I really can't see any advantage to this joint.  It's complex but probably
not much stronger than a single rabbet and may in fact be weaker.

Because the projection I've marked "X" is cut with the grain running
across it, it's very weak and doesn't add much, if any, strength to the
joint.  Any additional glued surface runs around that weak point (|).
It puts a premium on getting a really tight fit so that the surface (y),
which can't be clamped, is a sound bond.  If you do without what amounts
to a t&g, the corner can be "clamped" with nails or screws, ensuring that
all the wet surfaces are in close contact.

IMO, simple, in this case, is better.


On Thu, 28 Feb 2002, James Fischer wrote:


> Copying from Brushy Mountain's 1999 catalog,
> below is a ASCII-art top view of what they
> call a "Rabbeted Hive Body Joint" (not to
> scale, but close).  Don't blame me for the
> terminology.  As I said, terminology varies.
> Massively, it seems.
>
>
>  |             |
>  |             |
>  |             |
>  |       +-----+
>  |       |Y Y      +------------
>  |       |  Y      |
>  |       +---+     +---+
>  |       |   |         |
>  |       ^ X |         |
>  +-----------+         |
>             +----------+
>             |
>             |
>             +----------------------
>
>
> The nice thing about it is that friction alone
> holds the super together while you nail, screw,
> glue, whatever.  As I said, the drawback is that
> even slightly non-planar stock will make this
> design very difficult to assemble at all.


---------------
Richard Yarnell, SHAMBLES WORKSHOPS | No gimmick we try, no "scientific"
Beavercreek, OR. Makers of fine     | fix we attempt, will save our planet
Wooden Canoes, The Stack(R) urban   | until we reduce the population. Let's
composter, Raw Honey                | leave our kids a decent place to live.