Dignified Outside

New Gates shot September 23rd, 2010

How to Break Down Your Materials List for Ultra Fence 101

Ordering your own Ultra aluminum fence to install or have your crew install is sometimes cumbersome and confusing. Here, we break it down into smaller units to give you a better idea of how to calculate the proper amount of fence panels, posts and gates, so you can install Ultra aluminum fence without making mistakes.

1-We breakdown the overall example layout listed above, into smaller linear runs, like from point A to point B, and point B to point C and so on. In the example layout, we start at point A with an End Post 2-3" away from the house and go away from the house 10' to point B which is a Gate Post. In this first 'run', we have 10' of fence, which divided by 6' (the width of the panels) equates to 1.67 (At Ultra we offer 5' wide panels, so you can order what you need,) panels which is rounded up to 2 because the panels are only shipped in 6' widths (this is true for our competitors). Because there are 2 panels, we will have only 1 Line Post. Line posts quantities are equal to the number of panels minus 1. So in this first run from A to B, you will have:

• 1 End Post
• 2 Fence Panels
• 1 Line Post
• 1 Gate Post (these are typically just like End Posts but with a thicker wall. Point K is going to be a Blank Gate Post) Also, all posts come with a flattened pyramid cap standard. You may wish to upgrade to a ball cap.

2- In this run, B to C, we have a 4' wide gate which is measured from the inside of the gate post to the inside of the other Gate Post, point C. Because we already added the first gate post in the previous section, all we have in the second run is:

• 4 Wide Gate
• Gates include self closing hinges and Z-Lock Lockable Latch and can be upgraded to heavier U-framing or to an Arch Gate or both.
• 1 Gate Post

3- From C to D which is to the Corner Post, we'll have 9' of fence which equals 1.5 panels (9 divided by 6' wide panel), rounded to 2 Panels and 1 Line Post (2 panels minus 1 = 1 Line Post) Again, you could order two 5' wide from Ultra and have less waste. So here is this runs total:

• 1 Line Post
• 1 Corner Post
• 2 Fence Panels These panels can be installed in widths of 6' with the other panel cut down to 3' wide or both panels can be cut down to 4.5' to give a more even look. The same is true for the first section of 10'. It could be 6' wide and 4' wide or both cut to 5' wide. Not many, if any, of these runs will work out to be an exact measurement divisible by 6', so some cutting of the panels will be required during the installation process. When thinking about your breakdown consider this, fewer cuts and notches made in the field make for a better looking, more profitable job. So by using Ultra's 4', 5', 6' in RS and 7' and even 8' wide panels on CS and IS Grades, you have no need to have to make these cuts.

4- From D to E which is to another Corner Post, the length is 40'. Divided by 6 equals 6.67 panels (40 divided by 6' wide panel), rounded to 7 Panels (or 5 panels 6' wide flanked by 1- 5' wide panel on each side equals 40' with no field cuts)  and 6 Line Posts (7 panels minus 1 = 6 Line Posts). Here is this runs total:

• 6 Line Posts
• 1 Corner Post
• 7 Fence Panels 6 of these panels can be used without any cutting of the panels, but the last one will need to be cut down to 4' wide.

5- From E to F which is to a Gate Post, the length is 42' which is divisible by 6'. This equals 7 panels and 6 Line Posts (7 panels minus 1 = 6 Line Posts). Here is this runs total:

• 6 Line Posts
• 1 Gate Post
• 7 Fence Panels

6- From F to G which is to another Gate Post, the width of the Gate is 3' (again, inside of post to inside of post. This run only has:

• 1 Gate Post
• 3' Wide Gate gates include self closing hinges and Z-Lock Lockable Latch and can be upgraded to heavier framing or to an Arch Gate.

7a & 7b - The next three runs, from G to J can be done the same way as the previous three sections which lead to another Gate Post.

8- This last run, J to K is a 10' wide double gate. It can be two standard gates or two Arches next to one another or one big Arch  across the whole width. Also, as mentioned previously, the final Gate Post should be Blank which means it has no holes for fence rails to slide into like the End, Line and Corner Posts have. In this final run you would have:

• 1 Blank Gate Post (the other Gate Post would have been included in the previous run)
• 10' Wide Double Gate gates include self closing hinges and Z-Lock Lockable Latch and can be upgraded to heavier framing, Arched Gates or a one arch Gate.
• Drop Rod Assembly

This is just an example of how you can gain efficiency and profitability by using Ultra as your aluminum provider. Because we are truly manufactured here in the USA and have the quickest turnaround times in the industry (usually under two weeks) we can help you eliminate waste of having to deal with only 6' wide panels. Your customer gets a better looking and stronger job, your crew is happy because they finish the job with less work and the Ultra Dealer is happy because they know they are selling the highest grade aluminum fence and providing American Jobs that fuel our economy.

  Think about these details before you choose to order that material made from who knows where or assembled in Florida, New Jersey or Oklahoma made from Chinese extrusions.
 

Only People with Electric Gates and Fences have a legally protected zone of privacy around their homes

The Government's New Right to Track Your Every Move With GPS

By ADAM COHEN Adam Cohen – Thu Aug 26, 3:45 am ET

 

 

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway - and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.
That is the bizarre - and scary - rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants - with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)
It is a dangerous decision - one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.
This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.
After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)
In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.
The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)
Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. "The court's ruling", he said, "means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night."
Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)
The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state - with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.
Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's - including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.
In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous - decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)
Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."
Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.