Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.
In a water resistant test, glued joints were submerged in water for 24
hours. Surprisingly Titebond III scored worse than Titebond II. The TB II
joint held up to about 300 PSI. TB III failed at about 200 PSI. So I guess
you should save your money. TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
II.
There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the TB III compared to
Polyurethanes for water resistance. Polyurethanes win. In the same test as
mentioned above, the Elmer's ProBond and Gorilla Glue Polyurethane joint
held up to almost 1000 PSI. TB III held up to 200 PSI.
I think I will send an email to Franklin and see what they have to say about
this article.
"B a r r y" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:20:00 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
> >II.
>
> But it's one better! <G>
>
LOL Yeah. So It must be, according to its name.
"RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_H_Hc.21218$r3.13006@okepread03...
> Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best
Wood
> Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
> the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
>
> In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
>
> wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
Exactly.!
Actually it appears that Franklin is using the a different definition for
WATER PROOF than what the average or common wood worker would define as
Water Proof. The Type 1 rating apparently is what defines Water Proof on
the TB 3 label.
ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when "occasionally"subjected to a thorough wetting and
drying; bond shall be of such quality that specimens will withstand shear
and two cycle boil test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).
That does not mean Water Proof to me. I believe that Franklin should have
qualified on the front of the label what their definition of Water Proof is.
> It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming
unglued
> in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
> article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
Ah.... an acurate observation IMHO.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
>tests.
>
>Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.
Leon-
thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
warrant their attention....
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:11:15 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Well, that sounds like a good idea and I have exchanged 3 e-mails with him
> today. I may be just short of being considered a heckeler from his view.
> LOL.. I do however think it would be great if perhaps you or some one else
> invite them to participate or at least check in with us once in a while.
As long as he _participates_ rather than uses it as a marketing outlet,
sure. If I start seeing marketing drivel from Titebond's folks, on top
of all the other stuff here lately about them, I'll switch glue brands
to something else.
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:06:26 -0700, [email protected] wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
>>tests.
>>
>>Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.
>
>Leon-
>
>thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
>titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
>directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
>I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
>warrant their attention....
I agree with you Bridger, and I think it can be good for both parties.
Seems to work with Rob Lee anyhow.
JP
Gee! Next time I build an underwater cabinet I'll remember not to use it
Vic
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
> glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.
>
> In a water resistant test, glued joints were submerged in water for 24
> hours. Surprisingly Titebond III scored worse than Titebond II. The TB
II
> joint held up to about 300 PSI. TB III failed at about 200 PSI. So I
guess
> you should save your money. TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
> II.
>
> There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the TB III compared to
> Polyurethanes for water resistance. Polyurethanes win. In the same test
as
> mentioned above, the Elmer's ProBond and Gorilla Glue Polyurethane joint
> held up to almost 1000 PSI. TB III held up to 200 PSI.
>
>
> I think I will send an email to Franklin and see what they have to say
about
> this article.
>
>
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:20:00 GMT, "Leon"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
>II.
But it's one better! <G>
Barry
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds
> like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and
drying
> out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time. One
> glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at a
> lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a marathon
> runner.
The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a bogus
test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
editors of Wood magazine.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Well, that sounds like a good idea and I have exchanged 3 e-mails with him
today. I may be just short of being considered a heckeler from his view.
LOL.. I do however think it would be great if perhaps you or some one else
invite them to participate or at least check in with us once in a while.
The more requests from different people that they get the more credible and
perhaps worth while we will appear and the more likely their participation.
If any one wants to contact Steve Craig at Titebond,
[email protected]
Mr. Stone has been more than prompt with his replies.
If he is not the one to participate, I am sure that he would know the
person.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
> >tests.
> >
> >Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.
>
> Leon-
>
> thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
> titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
> directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
> I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
> warrant their attention....
FWIW I glued up four 3 inch fir strips using Gorilla glue to make a
panel for a bird feeder 3 years ago. No battens or nails. It hangs
outside year around. Its never been submerged but I doubt "water
resistant" would have done as well.
BTW Its for suet so its pretty greasy in the summertime too.
Jack
David <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Excellent point! 'Waterproof' claims are far different than
> merely 'water resistant'. A submersion test seems
> legitimate. I doubt Franklin can pursue any legal recourse
> against the magazine.
>
> RKON wrote:
> > "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a
> >
> > bogus
> >
> >>test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
> >>setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
> >>editors of Wood magazine.
> >>Ed
> >>[email protected]
> >>http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best Wood
> > Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
> > the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
> >
> > In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
> >
> > wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
> >
> > I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a
> > bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe
> > they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
> > immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best
> > regardless.
> >
> > It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued
> > in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
> > article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
> > You don't use Titebond by chance do you?
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:kPbIc.56109$MB3.34915@attbi_s04...
> Not what I meant but yes more samples would be better but I think their
test
> method doesn't tell the whole story.
> The idea I was trying to convey in previous post is to try and determine
> deteroration rate over repeated exposure the elements. In my hypothetical
> test results TB2 while having a stronger initial strength then TB3 TB2
after
> repeated exposure to water and drying didn't maintain its strength as well
> as TB3
Yeah,....but your example was hypothetical, it did not really happen. I
under stand that under a different circumstance the out come could be
different. But could be is not yet fact. The testing reviled results that
one would not expect from a glue sold as superior and marketed as water
proof.
Until there are other tests by another third party, you have nothing other
than the Wood Magazine tests to base a good decision on when considering
which of the 2 glues to use if these are your only choices.
Further more, reading Franklins limitations on the 2 glues on their web page
indicates that there are more limitations on the TB3 glue than the TB2 glue
when it comes to using it in an application that require strength. Both
glues have the same limitations as far as being used around water. With
those facts why would one be labeled water proof?
The reason that TB3 is called water proof is that it passes shear tests
after the glue was soaked in boiling water on 2 occasions and dried out.
TB2 passes shear test on soakings on 3 occasions and dried out.
Which one sounds like the one that would hold up to "normal and common"
exposure to water to you?
> BTW I wonder what the difference of 200, 300 or 1000PSI really translates
> to. The difference of being hit by a pickup, 18 wheeler or a train
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On the label of the glue it reads:
> Passes ANSI/HPVA Type 1 Water Resistance
>
> I'll agree that water proof and water resistance are different according
to
> the dictionary. Given that though, the label gives a specification so
> testing should be done in compliance with the intended use.
The front label on TB III says WATER PROOF.
Leon:
I read the article today while at a beautiful beach. It was an excellent
article and they were pretty methodical and consistent in their testing. I
was impressed with the performance of the Good Ole Elmers. It just shows
what marketing can do. Oh BTW, did you see what was on the back cover of the
issue? " The Best Wood Glue Ever" Ouch....
Rich
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
> glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.
>
> In a water resistant test, glued joints were submerged in water for 24
> hours. Surprisingly Titebond III scored worse than Titebond II. The TB
II
> joint held up to about 300 PSI. TB III failed at about 200 PSI. So I
guess
> you should save your money. TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
> II.
>
> There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the TB III compared to
> Polyurethanes for water resistance. Polyurethanes win. In the same test
as
> mentioned above, the Elmer's ProBond and Gorilla Glue Polyurethane joint
> held up to almost 1000 PSI. TB III held up to 200 PSI.
>
>
> I think I will send an email to Franklin and see what they have to say
about
> this article.
>
>
"RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:FPGHc.12447$r3.717@okepread03...
> Leon:
>
> I read the article today while at a beautiful beach. It was an excellent
> article and they were pretty methodical and consistent in their testing. I
> was impressed with the performance of the Good Ole Elmers. It just shows
> what marketing can do. Oh BTW, did you see what was on the back cover of
the
> issue? " The Best Wood Glue Ever" Ouch....
Reading at the beach.... hummm kicking back are you. Well, I went to see
Simon & Garfunkle in concert Wednesday night... That was a real treat.
Anyway... Best wood Glue ever... Yeah I saw that. I do believe that
Titebond is a good glue but apparently not the best. I have been using the
Titebond and Elmer's ProBond equally for the last umpteen years. I did
indeed send an email to Franklin and it will be interesting to see if Wood
got all the results mixed up or not. Titebond III claims vastly stronger
than polyurethane on that back cover. We'll see. I guess advertising
heavily on the back cover did not buy a fovorable review this time.
OK, correction, Steve Craig is the sports announcer on one of the TV
stations here in Houston. He probably would not be any help. Nor would Tom
Franklin, another announcer... :~)
Try Craig Stone. ;~)
[email protected]
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Well, that sounds like a good idea and I have exchanged 3 e-mails with him
> today. I may be just short of being considered a heckeler from his view.
> LOL.. I do however think it would be great if perhaps you or some one
else
> invite them to participate or at least check in with us once in a while.
> The more requests from different people that they get the more credible
and
> perhaps worth while we will appear and the more likely their
participation.
>
> If any one wants to contact Steve Craig at Titebond,
>
>
>
> Mr. Stone has been more than prompt with his replies.
>
> If he is not the one to participate, I am sure that he would know the
> person.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding
the
> > >tests.
> > >
> > >Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.
> >
> > Leon-
> >
> > thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
> > titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
> > directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
> > I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
> > warrant their attention....
>
>
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:U4eIc.56732$MB3.2498@attbi_s04...
>
> Hypothetical yes but for me personally I'd be more interested in knowing
> which one has better long term holding power under real repeated exposure
Well yeah...that is reasonable but what do you do in the mean time? You
have to go with the test results available and what Franklyn "actualy uses"
as the definition of Water Proof.
> Very subjective term there really is nothing that is water proof given
> enough time. Taking it to the extreme rivers erode mountains and waves
erode
> coastlines
Yes... so you have to compare the two glues and see which has the most
strength in those type aplications involving water. Common knoledge defines
Water Proof as not being affected by water. From the "get go" the TiteBond
label is misleading to a majority of woodworkers. You and I no longer fall
within that group as we now know that the TiteBonds Water Proof label is not
defined by the common knowledge definition.
> >
> > The reason that TB3 is called water proof is that it passes shear tests
> > after the glue was soaked in boiling water on 2 occasions and dried out.
> > TB2 passes shear test on soakings on 3 occasions and dried out.
>
> Right Type 1 boiled the wood, type 2 soaked the wood (didn't say what
temp),
> type 1 also had higher baking temps for a little longer
> >
> > Which one sounds like the one that would hold up to "normal and common"
> > exposure to water to you?
>
> Probably either one although the longer open time is attractive.
That's right. You cannot use the common definition of Water Proof to back
up you decision of which one to use.
>Need better data to access wether it's really worth the extra money. I'm a
> hobbiest so the cost isn't a big deal even if it's a little better I might
> switch.
I agree, but so far the TB2 has shown to be better than TB3 in at least one
test. ;~)
The information at Titebonds site certainly does not back up TB3 as being
superior to TB2.
>Kind of funny I had reservations about even using it cause I know
> what to expect from TB and TB2 sorta like old friends!
> If I was in the business and used a lot of glue that would be another
> matter. I guess I'll know in 12 years if the stools recently made out
last
> the previous ones :)
Its a tough choice. Consider this. You know how a higher priced same brand
item is usually equated as better. I bet Franklin is betting most people
will equate this the same way also. If the TB3 glue was the same price as
TB2, would you think it was superior to TB2 knowing that it is truely not
water proof? I think we are witnessing a way for Franklin to market a
product with about the same qualities for a higher price.
Excellent point! 'Waterproof' claims are far different than
merely 'water resistant'. A submersion test seems
legitimate. I doubt Franklin can pursue any legal recourse
against the magazine.
RKON wrote:
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a
>
> bogus
>
>>test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
>>setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
>>editors of Wood magazine.
>>Ed
>>[email protected]
>>http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>>
>>
>
> Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best Wood
> Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
> the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
>
> In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
>
> wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
>
> I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a
> bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe
> they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
> immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best
> regardless.
>
> It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued
> in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
> article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
> You don't use Titebond by chance do you?
>
> Rich
>
>
Ok the way I might have tried the test was test a pair of borad TII and T3
same glu up etc then test the bonding strenth say TB2 was 400 PSI and TB3
200 PSI. Then do the magazines test on anohter pair of boards if TB2 was
300PSI and TB3 was 200 PSI. A few more tests could show TB2 at 100 PSI and
TB3 still at 200PSI
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:_sSHc.52254$a24.46262@attbi_s03...
> > >
> > Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds
> > like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and
> drying
> > out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time.
One
> > glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at a
> > lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a
marathon
> > runner.
>
> No glue really failed the test, so much as TB III was out performed by TB
II
> and TB III is suppose to be warer proof and TB II is not.
> I thought about different senerios, but this was IMHO a worst case
situation
> for testing water resistance. The TB II certainly would do just as well
on
> a lessor test.
You might very well be right andI need to get the article they may have
taken into account what I would have done
I might have tried the test this way ...test a pair of boards TII and T3
same glue up etc then test the bonding strength to establish a baseline...
say the results were TB2 was 400 PSI and TB3 200 PSI. Then do the magazines
test on another pair of boards cut from the same glue up and the results
were as you stated from their article TB2 was 300PSI and TB3 was still at
200 PSI. Repeat tests on these same boards could show TB2 at 100 PSI and
TB3 still at 200PSI etc..
>
> > Materials in my line of work are tested by repeated exposure to
> > hot/cold/humidity cycles
>
> The TB II should do even better in a test like that as it is labeled
Weather
> Resistent.
Why?
>
> > I haven't read the article I will get it I just glued up some outdoor
bar
> > stools with TBIII and am curious. I choose it over GG because GG would
be
> > hard to clean up in some of the tight areas, I did use GG for gluing up
> the
> > seat blanks
>
> TB III did so poorly compared to TB II in the area that it should have
> shined. I really have suspicions that the article got the spec's on the
> glues mixed up.
>
>
BTW I made a pair of these same stools about 12 years ago with (TB or TB2?)
and only recently did the seat glue ups and MT joints fail(So California so
not much rain etc..)
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:_sSHc.52254$a24.46262@attbi_s03...
> >
> Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds
> like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and
drying
> out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time. One
> glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at a
> lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a marathon
> runner.
No glue really failed the test, so much as TB III was out performed by TB II
and TB III is suppose to be warer proof and TB II is not.
I thought about different senerios, but this was IMHO a worst case situation
for testing water resistance. The TB II certainly would do just as well on
a lessor test.
> Materials in my line of work are tested by repeated exposure to
> hot/cold/humidity cycles
The TB II should do even better in a test like that as it is labeled Weather
Resistent.
> I haven't read the article I will get it I just glued up some outdoor bar
> stools with TBIII and am curious. I choose it over GG because GG would be
> hard to clean up in some of the tight areas, I did use GG for gluing up
the
> seat blanks
TB III did so poorly compared to TB II in the area that it should have
shined. I really have suspicions that the article got the spec's on the
glues mixed up.
If your indicating that perhaps a larger sampling would give different
results, I agree. Like best 5 out of 8.
This could have been a fluke in that a lesser glue did better than a better
glue. Either way, in this particular test, neither glue had the advantage
as both test pieces were taken from the same board with IIRC consistent
grain.
The TB II Extend did not do well in the test.
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
> can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
> project because it's so weak. I just glued up some table
> legs yesterday with regular Titebond II. The glue bonds are
> tenacious. Franklin's tech support tested a sample of the
> glue from my bottle and claim it's ok. sigh.
>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:kPbIc.56109$MB3.34915@attbi_s04...
> > Not what I meant but yes more samples would be better but I think their
> test
> > method doesn't tell the whole story.
> > The idea I was trying to convey in previous post is to try and
determine
> > deteroration rate over repeated exposure the elements. In my
hypothetical
> > test results TB2 while having a stronger initial strength then TB3 TB2
> after
> > repeated exposure to water and drying didn't maintain its strength as
well
> > as TB3
>
> Yeah,....but your example was hypothetical, it did not really happen. I
> under stand that under a different circumstance the out come could be
> different. But could be is not yet fact. The testing reviled results
that
> one would not expect from a glue sold as superior and marketed as water
> proof.
Hypothetical yes but for me personally I'd be more interested in knowing
which one has better long term holding power under real repeated exposure
> Until there are other tests by another third party, you have nothing other
> than the Wood Magazine tests to base a good decision on when considering
> which of the 2 glues to use if these are your only choices.
>
> Further more, reading Franklins limitations on the 2 glues on their web
page
> indicates that there are more limitations on the TB3 glue than the TB2
glue
> when it comes to using it in an application that require strength. Both
> glues have the same limitations as far as being used around water. With
> those facts why would one be labeled water proof?
Very subjective term there really is nothing that is water proof given
enough time. Taking it to the extreme rivers erode mountains and waves erode
coastlines
>
> The reason that TB3 is called water proof is that it passes shear tests
> after the glue was soaked in boiling water on 2 occasions and dried out.
> TB2 passes shear test on soakings on 3 occasions and dried out.
Right Type 1 boiled the wood, type 2 soaked the wood (didn't say what temp),
type 1 also had higher baking temps for a little longer
>
> Which one sounds like the one that would hold up to "normal and common"
> exposure to water to you?
Probably either one although the longer open time is attractive. Need
better data to access wether it's really worth the extra money. I'm a
hobbiest so the cost isn't a big deal even if it's a little better I might
switch. Kind of funny I had reservations about even using it cause I know
what to expect from TB and TB2 sorta like old friends!
If I was in the business and used a lot of glue that would be another
matter. I guess I'll know in 12 years if the stools recently made out last
the previous ones :)
>
>
>
>
>
> > BTW I wonder what the difference of 200, 300 or 1000PSI really
translates
> > to. The difference of being hit by a pickup, 18 wheeler or a train
>
>
>
"Dave Hinz" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As long as he _participates_ rather than uses it as a marketing outlet,
> sure. If I start seeing marketing drivel from Titebond's folks, on top
> of all the other stuff here lately about them, I'll switch glue brands
> to something else.
>
You are absolutely free to do that and you can even plonk them so that you
do not have to see their posts.
This is how they cover their dupa's:
Found at the bottom of their web page:
http://titebond.com/IntroPageTB.ASP?UserType=1&ProdSel=ProductCategoryTB.asp?prodcat=1
Important Notice: Our recommendations, if any, for the use of this product
are based on tests believed to be reliable. Since the use of this product is
beyond the control of the manufacturer, no guarantee or warranty, expressed
or implied, is made as to such use or effects incidental to such use,
handling or possession or the results to be obtained, whether in accordance
with the directions or claimed so to be. The manufacturer expressly
disclaims responsibility therefore. Furthermore, nothing contained herein
shall be construed as a recommendation to use any product in conflict with
existing laws and/or patents covering any material or use.
1.) Our recommendations, if any, for the use of this product are based on
tests believed to be reliable. - *** Translates to we tested it looks okay
by our standards..
2.) Since the use of this product is beyond the control of the manufacturer,
no guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to such use or
effects incidental to such use, handling or possession or the results to be
obtained, whether in accordance with the directions or claimed so to be.
***They don't stand behind their product because it doesn't work as their
marketing says.
3.) The manufacturer expressly disclaims responsibility therefore.
Furthermore, nothing contained herein shall be construed as a recommendation
to use any product in conflict with existing laws and/or patents covering
any material or use.
*** If it doesn't work and you followed the directions to the letter you are
SOL and they are covered.
They are scamming you with their marketing. The tests by Wood prove that
they are not the " The Best Wood Glue Ever". Their Glue probably works very
well for most glue-ups. I love the article because it exposes them for what
they are worth. Next Months issue will probably have some half ass
clarification and the Titebond ad will be still on the back page.
Rich
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best
> Wood
> > Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood
Glue
> > the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
> >
> > In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
> >
> > wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
> >
> > I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are
making
> a
> > bold claim and they are fair game.
>
> On the label of the glue it reads:
> Passes ANSI/HPVA Type 1 Water Resistance
>
> I'll agree that water proof and water resistance are different according
to
> the dictionary. Given that though, the label gives a specification so
> testing should be done in compliance with the intended use.
>
> The following was found in a forum on
> http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/porch/msg0612195230912.html
>
> What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II
> water-resistance specification?
> Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued
> together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more
> stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing
the
> specimens while they are wet.
> Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3"
> specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F
> oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then
> immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while
wet,
> and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to
> pass the Type I specification.
>
> Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5"
> specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F
> oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the
> bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification.
>
>
>
> > If they can't even compete then maybe
> > they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
> > immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the
best
> > regardless.
>
> Looks like a 4 hour test is OK, not a 24 hour test.
>
> >
> > It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming
> unglued
> > in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
> > article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
> > You don't use Titebond by chance do you?
>
> I recently bought some for a couple of outdoor furniture projects. I used
> TB II the last time and it is holding up well, so this time I tried the TB
> III. I expect it will take the exposure typical of outdoor furniture, but
I
> have no plans to use in in anything submersed. I'd use epoxy for that. I
> don't think the 24 hour test if fair to any adhesive. OK, you may want to
> try it just for the fun of it, but I'd not make poor performance claims
for
> something not made to endure the particular test.
> Ed
>
>
Ok, now I found what I remembered, it's from the most recent Popular
Woodworking (Aug. 2004), on page 25.
They compared Titebond III with Elmer's interior grade carpenters wood glue,
as well as Gorilla's polyurethane glue. They glued up panels with all three
and then ran them through dishwasher cycles. The Elmer's failed during the
first cycle, but neither the Titebond III or Gorilla's failed after 5
additional cycles. That sounds like a winner in my book, especially with a
10 minute open time and 47 degree minimum working temperature. I'll look
forward to reading the Wood comparison as well, though.
Mike
"Mike in Mystic" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:ofIHc.2915$m%[email protected]...
>
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
> > can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
> > project because it's so weak.
>
> That's interesting. I've used the Titebond II Extend numerous times and
> have had absolutely no problems with it. I also saw a little note in a
> recent magazine (can't find it right off hand, but I'll look for it) that
> did a similar comparison of glues (doing things like keeping glue-ups
> submerged, microwaving them, etc.) and the Titebond III did very well,
> comparable to polyurethane glue. I think the magazine might have been
> woodworkers journal, but I'm not certain.
>
> Mike
>
>
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a
bogus
> test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
> setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
> editors of Wood magazine.
> Ed
> [email protected]
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>
>
Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best Wood
Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a
bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe
they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best
regardless.
It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued
in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
You don't use Titebond by chance do you?
Rich
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > After reading the article, I wondered how realistic the test is. How
many
> > joints get submerged for 24 hours? How does the submerged joint compare
> to
> > one with possibly a finish on the pieces and subjected to some rain over
a
> > few days? How would it be if the pieces were allowed to dry out for a
> > couple of days?
> >
> > I don't expect it to hold up submerged, but I do want to know how well
it
> > hold up in typical outdoor furniture uses. Sometimes magazine testing
is
> > not at all comparable to real life situations.
>
> I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
> matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
60%
> more and was out performed by TBII.
>
>
Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds
like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and drying
out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time. One
glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at a
lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a marathon
runner.
Materials in my line of work are tested by repeated exposure to
hot/cold/humidity cycles
I haven't read the article I will get it I just glued up some outdoor bar
stools with TBIII and am curious. I choose it over GG because GG would be
hard to clean up in some of the tight areas, I did use GG for gluing up the
seat blanks
Joe
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a
bogus
> test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
> setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
> editors of Wood magazine.
Still it was done past the capacity of both materials and TB2 out performed
TB3.
> Ed
> [email protected]
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>
>
and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
project because it's so weak. I just glued up some table
legs yesterday with regular Titebond II. The glue bonds are
tenacious. Franklin's tech support tested a sample of the
glue from my bottle and claim it's ok. sigh.
dave
Leon wrote:
> Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
> glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.
>
> In a water resistant test, glued joints were submerged in water for 24
> hours. Surprisingly Titebond III scored worse than Titebond II. The TB II
> joint held up to about 300 PSI. TB III failed at about 200 PSI. So I guess
> you should save your money. TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
> II.
>
> There was a discussion a few weeks ago about the TB III compared to
> Polyurethanes for water resistance. Polyurethanes win. In the same test as
> mentioned above, the Elmer's ProBond and Gorilla Glue Polyurethane joint
> held up to almost 1000 PSI. TB III held up to 200 PSI.
>
>
> I think I will send an email to Franklin and see what they have to say about
> this article.
>
>
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds
>> like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and
> drying
>> out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time.
>> One glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at
>> a lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a
>> marathon runner.
>
> The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a
> bogus
> test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
> setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
> editors of Wood magazine.
Minor nit--it was Dateline that set the GM trucks on fire--20-20 blew up
Ford sedans about 20 years previously. Same guy though--the simple fact
that he had a job after 20-20 speaks volumes about the integrity of the
network news establishment.
> Ed
> [email protected]
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> After reading the article, I wondered how realistic the test is. How many
> joints get submerged for 24 hours? How does the submerged joint compare
to
> one with possibly a finish on the pieces and subjected to some rain over a
> few days? How would it be if the pieces were allowed to dry out for a
> couple of days?
>
> I don't expect it to hold up submerged, but I do want to know how well it
> hold up in typical outdoor furniture uses. Sometimes magazine testing is
> not at all comparable to real life situations.
I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost 60%
more and was out performed by TBII.
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
claims:
I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
60% more and was out performed by TBII.
Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many.
If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances
are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out -
for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the
saturated wood just peeled off.
And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was
clamped, and so on. I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never
will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in
a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e.,
paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying
about it holding..
Details, more details.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
> claims:
> I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
> matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
> 60% more and was out performed by TBII.
>
> Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
> epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
> as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
> paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
> without paint? Not too many.
Again regardless of the condidtion, the better glue performed worse than the
lessor glue in the area that the better glue should have stood out as being
better.
> If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances
> are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out -
> for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the
> saturated wood just peeled off.
Apparently you have not read the article. I was not going to reprint the
article here, just giving the results of the article where the TB III water
proof glue should have done better than the non water proof glues. Again,
the joint on TB III did not fail, it simply was out performed by TBIII.
And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was
> clamped, and so on.
READ the article. The joints were clamped for the time recomended by the
maker and allowed to cure for 72 hours.
I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never
> will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in
> a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e.,
> paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying
> about it holding..
The same for me. But after reading the article, I probably never would TB
III at all. If I need water proof I'll stick with Poly.
> Details, more details.
READ THE ARTICLE
real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test
should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run
counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high
standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done
independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither
was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably
too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does
their lab carry?
point being, more data is needed.
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 5:35pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
says:
<snip> READ THE ARTICLE
I'm not buying a magazine, just to read it.
I just checked Titebond.com. It does say Titebond III is
waterproof. Then it also says:
Limitations Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
waterline.
I've seen glues saying they were waterproof too, and weren't even
water resistant. Ad people. Probably in conjnction with Clinton's
lawyers, to make claims like that.
Now, if they'd made some chairs, and left them outside for a year
or two, and they pulled apart pretty easily, then I'd say they might
have a real-life test. But, just drowning them in water, I don't think
so. Maybe if they'd let the glue cure for a month or two before they
tried it. Or, did they? I haven't read the article.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
Gorilla or Elmer's ProBond Polyurethane will work well as the test indicated
these to be 4 times stronger in strength than TB3.
Keep in mind also that TB3 did not fail the water test.!!!!!! It simply was
outperformed in strength by its sister TB2. The point of my original post
was to point out that TB2 seems to be stronger in a water application than
TB3 and much cheaper.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Based on a test that should not have been done in the manner it was. If
> you get past the marketing hype, I wonder if the results would be
> different under more realistic conditions. If they were both given a
spray
> of water similar to rainfall, followed by sunshine, then some morning dew,
> etc.
Yes I think that the results would be different and both of the glues would
probably hold up under higher pressure. Still, both were tested eually and
it only seems logical that the glue designed to be used around "X" amount of
water would do better than a glue that was designed to be used in less than
"X" amount of water. This was not really a test of, does the glue pass the
test or not, both certainly did, but the under dog did better.
> How many samples were tested?
IIRC, 1 for each glue type and test. And that may be the problem. Although
the tests were used with pieces of wood from the same board and the glue was
applied in an equal manner, the results could have been a fluke. Perhaps
best 5 of 8 tests or best average of 3 testings would have indicated
different results.
>If could also be an anomaly if only one test piece was done.
True, and very likely. Or Wood Magazine matched the results to the wrong
glue. While I still believe that as long as the test was consistant for
both glues, TB3 was tested closer to its intended usage than TB2 was. A
larger sampleing, and I hope for Franklins sake, hopefully would yield
better results with TB3 than TB2 on this particular test.
> If the results were the same in repeated testing I'd be
> far more concerned.
Yeah, That is what I am thinkng. But given the results, Wood Magazine or
Franklin has some serious explaining to do.
They also state that the same board was used in the
> testing. We all know that wood can vary quite a bit over a few feet of
> length. Could be a factor if only one sample was done and each type was
> from a different section of the wood. .
"IIRC" the maple board had consistant grain.
>
> There is no doubt the poly glues performed much better under the
conditions
> and I'd expect them to do so. I have to imagine that Franklin would have
> done some testing to establish that TB3 is stronger than TB2 under normal
> conditions or real use. FWIW, Franklin specs state that the TB2 meets the
> Type II specs while the TB3 meets Type I specs.
I am not sure what Type I or II mean, but if Type II means that it will hold
up better under wet conditions than Type I, the test would indicate that TB2
probably easily passes the Tpye II specs also.
ANYWAY.. ;~) LOL.. I did send an email to Franklin asking their view on
the test results, in the magazine that they bought a full page add for the
back cover.
>
>
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> I think what Edwin is indicating here is that the WaterProof label in
this
> instance should be clarified on the bottle front label as not really being
> water proof as a common person would define it and that it is more of a
> description of the ANSI spec.
>
Right, Leon.
I just took an unscientific poll from a group of one person. I asked my wife
about the glue from what she saw on the label.
Would you use the TB3 for outdoor furniture?
Yes
Would you use the TB3 for a boat or pool device?
Yes
Showed her the label of TB2 and asked the same questions.
Answer was yes, no. The difference being waterproof versus water resistant.
I then asked her to read the back of the label. What is the ANSI spec? Of
course she had no idea as do most of us at least until this discussion made
me look it up.
Ed
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test
> should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run
> counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high
> standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done
> independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither
> was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably
> too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does
> their lab carry?
>
>
> point being, more data is needed.
Exactly. But the Franklyn web site indicates that the Limitations of TB3
are more restrictive than those of TB2 when it comes to use of the joint
after it is cured. They basically admit that this glue has no better water
resistant properties than TB2 unless you plan to immerse the joint in
boiling water. So why sell TB3 at all?
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would
> actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting.
> From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
> waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".
I went to Franklins site and read the limitations of both glues.
Both the WATER PROOF labeled TB3 and the WEATHER RESISTANT labeled TB 2
have the same limitation of not using below a water line and both should not
be submerged for continued periods of time.
What is considered continuiously submerged? Since not to be used below the
water line would suggest that the joint would not hold up well if it would
never be out of the water, I have to believe that not continiousely
submerged would be short of used below the water line, like on an
application on the bottom of a boat that stays in the water for months on
end. Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2 weeks, or
1 day. Who knows?
Additionally the limitation on TB3 indicates to not use the TB3 on a
structural or load bearing application. TB2 does not have this limitation.
TB3 can be used in 10 degree F lower temperature that TB2.
Anyway, The TB 3 passes the Type 1 shear test after the test piece was
soaked in boiling water 2 times and dried out 2 times. TB 2 passes the Type
2 shear test after the test piece was soaked 3 times and driedout 3 times.
Titebond really does not indicate which glue is better when used around
normal and likely water exposure situations. It does indicate which glue
should not be used for structural or load bearing applications.
With all that information and the Wood Magazine test results, when would TB3
be a better choice over TB2? The only time that I see that TB3 would be a
better choice over TB2 is if you are going to use the project in boiling
water and will assembly of the project will be in 10 degree F colder
temperatures than TB2 can be use at.
> The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests,
which
> are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather
> than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that rating
> is IMO a bit misleading.
Very misleading indeed, along with the Water PROOF claim on the front label.
>
> --
> --John
> Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 3:25pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
asks:
<snip> Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2
weeks,
or 1 day. Who knows? <snip>
I do, I do. LMAO
Based on an article I read some time in the past, and forget the
article, and where I read it, I think the "usual" meaning, is for a boat
taken out of the water after each use, and stored dry. Trailer it to
the water, use it, trailer it back home, and let it sit until the next
time. Sounds like a reasonable enough interpretation to me.
However, you'd have to be careful to keep the boat well covered
while sitting, to keep rain out of it. Fresh water (rain) getting to
the wood, would not be good. However, some people keep a few cloth bags
of salt in the bilges (bottom) of their boat, because salt water won't
rot wood. I think that's used mosely in small sail boats. Sounds like
a pretty good idea tho, just in case.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> No web page search is required unless you want to know the details of the
> testing. If you expect them to put the whole ANSI spec on each bottle
then
> expect to pay about 40 bucks a bottle because the spec is copyrighted and
> ANSI charges for each copy.
I think what Edwin is indicating here is that the WaterProof label in this
instance should be clarified on the bottle front label as not really being
water proof as a common person would define it and that it is more of a
description of the ANSI spec.
What you say is true but the testing conditions used are no less precise
than most of the junk science that is so common.
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test
> should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run
> counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high
> standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done
> independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither
> was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably
> too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does
> their lab carry?
>
>
> point being, more data is needed.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> What were the results after 4 hours? Ten hours? 30 hours?
Since those tests were not performed, that would be hard to say. But in
this particular case, the under dog came out ahead. This is what will have
to be addressed by Wood or Franklin.
It seems to me that Wood Magazine would have wanted this to be as fare as
possable in that the back cover of the magazine was supported paid for by
Franklin. "Perhaps" this test was done under advisement of all the glue
companies being represented, or not. If I were working at Wood Magazine, I
think I would want the test of a clients product to be "fair" in that
clients eyes.
It seems to me also that Franklin would want to know the results of the
tests before having their large back page ad on that particular issue. The
article and the back page ad condradict each other greatly and the article
effectively nulifies the back page ad.
I imagine there are going to be "mad" red faces and "embarrased" red faces
on both sides that we may never know about.
> After reaching a certain point beyond design limits, the results can
easily
> be changed or nulled.
Absdolutely true but these results will equally factor in on the conclusion.
In your other post you use a comparison of two bolts.
> Lets add another factor.
>
> What if both bolts are exposted to a salt spray for ten years in you boat
> trailer stored at the shore? Would the results be the same or would the
> higher priced bolt made from a different alloy hold up better after a long
> period of time while the first bolt would have let your suspenion fail 500
> miles ago?
>
> The 40¢ bolt may be plated or have alloys better suited for my use. If my
> use requires they hold up the 300 pounds of torque it will not fail. If
the
> 25¢ bolts rusts away, it certainly was no bargain if damage occurred or
had
> to be replaced at 25¢ plus labor.
I see what you are saying here, and to compare to the glue test, the bolt
that failed the test would be the one that also had the extra protection
against corrosion. Remember, the WATER PROOF glue was the one with the
added water protection to make it water proof and it performed worse that
the glue with out the added water protection.
The glue test results go against my way of thinking. I was greatly
suprised.
> All we know is that the test was done beyond the product design. Give me
> results that matter under the condition that I'm going to use a product.
Unfortunately, these are the only test results that I know of that include
the names other makers of glues.
Your boss tells you to buy a PVA glue that will be exposed to water and
sometimes submerged in water. You want documentation to back up your
decision in case the glue you choose does not perform adequately. TB2 and
TB3 are your only choices.
So, with this limited information which do you choose? The glue that says
that it is water proof, or the glue that did better in a water test. What
makes it really frustrating is that Franklin was both the winner and looser
in this test. The test indicates that Franklin glues are being labeled
incorrectly at the factory.
NOW...
Take a look at what Franklin says about the limitations of TB2 and TB3.
Titebond II Premium Wood Glue passes Type II water-resistance tests. Do not
use for joints below the waterline or continuous submersion. Do not use when
temperature, glue or materials are below 55°F. Freezing may not affect the
function of the product but may cause it to thicken. Agitation should
restore product to original form. Because of variances in the surfaces of
treated lumber, it is a good idea to test for adhesion. KEEP FROM FREEZING.
KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN.
Titebond III Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline.
Not for structural or load bearing
applications. Use when temperature, glue and materials are above 45°F. Store
product below 75°F.
Storage above this temperature may cause product to thicken and reduce the
usable shelf life. If
thickened, shake vigorously by firmly tapping bottle on a hard surface until
product is restored to
original form. Because of variances in the surfaces of treated lumber, it is
a good idea to test for
adhesion. KEEP FROM FREEZING.
KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN.
TB II has less limitations than TB III except for low temperature use.
TBIII can be used above 45 degreesF and TB II can be used above 55 degreesF.
TB III says not to use for structural or load bearing applications. TB II
does not have that limitation.
While neither should be used below the waterline, a water line is normally
a constant and use in that condition would probably result in failure. Also
neither should be used in continuous submersion. I read that the joint can
be submerged but not for an on going period, continuous period of time. I
believe that the purpose of stating not to be used below a water line AND
stating not for continuous submersion is to indicate that there is a
difference in the two. If the glue should never be used under water, that
limitation should be the only one stated concerning applications that will
be subjected to water.
The test on both Titebond glues lasted approximately 73 hours. 72 hours
before being submerged and for curing and 1 hour being submerged. Of the 73
hour life of both joints, 72 out of water and 1 hour under water, the
submerged time was not constant. With the test limitations indicated by
Titebond, the test was valid.
I find it odd that Titebond 3 has the same and more limitations than
Titebond 2. This would seem to substantiate Wood Magazines test results.
Neither joint failed because neither was constantly kept below a water line
and neither joint failed because it was continuously submerged. The test
indicated that the TB 3 joint proved weaker than TB 2, backing up the
limitation that TB 3 should not be used for structural or load bearing
surfaces.
Titebonds stated limitations are quite interesting and contradictory when
comparing the TB2 and TB 3 capabilities.
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> .
>
> I just checked Titebond.com. It does say Titebond III is
> waterproof. Then it also says:
> Limitations Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
> waterline.
>
The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that it
was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them on an
18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
would.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page.
> The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are
> made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different
> things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was
shopping
> for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should
not
> be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of the
> term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.
>
> While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have
to
> also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.
Now... we are on the same page Edwin. The glue is simply marketed to be
something that it is not, unless defined by its "standards" tests. Most
people do not realize that the Water Proof label does mean Water Proof by
common knowledge definitions.
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 5:35pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
> says:
> <snip> READ THE ARTICLE
>
> I'm not buying a magazine, just to read it.
>
> I just checked Titebond.com. It does say Titebond III is
> waterproof. Then it also says:
> Limitations Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
> waterline.
>
> I've seen glues saying they were waterproof too, and weren't even
> water resistant. Ad people. Probably in conjnction with Clinton's
> lawyers, to make claims like that.
>
You are totally missing the point here. TB3 claims "Water Proof" TB2
claims merely weather resistant. A reasonable person would expect TB3 to
out perform TB2 when water is introduced in the equation. As the test
indicates, TB2 holds up better than TB3 in water testing.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> Yes the test was severe. But one would think that TB3 would do better
than
> TB2. That's it.
Disagree.
> Wrong or not, if the results are correct, why does a water resistant glue
do
> better than a water proof glue when soaked in water?
We don't know hte shole story.
>
> The results would be the same. The TB2 was tested way farther than its
> design limits than the TB3 was and it held up better.
We don't know that for sure.
>
> What do you think the results would chang to? I could see how there would
> be a problem if the TB2 failed miserably against other water proof glues
in
> the PVA catagory because it is not sold as water proof. What reason
could
> the TB2 have done better in this water test against TB3.
> Neither glue was designed to be used to this extreme but the glue that
> should have done better, did not.
What were the results after 4 hours? Ten hours? 30 hours?
After reaching a certain point beyond design limits, the results can easily
be changed or nulled. In your other post you use a comparison of two bolts.
Lets add another factor.
What if both bolts are exposted to a salt spray for ten years in you boat
trailer stored at the shore? Would the results be the same or would the
higher priced bolt made from a different alloy hold up better after a long
period of time while the first bolt would have let your suspenion fail 500
miles ago?
The 40¢ bolt may be plated or have alloys better suited for my use. If my
use requires they hold up the 300 pounds of torque it will not fail. If the
25¢ bolts rusts away, it certainly was no bargain if damage occurred or had
to be replaced at 25¢ plus labor.
All we know is that the test was done beyond the product design. Give me
results that matter under the condition that I'm going to use a product.
Ed
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> why are you taking it on faith that the new and "improved"
> glue is really better than the TBII? "New" isn't always
> better. If an independent test shows poor performance, I
> see no logic in expecting the testers to disregard the
> results and give a product more chances.
If you go beyond the water tests, TB# did out perform the TB2.
Besides, it is more expensive so it must be better. Right?
Ed
Jay Pique wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:18:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that
>>it was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them
>>on an 18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
>>
>>I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
>>product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
>>The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
>>would.
>>Ed
>
> I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I
> believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to
> illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.
>
> I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and
> Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and
> separated by measured force.)
>
> Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the
> three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough
> sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to
> Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged.
I'm a bit puzzled as to how much more "clean" one can get on this point than
"not for continuous submersion".
> And why did T2 fare better?
>
> JP
> **************
> T1 user 98% of the time...the other two reserved for CA on my wounds!
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Leon wrote:
> The submerged time was 24 hours and considerably longer than the 1 hour
> that I indicated.
>
> IHMO however, a Water Proof glued joint being submerged for 1 day during a
> 4 day test is not beyond the manufacturers stated limitations of
> continuiously being submerged or use below a water line like a glue
> aplication on a boat bottom.
>
> I guess we should ask Franklin what their definition of Water Proof is.
It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would
actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting.
From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".
The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests, which
are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather
than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that rating
is IMO a bit misleading.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
[email protected] wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:47:43 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>>Jay Pique wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:18:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that
>>>>it was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them
>>>>on an 18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
>>>>
>>>>I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
>>>>product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
>>>>The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing.
>>>>I would.
>>>>Ed
>>>
>>> I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I
>>> believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to
>>> illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.
>>>
>>> I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and
>>> Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and
>>> separated by measured force.)
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the
>>> three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough
>>> sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to
>>> Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged.
>>
>>I'm a bit puzzled as to how much more "clean" one can get on this point
>>than "not for continuous submersion".
>>
> I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters.
> They would almost certainly be continuously damp.
> Now I don't know what to buy.
In order of preference, resorcinol, epoxy, polyurethane. There are some
others that will work well but are harder to find.
Or make them in such a manner that they hold together without glue.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would
>> actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting.
>> From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
>> waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".
>>
>> The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests,
> which
>> are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather
>> than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that
>> rating is IMO a bit misleading.
>
> That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page.
> The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are
> made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different
> things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was
> shopping
> for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should
> not be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of
> the term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.
No web page search is required unless you want to know the details of the
testing. If you expect them to put the whole ANSI spec on each bottle then
expect to pay about 40 bucks a bottle because the spec is copyrighted and
ANSI charges for each copy.
> While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have
> to also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:18:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that it
>was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them on an
>18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
>
>I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
>product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
>The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
>would.
>Ed
I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I
believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to
illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.
I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and
Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and
separated by measured force.)
Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the
three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough
sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to
Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged. And
why did T2 fare better?
JP
**************
T1 user 98% of the time...the other two reserved for CA on my wounds!
"J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would
> actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting.
> From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
> waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".
>
> The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests,
which
> are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather
> than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that rating
> is IMO a bit misleading.
That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page.
The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are
made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different
things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was shopping
for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should not
be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of the
term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.
While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have to
also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> You are totally missing the point here. TB3 claims "Water Proof" TB2
> claims merely weather resistant. A reasonable person would expect TB3 to
> out perform TB2 when water is introduced in the equation. As the test
> indicates, TB2 holds up better than TB3 in water testing.
>
>
Based on a test that should not have been done in the manner it was. If
you get past the marketing hype, I wonder if the results would be
different under more realistic conditions. If they were both given a spray
of water similar to rainfall, followed by sunshine, then some morning dew,
etc. .
How many samples were tested? If could also be an anomaly if only one test
piece was done. If the results were the same in repeated testing I'd be
far more concerned. They also state that the same board was used in the
testing. We all know that wood can vary quite a bit over a few feet of
length. Could be a factor if only one sample was done and each type was
from a different section of the wood. .
There is no doubt the poly glues performed much better under the conditions
and I'd expect them to do so. I have to imagine that Franklin would have
done some testing to establish that TB3 is stronger than TB2 under normal
conditions or real use. FWIW, Franklin specs state that the TB2 meets the
Type II specs while the TB3 meets Type I specs.
why are you taking it on faith that the new and "improved"
glue is really better than the TBII? "New" isn't always
better. If an independent test shows poor performance, I
see no logic in expecting the testers to disregard the
results and give a product more chances.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
I have to imagine that Franklin would have
> done some testing to establish that TB3 is stronger than TB2 under normal
> conditions or real use. FWIW, Franklin specs state that the TB2 meets the
> Type II specs while the TB3 meets Type I specs.
>
>
Lets compare this in another way.
Lets take 2 different bolts that are manufactured by the same company bolts
and are tested the same by applying torque to them until they break and
record the torque reading.
Bolt TB2 is sold as a Premium Quality bolt, is 1/4" in diameter and breaks
at 750 foot pounds. Cost 25 cents.
Bolt TB3 is sold as an Extra Strong Premium Quality bolt, is 1/4" in
diameter and breaks at 500 goot pounds. Cost 40 cents
While the testing may not reflect normal torque applied to the bolts, which
one would you buy?
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:47:43 -0400, "J. Clarke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Jay Pique wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:18:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that
>>>it was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them
>>>on an 18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
>>>
>>>I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
>>>product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
>>>The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
>>>would.
>>>Ed
>>
>> I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I
>> believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to
>> illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.
>>
>> I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and
>> Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and
>> separated by measured force.)
>>
>> Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the
>> three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough
>> sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to
>> Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged.
>
>I'm a bit puzzled as to how much more "clean" one can get on this point than
>"not for continuous submersion".
>
I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters.
They would almost certainly be continuously damp.
Now I don't know what to buy.
Brian,
Try epoxy.
If you buy a 'quart kit' of WEST Epoxy {by Gueogeon Brothers} from a local
West Marine {NOT the same company}, it may seem expensive - due to the small
quantity. HOWEVER, it has SO MANY uses and abilities you will probably
wonder how you got along without it.
There are several 'mail order' sources as well. I use RAKA, from the company
of the same name in Florida. I am a 'small user' and get quantities of 3
gallons at a time. Another good outfit is System Three - they have an
EXCELLENT free booklet on the 'theory & practice' of using epoxies. Well
worth contacting them for it.
Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{PS - I also use Titebond II in many places where epoxy is either not
necessary, or I want something to simply 'squirt, smear, & clamp'. I use it
for the 'garden projects' & 'Nautically Themed' planters, etc. that stay
outdoors throughout the year. I've yet to have a 'glue failure'. }
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 11 Jul 2004 15:07:40 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self)
wrote:
>
> >Brian Jones writes:
> >
> >>I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters.
> >>They would almost certainly be continuously damp.
> >>Now I don't know what to buy.
> >>
> >
> >Resorcinol.
> >
> I know I should use it Charlie, but I really hate working with that stuff
and it
> is expensive.
> I'm going to use a TiteBond, I just don't know with one.<g>
>
> >Charlie Self
On 11 Jul 2004 15:07:40 GMT, [email protected] (Charlie Self) wrote:
>Brian Jones writes:
>
>>I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters.
>>They would almost certainly be continuously damp.
>>Now I don't know what to buy.
>>
>
>Resorcinol.
>
I know I should use it Charlie, but I really hate working with that stuff and it
is expensive.
I'm going to use a TiteBond, I just don't know with one.<g>
>Charlie Self
>"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
>not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn
Brian Jones writes:
>I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters.
>They would almost certainly be continuously damp.
>Now I don't know what to buy.
>
Resorcinol.
Charlie Self
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn
The submerged time was 24 hours and considerably longer than the 1 hour that
I indicated.
IHMO however, a Water Proof glued joint being submerged for 1 day during a 4
day test is not beyond the manufacturers stated limitations of continuiously
being submerged or use below a water line like a glue aplication on a boat
bottom.
I guess we should ask Franklin what their definition of Water Proof is.
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that
it
> was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them on
an
> 18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
Yes the test was severe. But one would think that TB3 would do better than
TB2. That's it.
>
> I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong.
Wrong or not, if the results are correct, why does a water resistant glue do
better than a water proof glue when soaked in water?
> The product should have been tested within the limits of its design.
Period.
The results would be the same. The TB2 was tested way farther than its
design limits than the TB3 was and it held up better.
> The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
> would.
What do you think the results would chang to? I could see how there would
be a problem if the TB2 failed miserably against other water proof glues in
the PVA catagory because it is not sold as water proof. What reason could
the TB2 have done better in this water test against TB3.
Neither glue was designed to be used to this extreme but the glue that
should have done better, did not.
> Ed
> [email protected]
> http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
>
>
>
>
J T wrote:
> Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
> claims:
> I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
> matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
> 60% more and was out performed by TBII.
>
> Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
> epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
> as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
> paint it?
You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until the
planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down onto the
caulking. And if there's no water in the bilge, be very afraid.
Further, there are some types, the Scandinavian Folkboats for example, that
are quite capable of crossing oceans and that are traditionally finished
bright, not painted.
> Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
> without paint? Not too many.
Most who made it out of Lapacho or Jarrah would. That's the whole point of
using very hard highly decay resistant exotic woods--you don't have to baby
them that way.
> If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances
> are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out -
> for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the
> saturated wood just peeled off.
>
> And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was
> clamped, and so on. I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never
> will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in
> a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e.,
> paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying
> about it holding..
With that attitude I strongly advise you not to go farther from land than
you can swim in any boat that you have built.
> Details, more details.
>
> Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
> want.
> - Bernard M. Baruch
> More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
> credit for your work.
> - JOAT
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 9:26am [email protected] (J.=A0Clarke) says:
You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until
the planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down
onto the caulking. <snip>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, that's why buckets were invented. I
know, there's boats been made, and some "still" made, with NO caulking,
no glue, and not painted. And yeah, some outdoor furniture isn't
painted, or finished. You seem to take it as a given that I don't know
about any of that. Well, yeah, I do know about it - and none of it was
the point.
You missed the point, which was about the glue.
By the way, a well made wooden boat doesn't "need" to leak.
And, with my attitude, you won't have to worry about getting
invited for a ride in any boat I make. LMAO
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
J T wrote:
> Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 9:26am [email protected] (J. Clarke) says:
> You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until
> the planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down
> onto the caulking. <snip>
>
> Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, that's why buckets were invented. I
> know, there's boats been made, and some "still" made, with NO caulking,
> no glue, and not painted.
Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden boats
is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.
> And yeah, some outdoor furniture isn't
> painted, or finished. You seem to take it as a given that I don't know
> about any of that. Well, yeah, I do know about it - and none of it was
> the point.
>
> You missed the point, which was about the glue.
But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the case.
The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry, the
correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry, or even
better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain its
structural integrity.
> By the way, a well made wooden boat doesn't "need" to leak.
Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears not
to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that it's not
about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in the days of
sail for that reason).
> And, with my attitude, you won't have to worry about getting
> invited for a ride in any boat I make. LMAO
That's OK, I would have turned down the offer anyway. I'm crazy, but not
_that_ crazy.
> Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
> want.
> - Bernard M. Baruch
> More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
> credit for your work.
> - JOAT
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm [email protected] (J.=A0Clarke) put out:
Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden
boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.
Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural
material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a
mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail. Also, you don't define
"very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for
a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures.
And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it. But, I
don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm
reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth. In this
case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come
right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717.
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html=
Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives
are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history.=A0
From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to
the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from
here: http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html
Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen
developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who
knows?
But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the
case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry,
the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry,
or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain
its structural integrity.
What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a
real-life type test, and this is what I said.
"Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many."
Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears
not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that
it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in
the days of sail for that reason). <snip>
I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did
say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be
talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or
not well made; and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa
wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know
their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing
leaks. Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky
boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps
cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them
together. Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of
2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and
that painted. I never made one, but understand they didn't leak. So,
I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still
made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if
they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all
cold molded, and nobody realized it.
For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no
worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough
floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom,
it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy,
paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.
But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it
was a realistic test. And, still don't.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm [email protected] (J. Clarke) put out:
Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden
boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.
Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural
material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a
mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail.
Yes, glues are structural materials. In fact TB 3 has limitations to not be
used in load bearing or structural projects. TB2 does not have that
limitation. Automotive wind shields and back glass is held in with a
structural adhesive and or glue. Many GM minivans used structural
ahdhesives and glues to bond the body panels together.
Also, you don't define
"very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for
a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures.
And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it. But, I
don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm
reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth. In this
case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come
right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717.
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html
Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives
are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history.
From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to
the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from
here: http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html
Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen
developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who
knows?
But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the
case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry,
the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry,
or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain
its structural integrity.
What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a
real-life type test, and this is what I said.
"Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many."
Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears
not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that
it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in
the days of sail for that reason). <snip>
I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did
say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be
talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or
not well made; and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa
wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know
their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing
leaks. Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky
boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps
cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them
together. Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of
2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and
that painted. I never made one, but understand they didn't leak. So,
I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still
made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if
they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all
cold molded, and nobody realized it.
For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no
worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough
floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom,
it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy,
paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.
But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it
was a realistic test. And, still don't.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 1:25pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
claims:
Yes, glues are structural materials. <snip> structural adhesive and or
glue. Many GM minivans used structural ahdhesives and glues to bond the
body panels together.
Might as well call nails structural material then, they hold wood
together. However, I note you were saying "structural adhesive", which
doesn't compute as "structural material", to me So, I did some looking.
Came up with this:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Fastener \Fas"ten*er\, n. One who, or that which, makes fast or firm.
This:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
glue n : cement consisting of a sticky substance that is used as an
adhesive
And, this:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
adhesive adj : tending to adhere [ant: {nonadhesive}] n : a substance
that unites or bonds surfaces together
And then I found this:
http://www.adhesivesmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2101,122100,00.html
Seems to me that structural bonding is the term, not structural
material.
I do accept glue, nails, rivets, whatever, as being part of a whole
structural package, always have, always will, no prob. But, to call
them structural material, I don't buy it. But, you come up with some
legitimate proof(s) that says they are, and I might change my mind.
Until then, I'll be saying fasteners, and structural bonding, my new
term. LOL
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 22:03:16 GMT, Leon <[email protected]> wrote:
> Back during my automotive days it was very important that we used structural
> glass adhesive to rebond new replacement windshields and the back glass. I
> always wondered how a shattered windshield provided much support.
They don't shatter much in a rollover, and the strength they provide
will be during the first roll, when most of the energy is dissipated.
Even in the most impressive rollovers I've seen (4 or 5 rolls)
the windshield still was mostly intact... the plastic layer inside keeps
it in place, and it'll still have strength in tension even if the glass
is cracked.
Rear windows, yeah, they'll break into tiny granular, not-very-sharp
pieces. But, the C-pillars are much stronger, I'm guessing the structural
contributions of the back window are trivial compared to the windshield.
Dave Hinz
Back during my automotive days it was very important that we used structural
glass adhesive to rebond new replacement windshields and the back glass. I
always wondered how a shattered windshield provided much support. It was
important that a wind shield not pop out if a car rolled over as the wind
shield, back glass and the adhesive that held it in place helped keep the
pillars in place so that the roof hopefully would not collapse.
"J T" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 1:25pm (EDT+4) [email protected] (Leon)
> claims:
> Yes, glues are structural materials. <snip> structural adhesive and or
> glue. Many GM minivans used structural ahdhesives and glues to bond the
> body panels together.
>
> Might as well call nails structural material then, they hold wood
> together. However, I note you were saying "structural adhesive", which
> doesn't compute as "structural material", to me So, I did some looking.
>
> Came up with this:
> From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
> Fastener \Fas"ten*er\, n. One who, or that which, makes fast or firm.
>
> This:
> From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
> glue n : cement consisting of a sticky substance that is used as an
> adhesive
>
> And, this:
> From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
> adhesive adj : tending to adhere [ant: {nonadhesive}] n : a substance
> that unites or bonds surfaces together
>
> And then I found this:
>
http://www.adhesivesmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2101,122100,00.html
>
> Seems to me that structural bonding is the term, not structural
> material.
>
> I do accept glue, nails, rivets, whatever, as being part of a whole
> structural package, always have, always will, no prob. But, to call
> them structural material, I don't buy it. But, you come up with some
> legitimate proof(s) that says they are, and I might change my mind.
> Until then, I'll be saying fasteners, and structural bonding, my new
> term. LOL
>
> Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
> want.
> - Bernard M. Baruch
> More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
> credit for your work.
> - JOAT
>
J T wrote:
> Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm [email protected] (J. Clarke) put out:
> Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden
> boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
> cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
> load.
>
> Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural
> material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a
> mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail.
If you want to call it a fastener, then consider that the performance of
glue ranges from that of a strand of spaghetti on up.
> Also, you don't define
> "very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for
> a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures.
So which cultures build ocean-crossing vessels that depended on glue to
maintain their structural integrity?
> And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it.
Not to maintain primary structural integrity.
> But, I
> don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm
> reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth.
Epoxy in some cases, resorcinol in others. And while it is possible to
fiberglass over a cold-molded hull, that is not a necessary part of the
process.
> In this
> case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come
> right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717.
> http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html
> Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives
> are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history.
> From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to
> the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from
> here: http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html
Caulking does not depend on any kind of adhesive unless you define the term
_very_ loosely. Any source that equates caulking of wooden ships with
adhesive bonding is at best questionable.
> Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen
> developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who
> knows?
And what kind of boats did he glue together with it?
> But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
> protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the
> case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry,
> the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry,
> or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain
> its structural integrity.
>
> What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a
> real-life type test, and this is what I said.
> "Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
> epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
> as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
> paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
> without paint? Not too many."
Please explain how that statement is different from an assertion that some
kind of protective coating will always be used in glued construction.
> Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears
> not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that
> it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in
> the days of sail for that reason). <snip>
>
> I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did
> say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be
> talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or
> not well made;
If you consider the ships of the United States Navy to be "not well made"
then perhaps your assertion might hold some validity.
> and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa
> wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know
> their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing
> leaks.
I wasn't talking about frozen snot, I was talking about wood.
> Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky
> boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps
> cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them
> together.
What leads you to believe that cold molded construction involves fiberglass?
If you believe that either fiberglass or epoxy is a necessary part of the
process then you have been very sadily misinformed. Cold molded
construction requires veneer, a waterproof adhesive, a mold, and some means
of applying pressure during cure--that might involve a two-part mold or a
vacuum bag or some other process. There is no fiberglass involved and
epoxy is not the best adhesive to use for the purpose.
> Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of
> 2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and
> that painted.
Commonplace canoe construction.
> I never made one, but understand they didn't leak.
If you put fasteners through the canvas then it leaked until the wood
swelled. Unlike you, I _have_ owned such a canoe.
> So,
> I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still
> made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if
> they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all
> cold molded, and nobody realized it.
Very few canoes are in the water long enough at a time for seepage to be an
issue. Take that same canoe and tie it up at a marina and leave it there
for a year and you'll find water in the bilge even if it's kept under cover
so no rain gets in. You seem to think that one either has a leak that
sinks the boat or one has a dry bilge. The truth is in between.
> For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no
> worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough
> floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom,
> it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy,
> paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.
Why would you need to caulk a plywood boat? However I think I'm beginning
to see part of the problem. I suspect that you when you see the word
"caulk" associate it with a product that you buy in a tube at Home Depot.
That is not the sort of caulk that the Romans were using or the sort of
caulk that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the British East India Company, the
Spanish Armada, or any of numerous other outfits that were famed for being
able to go anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to in wooden ships
propelled by wind would be using. And that type of caulk is not used in
the seams of modern boats either--the caulking is structural and must be
driven into place with a mallet, a use to which such products are not
amenable. When I think of a boat I don't think of something that sits on a
trailer most of the time and gets towed down to the launching ramp to go
fishing, I think of something that is launched once and stays in the water
until it becomes necessary to remove it to clean the bottom or to prevent
damage from ice, which vessel can when sufficient quantities of food and
water are put aboard be aimed east and sailed until one bumps into Europe.
The realities of such vessels are considerably different from the realities
of trailer-boats.
> But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it
> was a realistic test. And, still don't.
And I still don't think it's realistic to depend on paint to keep the glue
dry.
> Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
> want.
> - Bernard M. Baruch
> More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
> credit for your work.
> - JOAT
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 3:42am [email protected] (J.=A0Clarke) who says:
If you want to call it a fastener, then consider that the performance of
glue ranges from that of a strand of spaghetti on up.
If it's so bad, why'd you call it structural material?
So which cultures build ocean-crossing vessels that depended on glue to
maintain their structural integrity?
Noah. http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/241.gopherwood-ark.html
There's more.
Not to maintain primary structural integrity.
See Noah.
Epoxy in some cases, resorcinol in others. And while it is possible to
fiberglass over a cold-molded hull, that is not a necessary part of the
process.
Fibreglass would be for me. It would help keep the bottom from
abrading. I'm not taking about some sail boat or something, I'm talking
about a boat that'll be run up on shore, in shallow water, in other
words, used.
Caulking does not depend on any kind of adhesive unless you define the
term _very_ loosely. Any source that equates caulking of wooden ships
with adhesive bonding is at best questionable.
You might want to tell the British that. Their traditional method
of caulking was oakum, then pine tar.
And what kind of boats did he glue together with it?
Didn't ask.
Please explain how that statement is different from an assertion that
some kind of protective coating will always be used in glued
construction.
Don't have to. I never said a couting would always be used.
If you consider the ships of the United States Navy to be "not well
made" then perhaps your assertion might hold some validity.
Last I'd heard, most of them are now made out of steel.
I wasn't talking about frozen snot, I was talking about wood.
An unpainted, glued together boat?
What leads you to believe that cold molded construction involves
fiberglass?
Mostly because I've read articles on people builting cold-molded
boats that wanted them to a last a long, long time, without major
maintenance.
If you believe that either fiberglass or epoxy is a necessary part of
the process then you have been very sadily misinformed. Cold molded
construction requires veneer, a waterproof adhesive, a mold,
No it doesn't. It does require thin wood, which can be strips.
Watrproof adhesive, yeah that's best, but partly depends on usage, which
you seem to ignore. A mold isn't necessary, if you apply directly over
an old hull - some people call that cold-molding, some don't. You
probably don't.
and some means of applying pressure during cure--that might involve a
two-part mold or a vacuum bag or some other process.
Staples, or tacks will work.
There is no fiberglass involved and epoxy is not the best adhesive to
use for the purpose.
Depends on who's doing it. There is more than one way.
Commonplace canoe construction.
Orange crate slats commonplace canoe construction?
If you put fasteners through the canvas then it leaked until the wood
swelled. Unlike you, I _have_ owned such a canoe.
Apparently you had a cheap canoe. I did say the Boy Scouts painted
their canoes. And, the canvas canoes aren't made just by tacking canvas
on, the canvas is protected with a coating - which makes the canoe
waterproof. They don't need to have the wood swell so they won't leak.
Very few canoes are in the water long enough at a time for seepage to be
an issue. Take that same canoe and tie it up at a marina and leave it
there for a year and you'll find water in the bilge even if it's kept
under cover so no rain gets in.
So? Condensation would do that.
You seem to think that one either has a leak that sinks the boat or one
has a dry bilge. The truth is in between.
Do you think so?
Why would you need to caulk a plywood boat?
Well gee, I thought I'd either do that to piss you off, or to keep
it from leaking.
However I think I'm beginning to see part of the problem. I suspect that
you when you see the word "caulk" associate it with a product that you
buy in a tube at Home Depot.
Ah, I see part of the problem. You think I don't know what caulk
is. Well, I do. However, what I would use to caulk a plywood boat
with, would indeed come in a tube. But, I don't sink so low as to shop
at Home Depot.
That is not the sort of caulk that the Romans were using or the sort of
caulk that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the British East India Company,
the Spanish Armada, or any of numerous other outfits that were famed for
being able to go anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to in
wooden ships propelled by wind would be using. And that type of caulk is
not used in the seams of modern boats either--the caulking is structural
and must be driven into place with a mallet, a use to which such
products are not amenable.
You left out that a "caulking iron" also has to be used in the
process. I've already told you, I already know that, see somewhere up
above about the oakum and pine tar. Wooden boats were often sheathed in
sheet copper too, particularly war ships. So what? All sorts of things
have been tried for caulking wooden boats, even horse manure. Again, so
what?
When I think of a boat I don't think of something that sits on a trailer
most of the time and gets towed down to the launching ramp to go
fishing, I think of something that is launched once and stays in the
water until it becomes necessary to remove it to clean the bottom or to
prevent damage from ice,
Well now, you didn't say before, did you?
which vessel can when sufficient quantities of food and water are put
aboard be aimed east and sailed until one bumps into Europe.
Well, that would be presuming it was in the Atlantic Ocean.
Wouldn't work in the Pacific Ocean, or on a lake.
The realities of such vessels are considerably different from the
realities of trailer-boats.
Gee, I am enlightened. I thought they were exacly the same.
And I still don't think it's realistic to depend on paint to keep the
glue dry.
What is realistic is the fact that if someone makes a boat (a big
boat, that can sail to Europe, if it's in the Atlantic ocean, and has
enough food and water), that they're going to put paint on it. Or some
kind of protective finish, unless maybe they've got a teak deck. Bottom
paint is made specifically to put on the bottom of boats in sea water,
to prevent under water growth, also called anti-fouling paint. But,
maybe you won't paint the bottom, because you don't want to keep your
glue dry.
On my income, I'll make a boat out of plywood, put it on a trailer,
take it fishing, then trailer it back home, and enjoy the hell out of
it. It'll probablyy be caulked with butyl caulk, probably from Ace
Hardware, or Wal-Mart, fastened with glue and nails, fibreglassed along
the seams and bottom, and painted with latex paint. As long as it works
for me, I really don't give a damn about anyone else and what they've
got.
I haven't had a lot to keep me occupied this weekend, and it's been
fun, but you're just getting too silly. You're starting to sound like
some of the officers I've worked for - "I know that's what I said, but
that's not what I meant".
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> In a water resistant test, glued joints were submerged in water for 24
> hours. Surprisingly Titebond III scored worse than Titebond II. The TB
II
> joint held up to about 300 PSI. TB III failed at about 200 PSI. So I
guess
> you should save your money. TBIII is typically 60% more expensive than TB
> II.
After reading the article, I wondered how realistic the test is. How many
joints get submerged for 24 hours? How does the submerged joint compare to
one with possibly a finish on the pieces and subjected to some rain over a
few days? How would it be if the pieces were allowed to dry out for a
couple of days?
I don't expect it to hold up submerged, but I do want to know how well it
hold up in typical outdoor furniture uses. Sometimes magazine testing is
not at all comparable to real life situations.
Ed
[email protected]
http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Not what I meant but yes more samples would be better but I think their test
method doesn't tell the whole story.
The idea I was trying to convey in previous post is to try and determine
deteroration rate over repeated exposure the elements. In my hypothetical
test results TB2 while having a stronger initial strength then TB3 TB2 after
repeated exposure to water and drying didn't maintain its strength as well
as TB3
BTW I wonder what the difference of 200, 300 or 1000PSI really translates
to. The difference of being hit by a pickup, 18 wheeler or a train
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> If your indicating that perhaps a larger sampling would give different
> results, I agree. Like best 5 out of 8.
>
> This could have been a fluke in that a lesser glue did better than a
better
> glue. Either way, in this particular test, neither glue had the advantage
> as both test pieces were taken from the same board with IIRC consistent
> grain.
>
>
>
did you do any destructive tests on any joints glued up with
the Extend?
Mike in Mystic wrote:
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
>>can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
>>project because it's so weak.
>
>
> That's interesting. I've used the Titebond II Extend numerous times and
> have had absolutely no problems with it. I also saw a little note in a
> recent magazine (can't find it right off hand, but I'll look for it) that
> did a similar comparison of glues (doing things like keeping glue-ups
> submerged, microwaving them, etc.) and the Titebond III did very well,
> comparable to polyurethane glue. I think the magazine might have been
> woodworkers journal, but I'm not certain.
>
> Mike
>
>
Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
tests.
Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.
"patrick conroy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
> > glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.
>
> And my "WalMart" Loctite galoo faired very well.
> More proof that (once they start stocking Two Cherries) all you need is a
> 'Mart...
>
>
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
> can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
> project because it's so weak.
That's interesting. I've used the Titebond II Extend numerous times and
have had absolutely no problems with it. I also saw a little note in a
recent magazine (can't find it right off hand, but I'll look for it) that
did a similar comparison of glues (doing things like keeping glue-ups
submerged, microwaving them, etc.) and the Titebond III did very well,
comparable to polyurethane glue. I think the magazine might have been
woodworkers journal, but I'm not certain.
Mike
Hi David,
I did a very rudimentary test the first time I used it. I face glued a
piece of ash about 3/4" thick and maybe 2 inches wide to a wider piece of
ash. I used about 8 inches of length and had about 4 inches extending past
one edge. I did the same thing for an edge joint, still 3/4" thick and
probably 6 inches of length and about 4 inches extending past one edge.
I let the joints cure overnight and the next day (approx. 24 hours later,
really) I tried to pull the joints apart. I really put a lot of force into
it and all I ended up doing was breaking the 3/4" edge joint piece, but the
glue joint didn't fail. I was sufficiently confident after that in the
Titebond II extend's ability to form strong glue joints.
I've used it on several projects, including gluing the edging around my
son's high chair tray. That thing get's more abuse than I ever imagined,
and more often than not is cleaned by taking a dripping wet soapy sponge and
scrubbing it. This happens 2-3 times a day and has been going on for about
3 months now. There isn't any sign of failure. I also used this glue to
face glue layers of MDF for my workbench, and several other projects where I
needed more time to get things aligned before clamping.
What was your experience that made you so worried about using it? I still
have about a gallon of it and would like to know if I've been making a poor
choice by using it.
Thanks!
"David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> did you do any destructive tests on any joints glued up with
> the Extend?
>
>
> Mike in Mystic wrote:
>
> > "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
> >>can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
> >>project because it's so weak.
> >
> >
> > That's interesting. I've used the Titebond II Extend numerous times and
> > have had absolutely no problems with it. I also saw a little note in a
> > recent magazine (can't find it right off hand, but I'll look for it)
that
> > did a similar comparison of glues (doing things like keeping glue-ups
> > submerged, microwaving them, etc.) and the Titebond III did very well,
> > comparable to polyurethane glue. I think the magazine might have been
> > woodworkers journal, but I'm not certain.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> >
>
"RKON" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best
Wood
> Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
> the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......
>
> In case one forgot what waterprrof means:
>
> wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.
>
> I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making
a
> bold claim and they are fair game.
On the label of the glue it reads:
Passes ANSI/HPVA Type 1 Water Resistance
I'll agree that water proof and water resistance are different according to
the dictionary. Given that though, the label gives a specification so
testing should be done in compliance with the intended use.
The following was found in a forum on
http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/porch/msg0612195230912.html
What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II
water-resistance specification?
Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued
together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more
stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the
specimens while they are wet.
Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3"
specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145°F
oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then
immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet,
and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to
pass the Type I specification.
Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5"
specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120°F
oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the
bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification.
> If they can't even compete then maybe
> they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
> immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best
> regardless.
Looks like a 4 hour test is OK, not a 24 hour test.
>
> It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming
unglued
> in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
> article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
> You don't use Titebond by chance do you?
I recently bought some for a couple of outdoor furniture projects. I used
TB II the last time and it is holding up well, so this time I tried the TB
III. I expect it will take the exposure typical of outdoor furniture, but I
have no plans to use in in anything submersed. I'd use epoxy for that. I
don't think the 24 hour test if fair to any adhesive. OK, you may want to
try it just for the fun of it, but I'd not make poor performance claims for
something not made to endure the particular test.
Ed
"Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
> glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.
And my "WalMart" Loctite galoo faired very well.
More proof that (once they start stocking Two Cherries) all you need is a
'Mart...
oops cut and pasted failed previous post read down in that one
"joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:N1XHc.53343$MB3.28521@attbi_s04...
> Ok the way I might have tried the test was test a pair of borad TII and T3
> same glu up etc then test the bonding strenth say TB2 was 400 PSI and TB3
> 200 PSI. Then do the magazines test on anohter pair of boards if TB2 was
> 300PSI and TB3 was 200 PSI. A few more tests could show TB2 at 100 PSI and
> TB3 still at 200PSI
> "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "joey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:_sSHc.52254$a24.46262@attbi_s03...
> > > >
> > > Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test
sounds
> > > like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and
> > drying
> > > out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time.
> One
> > > glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at a
> > > lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a
> marathon
> > > runner.
> >
> > No glue really failed the test, so much as TB III was out performed by
TB
> II
> > and TB III is suppose to be warer proof and TB II is not.
> > I thought about different senerios, but this was IMHO a worst case
> situation
> > for testing water resistance. The TB II certainly would do just as well
> on
> > a lessor test.
> You might very well be right andI need to get the article they may have
> taken into account what I would have done
> I might have tried the test this way ...test a pair of boards TII and T3
> same glue up etc then test the bonding strength to establish a baseline...
> say the results were TB2 was 400 PSI and TB3 200 PSI. Then do the
magazines
> test on another pair of boards cut from the same glue up and the results
> were as you stated from their article TB2 was 300PSI and TB3 was still at
> 200 PSI. Repeat tests on these same boards could show TB2 at 100 PSI and
> TB3 still at 200PSI etc..
>
> >
> > > Materials in my line of work are tested by repeated exposure to
> > > hot/cold/humidity cycles
> >
> > The TB II should do even better in a test like that as it is labeled
> Weather
> > Resistent.
> Why?
> >
> > > I haven't read the article I will get it I just glued up some outdoor
> bar
> > > stools with TBIII and am curious. I choose it over GG because GG would
> be
> > > hard to clean up in some of the tight areas, I did use GG for gluing
up
> > the
> > > seat blanks
> >
> > TB III did so poorly compared to TB II in the area that it should have
> > shined. I really have suspicions that the article got the spec's on the
> > glues mixed up.
> >
> >
> BTW I made a pair of these same stools about 12 years ago with (TB or
TB2?)
> and only recently did the seat glue ups and MT joints fail(So California
so
> not much rain etc..)
>
>
good! I'm not crazy after all! (I'm leaving myself open
with that one. <g> )
dave
Leon wrote:
> The TB II Extend did not do well in the test.
>
> "David" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>and I don't think much of their Titebond II Extend. I
>>can't get a satisfactory bond. I'm afraid to use it on a
>>project because it's so weak. I just glued up some table
>>legs yesterday with regular Titebond II. The glue bonds are
>>tenacious. Franklin's tech support tested a sample of the
>>glue from my bottle and claim it's ok. sigh.
>>
>
>
>