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- <[email protected]>
> 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.

On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 11:07:56 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:

>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- <[email protected]>
>>> 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.
>
IMHO I would prefer dowels at least. Why? Because they held the face
frame much better than screws, and without them I think the cabinets
in my kitchen might have separated years ago. The face frame was what
held my cabinets together so long. (40 years) I could be wrong but I
physically tore apart screwed face frames much easier than the dowel
jointed pieces. They might be ok on floor cabinets that have something
solid to sit on. (I am still in learning mode. :) )



>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.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 15:38:56 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OFWW <[email protected]> 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.

OFWW <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:
>>
>>> As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
>>> both? Glue only, or Glue and ?
>>
>> NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
>> _top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
>> cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
>> list for the cabinets.
>>
>> Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
>> to accept the front edge of the end panels.
>>
>> Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
>> the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
>> "floors" (both a top and bottom).
>>
>> (dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
>> cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
>> has a single bottom/floor).
>>
>> All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
>> dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.
>>
>> Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
>> construction, as above.
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods?noredirect=1#6231522955022575538
>
> Thank you for the full explanation as well as the picture to re
> enforce what you said.
>
> Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?
>

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

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

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

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 17:39:16 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/22/2015 3:17 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 1:42 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>
>>>>> "Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I think
>>>>> a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions is
>>>>> stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a few
>>>>> years back confirmed that), but it's probably stronger
>>>>> than it needs to be for most applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
>>>>> small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
>>>>> benefit from a fully-formed tenon.
>>>>
>>>> I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this particular point
>>>> was in the test matrix.
>>>
>>> Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
>>> two or three tests of that nature - according to the
>>> handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
>>> issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
>>> of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
>>> to be found).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
>>> the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
>>> postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
>>> that a short tenon would be more prone to break.
>>
>> Well, that turns out to be the same exercise here; found all around
>> that but didn't find the particular issue.
>>
>> All I'm saying is that to best of my recollection there wasn't a test of
>> the difference between the fully-filled and the rounded mortise/squared
>> tenon in that comparison. My follow-on opinion based on just the
>> mechanical properties of the joint geometry is that the unfilled joint
>> will be somewhat weaker in comparison to one of the same size tenon in
>> racking since there's not the full shoulder to bear upon if that test
>> were to be done.
>>
>> As for the failure mode specific in the test done, I don't recall; I
>> think cannot, however, draw too broad of conclusions regarding the
>> failure mechanism for a joint class generally from the specific tests
>> run therein; those results are specific to the specific joints and the
>> specific geometry used. They're representative of those in that general
>> size but the results could well be different, particularly on the "how"
>> of the failure as the proportions and dimensions are modified away from
>> those in the test sample.
>
>I always think there is the book guys doing tests, and real life.
>Sometimes (often) the so called book guys get lost in the numbers, and
>the fact they want to say something important. Often they are correct
>but meaningless in the scheme of things, and too often, they just lie.
>
>Anyway, I've been doing cabinet work for a whole lot of years, and never
>once had a mortise and tenon joint fail, and believe me, not all of mine
>have been perfect by any stretch. About 5 years ago I made a
>"prototype" spectators chair out of about $3 worth of cheap construction
>cut offs I got at Home Depot. I designed it and redesigned it several
>times to get the size I wanted (had to fit at least my 280 lb body.)
>When I finished, it was exactly what I wanted, but was too big to fit in
>my Billiard room. I didn't want to throw it away, but because it was not
>made of hard wood, and the (internal) joinery was less than stellar, I
>thought a bit before giving to our local Moose, where pool is played on
>a regular basis, 3 nights a week traveling leagues, and patrons are
>often both large and tipsy. Quality chairs tend to not last long in
>these places.
>
>This thing has been in continuous use there since 2010 with no signs of
>failing. Used either Borden's yellow cabinet glue or Titebond III,
>don't recall. I know chairs put the big test on joinery, more than
>anything, and in a bar, the supreme test. Here's the chair:
>
>http://jbstein.com/Flick/PoolChair1030948.jpg
>http://jbstein.com/Flick/PoolChair1030955.jpg
>
>If this thing held up, I wouldn't worry much about Domino's or square
>tenons in an oval hole. Glue is pretty amazing stuff.

Love the notches for a cue stick, now it has been years since I played
pool, but I don't ever remember seeing that before.

Should have carved in a name on the back of that chair. :)

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:10:18 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OFWW <[email protected]> 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.

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.

On 12/26/2015 12:28 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>
>> On 12/26/2015 11:38 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2015 12:41 PM, dpb wrote:
>>>> US FPL (Forest Products Lab) has performed extensive tests on the
>>>> question and concluded "no"; in fact, the test data shows that the
>>>> higher the clamping pressure, the stronger the joint up to the point of
>>>> physically crushing the material.
>>>
>>> In the early days of the web that was a great resource, now, with the
>>> psuedo wisdom of twenty something web designers, and left half bell
>>> curve government employees, that information from UPL is getting more
>>> difficult to locate lately.
>>
>> That does seem true, unfortunately.
>>
>> I've downloaded the Handbook and a few other goldies but didn't want to
>> take the time to dig at the moment...
>
> The Web gets less and less useful as it gets more and more cluttered. I
> really wish Google would quit trying to be Microsoft and GM rolled into
> one and stick to developing their core competency.

Soon as the ComCasts, Verizons, AT&T's, et al got into providing
Internet access and locked it down, and regulatory capture once again
rules another public venue, the web has turned into a money grab,
nothing more than a pallet for blithering millennial idiots to somehow
"monetize" another one of their stupid ideas.

Screen real estate on your computer, once belonging to you, is now
theirs, and by damned they're going to use it, and screw you. Even worse
if you have a mobile device/tablet.

The asinine stuff is mostly free though, and the hive mind loves it ...
even though their data and privacy IS the product.
"Get off my lawn you blasted kids ... LOL

--
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)

John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> 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.

On 12/19/2015 6:04 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 08:34:15 -0600, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> OFWW <[email protected]> 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-pocket-plugs?utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=(roi)+product+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~)

On 12/18/2015 10:48 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> 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!

On 12/23/2015 2:43 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Well, as I recall the article (and as I posted above), the
>> two joints broke in different ways. The M&T, all varieties
>> including floating, sheared the tenon. The domino (and
>> dowelmax, etc) all broke the mortised board.
>
> Following up to myself, I found the article on line:
>
> http://paul-flores.com/downloads/Joinery_Failure.pdf
>
> replete with pictures of the failed joints.
>
> I was mistaken in thinking they didn't speculate on the
> different failures - it seems they attribute it to the
> domino, etc, being shorter than a typical tenon. Which
> I guess would depend on exactly what you were trying to
> join, but in their test pieces was the case.
>
> John
>


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

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 12:56:01 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/22/2015 10:08 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 12:48 AM, OFWW wrote:
>>> IMHO I would prefer dowels at least. Why? Because they held the face
>>> frame much better than screws, and without them I think the cabinets
>>> in my kitchen might have separated years ago.
>>> The face frame was what
>>> held my cabinets together so long. (40 years) ...
>
>> You are understandably mistaken in using that one experience in
>> formulating your above opinion with regard to kitchen cabinetry. ;)
>>
>> When taking into account the precise amount of strength required for a
>> lasting job, and the cost effectiveness of the joinery with regard to
>> time and materials, pocket hole joinery is more than sufficient for
>> traditional face frame fabrication, for both wall and base cabinets of
>> any size and location.
>>
>> AAMOF, and providing the faceframes are attached to the casework
>> properly (dadoes, grooves, biscuits, splines, screws, nails, and/or a
>> combination thereof), there is no practical benefit whatsoever in using
>> another method for fabricating faceframes with regard to joint strength.
>
>I think it would be highly unusual for a cabinet to be held together by
>the face frame. If, like OFWW mentioned, the cabinet was held together
>with a ff, then it would be structural and possibly pocket holes would
>not suffice, and then I would use mortise and tenon joints (I wouldn't
>make that sort of cabinet to begin with). I have made face frames that
>were held on with dado's and nails, pocket holes only, and just nails
>and all have held up over the years.
>

In my case, they used particle board for the shelving, nailed to the
face frame, the shelves started sagging, one pulled away from a
shallow dado just barely hanging on to a nail. One of the reasons I
attributed the wall cabinets still up on the wall was to dowels and
good hardwood FF.

I am in a learning mode, so I am taking stock of everything I can.
Like finding out that nails, and I presume steel screws all oxidize in
the wood, causing the wood to rot next to the nails, and I presume to
some extent steel screws. So when I buy screws I look for brass and
brass plated screws. On temp stuff, I'll use anything.

>After many face frames made with mortise and tenon joints, I must say
>the pocket hole method is way faster, way easier and is how I make all
>my face frames today. I rarely use dowels for anything other than a cap
>for a screw. I found dowels problematic years ago. I think you need to
>make your own to get consistent sizes, and lining them up is a task in
>itself. Admittedly I have rarely to never used dowels since my early
>days of woodworking, so my dowel techniques were never developed much,
>but I never missed not using them:-)
>
>Here is a pantry door I made a few years ago out of solid oak. The face
>fame is pocket holes, and it is simply nailed to the 3/4" pine pantry
>wall with finish nails. Just the nails, no glue, no rabbits, splines or
>anything fancy.
>
>The door is pretty big and heavy with solid oak panels. Much larger than
>most cabinet doors. I had two quality hinges left over from another
>project, so I used just two, would have used 3 if I had them and was a
>bit worried they would hold the door, but after several years, all is
>well. Over all, a bit under built in my mind. In my younger days I
>tended to overbuild everything, but today I enjoy pushing the limits a
>bit. Here's some pics of the door:
>
>http://jbstein.com/Flick/Door_2895.JPG
>http://jbstein.com/Flick/Door2897.JPG

Great looking door, on both sides.

BTW, the nail issue came up to me because of the fence issues,
especially with Gates I could see the holes were oversized and so the
nails would walk out when the wind blew, but I am not about to do my
next fence with brass.

OFWW <[email protected]> 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.

On 12/22/2015 11:56 AM, Jack wrote:

> I think it would be highly unusual for a cabinet to be held together by
> the face frame.

Depends upon whether the cabinet is "Shop built", or "Built-in".

The traditional face frame "shop built" cabinet has basically two
components, the casework and the face frame:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/KitchenInStrawBaleHome2009?noredirect=1#5405794351109817250

With traditional face frame "built-in" cabinets, it is not unusual for
the face frame to being instrumental in holding everything together, thusly:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShop327KitchenRefresh2013?noredirect=1#6074931973685235698

IME, the great majority of kitchens in this country are of the latter type.

--
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)

On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:
> Can't wait to see what Leon thinks of this list, particularly the domino
> joint being near the bottom of the list. Hogwash I say:-) Who made
> this list, Scott Phillips?

It's on the Internet, it's got to be true, eh?

AAMOF, Leon already made his feeling known with "Bonjour".
(think: French Model)

--
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)

On 12/23/2015 11:49 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/23/15 2:14 PM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/23/2015 11:28 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 12/23/15 8:36 AM, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 12/22/2015 1:48 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
>>>>>>> it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
>>>>>>> Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
>>>>>>> (Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
>>>>>> well in shear.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what I was thinking of - don't woodturners commonly
>>>>> use CA glue to attach scraps of wood so they can hold their
>>>>> work on the lathe, expecting to just rap the scrap with a
>>>>> hammer to remove it when done? Because the CA glue is
>>>>> brittle and just breaks off when the scrap is hit.
>>>>>
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> More for pen assembly and also used as a finish on lathe projects like
>>>> pens.
>>>
>>> I use it for trim corners, crown, etc.
>>> I also use hot glue but CA is a bit cleaner and sandable.
>>>
>>>
>> Absolutely as do I. I was commenting more with the use with a lathe.
>
> And I was just commenting. You know me. ;-p
>
>
Yeah and so was I. LOL Good on you!

On 12/24/2015 12:41 PM, dpb wrote:
> US FPL (Forest Products Lab) has performed extensive tests on the
> question and concluded "no"; in fact, the test data shows that the
> higher the clamping pressure, the stronger the joint up to the point of
> physically crushing the material.

In the early days of the web that was a great resource, now, with the
psuedo wisdom of twenty something web designers, and left half bell
curve government employees, that information from UPL is getting more
difficult to locate lately.

--
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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods?noredirect=1#6231522955022575538

--
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)

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 15:10:18 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >OFWW <[email protected]> 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.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>
> On 12/26/2015 11:38 AM, Swingman wrote:
> > On 12/24/2015 12:41 PM, dpb wrote:
> >> US FPL (Forest Products Lab) has performed extensive tests on the
> >> question and concluded "no"; in fact, the test data shows that the
> >> higher the clamping pressure, the stronger the joint up to the point of
> >> physically crushing the material.
> >
> > In the early days of the web that was a great resource, now, with the
> > psuedo wisdom of twenty something web designers, and left half bell
> > curve government employees, that information from UPL is getting more
> > difficult to locate lately.
>
> That does seem true, unfortunately.
>
> I've downloaded the Handbook and a few other goldies but didn't want to
> take the time to dig at the moment...

The Web gets less and less useful as it gets more and more cluttered. I
really wish Google would quit trying to be Microsoft and GM rolled into
one and stick to developing their core competency.

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.

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.

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.

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
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> 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.

On 12/22/2015 12:48 AM, OFWW wrote:
> IMHO I would prefer dowels at least. Why? Because they held the face
> frame much better than screws, and without them I think the cabinets
> in my kitchen might have separated years ago.
> The face frame was what
> held my cabinets together so long. (40 years) I could be wrong but I
> physically tore apart screwed face frames much easier than the dowel
> jointed pieces. They might be ok on floor cabinets that have something
> solid to sit on.

You are understandably mistaken in using that one experience in
formulating your above opinion with regard to kitchen cabinetry. ;)

When taking into account the precise amount of strength required for a
lasting job, and the cost effectiveness of the joinery with regard to
time and materials, pocket hole joinery is more than sufficient for
traditional face frame fabrication, for both wall and base cabinets of
any size and location.

AAMOF, and providing the faceframes are attached to the casework
properly (dadoes, grooves, biscuits, splines, screws, nails, and/or a
combination thereof), there is no practical benefit whatsoever in using
another method for fabricating faceframes with regard to joint strength.

--
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)

On 12/22/2015 10:59 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> You know what I would prefer? A cabinet box and face frame which are
> independent of one another as far as structural strength goes.

With few minor exceptions (location of the dadoes/grooves in the end
panels) during construction, I bascially build the casework for either
traditional face frame cabinets, or frameless/Euro cabinets, the same way.

You can apply a face frame to the casework (box) or not.

--
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)

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> 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

OFWW <[email protected]> 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

OFWW <[email protected]> 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

Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> 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

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> ...
>
>> "Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I think
>> a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions is
>> stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a few
>> years back confirmed that), but it's probably stronger
>> than it needs to be for most applications.
>>
>> Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
>> small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
>> benefit from a fully-formed tenon.
>
> I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this particular point
> was in the test matrix.

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

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

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
> ...
>
>> Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
>> it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
>> Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
>> (Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)
>
> Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
> well in shear.

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

John

John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...
>>
>>> "Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I think
>>> a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions is
>>> stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a few
>>> years back confirmed that), but it's probably stronger
>>> than it needs to be for most applications.
>>>
>>> Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
>>> small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
>>> benefit from a fully-formed tenon.
>>
>> I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
>> particular point was in the test matrix.
>
> Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
> two or three tests of that nature - according to the
> handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
> issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
> of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
> to be found).
>
> Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
> the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
> postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
> that a short tenon would be more prone to break.
>
> John

From the FWW Issue 203...

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

There ya go...

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:mtadnWfoM-
[email protected]:

> On 12/22/2015 5:45 PM, Larry wrote:

>> From the FWW Issue 203...
>>
>> The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
>> results in pounds.
>> Half lap 1603
>> Bridle 1560
>> Splined miter 1498
>> 3/8 M&T 1444
>> 3/8 floating M&T 1396
>> Miter 1374
>> 3/8 wedged M&T 1210
>> 3/8 pinned M&T 1162
>> 5/16 M&T 988
>> Beadlock 836
>> Dowelmax 759
>> 1/4 M&T 717
>> Pocket screw 698
>> Domino 597
>> Biscuit 545
>> Butt 473
>> Cope & stick 313
>> Stub tenon 200
>>
>> There ya go...
>>
>
>
> If I am reading this correctly a Butt joint was shown to be stronger
> than a stub tenon and cope and stick...

Well, cope & stick and butt joint are both long grain to
end grain (since they were doing right angle joints). I'm
going to guess (since I still haven't found that issue)
that their butt joint had a lot more glue area than their
cope & stick joint.

No idea why the stub tenon did so poorly.

To Jack's point, I'm going to guess that all our experiences
say any joint over 750lbs-force or thereabouts is ample for
most any use we're going to put it to.

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> All I'm saying is that to best of my recollection there wasn't a test of
> the difference between the fully-filled and the rounded mortise/squared
> tenon in that comparison.

You're probably right. I have it in my mind that that was
tested, but it was probably somewhere else and I'm conflating
two different articles.

> My follow-on opinion based on just the
> mechanical properties of the joint geometry is that the unfilled joint
> will be somewhat weaker in comparison to one of the same size tenon in
> racking since there's not the full shoulder to bear upon if that test
> were to be done.

This is exactly what I was thinking.

John

OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

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

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

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

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

John

Jack <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 12/22/2015 6:45 PM, Larry wrote:
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...
>>>>
>>>>> "Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I
>>>>> think a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions
>>>>> is stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a
>>>>> few years back confirmed that), but it's probably
>>>>> stronger than it needs to be for most applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
>>>>> small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
>>>>> benefit from a fully-formed tenon.
>>>>
>>>> I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
>>>> particular point was in the test matrix.
>>>
>>> Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
>>> two or three tests of that nature - according to the
>>> handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
>>> issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
>>> of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
>>> to be found).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
>>> the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
>>> postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
>>> that a short tenon would be more prone to break.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> From the FWW Issue 203...
>>
>> The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
>> results in pounds.
>> Half lap 1603
>> Bridle 1560
>> Splined miter 1498
>> 3/8 M&T 1444
>> 3/8 floating M&T 1396
>> Miter 1374
>> 3/8 wedged M&T 1210
>> 3/8 pinned M&T 1162
>> 5/16 M&T 988
>> Beadlock 836
>> Dowelmax 759
>> 1/4 M&T 717
>> Pocket screw 698
>> Domino 597
>> Biscuit 545
>> Butt 473
>> Cope & stick 313
>> Stub tenon 200
>>
>> There ya go...
>
> That's interesting stuff, but, I have some serious
> questions on some of it, most of it the more I look at it.
> For example, a floating M&T is way, way stonger than a
> Domino? I thought a domino WAS a floating M&T??? A
> splined miter is really strong, I don't think so. A butt
> joint is not even really a joint, imo. A butt joint needs
> dowels, pocket screws or something to make it a joint.
> Gluing two pieces of wood together with end grain doesn't
> work, so what on earth were they talking about? A 3/8 M&T
> is a stub tenon, and pretty much a cope and stick, for the
> most part, so again, it's not clear to me what they are
> doing. A miter joint is stronger than a domino? Really? A
> miter joint is the weakest joint I know of, other than a
> butt joint.
>
> Can't wait to see what Leon thinks of this list,
> particularly the domino joint being near the bottom of the
> list. Hogwash I say:-) Who made this list, Scott
> Phillips?
>

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

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

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

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

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

>> For example, a floating M&T is
>> way, way stonger than a Domino?
>
>> I thought a domino WAS a floating
>> M&T???
>
> My thoughts exactly Jack, a Domino is a floating M&T.
>
> In fact a Domino or floating tenon may ever be better than a plain
> M&T.
> Often the end of a board that you are going to form into a tenon
> might
> not be suitable if it has a knot or strange grain.

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

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

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

John

John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

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

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

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

replete with pictures of the failed joints.

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

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:


> It's a case of comparing things that for the most part, shouldn't be
> compared in the overall rankings; only the minor differences between the
> similarly-sized and purposed joints should actually be compared against
> each other within a set of classes, perhaps.

Well, the counterpart to what you just said is that you should
consider the size of the joint when picking your joinery method.
If a joinery method is constrained by the size of pre-fab units,
it might not be suitable.

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

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 12/24/2015 9:52 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> dpb<[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>>> It's a case of comparing things that for the most part, shouldn't be
>>> compared in the overall rankings; only the minor differences between
>>> the similarly-sized and purposed joints should actually be compared
>>> against each other within a set of classes, perhaps.
>>
>> Well, the counterpart to what you just said is that you should
>> consider the size of the joint when picking your joinery method.
>> If a joinery method is constrained by the size of pre-fab units,
>> it might not be suitable.
>
> I said _nothing_ whatever about actual application to any specific
> project;

I never said you did, where do you get that from?

> only discussing the limitation in attempting to drawing any
> generic conclusions from the test results as performed/presented.

Well, the conclusion we can draw (at least, that I draw;
you are of course free to not draw any conclusion from the
information available) is that different size joints may
require or benefit from different types of joinery.

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

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

John

OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in news:e05o7bp30m2prle5dom3tr1onlcfn3oj5e@
4ax.com:

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

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

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

John

dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:


> I think that's a foregone conclusion for the specific project and
> joint within the project, yes. But I don't see that there's anything
> in the article as presented that really addresses the application
> issue in those terms, no.

The article didn't. I was extending on your point that
a meaningful comparison would require the joints to be
the same size, to suggest out that the differing results
for different sizes indicate different joinery would be
appropriate for different sizes.

> But, they didn't investigate haunched M&T

I've always been dubious that the haunch on that style
M&T contributes any strength (altho magazine writers
invariably describe it that way). I think it's only
real purpose is to fill the panel groove, and it came
into existance because a stopped groove is a pain to
make with hand tools.

John

On 12/22/2015 2:33 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/22/15 2:29 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> With traditional face frame "built-in" cabinets, it is not unusual for
>> the face frame to being instrumental in holding everything together,
>> thusly:
>>
>> https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShop327KitchenRefresh2013?noredirect=1#6074931973685235698
>>
>>
>>
>> IME, the great majority of kitchens in this country are of the latter
>> type.
>>
>
> Yep! That's what mine were..... are are in the new place.
> Can't want to build new ones.
>
>

Yeah the FF being the main strength on in place built cabinets which
seems to have been the way it was done until the prefab cabinets came
onto the work site. Now the cabinets must withstand the stresses of
being shipped and handled multiple times before installation.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 10:54:54 -0600, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/22/2015 5:57 PM, OFWW wrote:
>
>> As to Dado's in the FF, is it only on the stiles/vertical's or on
>> both? Glue only, or Glue and ?
>
>NOTE: In production cabinet making the parts that are the _floor_ and
>_top_ of a cabinet (since they are usually the same dimension, and batch
>cut at the same time) are often singularly called a "floor" in the parts
>list for the cabinets.
>
>Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both stiles of the face frame
>to accept the front edge of the end panels.
>
>Dadoes/grooves are cut in the back side of both top and bottom rails of
>the face frame of a wall cabinet to accept the front edge of the
>"floors" (both a top and bottom).
>
>(dadoes/grooves are generally cut in only the bottom rail of a base
>cabinet, as a base cabinet in traditional face frame cabinets often only
>has a single bottom/floor).
>
>All these joins are usually glued, and also often nailed, into the
>dadoes/grooves cut into both the face frame and end panels.
>
>Here's an exploded view of typical "shop built" face frame wall cabinet
>construction, as above.
>
>https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJigsFixturesMethods?noredirect=1#6231522955022575538

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

Is glue only on the FF to the Cabinet unwise?

On 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.

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!

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 23:40:57 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <[email protected]>
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.

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.

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 13:31:08 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 12/18/15 1:09 PM, OFWW wrote:
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>>> 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.

On Thu, 24 Dec 2015 09:04:52 -0600, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/24/2015 8:31 AM, Jack wrote:
>...
>
>> This list in my mind is bogus, and if I were doing the testing, and
>> somehow a butt joint or miter joint came ahead of a domino, I'd keep it
>> to myself, and try to find out what I did wrong in the testing. Just my
>> opinion, but giant red flags here, making the whole thing suspect.
>
>The overall ranking is of little consequence, granted, because there's
>so much disparity between the joints as far as the specifics of them are
>concerned (as I've noted several times previously :) ).
>
>Also, as far a postulating, that's well and good, but the results from a
>series of tests such as this are valid _only_ for the specific joints
>down to the specific sizes of the various mating pieces; one canNOT
>infer anything more than that regarding general conclusions.
>
>To do the latter would require having a series of tests of each type in
>which the single variable under study _only_ is changed (say width of
>the tenon in the simple M&T for one) and then _only_ tenon length. The
>problem when one attempts to undertake this kind of study then becomes
>one that the number of tests required explodes geometrically and rapidly
>turns in to the thousands or 10s of thousands. That's where one would
>then need to turn to statistical design of experiments theory to develop
>a test matrix that would allow for at least some of the variables to be
>studied without confounding effects(*) with a reasonable number of tests.
>
>But, for the particular set of joints incorporated, the simple butt did
>_not_ beat the Domino and there's an explanation for why the simple
>miter does as outlined above.
>
>I don't think there's anything wrong with the tests themselves such as
>they were; it's simply trying to draw too many conclusions from the
>results that the amount of testing doesn't support.
>
>(*) Confounding -- when an uncontrolled or unknown variable other than
>the one under test has an effect on the result of the device under test,
>the result of the test cannot be shown to actually have measured the
>desired effect of the intended variable. The example easily seen here
>is that between the M&T, F-M&T and the Domino the sizes of the tenons
>aren't controlled; only the type used. Hence, one had _no_ controls in
>place for the confounding variable and there's nothing that can be said
>specifically about the effectiveness of the joining _system_ at all;
>only that for the three specific cases with the specific dimensions that
>the results were in the order observed.
>
>After nearly 40 yr of consulting in the area for which I coined the term
>"statistical engineering", being called in after the fact to try to make
>something of results from such tests as the above was all too common
>what a client was wanting. Unfortunately, in almost every instance, it
>was too late in the process to salvage the work done to date other than
>to try to complete an actual design for a series of experiments in which
>the tests run could be used to fill in the necessary test matrix.

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

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

On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:14:14 -0800 (PST), whit3rd <[email protected]>
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- <[email protected]>
>> 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.

On Wed, 23 Dec 2015 15:18:15 -0000 (UTC), John McCoy
<[email protected]> wrote:

>OFWW <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Like finding out that nails, and I presume steel screws all oxidize in
>> the wood, causing the wood to rot next to the nails, and I presume to
>> some extent steel screws. So when I buy screws I look for brass and
>> brass plated screws. On temp stuff, I'll use anything.
>
>This is, predictably, a major concern to boatbuilders. For
>that application the norm is to use stainless steel screws,
>or, if you can afford it, silicon bronze.
>
>Brass has it's own oxidation problems, and is quite weak, so
>usually not used in marine applications.
>
>Jamestown Distributors is a good source for (relatively)
>cheap stainless and bronze fastners.
>
>John

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

On 12/23/2015 9:08 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in news:mtadnWfoM-
> [email protected]:
>
>> On 12/22/2015 5:45 PM, Larry wrote:
>
>>> From the FWW Issue 203...
>>>
>>> The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
>>> results in pounds.
>>> Half lap 1603
>>> Bridle 1560
>>> Splined miter 1498
>>> 3/8 M&T 1444
>>> 3/8 floating M&T 1396
>>> Miter 1374
>>> 3/8 wedged M&T 1210
>>> 3/8 pinned M&T 1162
>>> 5/16 M&T 988
>>> Beadlock 836
>>> Dowelmax 759
>>> 1/4 M&T 717
>>> Pocket screw 698
>>> Domino 597
>>> Biscuit 545
>>> Butt 473
>>> Cope & stick 313
>>> Stub tenon 200
>>>
>>> There ya go...
>>>
>>
>>
>> If I am reading this correctly a Butt joint was shown to be stronger
>> than a stub tenon and cope and stick...
>
> Well, cope & stick and butt joint are both long grain to
> end grain (since they were doing right angle joints). I'm
> going to guess (since I still haven't found that issue)
> that their butt joint had a lot more glue area than their
> cope & stick joint.

Well not really, all things being equal. My cope and stick and stub
tenon joints typically have a minimum of double the glue surface area
than a simple butt joint.

>
> No idea why the stub tenon did so poorly.

If it is too shallow it could be a problem but mine are always 1/2" deep
so I am getting 1.75" square inches of glue surface area per linear inch.
>
> To Jack's point, I'm going to guess that all our experiences
> say any joint over 750lbs-force or thereabouts is ample for
> most any use we're going to put it to.
>
> John
>
A little more about different types of joints, when wood pieces mate and
they interlock they also self align. With plain butt joints and or
pocket hole screws you have to be cautious that the outer exposed
surfaces of the joint end up on the same plane.

On Sun, 20 Dec 2015 11:19:33 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
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.

On 12/23/2015 12:09 PM, Jack wrote:
> On 12/22/2015 6:45 PM, Larry wrote:
>> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...
>>>>
>>>>> "Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I think
>>>>> a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions is
>>>>> stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a few
>>>>> years back confirmed that), but it's probably stronger
>>>>> than it needs to be for most applications.
>>>>>
>>>>> Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
>>>>> small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
>>>>> benefit from a fully-formed tenon.
>>>>
>>>> I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
>>>> particular point was in the test matrix.
>>>
>>> Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
>>> two or three tests of that nature - according to the
>>> handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
>>> issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
>>> of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
>>> to be found).
>>>
>>> Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
>>> the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
>>> postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
>>> that a short tenon would be more prone to break.
>>>
>>> John
>>
>> From the FWW Issue 203...
>>
>> The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
>> results in pounds.
>> Half lap 1603
>> Bridle 1560
>> Splined miter 1498
>> 3/8 M&T 1444
>> 3/8 floating M&T 1396
>> Miter 1374
>> 3/8 wedged M&T 1210
>> 3/8 pinned M&T 1162
>> 5/16 M&T 988
>> Beadlock 836
>> Dowelmax 759
>> 1/4 M&T 717
>> Pocket screw 698
>> Domino 597
>> Biscuit 545
>> Butt 473
>> Cope & stick 313
>> Stub tenon 200
>>
>> There ya go...
>
> That's interesting stuff, but, I have some serious questions on some of
> it, most of it the more I look at it. For example, a floating M&T is
> way, way stonger than a Domino?

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

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

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




A splined miter is really strong, I don't think so. A butt
> joint is not even really a joint, imo. A butt joint needs dowels,
> pocket screws or something to make it a joint. Gluing two pieces of
> wood together with end grain doesn't work, so what on earth were they
> talking about? A 3/8 M&T is a stub tenon, and pretty much a cope and
> stick, for the most part, so again, it's not clear to me what they are
> doing. A miter joint is stronger than a domino? Really? A miter joint
> is the weakest joint I know of, other than a butt joint.
>
> Can't wait to see what Leon thinks of this list, particularly the domino
> joint being near the bottom of the list. Hogwash I say:-) Who made
> this list, Scott Phillips?
>
LOL.. Scott Philips or that other guy on TV that insisted on calling his
SCMS a RAS.

On 12/23/2015 11:28 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 12/23/15 8:36 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 12/22/2015 1:48 PM, John McCoy wrote:
>>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>> Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
>>>>> it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
>>>>> Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
>>>>> (Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)
>>>>
>>>> Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
>>>> well in shear.
>>>
>>> That's what I was thinking of - don't woodturners commonly
>>> use CA glue to attach scraps of wood so they can hold their
>>> work on the lathe, expecting to just rap the scrap with a
>>> hammer to remove it when done? Because the CA glue is
>>> brittle and just breaks off when the scrap is hit.
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> More for pen assembly and also used as a finish on lathe projects like
>> pens.
>
> I use it for trim corners, crown, etc.
> I also use hot glue but CA is a bit cleaner and sandable.
>
>
Absolutely as do I. I was commenting more with the use with a lathe.

On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:48:52 -0500, Jack <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 12/22/2015 3:04 PM, dadiOH wrote:
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> Here is a pantry door I made a few years ago out of solid oak. The
>>> face fame is pocket holes, and it is simply nailed to the 3/4" pine
>>> pantry wall with finish nails. Just the nails, no glue, no rabbits,
>>> splines or anything fancy.
>>
>> Are you talking about the door's CASING? If so, nails are the norm, no
>> rabbets or any other type of joint needed (or used, at least I have never
>> seen any).
>
>Generically, yes, specifically though, I'm talking about the door frame
>in cabinet doors, referred to as a face frame. It's common for a face
>frame on a quality cabinet to have a dado in the FF and a rabbit on the
>cabinet side, still fastened with nails. I've built them that way
>myself. Nails are also the norm, although lately, with the popularity
>of Kreg pocket gadgets, people often fasten the face frame to the
>cabinet with pocket holes. I've done that as well, but only on utility
>cabinets. My point is, as in the door I pictured, simply nailing the
>face frame to the cabinet works well, even with a rather large, heavy
>door as pictured.
>

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

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

>The door casing on an house door is different than a face frame on a
>cabinet, although doors hang off both.

On 12/22/2015 1:48 PM, John McCoy wrote:
> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 12/21/2015 9:33 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Other than cost, is there a reason CA glue is unsuitable? I'd used
>>> it on wood (not as a joint glue) and it does bond pretty well.
>>> Depending on the CA glue, you could get 30-60 seconds of open time.
>>> (Some of the thick stuff really needs accelerator or clamping.)
>>
>> Historical "Crazy Glue" products are pretty brittle so don't do very
>> well in shear.
>
> That's what I was thinking of - don't woodturners commonly
> use CA glue to attach scraps of wood so they can hold their
> work on the lathe, expecting to just rap the scrap with a
> hammer to remove it when done? Because the CA glue is
> brittle and just breaks off when the scrap is hit.
>
> John
>
>


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

On 12/22/2015 5:45 PM, Larry wrote:
> John McCoy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> dpb <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On 12/21/2015 2:01 PM, John McCoy wrote: ...
>>>
>>>> "Strong enough" is probably true in most cases. I think
>>>> a tenon which fits the mortise in both directions is
>>>> stronger (and if I remember correctly FWW's test a few
>>>> years back confirmed that), but it's probably stronger
>>>> than it needs to be for most applications.
>>>>
>>>> Something which takes a lot of racking force across a
>>>> small joint, like a chair assembly, would probably
>>>> benefit from a fully-formed tenon.
>>>
>>> I recall the article pretty well; I don't think this
>>> particular point was in the test matrix.
>>
>> Are we thinking of the same article? FWW has done
>> two or three tests of that nature - according to the
>> handy-dandy index, the one I'm thinking of was in
>> issue 203 (and, of course, when I look at my stack
>> of magazines, it goes 202 - 204, and 203 is nowhere
>> to be found).
>>
>> Anyway, I do recall M&T joints were found to fail by
>> the tenon breaking, and while I don't recall if they
>> postulated a mechanism for that failure, I'd worry
>> that a short tenon would be more prone to break.
>>
>> John
>
> From the FWW Issue 203...
>
> The test was for diagonal compression (racking force.) All
> results in pounds.
> Half lap 1603
> Bridle 1560
> Splined miter 1498
> 3/8 M&T 1444
> 3/8 floating M&T 1396
> Miter 1374
> 3/8 wedged M&T 1210
> 3/8 pinned M&T 1162
> 5/16 M&T 988
> Beadlock 836
> Dowelmax 759
> 1/4 M&T 717
> Pocket screw 698
> Domino 597
> Biscuit 545
> Butt 473
> Cope & stick 313
> Stub tenon 200
>
> There ya go...
>


If I am reading this correctly a Butt joint was shown to be stronger
than a stub tenon and cope and stick...

Bonjour!

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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 12/18/15 1:09 PM, OFWW wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2015 11:21:26 -0600, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>> 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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 12/18/15 1:13 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 12/18/2015 10:48 AM, John McCoy wrote:
>> Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> 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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

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
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

-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.