On 12/24/2015 1:26 PM, John McCoy wrote:
wrote in :

On 12/24/2015 9:52 AM, John McCoy wrote:
wrote in :


It's a case of comparing things that for the most part, shouldn't be
compared in the overall rankings; only the minor differences between
the similarly-sized and purposed joints should actually be compared
against each other within a set of classes, perhaps.

Well, the counterpart to what you just said is that you should
consider the size of the joint when picking your joinery method.
If a joinery method is constrained by the size of pre-fab units,
it might not be suitable.

I said _nothing_ whatever about actual application to any specific
project;

I never said you did, where do you get that from?

Perhaps I misinterpreted what you intended the response to mean...

only discussing the limitation in attempting to drawing any
generic conclusions from the test results as performed/presented.

Well, the conclusion we can draw (at least, that I draw;
you are of course free to not draw any conclusion from the
information available) is that different size joints may
require or benefit from different types of joinery.
....

I think that's a foregone conclusion for the specific project and joint
within the project, yes. But I don't see that there's anything in the
article as presented that really addresses the application issue in
those terms, no.

IMO it is what is is and no more, no less--a comparison in isolation of
a set of joints prepared independently and with no (cogent) forethought
as to an actual test objective a priori. Hence it provides no
information other than the basic fact of each those test results on its own.

It would have been interesting to have seen an actual comparison of,
say, the Domino and beadlock systems under circumstances where they were
geometrically-enough similar to see if either had any advantage over the
other as a _system_ and then them as a class with respect to
conventional construction techniques. But, it's simply not possible as
the test was conducted. The closest there is to that would be within
the miter with/without splines and the M&T with its variations of
wedged/pinned; I _think_ w/o looking again at the article the latter
were similarly-sized(?).

But, they didn't investigate haunched M&T, nor double nor the many other
variations so from a structural standpoint in aiding a particular
construction technique for a given application where true strength would
be required it's also lacking for completeness.

I think again it's another patently obvious conclusion not needing any
study at all that any/all as shown are sufficiently strong for a cabinet
door or the like that the dimensions of the two pieces joined basically
models. All in all, I thought at the time it was one of FWW's weaker
offerings, truthfully (and this discussion has only strengthened that
opinion).

Anyway, I've said all I've got to contribute; think I'll retire to Santa
and the reindeer...

--