box joint testing
 

Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

Hard to say here, I don't recall where the pocket hole joint method
failed. Did the screws pull out of the mating side or did the end grain
of the pocket hole piece fail. If the former, I agree with your
thoughts. If the later, shallower pocket holes might be better. Anyway
I typically glue pocket hole joints when I use them.



So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


In my experience glued dowels and tenons and or floating tenons are
better than screws.

But another black eye for TBIII. LOL

I have contacted Franklin more than a few times in the past 7+ years.
My initial contact was to inquire on their position of the Wood Magazine
glue test. Long story short TBIII did not do as well as TBII in the so
called "Water Proof" testing. I did not recall the convoluted answer
but they did send me a case of 4oz TBIII.

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

There is also a shelf life on TBIII, and most bottles I see on the store
shelves cut their recommended useful to 6 months or less.

And Now this test once again shows that the lesser yellow glue appears
to provide a stronger bond than TBIII.

I think I am going back to TBII and or Elmers Probond or Gorilla White
wood glue.

box joint testing
 

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

Wow, that's worth knowing. I haven't used TBIII until recently,
but there is a bottle in the shop now. Guess I should shake it
every time I walk past.

I think as you suggest I'm going to stick with plain yellow
glue (or epoxy if I need waterproof).

John

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:04:25 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

Hard to say here, I don't recall where the pocket hole joint method
failed. Did the screws pull out of the mating side or did the end grain
of the pocket hole piece fail. If the former, I agree with your
thoughts. If the later, shallower pocket holes might be better. Anyway
I typically glue pocket hole joints when I use them.



So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


In my experience glued dowels and tenons and or floating tenons are
better than screws.

But another black eye for TBIII. LOL

I have contacted Franklin more than a few times in the past 7+ years.
My initial contact was to inquire on their position of the Wood Magazine
glue test. Long story short TBIII did not do as well as TBII in the so
called "Water Proof" testing. I did not recall the convoluted answer
but they did send me a case of 4oz TBIII.

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

There is also a shelf life on TBIII, and most bottles I see on the store
shelves cut their recommended useful to 6 months or less.

And Now this test once again shows that the lesser yellow glue appears
to provide a stronger bond than TBIII.

I think I am going back to TBII and or Elmers Probond or Gorilla White
wood glue.







this is all very interesting. As I am fixing to build 10 more
beehives for spring at will amount to about 160 box joints that will
need to be glued up. I find the results of TBIII compared to TBII or
the elmers quite a surprise.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T 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

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:04:25 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

Hard to say here, I don't recall where the pocket hole joint method
failed. Did the screws pull out of the mating side or did the end grain
of the pocket hole piece fail. If the former, I agree with your
thoughts. If the later, shallower pocket holes might be better. Anyway
I typically glue pocket hole joints when I use them.


He did tests both with and without glue, very little difference, the
glue let go first.

He did show the difference between screws both shallow and deep into
the attached wood. Those that were deep, where you could almost see
the tips, pulled the wood under the screw head free from the board
with the pockets. If the screw was on the shallow side in the attached
board then the board with the pocket was whole and the screw pulled
out of the attached board. All material used was consistent on both
sides.



So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


In my experience glued dowels and tenons and or floating tenons are
better than screws.


His as well.

But another black eye for TBIII. LOL

I have contacted Franklin more than a few times in the past 7+ years.
My initial contact was to inquire on their position of the Wood Magazine
glue test. Long story short TBIII did not do as well as TBII in the so
called "Water Proof" testing. I did not recall the convoluted answer
but they did send me a case of 4oz TBIII.

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

There is also a shelf life on TBIII, and most bottles I see on the store
shelves cut their recommended useful to 6 months or less.

And Now this test once again shows that the lesser yellow glue appears
to provide a stronger bond than TBIII.

I think I am going back to TBII and or Elmers Probond or Gorilla White
wood glue.


I used their stuff made specifically for melamine, didn't appear to
hold or bond much better than TBII, without screws I wouldn't use
either. Those shop cabinets are coming down after other projects are
done, I'll use them for jigs.

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.


Well I need to learn all I can, the glue verses screws test lost to
the screws.

In pulling down cabinets in my kitchen I have been pulling them apart.
They used dowels in the face frames with glue, after 40 years of
sitting there the dowels mostly held strong, the glue and nail joints
(or staples) were a mixed bag, it was surprising how much glue just
gave up, where there was particle boards it was self destructing and
stunk really bad.

Sometimes I wonder if it isn't just better all around to use horse
glue, and epoxy for the tough stuff.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)

I'd like to see a test between the green machines M&T joint and a 3
dowel. Especially between a square tenon vs rounded with everything
else being equal.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 10:48 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

Wow, that's worth knowing. I haven't used TBIII until recently,
but there is a bottle in the shop now. Guess I should shake it
every time I walk past.

I think as you suggest I'm going to stick with plain yellow
glue (or epoxy if I need waterproof).

John


John, I used to also buy TiteBond Extend by the gallon. Same problem.
I would transfer to a smaller bottle and it came out like milk. It
worked fine but it sure was thin. Half way through that gallon it
thickened to almost a pudding consistency. Talking to Franklin I
learned that I needed to stir from the beginning. Try doing that!

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 10:50 AM, Steve Barker wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:04:25 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

Hard to say here, I don't recall where the pocket hole joint method
failed. Did the screws pull out of the mating side or did the end grain
of the pocket hole piece fail. If the former, I agree with your
thoughts. If the later, shallower pocket holes might be better. Anyway
I typically glue pocket hole joints when I use them.



So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


In my experience glued dowels and tenons and or floating tenons are
better than screws.

But another black eye for TBIII. LOL

I have contacted Franklin more than a few times in the past 7+ years.
My initial contact was to inquire on their position of the Wood Magazine
glue test. Long story short TBIII did not do as well as TBII in the so
called "Water Proof" testing. I did not recall the convoluted answer
but they did send me a case of 4oz TBIII.

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

There is also a shelf life on TBIII, and most bottles I see on the store
shelves cut their recommended useful to 6 months or less.

And Now this test once again shows that the lesser yellow glue appears
to provide a stronger bond than TBIII.

I think I am going back to TBII and or Elmers Probond or Gorilla White
wood glue.







this is all very interesting. As I am fixing to build 10 more
beehives for spring at will amount to about 160 box joints that will
need to be glued up. I find the results of TBIII compared to TBII or
the elmers quite a surprise.


Shocking IMHO. FWIW the "Water Proof" classification on the TBIII
bottle is deceiving.
I looked that classification up and learned that no where in the
description of the testing method did the words water proof show up
except in the title of the classification. Only water resistance was
used. Sounds like a good old boys agreement among those in that industry.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/15 1:09 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE-
I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.


Well I need to learn all I can, the glue verses screws test lost to
the screws.

In pulling down cabinets in my kitchen I have been pulling them apart.
They used dowels in the face frames with glue, after 40 years of
sitting there the dowels mostly held strong, the glue and nail joints
(or staples) were a mixed bag, it was surprising how much glue just
gave up, where there was particle boards it was self destructing and
stunk really bad.


IMO, it's the particle board that gave up. A glued particle board joint
is only as good as the particle board, which we all know is about as
strong as cheddar cheese. :-)


Sometimes I wonder if it isn't just better all around to use horse
glue, and epoxy for the tough stuff.


Epoxy on particle board is only as strong as the particle board, right?

But really, you already conducted the only *real world* test that has
any relevance.
You pulled down your cabinets and had to tear them apart, right? So
glue, particle board, screws, staples, whatever combination of whatever
they used worked for your cabinets. They didn't fall down, they had to
be torn down.

Fast forward to today, however, and we've reached to tipping point. We
have major cabinet manufacturers using a strange, soft, hot-glue mix on
their cabinets and drawers in combination with long staples, and that
$h!t's just falling apart en masse all over the place.

I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built like
this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.


--

-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

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/15 1:13 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2015 10:48 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

Wow, that's worth knowing. I haven't used TBIII until recently,
but there is a bottle in the shop now. Guess I should shake it
every time I walk past.

I think as you suggest I'm going to stick with plain yellow
glue (or epoxy if I need waterproof).

John


John, I used to also buy TiteBond Extend by the gallon. Same problem.
I would transfer to a smaller bottle and it came out like milk. It
worked fine but it sure was thin. Half way through that gallon it
thickened to almost a pudding consistency. Talking to Franklin I
learned that I needed to stir from the beginning. Try doing that!

I got sick of dealing with that and now I just buy more, smaller,
bottles instead of trying to save money by buying one big one. Not
worth the PITA to deal with stirring all the time. I'm on my last
gallon and it'll be my last.


--

-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

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/15 1:22 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Ditto, ditto, ditto from me on everything you wrote.



--

-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

box joint testing
 

-MIKE- wrote:
...
I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built
like this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.


To avoid issues like that, I think you might have to be your own contractor.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/15 1:45 PM, Bill wrote:
-MIKE- wrote:
...
I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built
like this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.


To avoid issues like that, I think you might have to be your own
contractor.


I'm not sure who misunderstood whom. :-)
I'm saying I'll start a biz that goes around to these homes and repairs
these crappy cabs.
I'm already doing this with other things in this area. I make a decent
amount of money fixing stuff that the original builders did poorly or
outright wrong.

In many cases, the homes are still under warranty from the builder, but
the homeowners are so sick and tired of getting the run-around, blame
games, or having the same people who did the crappy work to begin with
come back to do more crappy work to "repair" their previous crappy
work.... that they would rather *pay me* a premium to fix it and do it
right than get it done for *free* by the incompetent builders.


--

-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

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:31:08 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/18/15 1:09 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE-
I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.


Well I need to learn all I can, the glue verses screws test lost to
the screws.

In pulling down cabinets in my kitchen I have been pulling them apart.
They used dowels in the face frames with glue, after 40 years of
sitting there the dowels mostly held strong, the glue and nail joints
(or staples) were a mixed bag, it was surprising how much glue just
gave up, where there was particle boards it was self destructing and
stunk really bad.


IMO, it's the particle board that gave up. A glued particle board joint
is only as good as the particle board, which we all know is about as
strong as cheddar cheese. :-)


Sometimes I wonder if it isn't just better all around to use horse
glue, and epoxy for the tough stuff.


Epoxy on particle board is only as strong as the particle board, right?

But really, you already conducted the only *real world* test that has
any relevance.
You pulled down your cabinets and had to tear them apart, right? So
glue, particle board, screws, staples, whatever combination of whatever
they used worked for your cabinets. They didn't fall down, they had to
be torn down.


Well, actually the shelves were cupped, on the wall units, one group
of cabinets was sagging more and more, but the faces being oak were
tough as nails, and the ends were Oak plywood and basically they were
what was holding it all together. As you noted the particle board was
all crap, crumbly, sagging and so on. And yes, the "real world test"
was worth its weight in gold.

As a result I am wondering if 1/2" ply cabinet grade isn't just as
good as 3/4" for my purposes, as 1/2" will support granite or
whatever, and for shelving should last at least 50 years or until the
next earthquake. :)

Fast forward to today, however, and we've reached to tipping point. We
have major cabinet manufacturers using a strange, soft, hot-glue mix on
their cabinets and drawers in combination with long staples, and that
$h!t's just falling apart en masse all over the place.

I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built like
this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.

Seems like the cabinet doors are all stamped out like model A fenders
around here, and they sell it as a kitchen upgrade using your existing
cabinets. Found I make upgraded cabinets, increase the storage space
by at least 1/2 and make it look really good for 1/2 the price of box
store contractor upgraded doors alone. Give or take a little. Plus,
for me it is fun.

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:22:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Sounds like a great idea, I have both sizes of their pocket hole drill
bits. And the smaller one sound good for certain things, and then you
can make your own plugs in various styles. Good idea!

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 1:33 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 1:13 PM, Leon wrote:
On 12/18/2015 10:48 AM, John McCoy wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

The a year or two back I learned that you must periodically shake TBIII
to keep the ingredients thoroughly mixed. The agent that gives the
glue
a longer open time will settle to the bottom and if let to sit there
for
a long period will be extremely difficult to remix with out actually
mixing, not shake.

Wow, that's worth knowing. I haven't used TBIII until recently,
but there is a bottle in the shop now. Guess I should shake it
every time I walk past.

I think as you suggest I'm going to stick with plain yellow
glue (or epoxy if I need waterproof).

John


John, I used to also buy TiteBond Extend by the gallon. Same problem.
I would transfer to a smaller bottle and it came out like milk. It
worked fine but it sure was thin. Half way through that gallon it
thickened to almost a pudding consistency. Talking to Franklin I
learned that I needed to stir from the beginning. Try doing that!

I got sick of dealing with that and now I just buy more, smaller,
bottles instead of trying to save money by buying one big one. Not
worth the PITA to deal with stirring all the time. I'm on my last
gallon and it'll be my last.


Yes, I buy quarts now. BUT the regular TBI and TBII should not be a
problem. It seems to be more with the longer extend times that present
the short life shelf life.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 3:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:22:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Sounds like a great idea, I have both sizes of their pocket hole drill
bits. And the smaller one sound good for certain things, and then you
can make your own plugs in various styles. Good idea!

I have not used the small pocket hole bit yet. What diameter is that?
The standard size is 3/8" so cutting your own plugs is not a problem.

box joint testing
 

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-8, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Well I need to learn all I can, the glue verses screws test lost to
the screws.

No, it won. A proper glue joint is NEVER end-grain to long-grain, so
a right-angle joint, glued, to compare to a right-angle pocket screw joint,
would be mortise/tenon or box joint. Those, because the strain is
spread over large area, allow the glue to hold. A simple butt joint,
or even a shelf poked into a dado, affords only endgrain-to-long-grain
surfaces mating, and we've all disassembled that kind of joint. It comes
apart easily.

box joint testing
 

-MIKE- wrote:

In many cases, the homes are still under warranty from the builder,
but the homeowners are so sick and tired of getting the run-around,
blame games, or having the same people who did the crappy work to
begin with come back to do more crappy work to "repair" their previous
crappy work.... that they would rather *pay me* a premium to fix it
and do it right than get it done for *free* by the incompetent builders.


Yes, I understand. By the time they meet you they are disgusted. They
thought they paid for quality the first time around!

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:14:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
wrote:

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-8, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Well I need to learn all I can, the glue verses screws test lost to
the screws.

No, it won. A proper glue joint is NEVER end-grain to long-grain, so
a right-angle joint, glued, to compare to a right-angle pocket screw joint,
would be mortise/tenon or box joint. Those, because the strain is
spread over large area, allow the glue to hold. A simple butt joint,
or even a shelf poked into a dado, affords only endgrain-to-long-grain
surfaces mating, and we've all disassembled that kind of joint. It comes
apart easily.

LOL, Actually you are correct. I guess I got caught up in Matthias
(sp) surprise that the glue joint failed so quickly, but you described
it spot on, Thanks

Still, as you say, the other joints were clearly superior and the
finger joints as well with glue. I love all this learning, never felt
so stupid in all my life.

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:27:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 3:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:22:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Sounds like a great idea, I have both sizes of their pocket hole drill
bits. And the smaller one sound good for certain things, and then you
can make your own plugs in various styles. Good idea!

I have not used the small pocket hole bit yet. What diameter is that?
The standard size is 3/8" so cutting your own plugs is not a problem.

It is 19/64" or 7mm. It is the micro 3 holer for 1" narrow stock or
1/2 " wood. It fits my normal Kreg Jig.

box joint testing
 

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-8, Leon wrote:

I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole...

Yes, that's a good match; the Kreg-style step drills are certainly
the right drills and countersinks for the compatible screws. Those (drill bits)
are available (eBay) without the jigs, and the screws are well
stocked lots of places.

box joint testing
 

OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:27:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 3:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:22:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Sounds like a great idea, I have both sizes of their pocket hole drill
bits. And the smaller one sound good for certain things, and then you
can make your own plugs in various styles. Good idea!

I have not used the small pocket hole bit yet. What diameter is that?
The standard size is 3/8" so cutting your own plugs is not a problem.

It is 19/64" or 7mm. It is the micro 3 holer for 1" narrow stock or
1/2 " wood. It fits my normal Kreg Jig.


That size will probably be difficult to find round plugs to be filled with.

box joint testing
 

OFWW wrote in news:nhl87blam8cac5qil6k02isjb9c1n5neli@
4ax.com:

I'd like to see a test between the green machines M&T joint and a 3
dowel. Especially between a square tenon vs rounded with everything
else being equal.

Can't be done. Several groups have tested various joints
in various ways over the years, and invariably come to
the conclusion that there's too much variation in the
wood used to resolve the difference between joints of
similar strength. "Everything else being equal" just
isn't going to exist with wood.

John

box joint testing
 

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:40:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd
wrote:

On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:22:36 AM UTC-8, Leon wrote:

I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole...

Yes, that's a good match; the Kreg-style step drills are certainly
the right drills and countersinks for the compatible screws. Those (drill bits)
are available (eBay) without the jigs, and the screws are well
stocked lots of places.

The Kreg step drill bits are available at almost as many places as the
screws. I've seen them at many WW stores as well as the BORG and
Lowes.

box joint testing
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:10:18 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

OFWW wrote in news:nhl87blam8cac5qil6k02isjb9c1n5neli@
4ax.com:

I'd like to see a test between the green machines M&T joint and a 3
dowel. Especially between a square tenon vs rounded with everything
else being equal.

Can't be done. Several groups have tested various joints
in various ways over the years, and invariably come to
the conclusion that there's too much variation in the
wood used to resolve the difference between joints of
similar strength. "Everything else being equal" just
isn't going to exist with wood.

John

Thanks for the info. I still wonder if there was a constant wide set
of break points, on a certain day, with the same batch of wood, that
some conclusion couldn't be made.

box joint testing
 

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:34:15 -0600, Leon wrote:

OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:27:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 3:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:22:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Sounds like a great idea, I have both sizes of their pocket hole drill
bits. And the smaller one sound good for certain things, and then you
can make your own plugs in various styles. Good idea!

I have not used the small pocket hole bit yet. What diameter is that?
The standard size is 3/8" so cutting your own plugs is not a problem.

It is 19/64" or 7mm. It is the micro 3 holer for 1" narrow stock or
1/2 " wood. It fits my normal Kreg Jig.


That size will probably be difficult to find round plugs to be filled with.

http://www.rockler.com/kreg-micro-po...ct+listing+ads

Did a quick check, they make them and for flush trim they could be
cut. Depends on how bad one wants them?

box joint testing
 

In article ,
says...

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:10:18 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

OFWW wrote in news:nhl87blam8cac5qil6k02isjb9c1n5neli@
4ax.com:

I'd like to see a test between the green machines M&T joint and a 3
dowel. Especially between a square tenon vs rounded with everything
else being equal.

Can't be done. Several groups have tested various joints
in various ways over the years, and invariably come to
the conclusion that there's too much variation in the
wood used to resolve the difference between joints of
similar strength. "Everything else being equal" just
isn't going to exist with wood.

John

Thanks for the info. I still wonder if there was a constant wide set
of break points, on a certain day, with the same batch of wood, that
some conclusion couldn't be made.

That's why statistics was invented, to deal with situations where there
are multiple variables. Test 30 samples of each and calculate means and
standard deviations and if there's a real difference it will likely show
up.

box joint testing
 

OFWW wrote in news:2erb7b5q6826j2itao0ka18gmped2hqkd3@
4ax.com:

Thanks for the info. I still wonder if there was a constant wide set
of break points, on a certain day, with the same batch of wood, that
some conclusion couldn't be made.

Well, that's a different question. You could certainly group
results together, accepting that within some range of measurement
error a group is "the same", and then look for differences
between groups.

As I recall, when Fine Woodworking did their test several years
ago, all the machined mortise & tenon variations were effectively
the same (regular M&T, floating tenon, wedged tenon, etc). All
of them were significantly stronger than dowelmax, beadlock,
dominoes, etc.

I also recall there there was a difference in the failures, with
the M&T always breaking the tenon, and the beadlock, etc,
breaking the mortise. There was discussion at the time as to
the significance of that difference, but I don't recall any
conclusions.

John

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 1:31 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built like
this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.

Shhhhh....

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

box joint testing
 

On 12/20/15 10:15 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 12/18/2015 1:31 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built like
this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.

Shhhhh....


+1

I was talking to a GC around here who actually tries his best to do the
highest quality work he can and cares about his clients and pleasing them.

He said the reason I'm seeing this so much is because the margins for a
builder are often the same or less on a $650k home as they are on the
$190k home. Both homes might be on 1/2-3/4 acre lots but the lot for
the $650k home costs $350k and the house is expected to be 4x the size
of the $190k house, have detailed trim-- chair, picture, 3 and 4 piece
crown throughout-- recessed ceilings in almost every room, and a kitchen
that looks like it's from the cover of a magazine, etc, etc. The man
hours for building the bigger home are much greater, as well.

By the time the builder has done all this, he's set to make the same or
less on the bigger house with the price tag 3.5x higher. He said this
is why you get builders using particleboard cabinets in these giant
homes because by the time you add up the hundred or more cabinets in
these behemoth McMansions they can save $20k just by downgrading the
cabinets.


--

-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

box joint testing
 

On 12/19/2015 6:04 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:34:15 -0600, Leon wrote:

OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 16:27:15 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 3:47 PM, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:22:23 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 12/18/2015 11:21 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Our friend has a couple videos on it, he found with the wood he was
using that the pocket screws, even with glue, was about the weakest,
other than a butt joint with clue.

Now I am not going to argue his methods of measuring since he did
apply the same test to all, however in reviewing what he did and his
points about pocket screws, I sort of think a shallower pocket, in
conjunction with a slightly longer screw might help tremendously.

So I am tossing out that idea for your consideration.

I would ask him, since he has the gear set up for testing to verify it
for curiosities sake, but then if he did so and it all worked out then
he should be paid for the proof I would think.

In any event, I do not think you will find any pocket screws in my new
wall cabinets for my kitchen. I wish he had tested with domino joints.

What does your experience tell us?


I've found that pocket screws are stronger in harder woods and yes,
longer is better.
All this, however, seems a bit too much like common sense to me. :-)
I don't think I ever needed a test to tell me that a glued joint is
going to be stronger that a pocket hole screw. Sorry, I don't mean to
offend anyone, but that's always seemed like a "duh!" to me.

Here's my verdict and why I use pocket screws. They're strong enough.
I use them for joints and applications in which they are strong enough
or even stronger. You don't always need a mortice & tenon joint, nor a
dovetail, nor a rabbet joint. You don't always need glue. Some times a
pocket screw is good enough. Some times it's better than good enough.
And you know what? Some times it's perfect for the job.

And I certainly didn't need to see a test to tell me two pocket screws
in soft wood are much weaker than a glued M&T joint. :-)



I use pocket hole screws in 5 times more applications other than as
pocket hole screws. It seems that pocket hole screws themselves are
pretty darn good screws.

In another discussion the counter sink drill bits came up. I often use
the Kreg drill bit to drill my countersink and pilot hole and then use
pocket holes in those holes and then plug with conventional round plugs.


Sounds like a great idea, I have both sizes of their pocket hole drill
bits. And the smaller one sound good for certain things, and then you
can make your own plugs in various styles. Good idea!

I have not used the small pocket hole bit yet. What diameter is that?
The standard size is 3/8" so cutting your own plugs is not a problem.

It is 19/64" or 7mm. It is the micro 3 holer for 1" narrow stock or
1/2 " wood. It fits my normal Kreg Jig.


That size will probably be difficult to find round plugs to be filled with.

http://www.rockler.com/kreg-micro-po...ct+listing+ads

Did a quick check, they make them and for flush trim they could be
cut. Depends on how bad one wants them?


Yeah that would be tedious. Like cutting small parts for boxes. l~)

box joint testing
 

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 11:19:33 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/20/15 10:15 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 12/18/2015 1:31 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
I may start a business that does nothing but repair and replace these
crappy drawer fronts that are put together like this. I'm talking
1/2-3/4 million dollar homes using contractor grade cabinets built like
this. It's disgusting... but lucrative.

Shhhhh....


+1

I was talking to a GC around here who actually tries his best to do the
highest quality work he can and cares about his clients and pleasing them.

He said the reason I'm seeing this so much is because the margins for a
builder are often the same or less on a $650k home as they are on the
$190k home. Both homes might be on 1/2-3/4 acre lots but the lot for
the $650k home costs $350k and the house is expected to be 4x the size
of the $190k house, have detailed trim-- chair, picture, 3 and 4 piece
crown throughout-- recessed ceilings in almost every room, and a kitchen
that looks like it's from the cover of a magazine, etc, etc. The man
hours for building the bigger home are much greater, as well.

By the time the builder has done all this, he's set to make the same or
less on the bigger house with the price tag 3.5x higher. He said this
is why you get builders using particleboard cabinets in these giant
homes because by the time you add up the hundred or more cabinets in
these behemoth McMansions they can save $20k just by downgrading the
cabinets.

The stories I could tell about this type of thing. The ultra wealthy
or old money often are penny wise and pound foolish, the newly rich,
whatever they are called are cheap and tight, yet demand what they
think is the very best. I remember one pilot who was having a custom
dockside home built with one of the wildest floor plans you ever saw,
from the 1st floor to the patio on the roof of a 3 story home. Well,
he got into it with the GC about the fire blocks, demanding that they
be one straight line on every wall. The end result? The owner came out
every day after hours and removed every other fire block and toenailed
them all in. Yes, on all floors. It was when I was doing residential
HVAC along with commercial/industrial.

I also have some friends who are worth 100's of millions who have
custom homes built for them, I asked them about the quality they were
expecting, except for things that were of particular interest to them,
they went for fastest, lowest cost all the while knowing they were
really going to have to pay to get real quality later. Not true with
everyone I knew but many.

I learned to figure out what type of a person they were and give them
what they wanted, a cheap whore, or a quality reserved job, if you
know what I mean. But I was honest with them up front.

I learned early on what you said about the real difference between
custom and track homes. A major disappointment in most cases.

box joint testing
 

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:38:56 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
wrote:

OFWW wrote in news:2erb7b5q6826j2itao0ka18gmped2hqkd3@
4ax.com:

Thanks for the info. I still wonder if there was a constant wide set
of break points, on a certain day, with the same batch of wood, that
some conclusion couldn't be made.

Well, that's a different question. You could certainly group
results together, accepting that within some range of measurement
error a group is "the same", and then look for differences
between groups.

As I recall, when Fine Woodworking did their test several years
ago, all the machined mortise & tenon variations were effectively
the same (regular M&T, floating tenon, wedged tenon, etc). All
of them were significantly stronger than dowelmax, beadlock,
dominoes, etc.

I also recall there there was a difference in the failures, with
the M&T always breaking the tenon, and the beadlock, etc,
breaking the mortise. There was discussion at the time as to
the significance of that difference, but I don't recall any
conclusions.

John

John, thanks for the info, I'll keep it all in mind, best I can, and
use the info as I am working, while using the best common sense I can
muster.

box joint testing
 

On 12/18/2015 6:14 PM, whit3rd wrote:
On Friday, December 18, 2015 at 11:10:06 AM UTC-8, OFWW wrote:
On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

On 12/18/15 2:02 AM, OFWW wrote:
Happened to come across this test of Joints, not all types but a
few,...and

http://woodgears.ca/joint_strength/pockethole.html

Well I need to learn all I can, the glue verses screws test lost to
the screws.

No, it won. A proper glue joint is NEVER end-grain to long-grain, so
a right-angle joint, glued, to compare to a right-angle pocket screw joint,
would be mortise/tenon or box joint. Those, because the strain is
spread over large area, allow the glue to hold. A simple butt joint,
or even a shelf poked into a dado, affords only endgrain-to-long-grain
surfaces mating, and we've all disassembled that kind of joint. It comes
apart easily.

My experience is using glue on end-grain is mostly a waste of glue. I
never use glue with pocket screws. On the other hand, a "proper" glued
joint is always stronger than the wood. Edge glue-ups don't need
anything but glue.

I also agree with Mike that it is pretty much common sense that a
mortise and tenon is stronger than a pocket hole joint. I don't own a
domino (wish I did) but my "common sense" says it's just as good as a
standard mortise and tenon, and a whole lot easier and faster to
complete. I also believe that if you use a router to make a mortise,
there is no need to round over the tenon, it is strong enough with no
need to fit length wise. I don't use a router for this so it's just a
thought.

Pocket hole joints are the right joint for many things, particularly
face frames. I myself would not use them for structural joints.

Scott Phillips, the anti-woodworker and Kreg whore uses them for about
everything, and puts like 3 or 4 in an 1 1/2" wide face frame, but also
uses them in frame and panel doors (what an idiot). Scott is to Kreg
what Norm was to nail guns.

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

box joint testing
 

Jack wrote in :

On the other hand, a "proper"
glued joint is always stronger than the wood.

Assuming, of course, that "proper" includes using a suitable
glue. Hot melt and cyanoacrylate being examples of unsuitable
glues. Possibly also hide glue, depending on the type of
joint.

I also believe that if you use a router to make a mortise,
there is no need to round over the tenon, it is strong enough with no
need to fit length wise.

"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.

John

box joint testing
 

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.

What was, best of my recollection was the loose tenon and standard and
some minimal amount of testing for a "loose" vis a vis "snug" tenon in
the mortise to illustrate a "good" and "not so good" quality of fitting
the tenon but I do not recall the squared tenon in the rounded/routed
mortise.

It's obvious from simple mechanics similarly to the obvious conclusion
above a pocket screw that the should requires crushing the material
to move whereas the open area requires "only" moving the glue with at
least initial deformation of much less material for a given amount of
racking displacement.

--

box joint testing
 

John McCoy wrote in
:


Assuming, of course, that "proper" includes using a suitable
glue. Hot melt and cyanoacrylate being examples of unsuitable
glues. Possibly also hide glue, depending on the type of
joint.


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.)

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.