jigwig

Members
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About jigwig

  • Rank
    Apprentice Poster

Profile Information

  • Woodworking Interests
    general interest

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How do you know this? Just curious... I mean that sounds like a general concept (so I have no idea what you're talking about).
  2. I don't know about that, if you don't happen to have reasons for or against anchoring a particular way, without a blueprint from me, that wasn't what I asked. I just said for instance. If you want there to be more on my mind, I'd be happy to hear it. Although, if this is far and beyond a general concept, I think that sounds ironic.
  3. Looks like examples of overhead anchoring are given for scaffolding or ladders, which would rely on the rest of the structure having ground anchoring in addition to what they are hooked up to, as with decks or overhanging roofs being suspended from one end of a building. It would be more unusual to do this at ground level, although I guess it's much less extreme than those situations, especially if the boards are relatively short.
  4. That's what I was thinking (or whatever floats your boat, speaking of anchors).
  5. Thanks, I think the title describes the topic well enough, if you're intersted. "Always", meaning would you consider a piece of wood to be anchored only if that was done at the bottom? Or can you think of any situation where the opposite would seem sufficient, and connecting it all around would be excessive? Once again, a table is not typically anchored either way. So if it was "anchored" from above, so to speak, would you think it was missing something...would this be an improvement to its anchoring in genreral, or only if it was attached to the floor? This is a specific example, all be it hypothetical (for comparison—perhaps a rule of thumb, if there is one about what constitutes anchoring). I'm interested in your opinions, other than as to what my topic was about to begin with, but you can talk about that too, if it seems interesting (I don't mind, just saying).
  6. So at worst, if the wood contracted with environmental changes and was suspended 1/16th inch off the floor by its secure attachment above, instead of being wedged at the bottom otherwise, then it would merely serve its purpose after making contact again as it was compressed from above. Or would there be other consequenses in this case? I'm not trying to argue that additional floor anchoring isn't best, except if trying to do so could cause more problems than a piece of wood changing its size occasionally.
  7. It is a hypothetical question in essence, thanks. Has to do with wood, that's all I know.
  8. Might not is the thing I wouldn't know until I did or didn't hit something trying to do drill an anchor hole. I'm talking about extra vertical supports with 4x4 lumber. It seems like it could be a general concept though, to do with the properties of wood, you know? Like anchoring itself is a general concept. But does it have only one dimension...
  9. As a practical matter, I was also reading about how concrete has to be x-rayed or radared to reliably determine if adding anchors would interfere with rebar in a floor, or electrical lines running under it. So as far as retrofitting wood there, I'm considering the necessity of hacking into concrete in addition to reinforcing the wood itself. Not really as a matter of building code, as improvements would be above that to begin with, and obviously if people in natural disaster areas have nothing but a foundation left after the fact, it doesn't seem to work all that well (floor anchoring, that is—to the extent that everything touching a floor would have to be anchored there to be considered sturdy). In other words, can wood be connected together at the top without anchoring every piece individually to the floor, and still be considered as anchored all together, if any piece that isn't anchored that way is surrounded by pieces that are? I used the free standing table as a simple example of this concept.
  10. So for instance, you can have a free standing wood post anchored at the bottom to concrete. But what if you have a post attached in all directions to something above it, very securely there, and it was wedged in between that and a concrete floor to begin with (a tight fit). Is it going anywhere? Or say you connected a free standing table to four walls around it from its top. Is it anchored then, or is anything else considered bracing, even if what it is connected to is anchored to the ground? I was reading something about anchors, as far as what they do. "Wedge anchors secure themselves using a mechanical wedging effect at the end of the fastener". So to me that sounds similar in essence. If a post is wedged by itself, it seems comparable mechanically, in that anchoring is being qualified as wedging, in the case of fasteners that do the anchoring as such. Of course those would be stronger wedges in and of themselves. But relative to a post anchored only at the bottom with those, and nothing holding it above, versus the flipside, with the post resisting movement both by fitting between the floor and points of attachment above, I wonder if this would be like an upside down anchor, or if anchoring is distributed (if what the post connects to above is anchored to the floor).