I was just looking at the Wood Works episode on the bookcase he built
where the two sides have a bit of a serpentine curve to them.
In that ep, he joined the shelves as well as the top and bottom with
mortise and loose tenon joinery.
First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
stronger.
Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
So what do you think? There must be a reason for doing one over the
other, what might that be? Normally he's all over a project with some
incredibily complicated method. I'm waiting for him to introduce some
chinese joinery into his stuff.
BTW, this isn't to knock anyone's methods, it's a matter of being
interested in the "why" of it.
In article <[email protected]>, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> wrote:
> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon?
You've heard that if your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks
like a nail.
I guess that if you've got a Multi-Router, every joinery solution looks
like a loose tenon. :-)
Seriously though, I'd have to say that most craftsmen we think of as
"masters" have picked a technique, mastered it, and adapt their designs
to the methods they know best. David Marks is no exception.
Kevin
In article <[email protected]>, Bruce
<[email protected]> wrote:
> In rec.woodworking
> "My Old Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The test was in the April 2001 FWW #148. The joints were not pulled apart.
>
> Thanks for the useless information. How bout telling us what they DID do
> to the joints?
He gave you very useful information: He told you where to find the
test. Now why don't you, instead of bitching about MOT not doing your
homework for you?
Cheers,
Kevin
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:16:35 GMT, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>BTW, this isn't to knock anyone's methods, it's a matter of being
>interested in the "why" of it.
>
To all:
Thanks for all the replies. It is apparent that there is no one
proper technique in this situation, simply a matter of using one that
you like and are comfortable doing. Someone pointed out that the
loose tenons illustrated are similar to using biscuits. I've done
that, the project hasn't falled apart, so strength isn't the issue.
Replies in another forum also pointed out the problem of project size
in some cases and another problem of grain direction in others as
cases of a loose tenon being a better choice than integral.
I assumed David had gotten used to the technique from that multi
router he's got. It's really no problem, it's working for him. He's
adapted it to other projects.
Of course my own liking of sliding dovetails requires it's own special
machine, a Leigh jig. I suppose that relatively speaking not so many
own one of those.
Again thanks for all the informative well thought out replies.
Greg G. wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> P.S. - I found the absence of pocket screw joinery techniques an
> interesting omission in this report, however. I would like to have
> seen a head-to-head test that included this 'new' joinery method -
> although I *really* hate those big holes in the backs of the stiles.
>
> The results of both the dowel and lag screw techniques leads me to the
> conclusion that pocket screws are not all they are cracked up to be...
>
> JMHO,
>
> Greg G.
A couple thoughts on pocket hole:
1) It isn't typically used where the screw threads go into end grain, as
was the case with the lag bolts in this experiment. You'd only do that
if you were joining two boards end to end.
2) Pocket holes are mostly used in joints that don't get a lot of sheer
stress. Face frames for cabinets aren't stressed very much. Cabinet
carcasses themselves have compressive stress on the vertical side
plywood, but this doesn't affect the joinery. In my experience, cabinet
joinery failures only seem possible during construction. Once
everything is in place the joinery isn't stressed. This wouldn't be the
case with a joint on something like a door, but then you wouldn't use
pocket hole screws on a door.
Just IMO...
Matt
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 09:37:55 -0500, Greg G. wrote:
>Lazarus Long said:
>
<SNIP> But apparently, although integral
>tenons are more conventional, loose tenon joinery allows choosing a
>material for the loose tenon that is stronger than the base material
>allowing for greater strength than an integral tenon.
>
>Here is an interesting report you might look over:
>
>http://www.netexperts.cc/~lambertm/Wood/biscuit.pdf
>
>FWIW, Form your own conclusions.
>
>Greg G.
I use loose tenons a great deal for several reasons not least of which
is I find it much faster than classic tenon joinery. I think one
should be very careful about using a different material for the tenons
than is used in the pieces being joined. This can lead to problems of
unequal expansion/contraction characteristics thereby weakening joint
over time.
Lazarus Long said:
>First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
>that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
>stronger.
Marks loves his Multi-Router. <g> But apparently, although integral
tenons are more conventional, loose tenon joinery allows choosing a
material for the loose tenon that is stronger than the base material
allowing for greater strength than an integral tenon.
Here is an interesting report you might look over:
http://www.netexperts.cc/~lambertm/Wood/biscuit.pdf
FWIW, Form your own conclusions.
Greg G.
Greg, G. wrote:
snip
> P.S. - I found the absence of pocket screw joinery techniques an
> interesting omission in this report, however. I would like to have
> seen a head-to-head test that included this 'new' joinery method -
> although I *really* hate those big holes in the backs of the stiles.
>
> The results of both the dowel and lag screw techniques leads me to the
> conclusion that pocket screws are not all they are cracked up to be...
>
> JMHO,
>
> Greg G.
A lag bolt has the threads going into end grain while the pocket
hole screw has the threads in edge grain. The flat bottomed
pocket hole and the flat bottom on the screw spread the force
on the end grain over a much larger surface area than just
the thread edges on the lag bolt.
As for why use pocket hole screws when there are so many other
methods of holding two pieces of wood together - well, they are
far more reversible than most other joining methods. That
can mean a little bit more flexability when you're doing a
piece that evolves as you go - something I seem to do often.
Regarding sliding dovetails - they can do what a mortise and
tenon do PLUS they can pull and hold parts together WITHOUT
glue thus allowing for expansion and contraction.
The big advantage of loose tenons is that if you blow making
the loose tenon you're out some time and a few inches of
wood. Blow a "fixed" tenon and you're out the whole part
and the part is seldom just a few inches long.
Now about his choice of joinery being a function of the tools
and equiptment he has available - "I'll do it this way just
because I can" gives rise to a bigger question. Joinery use
to be a way for a craftsman (generic term intended to denote
humans in general and not just the male version of humans)
to show off his hard earned skills, in addition to being
functional. But with all the semi-no brainer machines,
jigs and special fixtures available, anyone with a deep pocket
and marginal eye/hand coordination can make what had been
difficult joints. Does that fact diminish the importance
and value of the true craftsman?
Michael Fortune discribed this dilema. You can design
a piece and then figure out how best to make it,
OR
you can design things based on production methods available.
He feels that the former results in a far greater range of
design options and perhaps better pieces. What do you think?
charlie b
In rec.woodworking
charlie b <[email protected]> wrote:
> But with all the semi-no brainer machines,
> jigs and special fixtures available, anyone with a deep pocket
> and marginal eye/hand coordination can make what had been
> difficult joints. Does that fact diminish the importance
> and value of the true craftsman?
In some ways it does but I have to tell you, craftsmanship is still
required, even with all the stuff available. A true craftsman will get a
better result than a hack but most people will not know the difference.
I'm talking about fit and finish.
I never cease to be disappointed at the lousy craftsmanship I see
everywhere. My W and I were out at a restaurant last night and the booth
had a plywood back that was coped to fit over some moulding on the wall.
Not only was the coping PATHETIC with gaps exceeding 1/4", but there we
still marks on the wood. It looked like he had used a Sharpie to mark
with.
> Michael Fortune discribed this dilema. You can design
> a piece and then figure out how best to make it,
> OR
> you can design things based on production methods available.
> He feels that the former results in a far greater range of
> design options and perhaps better pieces. What do you think?
I always do #1.
In rec.woodworking
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>Which brings me to what Bruce wrote: People don't know the difference,
>they don't care to know the difference. If it looks pretty it's fine
>with them.
I feel your pain Mark. They don't even know what to look for.
In rec.woodworking
jev <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:55:45 -0600, "My Old Tools"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>FWW published a study of joint strength that came to the opposite
>>conclusion. M&T was the strongest, loose tenon, and double biscuits was
>>last. Many of the biscuits sheared along the grain line.
>
>
>What issue was that - I can't find it in their Index andwould to
>review it.
As would I. I imagine they pulled the joints apart in tension rather than
pressing them apart the way this test did.
In rec.woodworking
"My Old Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>The test was in the April 2001 FWW #148. The joints were not pulled apart.
Thanks for the useless information. How bout telling us what they DID do
to the joints?
>M&T tested to be more than twice as strong as double #20 biscuits. The
>loose tenons were closer.
I'll bet it was in direct shear.
In rec.woodworking
"My Old Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Actually, it was racking like that experienced by a table leg or chair
>joint. You could read the article if you're really interested instead of
>attacking the messenger.
I'm interested but I have no way of reading the article or I would. Only
the table of contents is available online. As for the so-called attack, do
you think you provided useful information in your first post?
Now "racking" is good information.
>--
>Ross
>www.myoldtools.com
>"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In rec.woodworking
>> "My Old Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >The test was in the April 2001 FWW #148. The joints were not pulled
>apart.
>>
>> Thanks for the useless information. How bout telling us what they DID do
>> to the joints?
>>
>> >M&T tested to be more than twice as strong as double #20 biscuits. The
>> >loose tenons were closer.
>>
>> I'll bet it was in direct shear.
>
>
my condolences for the folks you are now related to....
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:02:04 GMT, Mark <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
>Bruce wrote:
>>
>> In some ways it does but I have to tell you, craftsmanship is still
>> required, even with all the stuff available. A true craftsman will get a
>> better result than a hack but most people will not know the difference.
>> I'm talking about fit and finish.
>
>
>About a month ago my future brother in law (wife's side) asked for help
>building a bar. I show up and he's got a frame built for it. He had
>fastened 4x4s to the floor at random distances, twisted 2x4s screwed and
>glued across at the top, more 2x4s edge glued and screwed for overhangs,
>more. I took one look and felt mind screwed and nauseous. Nothing level,
>boards waving at me. I gave him some suggestions (which was all I could
>do) and got out of there. I'm getting a headache thinking about it.
>
>Went to their (lives with sis in law) place for the Christmas Eve party,
>bar looked fine. He took a few of my suggestions.
>
> Apparently Future B in law was talking shit because wife's brother
>starts busting my balls about being too anal and how I like things done
>just so. Is this is a bad thing?
>
>Then wife's brother starts some jag about me building cabinets and asks
>why I didn't just get Kraftmaid? I say because their junk. He goes off
>on another rant how Kraftmaids quality stuff. And on and on ......*
>
>
>Which brings me to what Bruce wrote: People don't know the difference,
>they don't care to know the difference. If it looks pretty it's fine
>with them.
>
>
>* This would explain my being an asshole the days around Christmas. A
>night with these people and I'm ready for homicide.
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 14:16:35 GMT, Lazarus Long
<[email protected]> wrote:
>First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon?
You make it by cutting two mortices, not a mortice and tenon. If your
workshop is tooled up to cut mortices (maybe a router and jig) then
this is easier.
The tenon may be stronger timber.
M&T joints are weakest (if well designed) across the neck of the
tenon. A long-grain joint along the sides of a loose tenon should be
far stronger.
You can use the "beadlock" system with loose tenons, where the
mortices are routed and left with their rounded corners. The matching
loose tenons are commercial items, which is a clever marketing idea.
>Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
Long sliding dovetails are hard to make accurately, and they really do
need a router. This might be a consideration for a wide-audience TV
show.
>I'm waiting for him to introduce some
>chinese joinery into his stuff.
I can't see Chinese joinery making good TV. It's complex to do, but
it's hard to understand by looking at it (so much is hidden when
assembled) and most of the skill to it is doing a simple task very,
very well, rather than some exciting new gadget that you can easily
demonstrate.
Always remember that the function of woodworking TV is to make TV, not
to make furniture.
--
Congrats to STBL on his elevation from TLA to ETLA
"Lazarus Long" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was just looking at the Wood Works episode on the bookcase he built
> where the two sides have a bit of a serpentine curve to them.
>
> In that ep, he joined the shelves as well as the top and bottom with
> mortise and loose tenon joinery.
>
> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
> that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
> stronger.
Whether loose or integral, holding the static weight of books is not too
great a challenge for either of these joints. Loose tenons are easier. You
cut the stock to exactly the size of the shelf width. You don't have to
worry about uneven shoulders because you only cut mortices.
>
> Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
A valid choice. I can cut mortices without power tools, but I don't have a
convenient way to cut a sliding dovetail. I think I've seen a specialty
hand plane for that, but it seems like a lot of work for little added
benefit. The shelves I recently built for SWMBO, I used a blind dados.
They don't appear to be falling apart.
>
> So what do you think? There must be a reason for doing one over the
> other, what might that be?
Marks really like loose tenons. Guess that's reason enough. The purpose of
joinery is to bind two boards together in a manner strong enough for the
intended use. In this regard, he succeeds admirably.
Of course, in my opinion, those bookshelves are ugly. They look top heavy.
I like a lot of his stuff, but my other gripe about his projects is often
the colors just don't work for me. The colors often clash. Contrast is
fine, but if the tones clash, the result is ugly. I recently finished some
laminated bread knives, made as Christmas presents. In one combination, I
used Padauk and Red Oak. The red tones of the Red Oak made it a good
contrast to the red Padauk. I I had instead used White Oak, I believe the
brown tones in the White Oak would have clashed with the Padauk.
Cheers,
Eric
<Greg G.> wrote in message
> The results of both the dowel and lag screw techniques leads me to the
> conclusion that pocket screws are not all they are cracked up to be...
Like any other flavor of joinery, it depends upon the application. When it
comes to face frames for cabinets, few other joinery methods rival pocket
hole joinery for speed, appropriate strength for the job, ease of assembly
without clamping and waiting for glue to dry, ability for self squaring with
properly cut parts, and immediate use of the assembly.
--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/29/03
"Brian" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've often wondered about Marks' choices of joinery too. I think what it
> comes down to is there is no "right" method and on his show he is
> demonstrating a variety of methods. It always irritates me when he uses
> that multi router, because, well, I wish I had one. :-)
>
<snip>
Then again, in this particular show, he did not use the multi-router.
Instead, he did all the mortice and loose tenon work with a plunge router,
something we can get at reasonable cost.
Cheers,
Eric
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 17:36:33 +0000, Andy Dingley
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>But what is a biscuit joint ? Multiple skinny tenons, or an
>edge-glued joint with alignment guides ?
yes ; ^ )
>
>--
>Congrats to STBL on his elevation from TLA to ETLA
OK, care to explain that?
In article <[email protected]>,
Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
> that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
> stronger.
It is a valid technique that I suspect he wanted to demonstrate on the
program(you can't do every project in the same way or you will bore your
audience) and it is easier than a regular mortise and tenon joint.
And then there is that old thing of doing something just because you
want to.
--
Doug Stowe Author of: Taunton's Complete Illustrated Guide to Box Making
Contributing Editor, Woodwork, A Magazine for All Woodworkers
website ---- http://www.dougstowe.com
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 07:29:19 -0800, "Brian" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>As far as mortise and loose tenons, I like to think about them as "super"
>biscuits. And biscuit joinery itself, based on breakage testing, is
>incredibly strong.
But what is a biscuit joint ? Multiple skinny tenons, or an
edge-glued joint with alignment guides ?
--
Congrats to STBL on his elevation from TLA to ETLA
Greg G. said:
>Lazarus Long said:
>
>>First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
>>that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
>>stronger.
>
>Marks loves his Multi-Router. <g> But apparently, although integral
>tenons are more conventional, loose tenon joinery allows choosing a
>material for the loose tenon that is stronger than the base material
>allowing for greater strength than an integral tenon.
>
>Here is an interesting report you might look over:
>
>http://www.netexperts.cc/~lambertm/Wood/biscuit.pdf
>
>FWIW, Form your own conclusions.
P.S. - I found the absence of pocket screw joinery techniques an
interesting omission in this report, however. I would like to have
seen a head-to-head test that included this 'new' joinery method -
although I *really* hate those big holes in the backs of the stiles.
The results of both the dowel and lag screw techniques leads me to the
conclusion that pocket screws are not all they are cracked up to be...
JMHO,
Greg G.
On 2 Jan 2004 16:40:37 -0600, jev <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
>On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:27:46 GMT, Larry Jaques
><novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>>
>>If you have a mortising machine, you need never make tenons again
>>unless you want through tenons.
>>
><SNIP>
>
>Why can't you have thru tenons? Seems to me you can just glue the
>loose tenon in one piece and then just treat it as a regular tenon for
I suppose that's possible, too. Point taken.
========================================================
Was that an African + http://www.diversify.com
or European Swallow? + Gourmet Web Applications
========================================================
One reason for a loose tenon, especially in projects in projects with lots
of them, is the tenon's can be made of less expensive secondary wood.
e G.
[email protected]
Heirloom Woods
www.heirloom-woods.net
"Lazarus Long" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was just looking at the Wood Works episode on the bookcase he built
> where the two sides have a bit of a serpentine curve to them.
>
> In that ep, he joined the shelves as well as the top and bottom with
> mortise and loose tenon joinery.
>
> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
> that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
> stronger.
>
> Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
>
> So what do you think? There must be a reason for doing one over the
> other, what might that be? Normally he's all over a project with some
> incredibily complicated method. I'm waiting for him to introduce some
> chinese joinery into his stuff.
>
> BTW, this isn't to knock anyone's methods, it's a matter of being
> interested in the "why" of it.
>
>
On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:55:45 -0600, "My Old Tools"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>FWW published a study of joint strength that came to the opposite
>conclusion. M&T was the strongest, loose tenon, and double biscuits was
>last. Many of the biscuits sheared along the grain line.
What issue was that - I can't find it in their Index andwould to
review it.
Larry Jaques <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> said:
>Well, it snowed here last night. The sat modem stopped working with
>a measly 2.5" of fluff on top. A careful trip to the roof proved both
>fruitful and COLD! When I came in and looked for something to warm me
You should get a dish heater.
>up, I found this: http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/SI01g/index.html
>Now I'm warm and in lust. Josie's almost as gorgeous as Heidi.
Or tape one of those photos to the dish. Any one of them should do.
Oh, S&#$, SWMBO walked in while I was looking at that site...
There will be hell to pay now... Gee, thanks, Larry... <g>
Greg G.
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 08:40:51 -0600, Doug Stowe <[email protected]>
brought forth from the murky depths:
>In article <[email protected]>,
> Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
>> that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
>> stronger.
It's not. Strength in the testing was identical.
>It is a valid technique that I suspect he wanted to demonstrate on the
>program(you can't do every project in the same way or you will bore your
>audience) and it is easier than a regular mortise and tenon joint.
If you have a mortising machine, you need never make tenons again
unless you want through tenons.
>And then there is that old thing of doing something just because you
>want to.
Yeah, there's that, too.
Well, it snowed here last night. The sat modem stopped working with
a measly 2.5" of fluff on top. A careful trip to the roof proved both
fruitful and COLD! When I came in and looked for something to warm me
up, I found this: http://www.angelfire.com/ar2/SI01g/index.html
Now I'm warm and in lust. Josie's almost as gorgeous as Heidi.
---
After they make styrofoam, what do they ship it in? --Steven Wright
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:27:46 GMT, Larry Jaques
<novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
>If you have a mortising machine, you need never make tenons again
>unless you want through tenons.
>
<SNIP>
Why can't you have thru tenons? Seems to me you can just glue the
loose tenon in one piece and then just treat it as a regular tenon for
purposes of thru tenoning. You'll have to be careful to cut the
through mortise from the exposed side towards the joint side in case
of some tearout.
Someone posted an article the other day regarding the degree of pressure
needed to break different joints. The results were surprising to me in that
two and three biscuit joints were very strong and didn't even break at the
joint itself. It also surprised me that the loose tennon actually
outperformed the traditional M&T. However, both of those ranked very high -
I don't remember reading about sliding dovetails.
Don
Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was just looking at the Wood Works episode on the bookcase he built
> where the two sides have a bit of a serpentine curve to them.
>
> In that ep, he joined the shelves as well as the top and bottom with
> mortise and loose tenon joinery.
>
> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
> that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
> stronger.
>
> Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
>
> So what do you think? There must be a reason for doing one over the
> other, what might that be? Normally he's all over a project with some
> incredibily complicated method. I'm waiting for him to introduce some
> chinese joinery into his stuff.
>
> BTW, this isn't to knock anyone's methods, it's a matter of being
> interested in the "why" of it.
>
>
I've often wondered about Marks' choices of joinery too. I think what it
comes down to is there is no "right" method and on his show he is
demonstrating a variety of methods. It always irritates me when he uses
that multi router, because, well, I wish I had one. :-)
As far as mortise and loose tenons, I like to think about them as "super"
biscuits. And biscuit joinery itself, based on breakage testing, is
incredibly strong.
I watched that bookcase episode too, and I agree that blind sliding
dovetails would have worked also, but probably no better than his mortise
and loose tenoning.
Brian.
"Lazarus Long" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I was just looking at the Wood Works episode on the bookcase he built
> where the two sides have a bit of a serpentine curve to them.
>
> In that ep, he joined the shelves as well as the top and bottom with
> mortise and loose tenon joinery.
>
> First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
> that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
> stronger.
>
> Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
>
> So what do you think? There must be a reason for doing one over the
> other, what might that be? Normally he's all over a project with some
> incredibily complicated method. I'm waiting for him to introduce some
> chinese joinery into his stuff.
>
> BTW, this isn't to knock anyone's methods, it's a matter of being
> interested in the "why" of it.
>
>
> P.S. - I found the absence of pocket screw joinery techniques an
> interesting omission in this report, however. I would like to have
> seen a head-to-head test that included this 'new' joinery method -
> although I *really* hate those big holes in the backs of the stiles.
>
> The results of both the dowel and lag screw techniques leads me to the
> conclusion that pocket screws are not all they are cracked up to be...
>
> JMHO,
>
> Greg G.
Yeah, where ultimate strength is desired, pocket holes are the wrong choice
indeed. They do, however, have their uses.
Brian.
FWW published a study of joint strength that came to the opposite
conclusion. M&T was the strongest, loose tenon, and double biscuits was
last. Many of the biscuits sheared along the grain line.
--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
"V.E. Dorn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Someone posted an article the other day regarding the degree of pressure
> needed to break different joints. The results were surprising to me in
that
> two and three biscuit joints were very strong and didn't even break at the
> joint itself. It also surprised me that the loose tennon actually
> outperformed the traditional M&T. However, both of those ranked very
high -
> I don't remember reading about sliding dovetails.
>
> Don
>
> Lazarus Long <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > I was just looking at the Wood Works episode on the bookcase he built
> > where the two sides have a bit of a serpentine curve to them.
> >
> > In that ep, he joined the shelves as well as the top and bottom with
> > mortise and loose tenon joinery.
> >
> > First, if you're going to use M&T, why use a loose tenon? It seems
> > that making and integral tenon in the appropriate place would be
> > stronger.
> >
> > Second, my own choice would be sliding dovetails. Blind of course.
> >
> > So what do you think? There must be a reason for doing one over the
> > other, what might that be? Normally he's all over a project with some
> > incredibily complicated method. I'm waiting for him to introduce some
> > chinese joinery into his stuff.
> >
> > BTW, this isn't to knock anyone's methods, it's a matter of being
> > interested in the "why" of it.
> >
> >
>
>
The test was in the April 2001 FWW #148. The joints were not pulled apart.
M&T tested to be more than twice as strong as double #20 biscuits. The
loose tenons were closer. It does not attempt to say whether a joint is
'strong enough' for a particular application.
--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> jev <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 3 Jan 2004 12:55:45 -0600, "My Old Tools"
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >>FWW published a study of joint strength that came to the opposite
> >>conclusion. M&T was the strongest, loose tenon, and double biscuits was
> >>last. Many of the biscuits sheared along the grain line.
> >
> >
> >What issue was that - I can't find it in their Index andwould to
> >review it.
>
> As would I. I imagine they pulled the joints apart in tension rather than
> pressing them apart the way this test did.
Actually, it was racking like that experienced by a table leg or chair
joint. You could read the article if you're really interested instead of
attacking the messenger.
--
Ross
www.myoldtools.com
"Bruce" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In rec.woodworking
> "My Old Tools" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The test was in the April 2001 FWW #148. The joints were not pulled
apart.
>
> Thanks for the useless information. How bout telling us what they DID do
> to the joints?
>
> >M&T tested to be more than twice as strong as double #20 biscuits. The
> >loose tenons were closer.
>
> I'll bet it was in direct shear.
Bruce wrote:
>
> In some ways it does but I have to tell you, craftsmanship is still
> required, even with all the stuff available. A true craftsman will get a
> better result than a hack but most people will not know the difference.
> I'm talking about fit and finish.
About a month ago my future brother in law (wife's side) asked for help
building a bar. I show up and he's got a frame built for it. He had
fastened 4x4s to the floor at random distances, twisted 2x4s screwed and
glued across at the top, more 2x4s edge glued and screwed for overhangs,
more. I took one look and felt mind screwed and nauseous. Nothing level,
boards waving at me. I gave him some suggestions (which was all I could
do) and got out of there. I'm getting a headache thinking about it.
Went to their (lives with sis in law) place for the Christmas Eve party,
bar looked fine. He took a few of my suggestions.
Apparently Future B in law was talking shit because wife's brother
starts busting my balls about being too anal and how I like things done
just so. Is this is a bad thing?
Then wife's brother starts some jag about me building cabinets and asks
why I didn't just get Kraftmaid? I say because their junk. He goes off
on another rant how Kraftmaids quality stuff. And on and on ......*
Which brings me to what Bruce wrote: People don't know the difference,
they don't care to know the difference. If it looks pretty it's fine
with them.
* This would explain my being an asshole the days around Christmas. A
night with these people and I'm ready for homicide.
--
Mark
N.E. Ohio
Never argue with a fool, a bystander can't tell you apart. (S. Clemens,
A.K.A. Mark Twain)
When in doubt hit the throttle. It may not help but it sure ends the
suspense. (Gaz, r.moto)