What if the round post is in a square hole?
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
> --
> McQualude
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:44:43 GMT, McQualude <[email protected]> wrote:
>I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
well if you measure corner to corner and the round post is the same in that
measurement it would be stronger. across the square post would be.
--
Knight-Toolworks & Custom Planes
Custom made wooden planes at reasonable prices
See http://www.knight-toolworks.com For prices and ordering instructions.
Bob Gramza wrote:
>
> "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> : [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
> :
> : >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> : >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
> : >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
> : >> in width.
> :
> : > Answering a different question, here but:
> :
> : > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
> : > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
> : > than if you square it up.
> :
> : No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
> : quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
> : support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
> : answer this question.
> : --
> : McQualude
>
> I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they were stronger instead of
> leaving them round. They spend a lot of money and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
You are kidding? Making a square pole would require taking
a large round pole and removing wood. Why would they spend
money to shave wood off and make the pole smaller and less
strong? You do know that the poles start out round, right?
todd wrote:
>
> "Bob Gramza" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >: [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
> >:
> >: >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> >: >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
> >: >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
> >: >> in width.
> >:
> >: > Answering a different question, here but:
> >:
> >: > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
> >: > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
> >: > than if you square it up.
> >:
> >: No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
> >: quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
> >: support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
> >: answer this question.
> >: --
> >: McQualude
> >
> > I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they
> > were stronger instead of leaving them round. They spend a lot of money
> > and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
>
> Apparently, you've never tried to drill a square hole in the ground. ;-)
>
> From an engineering mechanics point of view, this is a very simple problem.
> However, it probably breaks down for utilities on the basis of cost, i.e.,
> it's just cheaper to get a round pole of similar strength than a square
> pole. There are probably a hundred other reasons that make round poles
> more workable (easier to climb with spikes, don't have to be oriented any
> particular way, insulator bases are designed with round poles in mind, etc,
> etc).
>
> todd
I think it boils down to economy and simplicity. You have
to start with a much larger tree to get a square pole with
the same strength of a round pole. And, you don't need to
send it through a sawmill or buy larger trees. Simplicity
depends on the type of wood. In the west, lots of poles are
lodgepole pine which grows straight with a long length that
changes very little in width.
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
>
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > You are kidding? Making a square pole would require taking
> > a large round pole and removing wood. Why would they spend
> > money to shave wood off and make the pole smaller and less
> > strong? You do know that the poles start out round, right?
>
> For a fence the choice is obvious: If the tree is thin: Make round
> poles. If its to thick for that make pie shaped poles by splitting the
> tree. If it's so thick that this still is no good idea use the
> precious wood for something else.
>
> --
> Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
> mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
> Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
> CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Absolutely!
"Mark" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> todd wrote:
>
> >
> > Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
> > it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same. Therefore,
the
> > square post contains all of the material of the round post, plus the
> > material in the square corners. Unless you can explain how added
material
> > in the corners weakens the post, consider your postulate rebutted.
>
>
>
> Because where the grain exits/ enters the post it creates uneven stress.
I suppose that sounds good, but I don't think in practice it's really going
to have a very large effect at all, if any. In the worst case, if we
assumed that the shear strength between growth rings was very low, you might
be able to argue that it really wouldn't help, but I don't see how it would
hurt. This isn't like machining a notch into the additional area that would
create a stress concentration, which could actually produce an overall
weaker member (heh, heh....he said "member").
todd
Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> schreef
> If you want to maximize the strength to weight ration then saw the
> tree into lumber and construct box beams for your posts. Try sug-
> gesting that over on misc.rural. Heck you can drill a little hole
> in the side and they can double for birdhouses.
+ + +
Given the typical size of posts they had better be small birds.
Also pretty industrious to fill it all up to just below the hole!
Wouldn't a cross be stronger than a box?
(The birdhouse could be on top)
PvR
todd <[email protected]> schreef
> Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
> it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same.
+ + +
From a practical point of view this assumption is not realistic.
A round post is likely to be 'whole tree'
A square post is likely to be sawn from a bigger trunk.
This means that a round post consists partly of juvenile wood, a weakening
factor. A square post will consist of mature wood.
Ergo: the strength of the material will not be equal in these two cases. It
will be less in a round post
PvR
Al Reid <[email protected]> schreef
> Ah, but your assumption is that the square post has been cut from the
center of the tree and contains only heartwood.
+ + +
Just the reverse. If a tree is sawn up into square posts only one of these
will have 'heartwood'. In a perfect world this would be thrown out and not
used as a pole.
PvR
todd <[email protected]> schreef in
> If the primary failure mode
> is tension or compression, then it doesn't really matter what's happening
> in the center.
+ + +
That is a good point, but still assumes posts of sufficient diameter that
this outer part is free of juvenile wood.
PvR
Depends on the load, but I'm assuming you mean under deflection. If so, the
square post is stronger as it has a larger surface area associated to the
top and bottom chords. This assumes all corners have been broken for stress
concentration relief. If you mean a load under tension, it's strictly a
matter of cross sectional area (assuming a consistent modulus of elasticity
across the section) thus the square section again would win...as it would
under compression.
Rob
--
Remove CC for email and please visit our web site:
http://www.robswoodworking.com
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
> --
> McQualude
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Don't make too many assumptions, this is a simple question.
>
> It is about real world application of fence posts.
It doesn't matter much wheather it is square or round. What matters is
the grain of the post. When a piece of lumber is sawn to a square
shape, the saw cuts across grain lines. This causes a weakness along
those lines. Traditionally round posts would have been split from the
log. This split would have followed the grain producing a perfectly
strong post. Since the splitting process would not produce square
timber and people were not interested in doing extra work, the posts
were either roughly rounded or left as they were split. If you are
wondering about buying round or square posts from your local lumber
yard I would say it is a matter of what you think looks good. Both
were sawn from the tree, the round one just had the corners knocked
off.
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
Don't listen to all these engineers. Wood should be used based on its
properties, not their theories. Moment of inertia? If they ever
touched a real piece of wood I would be surprised.
todd <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (larry) wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> >> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
> >
> > Don't listen to all these engineers. Wood should be used based on its
> > properties, not their theories. Moment of inertia? If they ever
> > touched a real piece of wood I would be surprised.
>
> Well, I guess you should be surprised. You must be one of those folks who
> doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way of what you think is
> right. Maybe you want to enlighten us on how wood resists bending in a
> different way conceptually than other materials. Until then, crawl back
> into your hole and leave the heavy lifting to someone who has both the
> theoretical and practical experience. No material is going to match the
> formulas exactly. Wood complicates matters further because it is
> anisotropic (that means it has different physical properties in different
> directions). However, the formulas (these aren't just theories, by the
> way, much less *my* theories) will still give good guidance in answering a
> question such as the one posted originally.
>
> todd
Sorry Todd. I'm new to this posting thing(no pun intended). I had sent
a reply before the short one that did have some content. I must have
deleted rather than sent it. My point was basically that we are
talking about fence posts. On wood of that scale used for that
purpose, the limiting factor for strength would be grain runout. I
assumed that anything "round or square" would be from a mill. The
sawing process cuts across grain lines leaving weak spots. Using any
shape of split timber would be preferable. When splitting posts I
generally don't take the time to round them off or square them up. So,
if the question was which shape, round or square, should I buy from
home depot the answer is it doesn't really matter. It will take me a
while to recognize the difference between a woodworking question and
one that is thrown out there to noodle out. By the way, I know a
couple of engineers that are woodworkers as well. They would be the
first to admit that they take the material properties thing a little
too far. I'm used to ribbing them for it. Out of context that short
message did deserve that answers it got.
Larry
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> todd <[email protected]> said:
>
> > folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way
> > of what you think is right.
>
> I'm listening, explain why a round or square wooden fence post is
> stronger if the width of the post is not a factor.
>
> I, and one or two others, postulated that the round post would be
> stronger because it maintains the integrity of the tree (assuming the
> post started as a whole tree). No engineers have responded to rebut
> any of those comments.
The integrity of the tree you are tying to maintain in this situation
is the grain that runs from end to end in the tree. A tree trunk the
size of a post would have all of the grain intact. A tree four times
the size of the post split into four pieces would have the same
unbroken grain end to end, like a handfull of straws. The cross
section of the post is a secondary. So if you have two pieces of wood
from the same tree with no grain runout,one round and one square in
section and you assume that being the same size refers to cross
sectional area, I would think they would be the same strength. From
this point someone with a better knowledge of physics would have to
take over. I just know wood.
On 11-Nov-2003, McQualude <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Under what conditions?
> >
> > Compression loading as in a column?
> >
> > The bending loading on a post at ground level that is buried a
> > couple of feet in the ground?
> >
> > You have to define the problem first.
>
> We're talking about fence posts.
He's asking valid questions. Fence posts, if braced, can be under
tension (rigid brace) or compression (wire brace). A long or high
fence needs to be braced. A corner post can be loaded in two
directions simultaneously. They can be bent as cantilevered out
of the ground or bent at the middle, braced at top and bottom.
We still haven't seen a decent definition of what "equivalent
width" means, only a vague statement.
Mike
todd wrote:
>
> Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
> it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same. Therefore, the
> square post contains all of the material of the round post, plus the
> material in the square corners. Unless you can explain how added material
> in the corners weakens the post, consider your postulate rebutted.
Because where the grain exits/ enters the post it creates uneven stress.
> You could probably make an argument of why the hell are we
> talking about this anyway.
Mental masturbation.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
: [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
:
: >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
: >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
: >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
: >> in width.
:
: > Answering a different question, here but:
:
: > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
: > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
: > than if you square it up.
:
: No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
: quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
: support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
: answer this question.
: --
: McQualude
I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they were stronger instead of
leaving them round. They spend a lot of money and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
maybe it's just easier to climb a round pole??
dave
Bob Gramza wrote:
> "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> : [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
> :
> : >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> : >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
> : >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
> : >> in width.
> :
> : > Answering a different question, here but:
> :
> : > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
> : > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
> : > than if you square it up.
> :
> : No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
> : quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
> : support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
> : answer this question.
> : --
> : McQualude
>
> I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they were stronger instead of
> leaving them round. They spend a lot of money and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
>
>
On 10 Nov 2003, todd spake unto rec.woodworking:
> "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
> As another poster indicated, assuming we're talking about bending, the
> moment of intertia of a square cross-section is L^4/12.
I had a moment of inertia shortly after finishing my lunch, but then
I went back to work.
"tecwhiz" <[email protected]> said:
> the square post. more wood!
more does not always mean stronger
--
McQualude
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> said:
> McQualude writes:
>
>>I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>>Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts
>>are
> >both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
>
> Under what conditions?
>
> Compression loading as in a column?
>
> The bending loading on a post at ground level that is buried a
> couple of feet in the ground?
>
> You have to define the problem first.
We're talking about fence posts.
--
McQualude
[email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
>> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
>> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
>> in width.
> Answering a different question, here but:
> If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
> with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
> than if you square it up.
No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
answer this question.
--
McQualude
Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> said:
> What dou you mean by "equivalent" in width?
So that no advantage is gained by having more wood. This is a simple
question.
> If "equivalent" is meant that the same strength is reached there
> is no difference...
I don't believe that. Fred answered the same way I did... that a post
turned from a tree would have greater strength than a square post.
--
McQualude
"Bob Gramza" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
>
> "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>: [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
>:
>: >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>: >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
>: >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
>: >> in width.
>:
>: > Answering a different question, here but:
>:
>: > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
>: > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
>: > than if you square it up.
>:
>: No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
>: quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
>: support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
>: answer this question.
>: --
>: McQualude
>
> I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they
> were stronger instead of leaving them round. They spend a lot of money
> and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
Apparently, you've never tried to drill a square hole in the ground. ;-)
From an engineering mechanics point of view, this is a very simple problem.
However, it probably breaks down for utilities on the basis of cost, i.e.,
it's just cheaper to get a round pole of similar strength than a square
pole. There are probably a hundred other reasons that make round poles
more workable (easier to climb with spikes, don't have to be oriented any
particular way, insulator bases are designed with round poles in mind, etc,
etc).
todd
[email protected] (larry) wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
>
> Don't listen to all these engineers. Wood should be used based on its
> properties, not their theories. Moment of inertia? If they ever
> touched a real piece of wood I would be surprised.
Well, I guess you should be surprised. You must be one of those folks who
doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way of what you think is
right. Maybe you want to enlighten us on how wood resists bending in a
different way conceptually than other materials. Until then, crawl back
into your hole and leave the heavy lifting to someone who has both the
theoretical and practical experience. No material is going to match the
formulas exactly. Wood complicates matters further because it is
anisotropic (that means it has different physical properties in different
directions). However, the formulas (these aren't just theories, by the
way, much less *my* theories) will still give good guidance in answering a
question such as the one posted originally.
todd
"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> said:
> We still haven't seen a decent definition of what "equivalent
> width" means, only a vague statement.
Yes, I answered this question - meaning that the width of the wood
makes no difference.
--
McQualude
todd <[email protected]> said:
> folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way
> of what you think is right.
I'm listening, explain why a round or square wooden fence post is
stronger if the width of the post is not a factor.
I, and one or two others, postulated that the round post would be
stronger because it maintains the integrity of the tree (assuming the
post started as a whole tree). No engineers have responded to rebut
any of those comments.
--
McQualude
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in news:Xns9432E7CBE3C78mcqualude@
24.25.9.43:
> todd <[email protected]> said:
>
>> folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way
>> of what you think is right.
>
> I'm listening, explain why a round or square wooden fence post is
> stronger if the width of the post is not a factor.
>
> I, and one or two others, postulated that the round post would be
> stronger because it maintains the integrity of the tree (assuming the
> post started as a whole tree). No engineers have responded to rebut
> any of those comments.
Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same. Therefore, the
square post contains all of the material of the round post, plus the
material in the square corners. Unless you can explain how added material
in the corners weakens the post, consider your postulate rebutted.
Note I haven't spent much time talking about whether a square post is an
efficient means of making a post (though I did touch on this point a couple
of posts ago). You could probably make an argument of why the hell are we
talking about this anyway. How much load is a fence post likely to see in
the first place? I answered a general question with a general answer. We
would have to have a *lot* more information to arrive an an in-depth
answer. A notable example would be what would the failure mode of a wooden
post in bending be? It could fail in tension (at the top of the post
(opposite side to the direction of load), in compression at the bottom of
the post, or in shear in the center. You could make a case for being
concerned about the shear strength of a post with the center of the tree
(not an area known for high strength) being located at the area of highest
shear stress. Unless you're prepared to enter into such a discussion, I'd
leave the postulating alone.
todd
"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:
> todd <[email protected]> schreef
>> Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree
>> as it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same.
>
> + + +
> From a practical point of view this assumption is not realistic.
> A round post is likely to be 'whole tree'
> A square post is likely to be sawn from a bigger trunk.
>
> This means that a round post consists partly of juvenile wood, a
> weakening factor. A square post will consist of mature wood.
> Ergo: the strength of the material will not be equal in these two
> cases. It will be less in a round post
> PvR
I'm telling that from a practical point of view, you don't have the first
clue how the post will fail. (For the record, I've already stated that I
don't know what the compression strength, tensile strength, and shear
strength is for various woods, although I'm sure I could google it if I was
so inclined). Your assumption regarding the strength of juvenile only
matters if shear is the primary failure mode. If the primary failure mode
is tension or compression, then it doesn't really matter what's happening
in the center.
todd
todd <[email protected]> said:
>>> folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the
>>> way of what you think is right.
>>
>> I'm listening, explain why a round or square wooden fence post
>> is stronger if the width of the post is not a factor.
>>
>> I, and one or two others, postulated that the round post would
>> be stronger because it maintains the integrity of the tree
>> (assuming the post started as a whole tree). No engineers have
>> responded to rebut any of those comments.
>
> Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the
> tree as it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the
> same. Therefore, the square post contains all of the material
> of the round post, plus the material in the square corners.
> Unless you can explain how added material in the corners weakens
> the post, consider your postulate rebutted.
You still made the same assumption that the square post contains more
wood, even after I've told you twice that isn't true.
--
McQualude
"todd" <[email protected]> said:
> So far, the sum total of your information from what I see
> looking back in the thread regarding the dimensions of the post
> has included the following "both equivalent in width" and "the
> width of the wood makes no difference".
The question has already been answered, thanks anyway.
--
McQualude
"Jon Dough" <[email protected]> said:
>> You still made the same assumption that the square post
>> contains more wood, even after I've told you twice that isn't
>> true.
> Some people just can't see the forest for the trees... :)
> A 4" square post would be stronger than a 4" round post.
Yes, that would be true, but that wasn't the question. Thanks, but
the question has already been answered.
--
McQualude
"Michael Daly" <[email protected]> said:
> I think we should treat him as a troll. I've already asked him to
> clarify the width issue and all he does is blather some more. It
> would be trivial to clarify, but he just wants to be a PITA.
It was a simple question that several people already posted good
answers for. As I stated in the first post, I lifted the question
from another group because I thought a bunch of woodworkers might
have good answers, I gave you all the information that was available
in the original post. The original poster did not answer any
questions that were in the original thread, so I gave you all the
information that I had. I'm not sure how this makes me a troll, but
you can go fuck yourself.
--
McQualude
McQualude writes:
>I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
Under what conditions?
Compression loading as in a column?
The bending loading on a post at ground level that is buried a couple of
feet in the ground?
You have to define the problem first.
HTH
--
Lew
S/A: Challenge, The Bullet Proof Boat, (Under Construction in the Southland)
Visit: <http://home.earthlink.net/~lewhodgett> for Pictures
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> todd <[email protected]> said:
>
> >>> folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the
> >>> way of what you think is right.
> >>
> >> I'm listening, explain why a round or square wooden fence post
> >> is stronger if the width of the post is not a factor.
> >>
> >> I, and one or two others, postulated that the round post would
> >> be stronger because it maintains the integrity of the tree
> >> (assuming the post started as a whole tree). No engineers have
> >> responded to rebut any of those comments.
> >
> > Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the
> > tree as it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the
> > same. Therefore, the square post contains all of the material
> > of the round post, plus the material in the square corners.
> > Unless you can explain how added material in the corners weakens
> > the post, consider your postulate rebutted.
>
> You still made the same assumption that the square post contains more
> wood, even after I've told you twice that isn't true.
> --
> McQualude
So far, the sum total of your information from what I see looking back in
the thread regarding the dimensions of the post has included the following
"both equivalent in width" and "the width of the wood makes no difference".
Personally, I don't have the faintest idea what the hell you mean by either
of those. I've defined the assumptions I've made pretty clearly. If you'd
care to be specific, I'd tailor my comments to your specific case.
todd
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
> --
> McQualude
As another poster indicated, assuming we're talking about bending, the
moment of intertia of a square cross-section is L^4/12. For a circular
cross-section, it's pi*D^4/64. I had to do the calculations three times to
convince myself that this is correct, but all things being equal, a square
post is 70% stronger than a round one when subjected to bending (this is
assuming that the diameter of the round post is equal to the sides of the
square cross-section). Keep in mind that the square has 27% more
cross-section to start with, though. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be
to compare equivalent cross-sectional areas. If equal cross-sectional areas
are assumed, the square cross-section is about 5% stronger.
todd
Michael Daly wrote:
> "Width doesn't matter" is an irrelevant comment.
>
That's what women tell us to make us feel better.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)
The simple answer is round.
The reason is that for a given cross-sectional surface area, a square
has narrow spans and wide spans through the center. A circle only has
one span through the center (which is the diameter). If you don't know
what direction a load will be applied, then a circle gives you even
coverage in all directions, where a square is stronger along the
diagonals, but weaker than a circle of the same area, perpendicular to
the edges.
On the other hand, if you know where your load forces are likely to
come from, you could orient square posts to fight this, and may come
out ahead.
Another consideration is that trees conveniently grow with a
near-circular cross-section. So for any given tree, making a square
out of its trunk is going to weaken it by removing significant amounts
of material. Ideally a fence-builder will have a supply of
appopriately sized tree trunks, that have been debarked, depending on
the type of fence being built.
-Mike
-Mike
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Don't make too many assumptions, this is a simple question.
>
> It is about real world application of fence posts.
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "todd" <[email protected]> said:
>
> > So far, the sum total of your information from what I see
> > looking back in the thread regarding the dimensions of the post
> > has included the following "both equivalent in width" and "the
> > width of the wood makes no difference".
>
> The question has already been answered, thanks anyway.
> --
> McQualude
No shit. I've answered the thing about 5 times by now just by myself, not
including the other answers. Of course, I don't know how one could give an
accurate answer because based on the limited amount of information
available, there's no way to be specific. I included the assumptions that I
made in my examples.
todd
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 21:10:49 GMT, McQualude <[email protected]>
wrote:
>more does not always mean stronger
Yes it does (in this case). It may not be _efficient_ (strength /
weight will go down) but it isn't going to make it weaker (for a
simple solid post, placed vertically)
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
In article <[email protected]>,
Mike Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
>The simple answer is round.
>
>The reason is that for a given cross-sectional surface area, a square
>has narrow spans and wide spans through the center. A circle only has
>one span through the center (which is the diameter). If you don't know
>what direction a load will be applied, then a circle gives you even
>coverage in all directions, where a square is stronger along the
>diagonals, but weaker than a circle of the same area, perpendicular to
>the edges.
As intuitive as this may seem to you, it is, quite simply, very wrong.
A square, with sides of 1 in. and cross-sectional area of 1 in^2, has a
sectional modulus of 0.333 in^3.
A round, with diameter of 1.128 in, has a cross-sectional area of 1
in^2, and a sectional modulus of 0.141 in^2.
That means that in bending, a square is over twice as strong as a
round of the same cross-sectional area.
Have you noticed that, for example when building frames out of steel,
square tubing is much preferred over round tubing, despite the fact
that round tubing is much cheaper for a given size?
Intuition often misleads, engineering calculations rarely do.
Kelly
"todd" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Bob Gramza" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >: [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
> >:
> >: >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> >: >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
> >: >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
> >: >> in width.
> >:
> >: > Answering a different question, here but:
> >:
> >: > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
> >: > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
> >: > than if you square it up.
> >:
> >: No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
> >: quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
> >: support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
> >: answer this question.
> >: --
> >: McQualude
> >
> > I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they
> > were stronger instead of leaving them round. They spend a lot of money
> > and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
>
> Apparently, you've never tried to drill a square hole in the ground. ;-)
i'd like to see that mortiser
> From an engineering mechanics point of view, this is a very simple
problem.
> However, it probably breaks down for utilities on the basis of cost, i.e.,
> it's just cheaper to get a round pole of similar strength than a square
> pole. There are probably a hundred other reasons that make round poles
> more workable (easier to climb with spikes, don't have to be oriented any
> particular way, insulator bases are designed with round poles in mind,
etc,
> etc).
>
> todd
In a fairly content-free post,
larry <[email protected]> wrote:
>McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
>
>Don't listen to all these engineers. Wood should be used based on its
>properties, not their theories. Moment of inertia? If they ever
>touched a real piece of wood I would be surprised.
Wow, that's a pretty strong argument you've got there.
Kelly
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 02:44:43 GMT, McQualude <[email protected]>
wrote:
>I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
Wow, what a huge thread !
There's no way I'm wading through all the replies, as dinner is
waiting and I've got to fly.
If the "post" is a fence post and loaded on side
I was taught that the grain line-up, that would decide
As to whether or not it would resist the cow
(Our fence posts were square, and not round but it's "how"
the grain was a'running and not 'bout it's section
t'would resist our big bull with a full-blow erection
and, if our bull wanted to get out, when hot
a square or a circle, it didn't mean snot)
But, if you are saying a post is a column
And holds up big buildings and things that are solemn
Like kitchens and children and Grandfather's rocker
I'll spin you a truth that's not much of a shocker
A square that is six inch on each of it's sides
Has an area greater than circles that wide
The area's key, it's the thing that must rule
And he who says dif'rent is not but a fool.
Regards, Tom
Thomas J. Watson-Cabinetmaker
Gulph Mills, Pennsylvania
http://users.snip.net/~tjwatson
McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
Answering a different question, here but:
If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start with
for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round than
if you square it up.
--
FF
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> todd wrote:
> >
> > "Bob Gramza" <[email protected]> wrote in
> > news:[email protected]:
> >
> > >
> > > "McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > >: [email protected] (Fred the Red Shirt) said:
> > >:
> > >: >> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> > >: >> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the
> > >: >> posts are both made from the same wood and are both equivalent
> > >: >> in width.
>
> > >: > Answering a different question, here but:
>
> > >: > If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
> > >: > with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
> > >: > than if you square it up.
> > >:
> > >: No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
> > >: quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
> > >: support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
> > >: answer this question.
> > >: --
Of course math will answer the question although I suspect there is
some leg-pulling going on here. You want the fence post to be strong,
how, like so it doesn't fall over when a cow leans on the fence, right?
But you don't need math, you just need two brain cells to rub together.
If you start with a tree trunk that is round and square it then you
get a square post that is, at most, as wide accross the diagonals as
the diameter of the original tree. Now, suppose you want to reinforce
it. How would you do that? One way would be to nail extra boards to
all four sides of the post. OK, so take the four slabs you sawed off
to make it square and nail them back on.
The square beam might have a better strength to weight ratio but
who gives a damn? It's sitting in a hole in the ground, not on
your foot.
If you want to maximize the strength to weight ration then saw the
tree into lumber and construct box beams for your posts. Try sug-
gesting that over on misc.rural. Heck you can drill a little hole
in the side and they can double for birdhouses.
> > >: McQualude
> > >
> > > I would think that utilities would use square telephone poles if they
> > > were stronger instead of leaving them round. They spend a lot of money
> > > and resources on the poles they push into the ground.
> >
> > Apparently, you've never tried to drill a square hole in the ground. ;-)
What, you never heard of a designated dirt mortiser?
> >
> > From an engineering mechanics point of view, this is a very simple problem.
> > However, it probably breaks down for utilities on the basis of cost, i.e.,
> > it's just cheaper to get a round pole of similar strength than a square
> > pole. There are probably a hundred other reasons that make round poles
> > more workable (easier to climb with spikes, don't have to be oriented any
> > particular way, insulator bases are designed with round poles in mind, etc,
> > etc).
> >
> > todd
>
> I think it boils down to economy and simplicity. You have
> to start with a much larger tree to get a square pole with
> the same strength of a round pole. And, you don't need to
> send it through a sawmill or buy larger trees. Simplicity
> depends on the type of wood. In the west, lots of poles are
> lodgepole pine which grows straight with a long length that
> changes very little in width.
Yes, if you start with a larger tree why not just stick it in
the ground instead of spending money to square it and make it weaker?
OK, they want the poles to be reasonably uniform in cross section,
but seriously, if you start with an almost round pole (tree trunk)
then the strongest symetrical pole you can get which will also
involve removing the least wood, will be a pole with a circular
cross section tangent to the inside of the trunk.
--
FF
"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Fred the Red Shirt <[email protected]> schreef
> > If you want to maximize the strength to weight ration then saw the
> > tree into lumber and construct box beams for your posts. Try sug-
> > gesting that over on misc.rural. Heck you can drill a little hole
> > in the side and they can double for birdhouses.
>
> + + +
> Given the typical size of posts they had better be small birds.
> Also pretty industrious to fill it all up to just below the hole!
That would take a lot of crap indeed. OTOH we have been getting
a lot in this ng lately.
If the post was same weight as a standard post but constructed
as a hollow box beam then it'd at least be big enough for blubirds.
>
> Wouldn't a cross be stronger than a box?
> (The birdhouse could be on top)
No. A cruciform would not be stronger, again assuming the same weight.
Box beams concentrate material at the extreme fibers, the surfaces
at which the compressive and tensile forces will be maximum when
the beam bends. An I-beam would be better for a fence post than
a box, because the cow can only lean on it one way so you don't have
to worry much about bending parallel to the rails. THen you can
put the bird house on the top.
--
FF
Is this post for a fence or a ... MAILBOX?
--
Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:25:33 GMT, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Round is the strongest shape in nature. It resists pressure equally in all
>directions. That's why a submarine's hull is round in cross section.
Which is important in keeping your fence posts from imploding. ;-)
Greg
"Rob Stokes" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Depends on the load, but I'm assuming you mean under deflection. If so,
the
> square post is stronger as it has a larger surface area associated to the
> top and bottom chords. This assumes all corners have been broken for
stress
> concentration relief. If you mean a load under tension, it's strictly a
> matter of cross sectional area (assuming a consistent modulus of
elasticity
> across the section) thus the square section again would win...as it would
> under compression.
>
> Rob
Have to be a little careful with compression of a post. A lot depends on
the support conditions of the column, but you don't have to get a very
slender column (i.e. long in relation to cross-section) before buckling
becomes the primary failure mode. In this case, moment of intertia, not
cross-sectional area, will be the deciding factor. It still favors a square
cross-section over a round one, just not as much as the cross-sectional area
alone would lead you to believe.
todd
(gotta use that materials engineering education for something these days).
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:41:13 +0100, Juergen Hannappel
<[email protected]> wrote:
>For a fence the choice is obvious: If the tree is thin: Make round
>poles. If its to thick for that make pie shaped poles by splitting the
>tree.
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is "boxing the heart"
If you're going to cut a square post or beam from a tree, and you want
the strength to be comparable to a round post, then you must include
the pith roughly in the centre of the sawn post. Ask any timber
framer. (And also avoid species that fail from the pith). If it's
a beam with a large bending moment in one direction alone, then moving
the pith around may be justifiable (even moving it out of the beam
altogether), but this loses strength considerably in the other
directions.
If the round post is simply turned from a square post of equal face
width, then clearly the square post is stronger. But this is by a
negligible amount in most directions, and the weight of the post is
greater (by nearly a third).
If the round post is turned into a square, it also loses strength, but
this is likely to be more than simple geometry suggests, as the rings
are now no longer continuous.
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
On 12-Nov-2003, McQualude <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Michael Daly" <[email protected]> said:
>
> > We still haven't seen a decent definition of what "equivalent
> > width" means, only a vague statement.
>
> Yes, I answered this question - meaning that the width of the wood
> makes no difference.
If the width makes no difference, then you're comparing apples and
oranges. A round post 12" in diameter will be stronger than a
square one 1" on a side. OTOH, a square 12" on a side will be
stronger than a round one 1" in diameter.
Bets are off it you're comparing balsa to white oak with arbitrary
dimensions.
Mike
If it is made of bois de arc, it doesn't matter. It won't break.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:25:28 -0600, "todd"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
>> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
>> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
>> --
>> McQualude
>
>As another poster indicated, assuming we're talking about bending, the
>moment of intertia of a square cross-section is L^4/12. For a circular
>cross-section, it's pi*D^4/64. I had to do the calculations three times to
>convince myself that this is correct, but all things being equal, a square
>post is 70% stronger than a round one when subjected to bending (this is
>assuming that the diameter of the round post is equal to the sides of the
>square cross-section). Keep in mind that the square has 27% more
>cross-section to start with, though. Perhaps a fairer comparison would be
>to compare equivalent cross-sectional areas. If equal cross-sectional areas
>are assumed, the square cross-section is about 5% stronger.
>
>todd
>
"Lawrence Wasserman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Is this post for a fence or a ... MAILBOX?
>
>
> --
DUH, everyone knows you use steel, concrete and brick for a mailbox.
That way any mail box bashers get their arms broken or better yet, die
in a fiery crash.
Please pass the popcorn.
On 15-Nov-2003, McQualude <[email protected]> wrote:
> so I gave you all the
> information that I had. I'm not sure how this makes me a troll, but
> you can go fuck yourself.
What a lovely sentiment.
Why didn't you just answer "I don't have a clue, I just copied the question"
instead of giving ambiguous and vague answers about width. "Width doesn't
matter" is an irrelevant comment.
Mike
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 23:34:46 +0000, McQualude wrote:
> todd <[email protected]> said:
>
>>>> folks who doesn't let a little thing like physics get in the way of
>>>> what you think is right.
>>>
>> Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
>> it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same. Therefore,
>> the square post contains all of the material of the round post, plus the
>> material in the square corners. Unless you can explain how added
>> material in the corners weakens the post, consider your postulate
>> rebutted.
>
> You still made the same assumption that the square post contains more
> wood, even after I've told you twice that isn't true.
Some people just can't see the forest for the trees... :)
A 4" square post would be stronger than a 4" round post. The square post
would be almost the equivilent of nailing a 2"x4" board of the same
material to the round post.
The only case I know of where a round post was stronger than a square post
is the corner post my Father set when I was a teenager. It was about 8"
diameter and about 9' long, fresh cut from a hedge tree and set in the
spring of the year. Being fresh cut, it took root and grew, now is about
a 16" diameter tree over 25 feet tall. It is still round though. It
never did grow square.
Too bad you didn't just say the same circumference. You would
have avoided all the "what do you mean by same size" questions.
If THAT were the question I'd say round has a slight advantage,
not in terms of taking a blow that breaks it in two, but the lack
of square corners begging to be dented and splintered makes
the entire structure more "sound". If you took the same amount
of material and shaped it with alot of delicate edges and thin
areas, the structure is weaker due to its shape, and the many
vulnerable points.
But if you're just wanting to know which shape would snap
under a destructive load test, you'll have to ask an engineer.
--
The software said it ran under Windows 98/NT/2000, or better.
So I installed it on Linux...
"Fred the Red Shirt" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> McQualude <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> > I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> > Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> > both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
>
> Answering a different question, here but:
>
> If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start with
> for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round than
> if you square it up.
>
> --
>
> FF
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 09:17:34 -0600, todd <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> This means that a round post consists partly of juvenile wood, a
>> weakening factor. A square post will consist of mature wood.
>> Ergo: the strength of the material will not be equal in these two
>> cases. It will be less in a round post
>> PvR
>
> I'm telling that from a practical point of view, you don't have the first
> clue how the post will fail. (For the record, I've already stated that I
> don't know what the compression strength, tensile strength, and shear
> strength is for various woods, although I'm sure I could google it if I was
> so inclined). Your assumption regarding the strength of juvenile only
> matters if shear is the primary failure mode. If the primary failure mode
> is tension or compression, then it doesn't really matter what's happening
> in the center.
>
For posts made of a suitable wood in suitable size, the "usual" failure
is that it rots at the ground line.
If your post fails before it rots, it was too small.
Usually, you string the wire on the inside of the line posts, so that an
animal pushing against it doesn't pull the staples, and around the
corner posts.
There are as many ways to brace corners as there are fence builders. My
preferred method was to have the line posts at 16', except at the
corners, where I'd have the first line post 8' away with a horizontal
member in compression, and a wire tensioner making SURE it STAYS in
compression. This was woven wire for sheep, which carries a good bit
more total tension than barbed wire for cows. Dairy farmers got away
with smaller corner posts and less substantial bracing, but they needed
twice as many line posts.
Had a neighbor who had sheep AND a commercial cabinet shop. His fences
were made from "scraps." It didn't hold sheep in (more importantly dogs
out) any better than our fence did, but DAMN did it look nice.
the square post. more wood!
"McQualude" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
> --
> McQualude
Ah, but your assumption is that the square post has been cut from the center of the tree and contains
only heartwood. How do you know it wasn't cut from a section of the tree sear the growth rings and
thus contains both sapwood and heartwood?
--
Al Reid
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know
for sure that just ain't so." --- Mark Twain
"P van Rijckevorsel" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> todd <[email protected]> schreef
> > Since you're assuming that the round post has the center of the tree as
> > it's center, I'll assume that the square post is the same.
>
> + + +
> From a practical point of view this assumption is not realistic.
> A round post is likely to be 'whole tree'
> A square post is likely to be sawn from a bigger trunk.
>
> This means that a round post consists partly of juvenile wood, a weakening
> factor. A square post will consist of mature wood.
> Ergo: the strength of the material will not be equal in these two cases. It
> will be less in a round post
> PvR
>
>
>
>
>
McQualude <[email protected]> writes:
> I found this question in another group (misc.rural)...
> Which is stronger, a round post or square post? Assume the posts are
> both made from the same wood and are both equivalent in width.
What dou you mean by "equivalent" in width? Same diameter as length
of side of the square? Then the square is stronger, because the
additional material in the corners adds considerably to the
geometrical moment of inertia.
If "equivalent" is meant that the same strength is reached there is no
difference...
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
McQualude <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
>> If you start with a tree trunk which is typically what you start
>> with for a fence post, it will be stronger if you leave it round
>> than if you square it up.
>
> No, that is the question. I gave the same answer you gave, but not
> quite as clearly perhaps. I was hoping that someone would be able to
> support it, because I have no proof and I don't think math will
> answer this question.
The unchanged tree trunk is stronger because the parts that would get
cut away for squaring add most to its moment of inertia (as shown in
another posting here) and also leaving the wood intact with the
outside of the last growth ring as the exposed face makes it less
prone to rot than the open grain of a sawn surface.
If you need to have it thinner (or wand to make more than one post
from a lenth of tree) try not to saw byt to split.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
"George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
> You are kidding? Making a square pole would require taking
> a large round pole and removing wood. Why would they spend
> money to shave wood off and make the pole smaller and less
> strong? You do know that the poles start out round, right?
For a fence the choice is obvious: If the tree is thin: Make round
poles. If its to thick for that make pie shaped poles by splitting the
tree. If it's so thick that this still is no good idea use the
precious wood for something else.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23
Juergen Hannappel wrote:
> "George E. Cawthon" <[email protected]> writes:
> For a fence the choice is obvious: If the tree is thin: Make round
> poles. If its to thick for that make pie shaped poles by splitting the
> tree. If it's so thick that this still is no good idea use the
> precious wood for something else.
Round is the strongest shape in nature. It resists pressure equally in all
directions. That's why a submarine's hull is round in cross section.
--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
[email protected]
http://www.mortimerschnerd.com
On 14-Nov-2003, "todd" <[email protected]> wrote:
> If you'd
> care to be specific, I'd tailor my comments to your specific case.
I think we should treat him as a troll. I've already asked him to
clarify the width issue and all he does is blather some more. It
would be trivial to clarify, but he just wants to be a PITA.
Mike