Cutting notches

I have a reasonable number of notches to be cut into 100 x 47 timbers
Want to cut cross slots 30mm deep so timbers will slot over some 200 x 47 beams, good enough for glue joints.
Want to do the job neatly, and I have 28 of them to do.
I notice that whenever they need to do this sort of thing on any of the US shows (New Yankee Workshop for example) the use a Dado blade in a bench saw. I'm pretty sure you can't fit a Dado blade to most domestic saw benches (I have a JCB model) only the large commercial machines.
What is the neatest & consistent way of doing these ........ I know I could mark out, use saw table to make shoulder cuts and chisel out the rest ... but this will be slow and probably not end up as neat as I want.
I do have a Router table with a Trend T7 ... but not sure if there is an easy way to use that. Certainly don't have a 47mm wide bit, so it would require moving wood and bit several times - possibly end up inaccurate.
Any tips & hints ?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/13 23:08, Rick Hughes wrote:

you can jig rout this easily if you want accuracy.
just needs a bnig square hole for the jig and off you go
But really, for lumber? two saw cuts with a hand saw and knock out the middle.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 01 Sep 2013 23:20:47 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

That was my thought as well, why do you need a power tool at all? Sharp crosscut handsaw just inside the line to a couple of mm above the required depth. Knock out the block or take it out with thick chisel cuts and then chisel the base and bottom corners neatly.
Does require the skills to use a handsaw, mallet and chisel accurately though...
--
Cheers
Dave.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2013 23:49, Dave Liquorice wrote:

The only problem is ,,, in practise if grain is running at angle, you can end up with notch breaking out, and ends up less than square ... but don't dispute this is the trad way.
Just asked Q as on all the DIY programmes they show Dado saws being used for this
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Monday, September 2, 2013 10:20:47 AM UTC+12, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I'd use a Skilsaw for the two cuts and knock out the middle. I have become expert at running the Skilsaw sideways to make the bottom extremely neat.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/09/2013 00:30, Matty F wrote:

I find you can do a similar technique on a table saw for cutting very neat tenons using a normal blade. Making an accurate shoulder cut and then a series of cove cut style passed obliquely across the blade.
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2013 23:20, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Appreciate that, and that is the way I have done it in past It's a finished joint on show .. and a lot of them
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 01/09/2013 23:08, Rick Hughes wrote:

Watch this from about 1:50 on...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtizUSUgUG4

--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/09/2013 04:03, John Rumm wrote:

Thanks for link ... don't think I would hit out with hammer though
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/09/2013 11:28, Rick Hughes wrote:

You have to love the speed nail-hammering at 3.16. :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This is a poor method of jointing and not to be be recommended for strucural work as it significantly weakens the whole job.
If this is for house construction the usual method is to use metal joints/connectors which are nailed and far far stronger.
http://www.strongtie.co.uk/products/family_timber.php
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/09/2013 06:16, harryagain wrote:

Bollox. Utter bollox.
--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes and no. In the OP's application he may be looking to raise a floor level, and structural strength of the new timbers is not important.
However timbers with a strength rating (C16, C24) can't be be cut down and the rating automatically maintained.
E.g. If you cut a 50*200mm C16 rated beam, you can't get 2 beams of 50*100mm rated at C16.
You *may* do, or it may be that the structural strength was concentrated in one side and the other has a significant defect within the timber.
(there's also a formula for de-rating for notches)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


All traditional woodworking joints significantly weaken the wood due to the amount of timber that has to be cut away. Mortice/bridle/halving joints are the very worst for this. Dovetails are only slightly better. Gang/plate nails, hangers, timber connectors are a minimum of 50% stronger (in some cases 1000% stronger) and are faster to use. In most cases the joint is far stronger than the timber. Loads are better distributed in the timber hence the joints are much less likey to fail. There are other advantages too, eg joists need no longer penetrate the inner leaf making the house draught proof and protecting the timber from damp. In practice much less timber is needed hence the job is cheaper as well as quicker. They also lend themselves to machine shop assembly of factory made components (eg trusses) They just look like shit but where they are hidden, it matters not.
Anybody that doen't know this needs to get some education/training.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 02/09/2013 22:13, harryagain wrote:

Bollox again. If the joints are glued as the OP stated, the joints will be stronger than the timber.

Bollox. They are used because they are quick & require no great skill.

Education & training? Get some.

--
Dave - The Medway Handyman www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


I have qualifications in woodwork and mechanical engineering thanks.
This stuff is all well known. Has been for years.
Have a read at this and start your education. http://research.ttlchiltern.co.uk/pif294/tdk/geninfo/pdf/2-3_51.pdf
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:32:06 AM UTC+1, harry wrote:

Yes I had a read of that and could find no mention of superiority of metal brackets to traditional joints. It appears to confirm that the main advantage of this jointing system is ease of use on and off site.
While their load bearing capacity may be adequate in one plain their ability to resist twist or stress in the non designed for planes would be less than the glued cross halving joint under discussion.
To me they always looked like a cheap alternative to doing the job right especially as the report raises concerns with incorrect site practices, (i.e.) using plaster board nails or not using enough nails
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/2013 11:15, fred wrote:

Indeed - joist hangers etc are designed to "de-skill" constructional joinery. They give quick consistent results. Harry highlights some of the advantages - however you also highlight some of the limitations.
They are certainly less suited to older style properties where accommodating building movement was part of the design goal (unlike modern places, where eliminating movement is the aim)
Your typical joist hanger will terminate a trimmer at a joist, and provide slightly more loading capacity in the vertical direction than say a traditional tusked tenon, but at the expense of very little racking or twisting restraint, and no real pull out resistance. Nice for modern floors, but poor for wood framed buildings.
As for furniture, I can't begin to imagine what Harry's idea of a dining suit would look like with half a galvanized scrap yard nailed to every joint!
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There are metal jonts for furniture too. Again cheaper and stronger. Unless you have antique furniture you probably have them in the house. You find them in kitchen and bedroom furniture, especially where the main component is particle board. Apart from being pretty, traditional joints have nothing to commend them. http://www.screwfix.com/search.do?fh_search m+dowel
You can't cut away half or a third of a bit of wood to form a joint and not expect strength to be severely compromised, often at the very point where shear/bending forces are at maximum..
No one uses king/queen post trusses in rood construction now for this very reason.
It all arises from years ago when almost the only wood available was oak in most of the country.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 03/09/2013 17:11, harryagain wrote:

Now you are just being silly. A cam and dowel joint is feeble compared to pretty much any traditional surface to surface corner joint. It does not enhance the glue area at all, and its strength is limited by the pull out resistance of a short section of screw thread. The cam alone removes a section of timber, and then concentrates the forces onto the remaining bits - but without the benefit of glued restraint. Joining chipboard tat together is about all they are good for.

That does not make sense in this circumstance. Sure take a notch out a single joist and you weaken it. However we are not talking about weakening one piece of timber in this case, but looking at ways of corner jointing two separate pieces. What you are proposing is a small step up from a straight butt joint. It will be ok in tension, and poor in bending.
The joints performance would be absolutely trounced by a finger joint, or a dovetail. A mitre lock joint cut with a router will be better. Even a simple glued rabbet joint.
Cam and dowel joints really only have a role in flat particle board furniture. Biscuits and pocket hole screws will work better in solid timber.

You are proposing cam and dowel for roof joinery now, or did you just change topic again?
Roof "joinery" these days is pretty much all prefab trusses held together with nail plates.
You can't realistically extrapolate data from building construction to furniture making, and back again and hope that one size will fit all.

What "all arises"?
--
Cheers,

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.