http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ...M-1+Tenonmaker
http://www.youtube.com/user/BridgeCi.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

On Sep 28, 11:46*pm, Zz Yzx wrote:
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

Doesn't seem to leave room for glue.

On 9/29/10 7:43 PM, GarageWoodworks wrote:
On Sep 28, 11:46 pm, Zz wrote:
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

Doesn't seem to leave room for glue.

I always thought a tight mortise a tenon, like dovetails, only needed
glue to keep them from slipping apart. The strength is in the joint.

When gluing up panels, is there room for glue? Not really.
You squeeze out what hasn't soaked into the wood.

I think the same can be said for M&T joints. You wipe on only enough
glue to soak in. I've seen many a study that breaks the myth of the
glue-staved joint.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

"GarageWoodworks" wrote in message
...
On Sep 28, 11:46 pm, Zz Yzx wrote:
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

Doesn't seem to leave room for glue.

As long as you apply glue to the entire contact area, even if some gets
wiped off during insertion, it will be plenty of glue.

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), GarageWoodworks
wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:46*pm, Zz Yzx wrote:
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

Doesn't seem to leave room for glue.

I believe the fit is adjustable, FWIW.

"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), GarageWoodworks
wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:46 pm, Zz Yzx wrote:
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

Doesn't seem to leave room for glue.

I believe the fit is adjustable, FWIW.

Not directing this directly at you Jim.

I don't believe that making the joint looser is going to increase the
strength of the joint. When you clamp two edges of wood together to form a
wider board do you leave a gap or not tighten the clamp to insure that no
glue gets squeezed out? The best glued joint is one that has glue on the
entire surface before the union. After that the best glued joint is the one
with the thinnest glue line/layer of glue.

To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

The common misconception of Glue Starvation is that in which excess glue is
removed form mating surfaces during assembly. Glue Starvation happens when
glue is not applied to the entire mating surface before the mating of the
surfaces. Once there is a solid layer of glue on a mating surface it is
either the correct amount or too much, never not enough. If a complete thin
layer of glue dries out before assembly, that is another problem. Mating
surfaces that do not fit tightly is another problem also.

In article , lcb11211
@swbell.dotnet says...

"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:43:33 -0700 (PDT), GarageWoodworks
wrote:

On Sep 28, 11:46 pm, Zz Yzx wrote:
http://www.bridgecitytools.com/Produ.../0/Cs9Ychd--qk

Similar tool for tenons.

-Zz

Doesn't seem to leave room for glue.

I believe the fit is adjustable, FWIW.

Not directing this directly at you Jim.

I don't believe that making the joint looser is going to increase the
strength of the joint. When you clamp two edges of wood together to form a
wider board do you leave a gap or not tighten the clamp to insure that no
glue gets squeezed out? The best glued joint is one that has glue on the
entire surface before the union. After that the best glued joint is the one
with the thinnest glue line/layer of glue.

Read the specs on your glue--there's usually a specification for glue-
line thickness. To the extent that you're able, go with the
specification unless you have test results that show that you should do
otherwise.

To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.

The common misconception of Glue Starvation is that in which excess glue is
removed form mating surfaces during assembly. Glue Starvation happens when
glue is not applied to the entire mating surface before the mating of the
surfaces. Once there is a solid layer of glue on a mating surface it is
either the correct amount or too much, never not enough. If a complete thin
layer of glue dries out before assembly, that is another problem. Mating
surfaces that do not fit tightly is another problem also.

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article ,
says...

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

Of course you can. There is porosity there, apply pressure and the glue
goes into the pores.

I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.

I remember reading a lot of stuff. The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".

On 10/4/10 2:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

Of course you can. There is porosity there, apply pressure and the glue
goes into the pores.


The path of least resistance in a panel glue-up is up, down, and out at
the seems, not into the pores. It would take a lot more pressure than
that for glue to go any further into wood pores than it would from
passive wicking.

It's a moot point, however, as it is simply unnecessary.


I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.

I remember reading a lot of stuff. The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".


It doesn't make it untrue, either.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article ,
says...

On 10/4/10 2:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

Of course you can. There is porosity there, apply pressure and the glue
goes into the pores.


The path of least resistance in a panel glue-up is up, down, and out at
the seems, not into the pores.

Fluid flow is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.

It would take a lot more pressure than
that for glue to go any further into wood pores than it would from
passive wicking.

More pressure than what?

It's a moot point, however, as it is simply unnecessary.

What is unnecessary?

I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.

I remember reading a lot of stuff. The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".


It doesn't make it untrue, either.

No, but "I read somewhere" is not to be trusted.

On 10/4/10 8:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 2:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

Of course you can. There is porosity there, apply pressure and the glue
goes into the pores.


The path of least resistance in a panel glue-up is up, down, and out at
the seems, not into the pores.

Fluid flow is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.


And gluing is not as complex as you're making it out to be.


It would take a lot more pressure than
that for glue to go any further into wood pores than it would from
passive wicking.

More pressure than what?

More pressure than clamping up panels produces, when allowing the excess
glue to push out.


It's a moot point, however, as it is simply unnecessary.

What is unnecessary?


Allowing "room for glue" in a M&T joint.


I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.

I remember reading a lot of stuff. The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".


It doesn't make it untrue, either.

No, but "I read somewhere" is not to be trusted.


Well you know, I wish I could cite the source or point to a web site,
but it was years ago in a respected trade mag. I also have my
experience to go by and a quart of glue goes a long long way with me.
And as little as I use, I still usually end up cleaning up 10x as much
glue as remains in the joint. :-) No failures.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

In article ,
says...

On 10/4/10 8:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 2:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

Of course you can. There is porosity there, apply pressure and the glue
goes into the pores.


The path of least resistance in a panel glue-up is up, down, and out at
the seems, not into the pores.

Fluid flow is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.


And gluing is not as complex as you're making it out to be.

Well, actually if you get down to the hydrodynamics of it, it is.

It would take a lot more pressure than
that for glue to go any further into wood pores than it would from
passive wicking.

More pressure than what?

More pressure than clamping up panels produces, when allowing the excess
glue to push out.

Nobody has suggested "more pressure than clamping up panels produces".

It's a moot point, however, as it is simply unnecessary.

What is unnecessary?


Allowing "room for glue" in a M&T joint.

Please post your test results that demonstrate that joints that have
less clearance that the recommended glue line thickness are just as
strong as those that have the recommended glue line thickness.

I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.

I remember reading a lot of stuff. The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".


It doesn't make it untrue, either.

No, but "I read somewhere" is not to be trusted.


Well you know, I wish I could cite the source or point to a web site,
but it was years ago in a respected trade mag.

What trade?

I also have my
experience to go by and a quart of glue goes a long long way with me.
And as little as I use, I still usually end up cleaning up 10x as much
glue as remains in the joint. :-) No failures.

So how many structural joints that you have made depend entirely on the
glue for their strength?

I'm sorry, but "I've been getting away with this for years" doesn't show
that you are getting optimal bond quality, just that it's good enough
for whatever you are doing. If you're working with 10:1 margins you can
get away with quite a lot.

In article ,
-MIKE- wrote:
On 10/4/10 8:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
...snipped...
What is unnecessary?


Allowing "room for glue" in a M&T joint.

Not really what you guys are talking about, but in a blind M&T, it is
important to leave room for glue - at the bottom ot the mortise, by making
it very slightly deeper than the tenon is long. Otherwise any glue that
collects there as the tenon is assembled may keep the tenoned piece
from fully seating.





--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

"Larry W" wrote in message
...
In article ,
-MIKE- wrote:
On 10/4/10 8:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
...snipped...
What is unnecessary?


Allowing "room for glue" in a M&T joint.

Not really what you guys are talking about, but in a blind M&T, it is
important to leave room for glue - at the bottom ot the mortise, by making
it very slightly deeper than the tenon is long. Otherwise any glue that
collects there as the tenon is assembled may keep the tenoned piece
from fully seating.


That is correct, the glue that gets trapped inside the mortice will keep the
tennon from going in all the way if the mortise is not deep enough to
accomidate the glue also.

However, Originally I was responding to the "Doesen't seem to leave room for
the glue" comment concerning the new BridgeCity Tennon maker. I does not
have any thing to do witht he length of the tennon or the depth of the
mortise. It works to size the tennon sides to fit the mortise sides. A
close fit that would scrape off excess glue, "not leaving room for the glue"
is how I read that comment. That would be a false assumption.

On Tue, 5 Oct 2010 11:44:00 +0000 (UTC),
(Larry W) wrote:

In article ,
-MIKE- wrote:
On 10/4/10 8:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
...snipped...
What is unnecessary?


Allowing "room for glue" in a M&T joint.

Not really what you guys are talking about, but in a blind M&T, it is
important to leave room for glue - at the bottom ot the mortise, by making
it very slightly deeper than the tenon is long. Otherwise any glue that
collects there as the tenon is assembled may keep the tenoned piece
from fully seating.

Small flats on the rounded length of the tenons can also prevent
hydraulic lock like that. The glue seeps by the flat. Or take the clue
from dowel makers. Run a nail down your tenons, raking a trough, so
glue can escape.

--
Know how to listen, and you will
profit even from those who talk badly.
-- Plutarch

On Oct 4, 3:53*pm, "J. Clarke" wrote:


I remember reading a lot of stuff. *The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. *Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".

That also includes your argumentative posts.

Also, using words like hydrodynamic are beyond your skill-set. Know
what they mean from an engineering stand-point before using.
Hydrodynamic is not to be confused with hydraulic.

On 10/5/10 5:49 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 8:32 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 2:53 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
In ,
says...

On 10/4/10 9:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
To some it seems to be a common thought that it is OK to remove excess glue
by squeezing the bejesus out of a panel glue up, which it is. But for some
reason there is the belief of excess glue being removed from a joint by the
sliding and scraping motion during assembly will starve the joint.

In the one case it's being forced into the grain, in the other it's
being scraped off.


Not correct. Leon is correct. You cannot force (carpenters) glue into
the grain of wood. It goes in as far as it goes and that's it.

Of course you can. There is porosity there, apply pressure and the glue
goes into the pores.


The path of least resistance in a panel glue-up is up, down, and out at
the seems, not into the pores.

Fluid flow is not quite as simple as you make it out to be.


And gluing is not as complex as you're making it out to be.

Well, actually if you get down to the hydrodynamics of it, it is.


Which is completely unnecessary for this debate.


It would take a lot more pressure than
that for glue to go any further into wood pores than it would from
passive wicking.

More pressure than what?

More pressure than clamping up panels produces, when allowing the excess
glue to push out.

Nobody has suggested "more pressure than clamping up panels produces".


That's my point.


It's a moot point, however, as it is simply unnecessary.

What is unnecessary?


Allowing "room for glue" in a M&T joint.

Please post your test results that demonstrate that joints that have
less clearance that the recommended glue line thickness are just as
strong as those that have the recommended glue line thickness.


Ok, I'll bite. What's the recommended glue line thickness?
And tell me how it's maintained when clamping boards together to make
panels.


I remember reading and being amazed at how little glue is actually
needed to bond wood together. I also remember in the same article that
it mentioned if *any* glue was soaked into the grain, it was *enough*
glue. Meaning, if you put a thin layer of glue on and it gets wiped off
the surface, you're ok.

I remember reading a lot of stuff. The fact that you read something
doesn't make it true. Don't believe me, read "Mein Kampf".


It doesn't make it untrue, either.

No, but "I read somewhere" is not to be trusted.


Well you know, I wish I could cite the source or point to a web site,
but it was years ago in a respected trade mag.

What trade?


What newsgroup are *you* reading?
Is this being crossposted to some other trade's newsgroup?


I also have my
experience to go by and a quart of glue goes a long long way with me.
And as little as I use, I still usually end up cleaning up 10x as much
glue as remains in the joint. :-) No failures.

So how many structural joints that you have made depend entirely on the
glue for their strength?


"Structural" ...depends on your definition. Is a glued up panel
structural? Tabletop?
Neither of those allow for this "recommended glue line thickness" you
mention.

To stay specifically on topic.... any "load bearing," if you will,
strength in joints like M&T, dovetail, loose/dowel tenon, is in the wood
and the glue pretty much keeps the two pieces from slipping apart. If
you consider timber frame construction and look at a beam held to a post
with a through tenon and a wedge. The wedge keeps the joint tight and
does nothing to add to the load bearing capabilities of the joint. If
the wedge fell out, nothing would happen. Yes, take all the wedges out
and shake the house back and forth and things start to loosen up. That
wedge is the glue in that joint.

Take any other joint where the glue is solely responsible for holding
the two pieces together, butt, T&G, Dado, Miter, etc, and clamping
results in glue squeeze-out that is surely tighter than any "recommended
glue line thickness."


I'm sorry, but "I've been getting away with this for years" doesn't show
that you are getting optimal bond quality, just that it's good enough
for whatever you are doing. If you're working with 10:1 margins you can
get away with quite a lot.


"I've been doing it this way for years, because I think it's necessary"
doesn't show that it's necessary, either.


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply