Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking Plans and Photos (alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking) - Show off or just share photos of your hard work. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
PING - Charlieb
The latest issue of WOOD Magazine (issue 177 July 2007) has an article comparing the strengths of joints that you might find interesting as it shows the Domino and how it compares to other methods of joinery. -- Charley |
#2
Posted to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
PING - Charlieb
"Charley" wrote ........ The latest issue of WOOD Magazine (issue 177 July 2007) has an article comparing the strengths of joints that you might find interesting as it shows the Domino and how it compares to other methods of joinery. On that note, I just saw this interesting video on YouTube about joint failure testing. http://youtube.com/watch?v=DhLfb7m9Fug |
#3
Posted to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
PING - Charlieb
Charley wrote:
The latest issue of WOOD Magazine (issue 177 July 2007) has an article comparing the strengths of joints that you might find interesting as it shows the Domino and how it compares to other methods of joinery. -- Charley Got the magazine, read the article and while I agree with their conclusion that the DOMINO was their choice - mainly because of the ease, accuracy and speed of use. BUT - the test methods - and their conclusions - well let's just say they were less than ideal. On both their "pull apart" and "shear" tests, it was the wood that the dowels/loose tenons/biscuits were in that failed, not the dowel / loose tenon / biscuit. They were testing THE WRONG THING - the strength of the stock the joint was in - AND the glue bond. Had they skipped the glue entirely - then maybe they'd produce some results that would provide indications of how well each joining method does - for furniture applications. And had they included the total cross sectional area of the dowel, beadlok or DOMINO loose tenon - that would give you a better idea of how "equal" the methods are. OH - and if you're going to test a glued joint - whats the common surface area for the joined parts. They also skipped over a significant shortcoming of dowels. UNLESS you orient the dowel grain with the parts grain - it will expand and contract differently than the wood it's in - going from round to oval and back with changes in moisture content - which we know WILL happen. You want your joint to prevent SIX types of movement. You're probably saying "SIX!? Yup - SIX - you forgot rotation - about each of the three axis (we'll leave time out of this discussion). Look here if that's still not clear. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/MT/MtPrimer4.html A more meaningful test - for "shear" (though I'd call it "torque") would be to assemble the joint - without ANY glue - and apply a constant downward force, beginning right at the joint and moving it away from the joint slowly - until the joint a) began to open - or come apart completely. THAT's the test Festool did. They applied 145 Kg (319 pounds) of downward force on the horizontal member, starting at the joint and moving away from it. Their results Biscuit - 2.1mm to joint opening Dowel - 2.2 mm to joint opening Loose Tenon - 14+mm to joint opening If you do the math (25.4 mm/inch, 2.2 lbs/Kg) the torque in foot-pounds come out to 2.20, 2.30 and 14.65 foot-pounds for Biscuit, Dowel and Loose Tenon. The loose tenon required six time the torque that the other two did - with NO GLUE. And lets get real - "resitance to shear" is what you're after, NOT resistance to "pull apart". If you were sitting in a chair, joined by one of the four joinery methods evaluated in the article - and you're one of those people who like to tilt the chair back on its rear legs - which method would you trust your ass to? Bad science is worse than no science. And I won't even get into Intelligent Design. charlie b |
#4
Posted to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
PING - Charlieb
I just told you about the article, I never said that I agreed with it.
Mostly, I wanted to see what your reaction to it was as I also found the article to be flawed, and I agree with you that they didn't run the test properly. (maybe they were playing "follow the money" - in other words, who payed for it to be published.) I think you should send your response to the magazine. It'll probably do more good than here. Maybe you can get them to admit that they didn't run a very fair test and get them to run it over again using your method. It would sure come out different. -- Charley "charlieb" wrote in message ... Charley wrote: The latest issue of WOOD Magazine (issue 177 July 2007) has an article comparing the strengths of joints that you might find interesting as it shows the Domino and how it compares to other methods of joinery. -- Charley Got the magazine, read the article and while I agree with their conclusion that the DOMINO was their choice - mainly because of the ease, accuracy and speed of use. BUT - the test methods - and their conclusions - well let's just say they were less than ideal. On both their "pull apart" and "shear" tests, it was the wood that the dowels/loose tenons/biscuits were in that failed, not the dowel / loose tenon / biscuit. They were testing THE WRONG THING - the strength of the stock the joint was in - AND the glue bond. Had they skipped the glue entirely - then maybe they'd produce some results that would provide indications of how well each joining method does - for furniture applications. And had they included the total cross sectional area of the dowel, beadlok or DOMINO loose tenon - that would give you a better idea of how "equal" the methods are. OH - and if you're going to test a glued joint - whats the common surface area for the joined parts. They also skipped over a significant shortcoming of dowels. UNLESS you orient the dowel grain with the parts grain - it will expand and contract differently than the wood it's in - going from round to oval and back with changes in moisture content - which we know WILL happen. You want your joint to prevent SIX types of movement. You're probably saying "SIX!? Yup - SIX - you forgot rotation - about each of the three axis (we'll leave time out of this discussion). Look here if that's still not clear. http://web.hypersurf.com/~charlie2/MT/MtPrimer4.html A more meaningful test - for "shear" (though I'd call it "torque") would be to assemble the joint - without ANY glue - and apply a constant downward force, beginning right at the joint and moving it away from the joint slowly - until the joint a) began to open - or come apart completely. THAT's the test Festool did. They applied 145 Kg (319 pounds) of downward force on the horizontal member, starting at the joint and moving away from it. Their results Biscuit - 2.1mm to joint opening Dowel - 2.2 mm to joint opening Loose Tenon - 14+mm to joint opening If you do the math (25.4 mm/inch, 2.2 lbs/Kg) the torque in foot-pounds come out to 2.20, 2.30 and 14.65 foot-pounds for Biscuit, Dowel and Loose Tenon. The loose tenon required six time the torque that the other two did - with NO GLUE. And lets get real - "resitance to shear" is what you're after, NOT resistance to "pull apart". If you were sitting in a chair, joined by one of the four joinery methods evaluated in the article - and you're one of those people who like to tilt the chair back on its rear legs - which method would you trust your ass to? Bad science is worse than no science. And I won't even get into Intelligent Design. charlie b |
#5
Posted to alt.binaries.pictures.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
PING - Charlieb
"Charley" wrote in message ... I think you should send your response to the magazine. It'll probably do more good than here. Maybe you can get them to admit that they didn't run a very fair test and get them to run it over again using your method. It would sure come out different. charlie b LOL. That just reminded me of TiteBond Poop'n a big'n when Wood magazine found that TB II was more water resistant Than TB III. It still gives me a chuckle to know that the TB III water proof certification never mentions the words water proof only the words water resistant. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Thanks Charlieb for the Waxilit tip | Woodworking | |||
Ping charlieb / Domino questions | Woodworking | |||
charlieb Domino question | Woodworking | |||
Ping: charlieb Domino question | Woodworking | |||
Fly by night PING PING | Woodworking |