|
tetrapyloctomy posted:Crappy Construction Tales: Never Walk Under Your Wife When She's A Suspended Load Crappy Construction Tales: Does my wife count as a suspended load under 1926.753(d)?
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > DIY & Hobbies >Crappy Construction Tales: Does my wife count as a suspended load under 1926.753(d) This is the one true way.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Crappy Construction Tales: Does my wife count as a suspended load under 1926.753(d)? Oh my god. New thread title.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 20:04
|
|
|
GreenNight posted:Depends if your swing needs to be rated for 500 pounds amirite fellas. You can 100% pull out or break anchors designed for 500 pounds using a 120 pound perfect waifu, if you lift her up 6-12 inches and drop her into the swing. Shock loading and instantaneous peak forces can be way way higher than 500 pounds for the critical milliseconds needed to permanently deform or damage the anchors. If you go by the ratings on the various bolts, hangers and attachment points at Home Depot, you probably want a 5x safety factor, just because falling 3 feet onto your tailbone would be very very un-sexy. Also if that's not the new thread title, I will be very very sad.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Metal Geir Skogul posted:Crappy Construction Tales: Does my wife count as a suspended load under 1926.753(d)? Only if you're employed as her home health aide, otherwise OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction, and the design requirements are better covered by IBC 1607.4 (concentrated loads), 1607.9 (impact loads) and AWC NDS Chapter 11 (dowel-like connectors in lumber) The Chairman fucked around with this message at 21:18 on May 13, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
The Chairman posted:Only if you're employed as her home health aide, otherwise OSHA doesn't have jurisdiction, and the design requirements are better covered by IBC 1607.4 (concentrated loads), 1607.9 (impact loads) and AWC NDS Chapter 11 (dowel-like connectors in lumber) You think I'd build a sex dungeon and not contract its operation and maintenance out?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 21:20
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:You can 100% pull out or break anchors designed for 500 pounds using a 120 pound perfect waifu, if you lift her up 6-12 inches and drop her into the swing. Shock loading and instantaneous peak forces can be way way higher than 500 pounds for the critical milliseconds needed to permanently deform or damage the anchors. 6-12 inches lift? Someone is bragging.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2018 23:05
|
|
|
Ehhh these things usually have a spring at the top to reduce that shock loading anyway. If they do break a person is in a terrible position for impact as well, I know of someone who fractured a few vertebrae when a restraint slipped off an anchor. Use eye bolts, not hooks.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 00:14
|
|
|
I wouldn't ever want to hang a person from a single fastener, no matter the safety margin. Only takes one inclusion in the chunk of steel to drop them on something unpleasant.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 04:23
|
|
|
Aye, the non-engineer, but knowing some stuff about some stuff in me says always three points. With the safety factor being that only one of those points (being equal to all the others individually) can carry the entire load.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Just load testing the wife iykwim
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 04:58
|
|
|
wesleywillis posted:Aye, the non-engineer, but knowing some stuff about some stuff in me says always three points. With the safety factor being that only one of those points (being equal to all the others individually) can carry the entire load. ...what
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:20
|
|
|
Slanderer posted:...what You got a thousand pound chick hanging on a sex swing. That sex swing is attached at three points to the ceiling, each attachment point can hold 1500 pounds. A total of 4500 pounds, with all three combined. Then, if say, you removed two of the three attachment points, you're still attached at one point with a 1500 pound capacity. I'm not an engineer, so that might be totally wrong, but thats how I would do it if I ever was going to get my sex swing with a thousand pound chick on.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:31
|
|
|
A problem is see with hanging “athletic equipment” from eyebolts is that it’s easy to weaken the attachment by spinning the swing or by rocking it. A plate with three or four lag screws is a a lot more secure. Twisting action on the ring is resisted by shear in the fasteners. Side‐to‐side loads are resisted by the plate pressing against the ceiling and by tension in the screws.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 05:40
|
|
|
Synthbuttrange posted:Just load testing the wife iykwim A teaspoon at a time?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
wesleywillis posted:You got a thousand pound chick hanging on a sex swing. That sex swing is attached at three points to the ceiling, each attachment point can hold 1500 pounds. A total of 4500 pounds, with all three combined. Then, if say, you removed two of the three attachment points, you're still attached at one point with a 1500 pound capacity. What you are saying is that you want three attachments, with any single attachment being capable of carrying the load. Which is fine, although 3x is not really an adequate margin of safety, particularly because a person's weight is not the maximum amount of force they can apply. And that's ignoring things like elastic vs. inelastic responses to loads, the various different types of force you can apply (for example, tension, compression, torsion, flexion, etc.), materials which bed vs. break (that is, toughness vs. brittleness, etc.) But it is a good starting instinct to want three attachment points. I think when you're suspending a load another good instinct would be to have at least a 5x safety margin, which is to say, your setup should be able to safely handle five times the expected maximum force that will be applied. But even that rule of thumb is not really a rule of thumb; the margin of safety you should apply varies depending on the severity of the consequences of failure, and - realistically - cost.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 07:01
|
|
|
It's called the "rule of thumb" because in old days before computer modeling the cable you suspended your sex swing from had to be at least the diameter of your wife's thumb.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 07:05
|
|
|
Can't hold up much with that little rope, can you? Shoulda been the rule of wrist.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
Javid posted:I wouldn't ever want to hang a person from a single fastener, no matter the safety margin. Only takes one inclusion in the chunk of steel to drop them on something unpleasant. I'm the something unpleasant
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
Can I skip all this load balancing and just put a trampoline under the swing?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 11:26
|
|
|
Depends, is the floor under the trampoline rated for the point-loads?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 12:02
|
|
|
Um, do your filthy sex poo poo over a pool, like a normal person.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
Yeah, if you notch your floor joists you can even sink the pool into the floor for a nice effect.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 12:48
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:You can 100% pull out But why would you want to?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:A problem is see with hanging “athletic equipment” from eyebolts is that it’s easy to weaken the attachment by spinning the swing or by rocking it. Looks like a lot of models have the frame/bar attached by a circle anchor and spring to prevent to prevent any forces on the eyebolt other than just a downward pull. Also this thread is amazing.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 16:29
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Can't hold up much with that little rope, can you? I appreciate this.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2018 19:05
|
|
|
poemdexter posted:But why would you want to? Perhaps it wasn't your wife in the swing at the time?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Methylethylaldehyde posted:Perhaps it wasn't your wife in the swing at the time? If they get pregnant you gimmick the swing hardware to solve your problem the next time around.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 03:04
|
|
|
therobit posted:If they get pregnant you gimmick the swing hardware to solve your problem the next time around.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 15:43
|
|
|
SubponticatePoster posted:Do you have I am unprotected.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Well here is a Crappy Construction tale straight from Spinal Tap. Architect wanted a grille located 2" off of the floor. Problem is that on the sketch she marked it as 2' off the floor, so we get to move some duct again to get the grille where she wants it.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 19:07
|
|
|
That's a problem that would have been avoided if we used the daggum metric system.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Or just wanted used “ft” or “in” instead of easily missed hash marks. Architect probably would have used “mm” accidentally instead of “m”. Or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 19:45
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:Or just wanted used “ft” or “in” instead of easily missed hash marks. Perhaps, but I think you'd notice if they asked you to place it 40m above floor level.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 19:46
|
|
|
A good builder will notice that poo poo and check. Lazy jerks will knowingly build things wrong because "well technically the plans said..." As part of my work I deal with a lot of very very old blueprints. They managed to build things fine without 50 pages of sections and details specifying the exact way everything needs to be because people could actually trust their builders to generally follow the best practises of the day. But now everything is so mindlessly legalistic that you need pages and pages of details in your contract because the builder will absolutely do things not even remotely to code then shrug and say no one legally told them to do otherwise, the blueprints had a gold fringe so don't need to be followed under maritime construction law. "Oh on drawing 3 on sheet A201 you did go ahead and leave a detailed section showing that nails need to go through both the objects that are being attached to each other, and that the nails should be made out of metal, not jello, and that the nail should be hammered in using a hammer and not one's forehead, and that the nail should be permanent, not removed at the end of the contract BUT you didn't actually mark a scale on this drawing and marked the sheeting as "3/4 ply" so we went ahead and used 3/4mm ply for your building because we think we can get away with it" Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:22 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
Jaded Burnout posted:Perhaps, but I think you'd notice if they asked you to place it 40m above floor level. Edit: DIY & Hobbies > Crappy Construction Tales: the blueprints had a gold fringe so don't need to be followed under maritime construction law. Yawgmoth fucked around with this message at 21:19 on May 15, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 21:16
|
|
|
And I’m over here dealing with a building inspector that has required months of revisions and all of those details to issue a permit. Don’t disparage an entire group of people for something that is more related to the entire community. Bad actors in the construction, design, ownership, and code enforcement all around have gotten us where we are today.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 21:26
|
|
|
StormDrain posted:And I’m over here dealing with a building inspector that has required months of revisions and all of those details to issue a permit. Don’t disparage an entire group of people for something that is more related to the entire community. Bad actors in the construction, design, ownership, and code enforcement all around have gotten us where we are today. Oh yeah it's not even limited to the building industry, it's just our entire business/legal culture where all parties are having to spend more and more time and money protecting them selves legally rather than doing the actual work.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What you are saying is that you want three attachments, with any single attachment being capable of carrying the load. Which is fine, although 3x is not really an adequate margin of safety, particularly because a person's weight is not the maximum amount of force they can apply. And that's ignoring things like elastic vs. inelastic responses to loads, the various different types of force you can apply (for example, tension, compression, torsion, flexion, etc.), materials which bed vs. break (that is, toughness vs. brittleness, etc.) So you're saying I should have at least five attachment points for a chick who is at least 1000 pounds? Should I use eye bolts with washer/lock nuts on top? Or should I use a steel plate that is bolted at say, four corners, and then a welded hook coming down at each of the five points? Do they make sex swings with that much capacity, or should I go to Fastenal or other industrial supply store and get some nylon lifting slings?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:17 |
|
|
A while back I bid a tile job at a local country club that had one sheet saying $$$ tile in bathroom A and $$ tile in bathroom B on one sheet, but it was flipped on another sheet. I won the job because I had put the $$$ tile in the smaller bathroom, and then at a meeting they talked like it was the other way around. I had to check my proposal because I specced exactly which tile went to which room, so the GC and architect had to explain the change order instead of me screwing that one up.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2018 22:20
|
|
