Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 53
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake county, Indiana 46408-4109
    Posts
    3,536

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    One heck of a faster than box joints
    Glad to hear that I ordered a bit this week thanks to who posted the link for them I had been looking for one with a 1/4" shank.
    Ed, KA9CTT profanity is IGNORANCE made audible
    you can`t fix stupid not even with duct tape

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Danbury, CT
    Posts
    2,887

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Honeyman: I don't believe it is available in 1/4 inch shank. Probably a heat issue with the size of the bit.

    I have seen Alex's boxes and a sample joint. I am impressed with it. It is a nice tight joint and looks very professional. Now if I can talk him into doing some for me
    Always question Conventional Wisdom.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    DuPage County, Illinois USA
    Posts
    9,396

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Ed, I'd be surprised if you can find that bit with 1/4" shank. Too much surface cutting/pressure for 1/4". Not to rain on anyone's parade, but my gut tells me that this joint won't hold up in time. I've spent many years in woodworking, everything from carpentry to furniture making, and there are two concerns with this joint. The very thin outer edge of the two boards being joined is one, and the fact that you are joining end grain to end grain is another. A joint like this that will work wonderfully in many applications performs quite differently when rain, heat and cold become part of the picture. Time will tell, but my best guess is that once moisture gets into the joint (and it will eventually), the joint will fail much quicker than a box joint.

    Keep us posted.
    Regards, Barry

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Lake county, Indiana 46408-4109
    Posts
    3,536

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Here is the page I ordered from I hope I didnt waste my $$$

    http://www.mlcswoodworking.com/shops...lockmiter.html
    Ed, KA9CTT profanity is IGNORANCE made audible
    you can`t fix stupid not even with duct tape

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Lexington, KY, USA
    Posts
    504

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Hi Bluegrass, glad that you are showing up here every now and then. Yes, I remember showing you my boxes, no I don't remember promising to build boxes for you....but then I am getting forgetful! In any case I will be glad to do some together with you when spring comes. I too doubt that these bits are available with a 1/4" shank. I believe that the mass of the tool head has something to do with the size of the shank because there must be a point where centrifugal force puts too much stress on the small shanks. BTW how is the bee truck coming? Take care and have fun

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Danbury, CT
    Posts
    2,887

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Oh you forgot about them... That explains why the first 100 hasn't showed up yet

    Winter is going good here, my bees are alive and accounted for so far. I am working on getting a trailer hitch made for the back of the truck. The factory hitch is 40 inches off of the ground so I need to come up with a custom job at a lower height.

    Give me a call when you get back in town and I will stop by for a beer or two.
    Always question Conventional Wisdom.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    5,325

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Cantacuzene View Post
    ... I too doubt that these bits are available with a 1/4" shank.
    They are available with 1/4" shanks, but I wouldn't recommend them with less than 1/2" shanks.

    Here is a link to MLCS, they have some models of this bit with 1/4" shanks: MLCS Locking Miter Bits
    48 years - 50 hives - TF
    Joseph Clemens -- Website Under Constructioni

  8. #28
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Lexington, KY, USA
    Posts
    504

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Hello Joseph, I hang my head in shame, I did not see those bits with the 1/4" shank on that site. Oh well, that blows my theory a to dust, but then again its not the first time. Still am happy that it all generated some interest. Take care and have fun

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    5,325

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Could happen to anyone. I'd heard of these bits, and was planning to eventually give them a try. I like to try most things for myself before I make any solid decisions. I obtained several very nice routers and a nice router table, so I could try different ways of working with wood, but I had almost forgotten about my plans to try these lock miter joints. I greatly appreciate this thread, and its initiator, for reminding me.

    My first router came with a mandrel for 1/4" shank bits. Many bits I could only find with 1/2" shanks. My solution was to obtain an adapter. Now I could put bits with 1/2" shanks into my 1/4" router. It worked, but I am glad I purchased two more routers, both capable of 1/2" shank bits. I also obtained an adapter that permits using 1/4" shank bits in a 1/2" router. Now, I only use the proper shank size in the appropriate router.
    48 years - 50 hives - TF
    Joseph Clemens -- Website Under Constructioni

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfield County, Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    3,590

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Quote Originally Posted by brac View Post
    What type of glue will you be using? Let us know how they work out.
    I seal all of the end grain on my assemblies with a nice fat coat of Titebond III glue. At that point there is no "exposed end grain".

    To speed up assembly, I would glue up the lock-joint pieces in sets, one end piece and one side squared up nicely and I would skip installing any fasteners until the entire box is assembled and cured. I would take the time to fill the outside and inside of the corner joints with Titebond III. I also seal over the heads of any screws or nails with a dab of glue.

    I have not seen anyone mention using West System Epoxy on Beesource... while it will add to the cost, it will also give you boxes that will not come apart at the corners. IMO, Titebond III would do a fine job.



    BeeCurious
    Trying to think inside the box...

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Red Bluff, Ca
    Posts
    301

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    I have a MLCS locking miter with a shaft, you need to use a speed control and slow the rim speed down. It works well on pine with one pass but I would not want to use hard wood with it. It takes a while and lots of scrap to set it up. If set up properly you make one side on edge and the other side flat on the table. You must make each full cut in one pass.
    Dan

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    5,325

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Okay, I got one of these Lock Miter bits from my local Lowe's for $28 + tax. It is a Skil model 91703 with 1/2" shank. I cut some 3/4" thick boards to the appropriate lengths (19-7/8" and 13-3/4"), then I trimmed a few small pieces from the same stock lumber to use in setting up the cutter. After it appeared to be adjusted correctly I marked where the cuts were to be made, then clamped guide strips onto the boards for each cut. It was tedious but made it possible for me to keep the boards lined-up properly without my hands getting anywhere near the moving cutter. Then I cut the rabbet for the frame rests, glued everything together with Titebond III and clamped it. I plan to see how durable these joints are without fasteners.

    When I cut the pieces which are fed standing on end, some small pieces of the joint profile are knocked out, here and there, but it doesn't look like it will be enough to make any difference in the integrity of the joint.

    My first box, made using the Lock Miter bit looks nice, I am anxious to put it into use to see how it wears.
    48 years - 50 hives - TF
    Joseph Clemens -- Website Under Constructioni

  13. #33
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Concord, CA
    Posts
    4,121

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    I just built a router table a couple weeks ago, to make grooves in my screened bottom boards.

    Thanks for another good use for the table.
    Dan

  14. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berkeley,California, USA
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Clemens View Post
    When I cut the pieces which are fed standing on end, some small pieces of the joint profile are knocked out, here and there, but it doesn't look like it will be enough to make any difference in the integrity of the joint.
    I've been doing two passes for the vertical cuts. My router table makes it easy to set the fence forward by 1/16", 1/8", or 1/4". Two passes is a little bit more work but avoids the knockouts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Clemens View Post
    glued everything together with Titebond III and clamped it. I plan to see how durable these joints are without fasteners.
    I'm using Titebond II and have never used Titebond III. Do you have experience with both and do you think III is enough better than II to justify the extra cost?


    Welcome to the lock-miter-joint club, Joseph

    -fafrd

    p.s. I am using the same Skil bit from Lowe's
    Last edited by fafrd; 02-28-2010 at 12:26 AM. Reason: fixed typo

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    5,325

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Thanks for the tip, my router table will also make those adjustments easily possible. I will try dual passes at incremental depths for the vertical cuts on my next super.

    I was using polyurethane glue, but when I decided to use coated deck screws I intentionally stopped using glue, entirely. I have not used Titebond II, only Titebond III, so I cannot address any possible differences in them. Since I stopped using deck screws, I figure I can afford Titebond III. My first two bottles where gifted to me from a friend. I liked it, so that is what I have been using, especially once I read the woodworking glue reviews, how Titebond performed better than Polyurethane.

    My first Lock-Miter-Jointed 8-frame medium super, with cleats and Old Style Metal Frame Rest Rabbets looks so darn good. I hope it performs half as good as it looks; if it does, it will be worth all the extra effort.

    I can't really get to making too many supers with these joints, no matter how much I prefer them, since I have enough pre-cut medium super sides which are cut with finger joints. I have enough of these pieces to make three hundred supers (six hundred pieces). I've been making them up by cutting end pieces to length, then cutting 3/8" deep rabbets on three sides, once I trim 3/8" off the fingers of the side pieces I can then clamp and deck screw the supers together. I do plan to make an attempt to use the Lock-Miter bit with these finger-jointed super sides to see how well they will function when used this way.
    48 years - 50 hives - TF
    Joseph Clemens -- Website Under Constructioni

  16. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berkeley,California, USA
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Joseph,

    Don't quite understand how a 3/8" rabbet fits against the fingers, even after you've trimmed 3/8" off of them - doesn't that leave 3/8" x 3/4" rectangular holes on the side that are 3/4" deep? I guess it doesn't provide an air passage all the way to the interior of the super, but it seems like with a little warpage or a cut being the slighest bit off, you're going to have gaps.

    Are you doing this just because you had already committed the 600 sides to finger joints and then changed direction because you found the rabbet+deck screw solution easier?

    -fafrd

    p.s. Aside from the 50% premium in cost, the other concern I had about Titebond III was the drying time - how long do you typically let your joints set before you remove the clamps?

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Tucson, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    5,325

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    These six hundred medium super sides are what remains of a gift (there were several hundred more, but I've already used them to make supers and nucs), the sides were with them for ten frame supers, but many of the end pieces were damaged beyond use so I've been making up end pieces to complete some of the remaining supers.

    With a 3/4" wide and 3/8" deep rabbet cut into the end pieces on three sides all I need to do is trim off the fingers so they are only 3/8" long, they then fit perfectly into the rabbets. Sometimes there are a few of them that show a tiny crack of an opening (gaps) where the area between the fingers meets the rabbets of the end pieces (a pinch of sawdust and a drop of glue takes care of these).

    I plan to use the Lock Miter bit on these fingers and, at least one set of end pieces to see if this will make better completed boxes than the ones I've made using rabbeted end pieces.

    The side pieces are already cut with fingers, and I just don't like the finger joints, while finishing the boxes with rabbets is easier and quicker.

    -------------------
    Strange for me, but I hadn't done my shopping well enough to notice the cost difference in these two products; Titebond II and Titebond III. I did have the experience of having used the two free bottles of Titebond III that were gifted to me, and I liked how they performed. I hadn't thought, until your question, if Titebond II would suit my purposes as well. I will likely purchase a bottle to try it and see.

    I usually remove the clamps in just an hour or two (sometimes sooner), and that hasn't been a problem, they seem to be set quite well by then.
    48 years - 50 hives - TF
    Joseph Clemens -- Website Under Constructioni

  18. #38
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Lexington, KY, USA
    Posts
    504

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Hi guys, I am glad that someone is using the Miter Lock method now (I have no connection with any commercial interests in this. I just think that it is the thing to use). I somewhat felt a little out in left field when I first suggested it. How this method will work for someone with a large number of boxes to make I don't know. For my hobby approach I think it is the best thing since sliced bread but then that's just me. I hope it works for you in the larger operation with long lasting boxes. Take care and have fun

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berkeley,California, USA
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Quote Originally Posted by Joseph Clemens View Post
    Strange for me, but I hadn't done my shopping well enough to notice the cost difference in these two products; Titebond II and Titebond III. I did have the experience of having used the two free bottles of Titebond III that were gifted to me, and I liked how they performed. I hadn't thought, until your question, if Titebond II would suit my purposes as well. I will likely purchase a bottle to try it and see.

    I usually remove the clamps in just an hour or two (sometimes sooner), and that hasn't been a problem, they seem to be set quite well by then.
    Titenond III is 2-3 times thecost of Titebond II. It is 'waterproof' instead of only 'water-resistant', so for those beeks collectin the pollen off of corals using bees with little scuba tanks, it's probably the only choice ! (while Titebond II seems to handle the rain pretty well for the rest of us). The set time on Titebond II is also shorter - 30 minutes versus 2 hours, I believe. If you do get around to trying Titebond II, I'd be interested in how you compare the two. I was thinking of tring a bottle of Titebond III when my current bottle of Titebond II runs out - maybe you'll have som thoughts on how they compare by then...

    -fafrd

    p.s. when you cut back 3/4"x3/4"x3/4" fingers to 3/8"x3/4"x3/4" and then tuck them into a 3/4"x3/8"x6-5/8" rabbet, I can see how it fits - it's just that there are also several 3/4"x3/4"x3/4" spaces between the fingers, and after cutback, these spaces are reduced to 3/8"x3/4"x3/4", but they are still there and do not get filled by the rabbet. Am I missing something?

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Berkeley,California, USA
    Posts
    483

    Default Re: Supers with no exposed end grain

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Cantacuzene View Post
    Hi guys, I am glad that someone is using the Miter Lock method now (I have no connection with any commercial interests in this. I just think that it is the thing to use). I somewhat felt a little out in left field when I first suggested it. How this method will work for someone with a large number of boxes to make I don't know. For my hobby approach I think it is the best thing since sliced bread but then that's just me. I hope it works for you in the larger operation with long lasting boxes. Take care and have fun
    The lock miter joint works great if you are making just one box, and I don't think it is any more work than making a single box joint using a dado set with a decent table saw (and maybe even a bit less work). A dado joint is certainly easier to cut than either, but it's the least convenient to square up and it seems like it is not going to be as strong as either the lock miter or the box joint.

    The one big advantage the box joint has is if you are going to build several/many boxes at once. I've never built a box-joint super yet, but I suspect that the finger cuts made by the dado blade can be made into many sides clamped together at once. I'm sure the bee shops have it fully automated, but even for the serious sideliner, I'm pretty sure any decent wood worker could build 100 box-joint supers in the same time he could build 10 lock-miter joint supers. The miter joint is inherently a one-at-a-time operation, but it is self-squaring so it glues up very easily, it gives a beautiful and stong joint, and for hobbiests who only build one or two boxes at time, it is probably easier than a box joint. The bee shops are going to stick to box joints and dado joints because they are more suited to low-cost mass production and automation - for us hobbiests who don't have too many hives and also enjoy woodworking, I agree with you that the lock-miter joint is the best thing since sliced bread!

    -fafrd

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Ads