Re: 'JointAbility' and 'Another Joint'
Tim and All,
Let me see if I can answer six 'messages' at one go . . .
Tim, I already sent you a direct answer about a technique to 'solve' the
'movability' issue.
I don't have any problem with either the 'device' or the 'joint', per
se. I just said it was VERY over-priced, and the particular joint was
'inappropriate' for the use specified. I have several routers and am
always on the look-out for a more efficient way of doing things.
However, 'More Power !!' and 'high tech' tools sometimes take more time
& effort to do ONE of anything. It's the SET-UP, that takes the time &
effort . . . not the 'doing'. For ONE 'sheet' {the jointing of two
standard 4x8 sheets}, nothing beats the short time & high efficiency of
laying them down in a 'stair-step' and a few minutes work with a sharp
hand plane. The positioning of the sheets, the plys, and the clamping
boards assure a straight cut. Applying the epoxy & cloth, and the
clamping is the same, regardless of the actual cutting. If I have to do
multiple sheets, I will use a belt sander for the initial work, then a
pass or two with a bench plane.
One of the features of Bolger's plans, and often times Dynamite's
interpretation, is the concept of, 'Boats for the 'Everyman' ' A big
'Production' shop, even if it is a 'Custom' shop, doesn't really concern
itself with 'waste'. It calculates materials based on a 'per increment'
basis. They can't buy a 1/10 of a sheet of ply, so they use the cost of
a full sheet in their pricing calculations. Even if they do have a
'scrap' area, it probably doesn't pay them to keep less than a 1/2
sheet. Bolger tries to use, 'everything but the squeal'. Payson probably
illustrated the philosophy best when he said he wanted to, ' . . . sell
plans {of boats} that actually got built'. A Butt Joint may not be
'pretty' {and it 'flags' through thin materials}is really an 'elegant'
use of materials. The builder is able to use the FULL LENGTH {or width}
of the materials he has purchased. The 'backing board' is cut from
left-over scraps and sometimes not even illustrated on the actual plans,
just mentioned in the text. Overall, it is the 'SIMPLEST' joint.
One step up from this, and an indication that 'modern materials' are
'brought into the mix', is the 'Payson Variation', or 'Taped Butt'
joint. A little messier, it still may 'flag' through, and it takes a bit
more care & practice to be done well. While it has been proven. ' . .
stronger than the surrounding wood . . .', some people add more time,
cloth, and epoxy to make the 'Hollow Taped Butt Joint'. Could be for
further piece of mind, and it doesn't 'flag' {?} - or at least not as
much.
While some of these 'messages' extol the virtue of the JointAbility as
'quick & neat', others recommend the 'modified finger' joint that
requires a template to be done well. It is hard to believe that it will
beat a Scarf Joint in 'fairness'. A properly done Scarf will NOT have a
'flat spot'. It is certainly not 'easier' in concept. Maybe in
exception, but the template, length of 'fingers', and the cutting tool
are critical elements {costly ?}.That 'interlocking joint' is very good.
In fact I have a couple of plastic storage boxes whose attached lids
close with it. To use it, the edges must be CLEAN which means a SHARP
cutting tool, used well, a good & accurate template, and careful set-up.
Again, for 'one-time' use ?? What does it add, mechanically ?? Will the
boat be built from $100 a sheet cosmetically beautiful marine ply and
'clear coated ? Or A/C ply and painted ?
Other than the 'Wood Backed Butt Joint', the CARE of assembly is
critical, and just about the same for ALL the 'epoxy methods'. How
carefully you 'stack' or clamp the joint will effect the surface
appearance. All of the Butt Joints, and the 'Interlocking' Joint use the
full sheet - there is no 'cutting loss' in the length {or width}. The
Scarf Joint does cause a loss, how much depends on the ratio of the
scarf - maybe 2 inches over-all for a 1 to 8 with 1/4 inch sheetgoods.
However, it does allow the 'fairest' curve . . . more so as the curve
gets tighter.
Well, I think that responds to everything, and the villagers are lining
up with their torches & pitchforks. Each of these approaches has their
place - they have all been 'around forever'. The builder has to make HIS
decision. A lot of the plans out there have also been 'around forever'.
What was a good idea in 1950, may have been supplanted 50 years later. A
specifically mentioned material may no longer even be available. If you
have gotten the plan from a reputable designer, he probably included an
'update sheet' or sent you one. I know that's what Dynamite did with the
"taped joint' and later 'hollow joint'. In addition, if you have a
question, or an idea concerning the latest concepts in physical
chemistry or materials, or building concepts . . . write a letter to the
designer. All it takes is a bit of patience and a bit of ink.
Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
I am
I would > bet that Bolger has called for Payson style butt joints with
backing blocks
an electric plane can give. Plus, the
construct. It also produces less of a stiff spot than a scarf.
Plans call for Payson-type butt joints hollowed and glassed, not with
backing blocks. But it seems to me that ship-lap joints would be
quicker and neater. Do you think they'd be strong enough for the hull
sides, which will get a layer of glass cloth anyway? Or would this be
a
Let me see if I can answer six 'messages' at one go . . .
Tim, I already sent you a direct answer about a technique to 'solve' the
'movability' issue.
I don't have any problem with either the 'device' or the 'joint', per
se. I just said it was VERY over-priced, and the particular joint was
'inappropriate' for the use specified. I have several routers and am
always on the look-out for a more efficient way of doing things.
However, 'More Power !!' and 'high tech' tools sometimes take more time
& effort to do ONE of anything. It's the SET-UP, that takes the time &
effort . . . not the 'doing'. For ONE 'sheet' {the jointing of two
standard 4x8 sheets}, nothing beats the short time & high efficiency of
laying them down in a 'stair-step' and a few minutes work with a sharp
hand plane. The positioning of the sheets, the plys, and the clamping
boards assure a straight cut. Applying the epoxy & cloth, and the
clamping is the same, regardless of the actual cutting. If I have to do
multiple sheets, I will use a belt sander for the initial work, then a
pass or two with a bench plane.
One of the features of Bolger's plans, and often times Dynamite's
interpretation, is the concept of, 'Boats for the 'Everyman' ' A big
'Production' shop, even if it is a 'Custom' shop, doesn't really concern
itself with 'waste'. It calculates materials based on a 'per increment'
basis. They can't buy a 1/10 of a sheet of ply, so they use the cost of
a full sheet in their pricing calculations. Even if they do have a
'scrap' area, it probably doesn't pay them to keep less than a 1/2
sheet. Bolger tries to use, 'everything but the squeal'. Payson probably
illustrated the philosophy best when he said he wanted to, ' . . . sell
plans {of boats} that actually got built'. A Butt Joint may not be
'pretty' {and it 'flags' through thin materials}is really an 'elegant'
use of materials. The builder is able to use the FULL LENGTH {or width}
of the materials he has purchased. The 'backing board' is cut from
left-over scraps and sometimes not even illustrated on the actual plans,
just mentioned in the text. Overall, it is the 'SIMPLEST' joint.
One step up from this, and an indication that 'modern materials' are
'brought into the mix', is the 'Payson Variation', or 'Taped Butt'
joint. A little messier, it still may 'flag' through, and it takes a bit
more care & practice to be done well. While it has been proven. ' . .
stronger than the surrounding wood . . .', some people add more time,
cloth, and epoxy to make the 'Hollow Taped Butt Joint'. Could be for
further piece of mind, and it doesn't 'flag' {?} - or at least not as
much.
While some of these 'messages' extol the virtue of the JointAbility as
'quick & neat', others recommend the 'modified finger' joint that
requires a template to be done well. It is hard to believe that it will
beat a Scarf Joint in 'fairness'. A properly done Scarf will NOT have a
'flat spot'. It is certainly not 'easier' in concept. Maybe in
exception, but the template, length of 'fingers', and the cutting tool
are critical elements {costly ?}.That 'interlocking joint' is very good.
In fact I have a couple of plastic storage boxes whose attached lids
close with it. To use it, the edges must be CLEAN which means a SHARP
cutting tool, used well, a good & accurate template, and careful set-up.
Again, for 'one-time' use ?? What does it add, mechanically ?? Will the
boat be built from $100 a sheet cosmetically beautiful marine ply and
'clear coated ? Or A/C ply and painted ?
Other than the 'Wood Backed Butt Joint', the CARE of assembly is
critical, and just about the same for ALL the 'epoxy methods'. How
carefully you 'stack' or clamp the joint will effect the surface
appearance. All of the Butt Joints, and the 'Interlocking' Joint use the
full sheet - there is no 'cutting loss' in the length {or width}. The
Scarf Joint does cause a loss, how much depends on the ratio of the
scarf - maybe 2 inches over-all for a 1 to 8 with 1/4 inch sheetgoods.
However, it does allow the 'fairest' curve . . . more so as the curve
gets tighter.
Well, I think that responds to everything, and the villagers are lining
up with their torches & pitchforks. Each of these approaches has their
place - they have all been 'around forever'. The builder has to make HIS
decision. A lot of the plans out there have also been 'around forever'.
What was a good idea in 1950, may have been supplanted 50 years later. A
specifically mentioned material may no longer even be available. If you
have gotten the plan from a reputable designer, he probably included an
'update sheet' or sent you one. I know that's what Dynamite did with the
"taped joint' and later 'hollow joint'. In addition, if you have a
question, or an idea concerning the latest concepts in physical
chemistry or materials, or building concepts . . . write a letter to the
designer. All it takes is a bit of patience and a bit of ink.
Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
> Message: 6because I
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 17:47:43 -0000
> From: "timk_smith" <timk_smith@...>
> Subject: Re: JointAbility - not really
>
>
>
> Ron, thanks, this is most helpful. I'm interested in this joint
> have a curious problem, building Topaz in a long garage. . . .________________________________________________________________________
> best,
> SNIP
> Tim.
>SNIP
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 10:53:18 -0800 (PST)
> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: JointAbility - not really
>
I am
> sure. [or even butt joints withSNIP
> backing blocks.]
>
I would > bet that Bolger has called for Payson style butt joints with
backing blocks
> all around, not plywood scarf joints.bit rotates sooooo fast that the surface is much smoother than a saw or
>
> I think the biggest advantage of the JointAbility is that the router
an electric plane can give. Plus, the
> jig ensures a straight line.________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>SNIP
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:52:00 -0000
> From: "doug6949" <prototype@...>
> Subject: Another type of joint
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, "Ron Magen" <quohog@a...> wrote:
> > Tim,
>
> I experimented with another type of joint about four years ago. Itseems to work even better than the scarf joint and is a lot easier to
construct. It also produces less of a stiff spot than a scarf.
>SNIP
> Basically, it is a type of finger joint. The fingers were 1.5W X 2.0
> deep and the roots and crests were radiused. These dimensions were
> optimized for 6mm ply but would probably work just fine for 1/2".
> Doug________________________________________________________________________
>________________________________________________________________________
>and
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 16:20:09 -0500
> From: "David Romasco" <dromasco@...>
> Subject: RE: Another type of joint
>
> I'm using this sort of joint in some glued lapstrake ply construction,
> the joints are both invisible in curved panels (no hard spots) andappear to
> be very strong (our test panels snapped in the wood, not in the jointarea).
> One important point: wet the edges out thoroughly with unfilled epoxyso
> they are completely saturated, then push the joint edges together withsome
> lightly filled epoxy that COMPLETELY fills the joint and squeezes out.We
> then squeegee the joint and apply smooth plastic with weights on ituntil
> the epoxy is cured. The resulting joint requires little or no sandingto
> finish.________________________________________________________________________
>
> David Romasco
>SNIP
> Message: 10
> Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 00:11:08 -0000
> From: "timk_smith" <timk_smith@...>
> Subject: Re: JointAbility - not really
>
> --- Inbolger@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Hallman <bruce@h...> wrote:
> >
Plans call for Payson-type butt joints hollowed and glassed, not with
backing blocks. But it seems to me that ship-lap joints would be
quicker and neater. Do you think they'd be strong enough for the hull
sides, which will get a layer of glass cloth anyway? Or would this be
a
> case where experimentation could lead to regrets?________________________________________________________________________
>
> --Tim.
>________________________________________________________________________
>extra sheet of plywood?
> Message: 14
> Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 20:24:24 -0800 (PST)
> From: Bruce Hallman <bruce@...>
> Subject: Re: Re: JointAbility - not really
> SNIP
> Could it be that the 1" lost in cutting a shiplap joint costs you an
>plywood efficiently.
> Bolger often spends an amazing amount of effort in utilizing sheets of
>SNIP