4 ms·
And 43' of table with the density of ebony..! From the article: 72 lbs/ft^3. Estimating the table width at 6', and thickness at 2", that would be a total weigh
by quesera 6y ago
And 43' of table with the density of ebony..!
From the article: 72 lbs/ft^3. Estimating the table width at 6', and thickness at 2", that would be a total weight of 3096 lbs. Plus a healthy non-zero for the legs and other supports.
If you carry the tabletop (legs and trusses removed) with 24 people, 12 on a side, one every 4 feet, that would be 129 lbs each. OSHA would not approve.
You could probably find 24 people at a woodworking school who are up for the challenge. It might be harder to find a place to put a 43' table in the first place!
- hu3 6y agoFor metric system folks: 129 lbs is roughly 58.5 kg of mass per person to lift.
- dylan604 6y agoMetric system conversion should not be difficult, however, I recently learned it has been made convoluted. Attempting to find out the per gram price of something bought in a kilogram bundle, I simply divided the kilo price by 1000. This is where it got confusing. I was told there are only 985 grams in a kilo. Me: huh?? It's literally the definition of the word kilogram, 1000 grams. Fucked up maths: 1kilo = 2.2lbs * 16oz * 28g = ~985g Further discussion on 1oz = 28g and least significant digit only made matters worse. Apparently, this is the standard on purchasing of items sold in kilograms.
- Dylan16807 6y agoWho told you this? I can't find anything talking about 985 grams.
- dylan604 6y agoThe people selling things in kilo bundles do not appreciate names being used. While there is no NDA in place, repurcussions are more severe than NDA's could dream. Silly questions like this are also not condoned.
- Dylan16807 6y agoIf it's only a few weird drug people you met then it's not "the standard".
- kaybe 6y agoIs this in the US?
- mkl 6y ago> Apparently, this is the standard on purchasing of items sold in kilograms. That sounds like nonsense. Standard where? What items? In countries that just use the metric system, there would be no conversion to pounds and ounces (most people would have to look up how to do it).
- dylan604 6y agoHello logic, meet brick wall. Enjoy the conversation. Lots of in between the lines intentionally left for the reader. No, I'm not in a country that normally uses kilo for weight. There are not many things sold by the kilo in non-metric using countries, but some items are regardless. Trust me, I've already had this argument until I was blue in the face. It doesn't change the fact that this still occurs.
- hu3 6y agoSorry but I got curious: Where is a kilo treated as 985g?
- dylan604 6y agoDoes OSHA have any say of something occurring in the UK though? One of the image captions states 18 people carried a single slab, so there's no way 24 would carry the full table, even without doing the maths.
- quesera 6y agoNaturally OSHA is not relevant, nor are feet or pounds, in the UK. But I feel fairly confident that there are UK-localized versions of each. > One of the image captions states 18 people carried a single slab, so there's no way 24 would carry the full table, even without doing the maths. That does not follow. 18 people make many carrying jobs easier, but they are not necessarily all required. However, since the four tabletop planks are not joined into a single piece, it is clear that 12 people on a side is not a reasonable approach. If the tabletop is removed from the support structure, then 12 people make multiple trips with each plank, at 65 lbs per person, per plank. If the tabletop is not removed from the support structure, and we conservatively estimate legs etc at 50% of the tabletop weight, for a total weight just about 2.3 (US/short) tons ... you would need 66 people, properly distributed, to stay within the OSHA recommended lifting maximum of 70 lbs each. To get 66 people around that table, they would need to be about 3 feet apart, which is just barely adequate working space. Fortunately we don't move things like this using people. Not even in the UK!