box joint testing

Unquestionably Confused wrote in news:568079b4$0$35500$c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

I think this explains it nicely and in an easy-to-digest comic.

So basically Bonjour.

Puckdropper

That certainly depends on the subject. It's OK for (non AGW) scientific sorts of things. It's useless for anything were politics or any sort of controversy exists.

krw wrote in news:hu718btmq0mc0pn7u8gkqreetu9n41dt48@

Exactly. Like I said, you have to be a little careful. But controversial subjects aside, it's usually as accurate as any other source.

John

Unquestionably Confused wrote in news:568079b4$0$35500$c3e8da3$ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

LOL. Actually, I could be related to the McCoys of the Hatfields and McCoys - there's a chunk of my great great great great grandfather's life we don't know much about (other than that he _was_ fleeing the hangman), it's not impossible he was part of the group that came to the US in the late 1700s.

You make a good point about using Wikipedia as a pointer to more detailed references, altho again you have to use some judgement as to the credibility of the reference.

But most Wikipedia articles get corrected pretty promptly when garbage is added. You can look at the history of an article, and see where people have added (either by intent or by error) bogus information, and, often only a few hours later, where it was taken out.

John

Tap Tap!

This has always bugged me as well. EVERY woodworking source on earth that mentions a haunched tenon bloviates about it's superior strength, when anyone that ever made frame and panel anything should know the issue is never strength, the purpose, as you said, is to fill the panel groove. The haunched tenon might be a tad stronger as measured by a rocket scientist, or an engineer, or any college pin head, but to a woodworker, it's only real and meaningful purpose is to fill the groove.

Glad someone else noticed this..'

...

I made no posit re: strength and wasn't implying anything whatsoever -- as noted above, John conveniently elided the remainder of the list which again was simply that--a list--as denoting there's a "veritable plethora" of variations that weren't tested if one were to try to use those results to make more general judgments regarding suitability for other purposes which seemed (to me, anyway) the direction he was trying to take the discussion.

But, specifically, I was actually thinking of something much more like the following application at the time I was writing the comments, not just the simple panel-groove-filling version.

wherein there's a point in the construction itself besides cosmetics to provide clearance and yet the largest vertical height cross-section possible within the member.

As much as possible, yes!

I wasn't referring to anything you said, I was specifically referring to John's reference to "magazine writers", as I appropriately quoted.

If you are one of those, only then would I be talking about you.

On 12/30/2015 9:55 AM, Jack wrote: ...

OK, my bad...was thinking you were trying to infer that the reference as used I used it was intended to imply more than it was.

In print, but not outside technical literature of (I'm _absolutely_ sure :) ) no interest nor relevance whatsoever to woodworking... :)