but find nails better for molding. Nails can
pop a little, but there are applications where that is not a concern.
It is rare that I use a nail/screw for fine furniture, but they have
their place too.

On 10/06/2009 07:32 PM, CW wrote:
> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message

>> A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as a
>> nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.
>>
> Why a heat treated screw? Nails are dead soft.

Sorry for the delay...the heat treatment keeps it from being brittle
from work-hardening when the threads are rolled.

Chris

"Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 10/06/2009 07:32 PM, CW wrote:
>> "Chris Friesen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
>>> A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as a
>>> nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.
>>>
>> Why a heat treated screw? Nails are dead soft.
>
> Sorry for the delay...the heat treatment keeps it from being brittle
> from work-hardening when the threads are rolled.
>


Typical wood screws are not heat treated. They are made of a low carbon,
cold work steel. The rolling and heading process compact the steel
increasing toughness without making it britle.

On 10/06/2009 11:43 AM, Joe AutoDrill wrote:
> Sort of a woodworking post...
>
> When the choice is given to me to use a nail or a screw, I almost always
> choose the screw.

> When is a nail a better choice?

Nails are cheaper.

A properly heat-treated screw is about as strong in shear strength as a
nail the same size as the shaft, but is stronger in pull-out.

There are comparatively few screws that are actually rated and approved
for structural applications.

Chris