BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Date:
Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:52:30 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (72 lines)
>> There are a few woodenware vendors selling supers
>> with what I would call a "milled corner joint".  .

Allen Dick offered:

> By this do you mean the rabbet joint?
> See http://www.azwoodman.com/boxes/butt-joint.jpg
> for a picture.

The caption of the diagram says that's a butt joint,
and it looks like a butt joint to me.  Let's face it,
the terminology of woodworking varies just as much
as terminology in beekeeping.

A "rabbet" is any grove in board.  A common example
is the grove cut in the top of a super upon which the
frames rest (confusingly called a "rebate" by some).

What I was speaking of is a pair of interlocking groves,
running along the entire edge of the boards, one in each
board.  I know that Brushy Mountain Bee Farm (of NC, USA)
sells (or did sell) them.

> If so, I should mention that we have many, many boxes
> made this way.

Proof that the type of joint used really does not matter.

> Moreover a dado is not required to make them, if you are
> only making a few.

A very good point there.

>> ...and they minimize exposed end-grain but require stock
>> that is absolutely planar for the scheme to work

> We find in Calgary that Home Depot sometimes has really
> good wood,

Please, don't gloat.   :)

> especially when it cannot be exported to the US

Cannot? They choose not to export. Canadian firms can
export all the wood they want, any time they want.

> due to the softwood lumber dispute.

Dispute?  There's no dispute.  There may be some
sputtering and posturing still going on up there,
but a "dispute" would require some disagreement
over facts.  To date, Canada has challenged no facts.

Canada was dumping wood, just like the Chinese were
dumping honey.  A 19% government subsidy is hard to
hide, and harder to explain.  The International Trade
Commission ruling on the matter was not disputed by
Canada at all, which indicates that Canada cannot
argue with the facts.

As I recall, Canada ran crying to the WTO about "unfair
duties".  Not the sort of good sportsmanship shown by
Canada in the curling finals.

Actually, the lumber thing is nothing more than tit-for-tat
retaliation against Canada for banning US queens and packages.  :)

hehehe


        jim

ATOM RSS1 RSS2