> > So I came to the conclusion that bunk beds
> NEEDED to have at least four posts. And not
> stacked together at the center.
>
> I think that the more posts a bunk bed had, the
> safer it would be. Naturally, they'd all have to
> be around the outside of the frame, so that the
> bottom bunker would be able to lay down
> comfortably. But I think that four posts is
> actually the minimum number required to
> support the top bunk. I've had the experience
> of having the top bunk of a four-poster come
> crashing down on me when I gave it a good
> kick. If that bunk had had, say, forty posts,
> neither I nor my friend on the top bunk would
> have been injured. Of course, a bunk bed with
> forty posts would have the effect of being a
> cage for the person on the bottom, and they'd
> need a portal or doorway of some kind to get
> in and out. But it would be safer, I think, and
> would have the added bonus of introducing
> many new and varied opportunities for
> practical joking. (i.e., trapping your roommate
> inside his bunk; trapping your roommate
> inside his bunk with a live alligator; etc. There
> are infinite variations possible.) I don't see
> how this could fail.
>
> Gri"I think"shny

Yes, however, in these times of economic rationalisation, where wood isn't cheap and nails are even worst (Don't get me started about screws), less is better. So four, maybe five or six, on the side facing the wall.

Your point, however, has some interesting options : Parents with only one child, or if one of their children grew over the bunk bed, could lease the lower bunk to the state in order to incarcerate prisonner, thus cutting the need for governemental transfer to the familly AND prisons.

Bunk beds are, definetly, the key to utopia.

Etienne