On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:
On 12/22/2015 6:45 PM, Larry wrote:
John McCoy wrote in
:

dpb wrote in
:

On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...

"Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I think
a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions is
stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a few
years back confirmed that), but it's probably stronger
than it needs to be for most applications.

Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
benefit from a fully-formed tenon.

I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
particular point was in the test matrix.

Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
two or three tests of that nature - according to the
handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
to be found).

Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
that a short tenon would be more prone to break.

John

From the FWW Issue 203...

The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
results in pounds.
Half lap 1603
Bridle 1560
Splined miter 1498
3/8 M&T 1444
3/8 floating M&T 1396
Miter 1374
3/8 wedged M&T 1210
3/8 pinned M&T 1162
5/16 M&T 988
Beadlock 836
Dowelmax 759
1/4 M&T 717
Pocket screw 698
Domino 597
Biscuit 545
Butt 473
Cope & stick 313
Stub tenon 200

There ya go...

That's interesting stuff, but, I have some serious questions on some of
it, most of it the more I look at it. For example, a floating M&T is
way, way stonger than a Domino?

I thought a domino WAS a floating
M&T???

My thoughts exactly Jack, a Domino is a floating M&T.

In fact a Domino or floating tenon may ever be better than a plain M&T.
Often the end of a board that you are going to form into a tenon might
not be suitable if it has a knot or strange grain.




A splined miter is really strong, I don't think so. A butt
joint is not even really a joint, imo. A butt joint needs dowels,
pocket screws or something to make it a joint. Gluing two pieces of
wood together with end grain doesn't work, so what on earth were they
talking about? A 3/8 M&T is a stub tenon, and pretty much a cope and
stick, for the most part, so again, it's not clear to me what they are
doing. A miter joint is stronger than a domino? Really? A miter joint
is the weakest joint I know of, other than a butt joint.

Can't wait to see what Leon thinks of this list, particularly the domino
joint being near the bottom of the list. Hogwash I say:-) Who made
this list, Scott Phillips?

LOL.. Scott Philips or that other guy on TV that insisted on calling his
SCMS a RAS.

On 12/23/2015 11:28 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/23/15 8:36 AM, Leon wrote:
On 12/22/2015 1:48 PM, John McCoy wrote:
dpb wrote in :

On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
(Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)

Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
well in shear.

That's what I was thinking of - don't woodturners commonly
use CA glue to attach scraps of wood so they can hold their
work on the lathe, expecting to just rap the scrap with a
hammer to remove it when done? Because the CA glue is
brittle and just breaks off when the scrap is hit.

John




More for pen assembly and also used as a finish on lathe projects like
pens.

I use it for trim corners, crown, etc.
I also use hot glue but CA is a bit cleaner and sandable.


Absolutely as do I. I was commenting more with the use with a lathe.

Jack wrote in
:

On 12/22/2015 6:45 PM, Larry wrote:
John McCoy wrote in
:

dpb wrote in
:

On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...

"Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I
think a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions
is stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a
few years back confirmed that), but it's probably
stronger than it needs to be for most applications.

Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
benefit from a fully-formed tenon.

I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
particular point was in the test matrix.

Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
two or three tests of that nature - according to the
handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
to be found).

Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
that a short tenon would be more prone to break.

John

From the FWW Issue 203...

The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
results in pounds.
Half lap 1603
Bridle 1560
Splined miter 1498
3/8 M&T 1444
3/8 floating M&T 1396
Miter 1374
3/8 wedged M&T 1210
3/8 pinned M&T 1162
5/16 M&T 988
Beadlock 836
Dowelmax 759
1/4 M&T 717
Pocket screw 698
Domino 597
Biscuit 545
Butt 473
Cope & stick 313
Stub tenon 200

There ya go...

That's interesting stuff, but, I have some serious
questions on some of it, most of it the more I look at it.
For example, a floating M&T is way, way stonger than a
Domino? I thought a domino WAS a floating M&T??? A
splined miter is really strong, I don't think so. A butt
joint is not even really a joint, imo. A butt joint needs
dowels, pocket screws or something to make it a joint.
Gluing two pieces of wood together with end grain doesn't
work, so what on earth were they talking about? A 3/8 M&T
is a stub tenon, and pretty much a cope and stick, for the
most part, so again, it's not clear to me what they are
doing. A miter joint is stronger than a domino? Really? A
miter joint is the weakest joint I know of, other than a
butt joint.

Can't wait to see what Leon thinks of this list,
particularly the domino joint being near the bottom of the
list. Hogwash I say:-) Who made this list, Scott
Phillips?


Just to be clear, the 3/8 M&T is the tenon thickness, not
depth. The stub tenon looked to be about 3/8 deep from the
picture.

The 2 I have a problem with are the miter and butt. Both would
be at the very bottom if I were guessing.

Just reposting the results... Don't shoot the messenger.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:

For example, a floating M&T is
way, way stonger than a Domino?

I thought a domino WAS a floating
M&T???

My thoughts exactly Jack, a Domino is a floating M&T.

In fact a Domino or floating tenon may ever be better than a plain
M&T.
Often the end of a board that you are going to form into a tenon
might
not be suitable if it has a knot or strange grain.

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

I have no idea why that difference would exist, and I don't
recall that the article went into any analysis of it.

It does seem to me strange that the mortised board should
break at a much lower strain with the domino than with a
floating tenon (where the mortised board didn't break at
all).

John

On 12/23/2015 2:16 PM, Larry wrote:
Jack wrote in
:

On 12/22/2015 6:45 PM, Larry wrote:
John McCoy wrote in
:

dpb wrote in
:

On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...

"Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I
think a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions
is stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a
few years back confirmed that), but it's probably
stronger than it needs to be for most applications.

Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
benefit from a fully-formed tenon.

I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
particular point was in the test matrix.

Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
two or three tests of that nature - according to the
handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
to be found).

Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
that a short tenon would be more prone to break.

John

From the FWW Issue 203...

The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
results in pounds.
Half lap 1603
Bridle 1560
Splined miter 1498
3/8 M&T 1444
3/8 floating M&T 1396
Miter 1374
3/8 wedged M&T 1210
3/8 pinned M&T 1162
5/16 M&T 988
Beadlock 836
Dowelmax 759
1/4 M&T 717
Pocket screw 698
Domino 597
Biscuit 545
Butt 473
Cope & stick 313
Stub tenon 200

There ya go...

That's interesting stuff, but, I have some serious
questions on some of it, most of it the more I look at it.
For example, a floating M&T is way, way stonger than a
Domino? I thought a domino WAS a floating M&T??? A
splined miter is really strong, I don't think so. A butt
joint is not even really a joint, imo. A butt joint needs
dowels, pocket screws or something to make it a joint.
Gluing two pieces of wood together with end grain doesn't
work, so what on earth were they talking about? A 3/8 M&T
is a stub tenon, and pretty much a cope and stick, for the
most part, so again, it's not clear to me what they are
doing. A miter joint is stronger than a domino? Really? A
miter joint is the weakest joint I know of, other than a
butt joint.

Can't wait to see what Leon thinks of this list,
particularly the domino joint being near the bottom of the
list. Hogwash I say:-) Who made this list, Scott
Phillips?


Just to be clear, the 3/8 M&T is the tenon thickness, not
depth. The stub tenon looked to be about 3/8 deep from the
picture.

And just to be clear a 3/8" thick m&t is probably stronger than a 4 or
5mm Domino but probable not more than a 10mm Domino.

Apparently apples were being compared to oranges. ;~()




The 2 I have a problem with are the miter and butt. Both would
be at the very bottom if I were guessing.

Probably a new writer that previously worked for Mademoiselle magazine
doing the testing/internet fact gathering.



Just reposting the results... Don't shoot the messenger.

Understood! LOL

John McCoy wrote in
:

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

Following up to myself, I found the article on line:

http://paul-flores.com/downloads/Joinery_Failure.pdf

replete with pictures of the failed joints.

I was mistaken in thinking they didn't speculate on the
different failures - it seems they attribute it to the
domino, etc, being shorter than a typical tenon. Which
I guess would depend on exactly what you were trying to
join, but in their test pieces was the case.

John

On 12/23/2015 2:24 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:

For example, a floating M&T is
way, way stonger than a Domino?

I thought a domino WAS a floating
M&T???

My thoughts exactly Jack, a Domino is a floating M&T.

In fact a Domino or floating tenon may ever be better than a plain
M&T.
Often the end of a board that you are going to form into a tenon
might
not be suitable if it has a knot or strange grain.

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

I have no idea why that difference would exist, and I don't
recall that the article went into any analysis of it.

It does seem to me strange that the mortised board should
break at a much lower strain with the domino than with a
floating tenon (where the mortised board didn't break at
all).

Especially since a Domino is a floating tenon. BUT wood is not perfect
and the pieces could have been weaker for one of the tests.




John

On 12/23/2015 2:43 PM, John McCoy wrote:
John McCoy wrote in
:

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

Following up to myself, I found the article on line:

http://paul-flores.com/downloads/Joinery_Failure.pdf

replete with pictures of the failed joints.

I was mistaken in thinking they didn't speculate on the
different failures - it seems they attribute it to the
domino, etc, being shorter than a typical tenon. Which
I guess would depend on exactly what you were trying to
join, but in their test pieces was the case.

John



The fact that the Butt joint scored higher than two other methods makes
the whole article suspect. I would not be surprised at all if the chart
was sorted but not all of the columns were included in the sort. LOL

On 12/23/2015 2:48 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/23/2015 2:24 PM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:

For example, a floating M&T is
way, way stonger than a Domino?

I thought a domino WAS a floating
M&T???

My thoughts exactly Jack, a Domino is a floating M&T.

In fact a Domino or floating tenon may ever be better than a plain
M&T.
Often the end of a board that you are going to form into a tenon
might
not be suitable if it has a knot or strange grain.

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

I have no idea why that difference would exist, and I don't
recall that the article went into any analysis of it.

It does seem to me strange that the mortised board should
break at a much lower strain with the domino than with a
floating tenon (where the mortised board didn't break at
all).

Especially since a Domino is a floating tenon. BUT wood is not perfect
and the pieces could have been weaker for one of the tests.

As I said in an earlier response, "the results have no bearing as a
general rule; they _only_ represent the actual joints as tested".

Of course a Domino is a floating M&T but you can see precisely why the
two are so disparate in results in the test and in the order they are if
you go look at the pictures. While the actual dimensions of the F-M&T
in the test aren't given, it is obviously at least twice the width of
the (single) Domino used giving it 2X the surface area each side plus
twice the vertical dimension from the midplane (vertically) to resist
racking force mechanically.

As so much of the other discussion, it's obvious just looking that it'll
win; precisely how much I'd have guessed at the roughly 2X factor shown.

The problem with both the cope and stick and stub tenon in this test is
there's no material left on the sides of any significance -- look at the
failure mechanism, it split the two skinny sides while the glue joint
remained intact. This is certainly going to be true as far as it goes,
but one would never use such a joint in the case of the example
justification in the leadin for the test of wracking forces like a chair
rail; such a joint would only be found in a panel door or the like and
there the panel would be there and provide the wracking resistance.
I'll note the biscuit suffered a like fate--the glue is so strong it
simply fractured the two remaining long-grain sides of the slot in the
stile as their cross-sectional areas are so small given the depth is,
like the stub and cope, so short there's no area over which to dissipate
the concentrated tension force. That's the reason (besides that the
tenon itself has bending moment resistance) the M&T does well, there's
the full depth of the tenon over which the force is spread.

I think if one were to do similar actual geometrical comparisons of the
rest there would be clearly recognizable reasons for them as well.

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.

--

On 12/23/2015 2:16 PM, Larry wrote:
....

The 2 I have a problem with are the miter and butt. Both would
be at the very bottom if I were guessing.
....

Well, the butt is excepting for the two which again have no comparison
owing to geometry as noted earlier.

As for the miter, the 45 angle increases glue area by the sqrt(2) factor
so it's got almost 50% more for the same width pieces. Secondly, by
cutting on the diagonal, the end grain isn't _totally_ end grain so
there is a contribution of the side long grain that improves glue
performance significantly as compared to the true-90 butt.

--

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:24:28 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
m:

On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:

For example, a floating M&T is
way, way stonger than a Domino?

I thought a domino WAS a floating
M&T???

My thoughts exactly Jack, a Domino is a floating M&T.

In fact a Domino or floating tenon may ever be better than a plain
M&T.
Often the end of a board that you are going to form into a tenon
might
not be suitable if it has a knot or strange grain.

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

The "floating tenon" was smaller than the Domino, so the tenon on one
broke, while the tenon split out of the board on the other?

I have no idea why that difference would exist, and I don't
recall that the article went into any analysis of it.

It does seem to me strange that the mortised board should
break at a much lower strain with the domino than with a
floating tenon (where the mortised board didn't break at
all).

John

On 12/23/15 2:14 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/23/2015 11:28 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/23/15 8:36 AM, Leon wrote:
On 12/22/2015 1:48 PM, John McCoy wrote:
dpb wrote in :

On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
(Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)

Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
well in shear.

That's what I was thinking of - don't woodturners commonly
use CA glue to attach scraps of wood so they can hold their
work on the lathe, expecting to just rap the scrap with a
hammer to remove it when done? Because the CA glue is
brittle and just breaks off when the scrap is hit.

John




More for pen assembly and also used as a finish on lathe projects like
pens.

I use it for trim corners, crown, etc.
I also use hot glue but CA is a bit cleaner and sandable.


Absolutely as do I. I was commenting more with the use with a lathe.

And I was just commenting. You know me. ;-p


--

-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

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 20:43:50 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

John McCoy wrote in
:

Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.

Following up to myself, I found the article on line:

http://paul-flores.com/downloads/Joinery_Failure.pdf

replete with pictures of the failed joints.

I was mistaken in thinking they didn't speculate on the
different failures - it seems they attribute it to the
domino, etc, being shorter than a typical tenon. Which
I guess would depend on exactly what you were trying to
join, but in their test pieces was the case.

John

Thank you for the PDF link, now I can see what all the joints are.
Seems disc's aren't too bad, and easy to do.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
_top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
list for the cabinets.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
to accept the front edge of the end panels.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
"floors" (both a top and bottom).

(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
has a single bottom/floor).

All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.

Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
construction, as above.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1113554...9 55022575538

Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to re
enforce what you said.

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 13:29:52 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/22/2015 6:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

I know it will be a lot of work, but... I want my cabinets looking
nice, even though we sort of hope to sell out down the road and move
somewhere more sensible.

I've only done them on the styles, not the rails. My experience is
pretty much not needed, that was my point back there somewhere. Doing
this is pretty easy on the styles and it makes it easy to line up the
face frame, as long as you measure right, but it is a lot more effort to
measure and do the cutting, so not worth it. Would be more difficult
doing it on the rails as well but again, my experience says it's not
needed, and it will definitely not add to the looks of the cabinet, as
the next person to see it will be the demolition dude on the next
remodel...

Oh, as far as glue, I don't glue on FF as nails alone hold just fine,
and gluing on edge grain does nothing whatsoever. If you do the dado
thing, a tight fit would be needed for the glue to work on the tiny bit
of face grain, and again, my experience on a bunch of cabinets over the
years is glue nor dado's are needed at all, so why waste the effort.
I'm sure there may be exceptions to this, but this is my experience.

I also don't like pocket holes because you can see them inside the
cabinet. You could fill them with plugs, but that's just extra work. On
utility cabinets, for the shop or laundry, pocket holes are fine.
Actually, on my shop cabinets I did pocket holes and I haven't seen them
since I made the cabinets, but I know the holes are the-)

Well Jack, the certainly is useful info, seems there is a lot of
latitude providing one does their job correctly.

In a way I am glad I came down with something a few weeks ago that
sapped my energy, and messed up my breathing when the temps changed.

It put off my starting on the real cabinets and with all this info I
am going to re evaluate my choices. I have the time to use dado's, so
that isn't a problem. Plus I am going to use drawers instead of
shelves for the pots and pans, plus the larger appliances. My Wife is
small so her arms aren't too long, and I hate getting on my knees to
get a pan she sticks in the back of the cabinet. (I like to cook too)

Thanks for your insight..

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:18:15 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

OFWW wrote in
:

Like finding out that nails, and I presume steel screws all oxidize in
the wood, causing the wood to rot next to the nails, and I presume to
some extent steel screws. So when I buy screws I look for brass and
brass plated screws. On temp stuff, I'll use anything.

This is, predictably, a major concern to boatbuilders. For
that application the norm is to use stainless steel screws,
or, if you can afford it, silicon bronze.

Brass has it's own oxidation problems, and is quite weak, so
usually not used in marine applications.

Jamestown Distributors is a good source for (relatively)
cheap stainless and bronze fastners.

John

I live about a mile or so from the beach in two directions, so outside
stuff gets abuse. Thanks for the source, added it to My One Notes.

OFWW wrote:

Plus I am going to use drawers instead of
shelves for the pots and pans, plus the larger appliances. My Wife is
small so her arms aren't too long, and I hate getting on my knees to
get a pan she sticks in the back of the cabinet. (I like to cook too)

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than drawers. Bt
"tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with verticals that project
only an inch or two above the bottom. They are good for dishes too.

OFWW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
_top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
list for the cabinets.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
to accept the front edge of the end panels.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
"floors" (both a top and bottom).

(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
has a single bottom/floor).

All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.

Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
construction, as above.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1113554...9 55022575538

Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to re
enforce what you said.

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?


No, if your FF attaches with dado's on the bottom rail to the bottom of the
cabinet and with groves on the stiles to the cabinet sides and or inner
dividers.

BUT typically when building a load of kitchen cabinets adding nails and or
screws eliminates the need for clamps while the glue dries and greatly
speeds production.

I'll give you a tip here. If you nail to attach, place a piece of masking
tape at the exact spot you intend to place a nail. Then nail through the
tape and then putty the nail hole before removing the tape. After the
putty dries remove the tape and sand. The tape prevents the putty from
filling the wood grain around the nail hole.

On 12/23/2015 3:16 PM, Larry wrote:

The 2 I have a problem with are the miter and butt. Both would
be at the very bottom if I were guessing.

Just reposting the results... Don't shoot the messenger.

Not shooting at you Larry. If you did the testing, _then_ I'd be
shooting at you.

Posting the list is very interesting, allowing for some banter about
joints. For me, I like Mikes points on common sense. Some common sense
and a dash of experience and this list looks a bit funny to say the
least. Swings sarcastic remark if it's on the internet, it must be
true, also is on the money.

It's amazing to me how much bull is written in books. I'm oft reminded
that the individual taste zones on your tongue was taught in schools for
over 100 years simply because one guy wrote in down in a book and grade
schools, high schools and colleges, including medical schools, taught
it for a 100 YEARS, like it was true, and was bogus.

This list in my mind is bogus, and if I were doing the testing, and
somehow a butt joint or miter joint came ahead of a domino, I'd keep it
to myself, and try to find out what I did wrong in the testing. Just my
opinion, but giant red flags here, making the whole thing suspect.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 12/24/2015 8:31 AM, Jack wrote:
....

This list in my mind is bogus, and if I were doing the testing, and
somehow a butt joint or miter joint came ahead of a domino, I'd keep it
to myself, and try to find out what I did wrong in the testing. Just my
opinion, but giant red flags here, making the whole thing suspect.

The overall ranking is of little consequence, granted, because there's
so much disparity between the joints as far as the specifics of them are
concerned (as I've noted several times previously ).

Also, as far a postulating, that's well and good, but the results from a
series of tests such as this are valid _only_ for the specific joints
down to the specific sizes of the various mating pieces; one canNOT
infer anything more than that regarding general conclusions.

To do the latter would require having a series of tests of each type in
which the single variable under study _only_ is changed (say width of
the tenon in the simple M&T for one) and then _only_ tenon length. The
problem when one attempts to undertake this kind of study then becomes
one that the number of tests required explodes geometrically and rapidly
turns in to the thousands or 10s of thousands. That's where one would
then need to turn to statistical design of experiments theory to develop
a test matrix that would allow for at least some of the variables to be
studied without confounding effects(*) with a reasonable number of tests.

But, for the particular set of joints incorporated, the simple butt did
_not_ beat the Domino and there's an explanation for why the simple
miter does as outlined above.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the tests themselves such as
they were; it's simply trying to draw too many conclusions from the
results that the amount of testing doesn't support.

(*) Confounding -- when an uncontrolled or unknown variable other than
the one under test has an effect on the result of the device under test,
the result of the test cannot be shown to actually have measured the
desired effect of the intended variable. The example easily seen here
is that between the M&T, F-M&T and the Domino the sizes of the tenons
aren't controlled; only the type used. Hence, one had _no_ controls in
place for the confounding variable and there's nothing that can be said
specifically about the effectiveness of the joining _system_ at all;
only that for the three specific cases with the specific dimensions that
the results were in the order observed.

After nearly 40 yr of consulting in the area for which I coined the term
"statistical engineering", being called in after the fact to try to make
something of results from such tests as the above was all too common
what a client was wanting. Unfortunately, in almost every instance, it
was too late in the process to salvage the work done to date other than
to try to complete an actual design for a series of experiments in which
the tests run could be used to fill in the necessary test matrix.

--

dpb 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.

Of course, that's assuming you need maximum strength. As has
been noted several times, for most applications all the joints
are more than ample.

John

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:04:52 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/24/2015 8:31 AM, Jack wrote:
...

This list in my mind is bogus, and if I were doing the testing, and
somehow a butt joint or miter joint came ahead of a domino, I'd keep it
to myself, and try to find out what I did wrong in the testing. Just my
opinion, but giant red flags here, making the whole thing suspect.

The overall ranking is of little consequence, granted, because there's
so much disparity between the joints as far as the specifics of them are
concerned (as I've noted several times previously ).

Also, as far a postulating, that's well and good, but the results from a
series of tests such as this are valid _only_ for the specific joints
down to the specific sizes of the various mating pieces; one canNOT
infer anything more than that regarding general conclusions.

To do the latter would require having a series of tests of each type in
which the single variable under study _only_ is changed (say width of
the tenon in the simple M&T for one) and then _only_ tenon length. The
problem when one attempts to undertake this kind of study then becomes
one that the number of tests required explodes geometrically and rapidly
turns in to the thousands or 10s of thousands. That's where one would
then need to turn to statistical design of experiments theory to develop
a test matrix that would allow for at least some of the variables to be
studied without confounding effects(*) with a reasonable number of tests.

But, for the particular set of joints incorporated, the simple butt did
_not_ beat the Domino and there's an explanation for why the simple
miter does as outlined above.

I don't think there's anything wrong with the tests themselves such as
they were; it's simply trying to draw too many conclusions from the
results that the amount of testing doesn't support.

(*) Confounding -- when an uncontrolled or unknown variable other than
the one under test has an effect on the result of the device under test,
the result of the test cannot be shown to actually have measured the
desired effect of the intended variable. The example easily seen here
is that between the M&T, F-M&T and the Domino the sizes of the tenons
aren't controlled; only the type used. Hence, one had _no_ controls in
place for the confounding variable and there's nothing that can be said
specifically about the effectiveness of the joining _system_ at all;
only that for the three specific cases with the specific dimensions that
the results were in the order observed.

After nearly 40 yr of consulting in the area for which I coined the term
"statistical engineering", being called in after the fact to try to make
something of results from such tests as the above was all too common
what a client was wanting. Unfortunately, in almost every instance, it
was too late in the process to salvage the work done to date other than
to try to complete an actual design for a series of experiments in which
the tests run could be used to fill in the necessary test matrix.

Brings to mind large laminated beam, what if one of the variables was
mid point in the beam?

One of the questions nagging me is, the amount of pressure used on a
glued joint. Is it really possible to squeeze out too much glue and
render the project worthless a few years down the road?

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:53:08 -0600, Leon wrote:

OFWW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
_top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
list for the cabinets.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
to accept the front edge of the end panels.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
"floors" (both a top and bottom).

(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
has a single bottom/floor).

All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.

Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
construction, as above.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1113554...9 55022575538

Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to re
enforce what you said.

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?


No, if your FF attaches with dado's on the bottom rail to the bottom of the
cabinet and with groves on the stiles to the cabinet sides and or inner
dividers.

BUT typically when building a load of kitchen cabinets adding nails and or
screws eliminates the need for clamps while the glue dries and greatly
speeds production.

I'll give you a tip here. If you nail to attach, place a piece of masking
tape at the exact spot you intend to place a nail. Then nail through the
tape and then putty the nail hole before removing the tape. After the
putty dries remove the tape and sand. The tape prevents the putty from
filling the wood grain around the nail hole.


It took me a minute to figure out the tip, but cool! What you are
saying is that the surrounding wood pattern is preserved.

What type of tape do you use for this? The blue stuff?

Tape|Shoot|Putty|remove tape|Sand=Sweet

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:49:51 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

OFWW wrote:

Plus I am going to use drawers instead of
shelves for the pots and pans, plus the larger appliances. My Wife is
small so her arms aren't too long, and I hate getting on my knees to
get a pan she sticks in the back of the cabinet. (I like to cook too)

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than drawers. Bt
"tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with verticals that project
only an inch or two above the bottom. They are good for dishes too.


Thanks a bunch! The bottom info I really needed, at that size then
should the frame be 1/2" Minimum? OR?

Yes, I meant trays for the most part. Where the pans or bowls are
light weight I was thinking higher sides, like 4" up from the bottom,
or 4 " overall, to help keep them in.

On 12/24/2015 10:07 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:53:08 -0600, Leon wrote:

OFWW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
_top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
list for the cabinets.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
to accept the front edge of the end panels.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
"floors" (both a top and bottom).

(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
has a single bottom/floor).

All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.

Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
construction, as above.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1113554...9 55022575538

Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to re
enforce what you said.

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?


No, if your FF attaches with dado's on the bottom rail to the bottom of the
cabinet and with groves on the stiles to the cabinet sides and or inner
dividers.

BUT typically when building a load of kitchen cabinets adding nails and or
screws eliminates the need for clamps while the glue dries and greatly
speeds production.

I'll give you a tip here. If you nail to attach, place a piece of masking
tape at the exact spot you intend to place a nail. Then nail through the
tape and then putty the nail hole before removing the tape. After the
putty dries remove the tape and sand. The tape prevents the putty from
filling the wood grain around the nail hole.


It took me a minute to figure out the tip, but cool! What you are
saying is that the surrounding wood pattern is preserved.

That is absolutely correct!


What type of tape do you use for this? The blue stuff?

What ever will lift off after a period of time, typically blue.


Tape|Shoot|Putty|remove tape|Sand=Sweet

Yes, and the tape reminds you where the holes are that need to be filled
and sanded.


Now if you want to be anal, ;~) Fast Cap sells tape for this very
purpose with nail hole pre made..... You just have to shoot the nail in
the hole provided. LOL

https://www.fastcap.com/estore/pc/vi...3&idcategory=0

I think I could sell someone the Brooklyn bridge if I could sell this.
Why on earth would you want to aim for preformed holes???

On 12/23/2015 11:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/23/15 2:14 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/23/2015 11:28 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/23/15 8:36 AM, Leon wrote:
On 12/22/2015 1:48 PM, John McCoy wrote:
dpb wrote in :

On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
...

Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
(Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)

Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
well in shear.

That's what I was thinking of - don't woodturners commonly
use CA glue to attach scraps of wood so they can hold their
work on the lathe, expecting to just rap the scrap with a
hammer to remove it when done? Because the CA glue is
brittle and just breaks off when the scrap is hit.

John




More for pen assembly and also used as a finish on lathe projects like
pens.

I use it for trim corners, crown, etc.
I also use hot glue but CA is a bit cleaner and sandable.


Absolutely as do I. I was commenting more with the use with a lathe.

And I was just commenting. You know me. ;-p


Yeah and so was I. LOL Good on you!

On 12/24/15 10:38 AM, Leon wrote:
On 12/24/2015 10:07 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:53:08 -0600, Leon
wrote:

OFWW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman
wrote:

On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's
or on both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the
_floor_ and _top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the
same dimension, and batch cut at the same time) are often
singularly called a "floor" in the parts list for the
cabinets.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the
face frame to accept the front edge of the end panels.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and
bottom rails of the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept
the front edge of the "floors" (both a top and bottom).

(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of
a base cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame
cabinets often only has a single bottom/floor).

All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed,
into the dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end
panels.

Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame
wall cabinet construction, as above.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1113554...9 55022575538



Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to
re enforce what you said.

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?


No, if your FF attaches with dado's on the bottom rail to the
bottom of the cabinet and with groves on the stiles to the
cabinet sides and or inner dividers.

BUT typically when building a load of kitchen cabinets adding
nails and or screws eliminates the need for clamps while the glue
dries and greatly speeds production.

I'll give you a tip here. If you nail to attach, place a piece
of masking tape at the exact spot you intend to place a nail.
Then nail through the tape and then putty the nail hole before
removing the tape. After the putty dries remove the tape and
sand. The tape prevents the putty from filling the wood grain
around the nail hole.


It took me a minute to figure out the tip, but cool! What you are
saying is that the surrounding wood pattern is preserved.

That is absolutely correct!


What type of tape do you use for this? The blue stuff?

What ever will lift off after a period of time, typically blue.


Tape|Shoot|Putty|remove tape|Sand=Sweet

Yes, and the tape reminds you where the holes are that need to be
filled and sanded.


Now if you want to be anal, ;~) Fast Cap sells tape for this very
purpose with nail hole pre made..... You just have to shoot the nail
in the hole provided. LOL

https://www.fastcap.com/estore/pc/vi...3&idcategory=0

I think I could sell someone the Brooklyn bridge if I could sell
this. Why on earth would you want to aim for preformed holes???


I don't know what I enjoyed more, the great tip from Leon or the laugh I
got from seeing that the Fastcap nail hole tape was actually a real
product and not an April Fool's joke.


--

-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

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 10:38:20 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/24/2015 10:07 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 06:53:08 -0600, Leon wrote:

OFWW wrote:
On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman wrote:

On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:

As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
both? Glue only, or Glue and ?

NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
_top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
list for the cabinets.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
to accept the front edge of the end panels.

Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
"floors" (both a top and bottom).

(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
has a single bottom/floor).

All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.

Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
construction, as above.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1113554...9 55022575538

Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to re
enforce what you said.

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?


No, if your FF attaches with dado's on the bottom rail to the bottom of the
cabinet and with groves on the stiles to the cabinet sides and or inner
dividers.

BUT typically when building a load of kitchen cabinets adding nails and or
screws eliminates the need for clamps while the glue dries and greatly
speeds production.

I'll give you a tip here. If you nail to attach, place a piece of masking
tape at the exact spot you intend to place a nail. Then nail through the
tape and then putty the nail hole before removing the tape. After the
putty dries remove the tape and sand. The tape prevents the putty from
filling the wood grain around the nail hole.


It took me a minute to figure out the tip, but cool! What you are
saying is that the surrounding wood pattern is preserved.

That is absolutely correct!


What type of tape do you use for this? The blue stuff?

What ever will lift off after a period of time, typically blue.


Tape|Shoot|Putty|remove tape|Sand=Sweet

Yes, and the tape reminds you where the holes are that need to be filled
and sanded.


Nice!


Now if you want to be anal, ;~) Fast Cap sells tape for this very
purpose with nail hole pre made..... You just have to shoot the nail in
the hole provided. LOL

https://www.fastcap.com/estore/pc/vi...3&idcategory=0

I think I could sell someone the Brooklyn bridge if I could sell this.
Why on earth would you want to aim for preformed holes???


LOL, the guy that sold the idea to a manufacturer, and then the
salesman that sold shelf stock to the store must be laughing on their
way to the bank.

On 12/24/2015 9:53 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:04:52 -0600, wrote:

....[preceding discussion elided for brevity]...

I don't think there's anything wrong with the tests themselves such as
they were; it's simply trying to draw too many conclusions from the
results that the amount of testing doesn't support.

(*) Confounding -- when an uncontrolled or unknown variable other than
the one under test has an effect on the result of the device under test,
the result of the test cannot be shown to actually have measured the
desired effect of the intended variable. The example easily seen here
is that between the M&T, F-M&T and the Domino the sizes of the tenons
aren't controlled; only the type used. Hence, one had _no_ controls in
place for the confounding variable and there's nothing that can be said
specifically about the effectiveness of the joining _system_ at all;
only that for the three specific cases with the specific dimensions that
the results were in the order observed.

After nearly 40 yr of consulting in the area for which I coined the term
"statistical engineering", being called in after the fact to try to make
something of results from such tests as the above was all too common
what a client was wanting. Unfortunately, in almost every instance, it
was too late in the process to salvage the work done to date other than
to try to complete an actual design for a series of experiments in which
the tests run could be used to fill in the necessary test matrix.

Brings to mind large laminated beam, what if one of the variables was
mid point in the beam?

Ya' lost me there...no idea how is intended to relate to current discussion.

One of the questions nagging me is, the amount of pressure used on a
glued joint. Is it really possible to squeeze out too much glue and
render the project worthless a few years down the road?

US FPL (Forest Products Lab) has performed extensive tests on the
question and concluded "no"; in fact, the test data shows that the
higher the clamping pressure, the stronger the joint up to the point of
physically crushing the material. I've posted links to this in the
(fairly distant) past and unfortunately don't seem to have a bookmark at
hand so will leave it at that for now, other than to point out the
specific testing (as is virtually all work by the lab) was done in
support of the production manufacturer of wood products, and doesn't
really reflect a home-shop rec woodworker environment. Consequently,
the pressures achieved at the upper limit there exceed what generally
would be found in work rec.wooodworking participants shops. Which
simply supports the bottom line answer of "No" is why I included the
discussion. (Leon may be the one exception here with his known
penchant... )

The key limitation in a quality glue joint as far as material prep
causing poor adhesion (other than that of ill-fitting joints) is have a
fresh, unburnished surface. If one were to, for example, joint the
material with a set of dull knives it's possible for them to "hammer"
the edge rather than cleanly slice the fibers. In this case the
micro-pores that are critical for the bonding to occur can be closed and
thus the glue simply lays upon the surface instead of actually forming
the bond. I forget, it may be that Hoadley in his tome on wood
discusses; I'm virtually sure it's in the FPL Handbook (all again I've
not looked recently to confirm).

--

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; only discussing the limitation in attempting to drawing any
generic conclusions from the test results as performed/presented. See
the more detailed follow-on to 'Jack' I posted this AM.

--

On 12/24/2015 10:19 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:49:51 -0500,
wrote:

OFWW wrote:

Plus I am going to use drawers instead of
shelves for the pots and pans, plus the larger appliances. My Wife is
small so her arms aren't too long, and I hate getting on my knees to
get a pan she sticks in the back of the cabinet. (I like to cook too)

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than drawers. Bt
"tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with verticals that project
only an inch or two above the bottom. They are good for dishes too.


Thanks a bunch! The bottom info I really needed, at that size then
should the frame be 1/2" Minimum? OR?

Yes, I meant trays for the most part. Where the pans or bowls are
light weight I was thinking higher sides, like 4" up from the bottom,
or 4 " overall, to help keep them in.

I'd stop and consider the actual implements you have to store and
develop storage more specifically tailored around them, albeit not _too_
specific to a given exact pan so that retain general use. I've done the
similar by using 1/2" side stock and providing internal dividers with a
few optional positions routed into the sides so they can be moved to suit...

--

dpb 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?

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.

See
the more detailed follow-on to 'Jack' I posted this AM.

I did see that, and don't disagree with anything you said.

John

OFWW wrote in news:e05o7bp30m2prle5dom3tr1onlcfn3oj5e@
4ax.com:

One of the questions nagging me is, the amount of pressure used on a
glued joint. Is it really possible to squeeze out too much glue and
render the project worthless a few years down the road?

Depends on the glue. For epoxy, definately so. For common
yellow woodworking glue, no, at least not with any kind of
hand-tightened clamp. For other kinds of glues, I dunno.

It is, of course, very possible to not put enough glue in
the joint in the first place, which would have the symptom
you describe.

John

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...

--

On 12/24/2015 11:19 AM, OFWW wrote:

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than drawers. Bt
"tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with verticals that project
only an inch or two above the bottom. They are good for dishes too.

Thanks a bunch! The bottom info I really needed, at that size then
should the frame be 1/2" Minimum? OR?

Yes, I meant trays for the most part. Where the pans or bowls are
light weight I was thinking higher sides, like 4" up from the bottom,
or 4 " overall, to help keep them in.

I've done this a number of times. I prefer 1/2" sides, but you need a
planer for that, or a specialty lumber source that sells 1/2" stock. 2
1/2" wide because you can get 2 pieces out of a 1x6".

Popular or maple is good for the sides, I like popular. The bottom I
use 1/4" plywood let into a dado all around, or with the back left short
so the bottom can be removed if needed. I've yet to see that needed
though. You can go higher than 2 1/2" if you want, but try go for
multiples that will fit your lumber efficiently. The sides don't need
to be deep, just enough to keep stuff from sliding off. Also, I always
rounded over the top edge of the tray/drawer, makes it look a lot nicer.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:49:51 -0500, "dadiOH"
wrote:

OFWW wrote:

Plus I am going to use drawers instead of
shelves for the pots and pans, plus the larger appliances. My Wife
is small so her arms aren't too long, and I hate getting on my
knees to
get a pan she sticks in the back of the cabinet. (I like to cook
too)

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than
drawers. Bt "tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with
verticals that project only an inch or two above the bottom. They
are good for dishes too.


Thanks a bunch! The bottom info I really needed, at that size then
should the frame be 1/2" Minimum? OR?

It doesn't much matter as long as it will keep stuff from sliding off the
bottom. All the sliding trays in our kitchen are rimmed with about 3/4"
because that is what I had. If I'd had 1/2" instead, I would have used
that.

Yes, I meant trays for the most part. Where the pans or bowls are
light weight I was thinking higher sides, like 4" up from the bottom,
or 4 " overall, to help keep them in.

Four inches is a drawer not a tray. An inch or two above the bottom is
entirely sufficient to keep them in.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 19:31:37 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

OFWW wrote in news:e05o7bp30m2prle5dom3tr1onlcfn3oj5e@
4ax.com:

One of the questions nagging me is, the amount of pressure used on a
glued joint. Is it really possible to squeeze out too much glue and
render the project worthless a few years down the road?

Depends on the glue. For epoxy, definately so. For common
yellow woodworking glue, no, at least not with any kind of
hand-tightened clamp. For other kinds of glues, I dunno.

It is, of course, very possible to not put enough glue in
the joint in the first place, which would have the symptom
you describe.

John

I had heard in an online video once about over clamping problems, that
they were going to do some tests of get info, but it never came about
to my knowledge.

I had a couple half lap joints come apart which added to my wondering,
but in the end I realized it was sloppy work on my part. Too loose a
joint. I learned the hard way that if I cut a joint best to assemble
in right then. Or store up some wood ahead of time.

I made a could half lap joints on 2 X 4's to put my metal Craftsman
Cabinets on, checked out the fit and it was just a tad tighter than I
figured it should be, just to get glue in there. Next morning I dbl
Checked the fit and both were now a tad loose and when I added glue
they really got sloppy. When the joints dried I could see a couple
gaps. GRRRR. And the joint seemed like it was the easiest to do in the
world.

I am great with sheet metal stuff, but wood working is far different.
I would apprentice myself in a shop, for free, just to learn good
habits and make some of this stuff natural to me. (and for now at
least, I don't even mind sanding. )

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:41:08 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/24/2015 9:53 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:04:52 -0600, wrote:

...[preceding discussion elided for brevity]...

I don't think there's anything wrong with the tests themselves such as
they were; it's simply trying to draw too many conclusions from the
results that the amount of testing doesn't support.

(*) Confounding -- when an uncontrolled or unknown variable other than
the one under test has an effect on the result of the device under test,
the result of the test cannot be shown to actually have measured the
desired effect of the intended variable. The example easily seen here
is that between the M&T, F-M&T and the Domino the sizes of the tenons
aren't controlled; only the type used. Hence, one had _no_ controls in
place for the confounding variable and there's nothing that can be said
specifically about the effectiveness of the joining _system_ at all;
only that for the three specific cases with the specific dimensions that
the results were in the order observed.

After nearly 40 yr of consulting in the area for which I coined the term
"statistical engineering", being called in after the fact to try to make
something of results from such tests as the above was all too common
what a client was wanting. Unfortunately, in almost every instance, it
was too late in the process to salvage the work done to date other than
to try to complete an actual design for a series of experiments in which
the tests run could be used to fill in the necessary test matrix.

Brings to mind large laminated beam, what if one of the variables was
mid point in the beam?

Ya' lost me there...no idea how is intended to relate to current discussion.


Sorry, I was watching some lamination jobs and some Japanese big beams
and how they were jointed. Just thought some of it was common to
WWing.

One of the questions nagging me is, the amount of pressure used on a
glued joint. Is it really possible to squeeze out too much glue and
render the project worthless a few years down the road?

US FPL (Forest Products Lab) has performed extensive tests on the
question and concluded "no"; in fact, the test data shows that the
higher the clamping pressure, the stronger the joint up to the point of
physically crushing the material. I've posted links to this in the
(fairly distant) past and unfortunately don't seem to have a bookmark at
hand so will leave it at that for now, other than to point out the
specific testing (as is virtually all work by the lab) was done in
support of the production manufacturer of wood products, and doesn't
really reflect a home-shop rec woodworker environment. Consequently,
the pressures achieved at the upper limit there exceed what generally
would be found in work rec.wooodworking participants shops. Which
simply supports the bottom line answer of "No" is why I included the
discussion. (Leon may be the one exception here with his known
penchant... )

The key limitation in a quality glue joint as far as material prep
causing poor adhesion (other than that of ill-fitting joints) is have a
fresh, unburnished surface. If one were to, for example, joint the
material with a set of dull knives it's possible for them to "hammer"
the edge rather than cleanly slice the fibers. In this case the
micro-pores that are critical for the bonding to occur can be closed and
thus the glue simply lays upon the surface instead of actually forming
the bond. I forget, it may be that Hoadley in his tome on wood
discusses; I'm virtually sure it's in the FPL Handbook (all again I've
not looked recently to confirm).

Hmmm, the same pores for bonding that are also important for finishes
and stains to adhere to. I think I understand that, so an overly
"finished" joint can be a disadvantage and coarse sand paper the best
when fitting?

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 12:48:23 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/24/2015 10:19 AM, OFWW wrote:
On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 07:49:51 -0500,
wrote:

OFWW wrote:

Plus I am going to use drawers instead of
shelves for the pots and pans, plus the larger appliances. My Wife is
small so her arms aren't too long, and I hate getting on my knees to
get a pan she sticks in the back of the cabinet. (I like to cook too)

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than drawers. Bt
"tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with verticals that project
only an inch or two above the bottom. They are good for dishes too.


Thanks a bunch! The bottom info I really needed, at that size then
should the frame be 1/2" Minimum? OR?

Yes, I meant trays for the most part. Where the pans or bowls are
light weight I was thinking higher sides, like 4" up from the bottom,
or 4 " overall, to help keep them in.

I'd stop and consider the actual implements you have to store and
develop storage more specifically tailored around them, albeit not _too_
specific to a given exact pan so that retain general use. I've done the
similar by using 1/2" side stock and providing internal dividers with a
few optional positions routed into the sides so they can be moved to suit...

Yes, I am keep that in mind, things like the mixer and all its
attachments, food slicer, you know bulky stuff not used all the time.
Along with the cast iron pans, my choice, and all the non-stick
lightweight stuff for the wife. Like you said, I trying to be useful
and generic at the same time.

As to the dividers I might make them with jointed like "Horseshoes"
for mix n matching pans.

I am considering a knife block in the spice rack, lower cabinet near
the stove.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 15:42:42 -0500, Jack wrote:

On 12/24/2015 11:19 AM, OFWW wrote:

Good thinking but extend it a bit further to trays rather than drawers. Bt
"tray" I mean a 3/4" bottom rimmed all around with verticals that project
only an inch or two above the bottom. They are good for dishes too.

Thanks a bunch! The bottom info I really needed, at that size then
should the frame be 1/2" Minimum? OR?

Yes, I meant trays for the most part. Where the pans or bowls are
light weight I was thinking higher sides, like 4" up from the bottom,
or 4 " overall, to help keep them in.

I've done this a number of times. I prefer 1/2" sides, but you need a
planer for that, or a specialty lumber source that sells 1/2" stock. 2
1/2" wide because you can get 2 pieces out of a 1x6".

Popular or maple is good for the sides, I like popular. The bottom I
use 1/4" plywood let into a dado all around, or with the back left short
so the bottom can be removed if needed. I've yet to see that needed
though. You can go higher than 2 1/2" if you want, but try go for
multiples that will fit your lumber efficiently. The sides don't need
to be deep, just enough to keep stuff from sliding off. Also, I always
rounded over the top edge of the tray/drawer, makes it look a lot nicer.

Yeah, I liked the rounded edges too. I have a planer and stuff, I also
saw some birch plywood drawer frames finished with a 1/4 in dado which
I could increase. They come in 5 foot pieces, rounded edges and all,
at a couple places. But planning ahead and using my tools to slice n
dice to the proper sizes would ATM seem more fun and educating.