Fine Woodworking's Glue Test

I kind of disagree, I just went back to my magazines for Wood magazine
and saw their last review of glues in Sept '04 and I thought they were
more thorough.

They did different joints with strength tests, not one joint, they did
different tests with heat and water resistance etc...which I thought
made a lot more sense then this test, because woodworkers use
different joinery etc and some projects are inside, some are
out,although far fewer. But also, their test results came back a lot
different. For Instance many of the other PVA (yellow glues) glues
came back stronger and better than Titebond III (which received
nothing more than a very average review), yet for this magazine, this
joint was different and it received a good rating. Explain that one.
Every article states different findings on which one is the best wood
glue becuase you will probably get different results depending on the
type of joint you use and what its for.

I don't use the hide glues much, but thought the comments were
interesting.

I'm not surprised the Poly Glues came back the way they did for this
type of joint. They seem to excel in waterproof joints like Wood
Magaine said and in laminations which this article didn't do (don't
these type of glues require clamping too becuase of the foaming, where
this joint has no clamping pressure). A bunch of people in the groups
were recommending i use a particular Hairy primate on a lamination on
exotic woods where I was having problems with my PVA glue and what do
you know, it worked much better, like they said.

I wish there really was a majic bullet or majic glue, but there just
isn't. I think it is fair to say that PVA glues in general are the
best general purpose glues for woodworking, which is why they are by
far the most popular. I mean we aren't buying gallons of hide glue or
epoxy or poly glues, those are definitely more specialty glues to use
at certain times.

On Jun 8, 2:29 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
[snipped for brevity]
>
> In summary, for "ordinary" woodworking, almost any of the glues are
> adequately strong, providing in a well-made joint a glue bond that is as
> strong as or stronger than the wood for again, common species. So,
> selection is really strongly affected by other factors -- open time,
> water resistance needs, creep, chalk temperature, etc., etc., etc., ...

Pretty much sums it up, huh?

These are all kind of funny to me. Not knee slapping, but certainly
ironic.

Thank back many years ago...

Nope, farther than that.

Back when I started in the trades in '72 we used to use plain old
white Elmers. We used it for everything that needed glue. They had
two speeds; one that was the kind the kiddos used, and one that gave
more open time for us "pros".

Hah!

We used that stuff for glue lam beams when framing, cabinet work, glue
ups, and even to hold plugs door screw holes that had wallowed out. I
remember when it came about that we could get "yellow carpenter's
glue" at the local lumberyard any time we wanted it. The old timers I
worked with thought it was an unnecessary expense.

In all that time, I never saw a white glue related failure when the
glue was properly applied, clamped and allowed to cure.

This was one of out high powered lab designed field tests. (Okay,
maybe it was an accident!) Someone knocked knocked the gallon bottle
of "Elmo's bull jizz" over and it ran out onto the plywood scraps
where we were glueing the beams together. After discovering a small
puddle of glue on the scraps, I put another piece on the puddle so I
wouldn't wind up with it all over me.

Two days later when cleaning up, we were literally able to tear the
laminations off the plywood without the white glue failing. Good
enough test for me.

Now I use TBII for just about everything except what goes outside.
For that I use the tubes of urethane.

Not much use for "monkey business".

Robert

On Jun 8, 11:53 am, "Leon" <[email protected]> wrote:
> In smaller print on the back side IIRC was the reference to how
> TiteBone III was classified as water proof.
> The official test used to define Water Proof by a third party defined > Water Proof as being Water Resistant. No where in the test results > at the time did the words "water proof" appear except in the mane > of the test.


> Basically it was a Water Resistance test that just so happened to be > named the Water Proof test.

Found out the difference with a really nice watch I had many years
ago. At one time you could buy a watch that was "Water Proof" or
"Water Proof to "X"atms".

Somwhere in there they changed it to "Water Resistant", even for the
German Diver's watch I am wearing now. It is certified "Water
Resistant to 6 atms". To me, that means that their liability ends
when the watch gets wet. When one of my old diver's watches sprung a
leak many years ago, I learned the difference.

A glass marble or a bowling ball are water proof; watches and bottled
wood glues do the best they can, but in the end they are only water
resistant.

Love that weasel language.

Robert

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I kind of disagree, I just went back to my magazines for Wood magazine
> and saw their last review of glues in Sept '04 and I thought they were
> more thorough.
>
> They did different joints with strength tests, not one joint, they did
> different tests with heat and water resistance etc...which I thought
> made a lot more sense then this test, because woodworkers use
> different joinery etc and some projects are inside, some are
> out,although far fewer. But also, their test results came back a lot
> different. For Instance many of the other PVA (yellow glues) glues
> came back stronger and better than Titebond III (which received
> nothing more than a very average review), yet for this magazine, this
> joint was different and it received a good rating. Explain that one.


Explain that one? Could it be that the Wood magazine test was faulty??
Does it really seem likely that TBII out performed TBIII in the tests
involving water? I actually had several e-mail exvhanges with a marketing
exec at Franklyn when this Wood magazine test was published. He assured me
that there was fault in the testing somewhere and I greatly suspect that to
be true in so much that it would not make much sense for a company to claim
its better product would out perfore its other products and actually perform
worse. Its not an instance of our words against theirs, it more like out
word against ours.

The exchange of messages did bring to light some interesting facts however
as I was pretty strong on holding him on his claims of the TB III being
Water Proof.
By the commen knowledge/interpretqation definition of "Water Proof", TB III
WAS NOT at the time truely water proof as the average consumer would
believe. The lable stated Water Proof right up front for the consumer to
notice. In smaller print on the back side IIRC was the reference to how
TiteBone III was classified as water proof.
The official test used to define Water Proof by a third party defined Water
Proof as being Water Resistant. No where in the test results at the time
did the words "water proof" appear except in the mane of the test.
Basically it was a Water Resistance test that just so happened to be named
the Water Proof test.

It's sorta like, which definition of the word "IS" that you are looking at,
per Bill Clinton.

"dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...


Snip

ture, etc., etc., etc., ...
>
> If one has a particular application where glue bond strength is of a
> critical importance, one would be well served to get assistance from a
> manufacturer and/or USFPS or a university extension w/ a wood technology
> program, etc., as opposed to rely on "testing" of the sort published in
> any of the common magazines...
>
> Again, imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., etc., ... :)
>
> --

To be honest, I prefer TBIII not because of strength over I and II but
because of the color it is when it cures.

Kettering <[email protected]> wrote in news:6nmi63pilb7moom96dpj36uk5gb21mjuva@
4ax.com:

> The latest issue of Fine Woodworking (August) has the most
> comprehensive glue showdown I've seen. They tested all major
> woodworking glues across multiple wood types and across multiple joint
> tolerances. (tight, normal and loose).

As others have said, I thought it was superficial. This has been a
common characteristic of Fine Woodworking tests for many years,
they're simply not willing to spend the time & money to do serious
testing.

> The conclusions:
> - Glue starvation in tight joints is a myth

Unproven. In particular, glue starvation can be a very real issue
with epoxy, altho not in the conditions of the FWW test.

I will agree that glue starvation cannot occur due to excessive clamp
pressure (it can't, if we're talking hand tightened clamps). But
their test was of unclamped joints, so this is getting into an apples
to oranges question.

> - PVA glues are as strong as epoxy. (even in dense tropical woods and
> even in gap filling conditions)
> - Polyurethane glue is crap (it's especially bad in loose joints)
> - Liquid hide glue and Hot hide glue perform the same
> - Open pore woods produce the strongest joints (no surprise)

Dammit, something fell on the keyboard and, by Murphy's law, hit
the send key :-(

Kettering <[email protected]> wrote in news:6nmi63pilb7moom96dpj36uk5gb21mjuva@
4ax.com:

> The latest issue of Fine Woodworking (August) has the most
> comprehensive glue showdown I've seen. They tested all major
> woodworking glues across multiple wood types and across multiple joint
> tolerances. (tight, normal and loose).

As others have said, I thought it was superficial. This has been a
common characteristic of Fine Woodworking tests for many years,
they're simply not willing to spend the time & money to do serious
testing.

> The conclusions:
> - Glue starvation in tight joints is a myth

Unproven. In particular, glue starvation can be a very real issue
with epoxy, altho probably not in the conditions of the FWW test.

I will agree that glue starvation cannot occur due to excessive clamp
pressure (it can't, if we're talking hand tightened clamps), with
normal PVA glues. But their test was of unclamped joints, so this
is getting into an apples to oranges question.

> - PVA glues are as strong as epoxy. (even in dense tropical woods and
> even in gap filling conditions)

Unproven. Epoxy takes different techniques to other glues. Some
woods, including white oak and ipe, need surface prep to get an
optimum result. In most cases, some sort of filler (microballoons
or silica, or even wood dust) should be used to thicken the epoxy,
especially on a loose joint.

> - Polyurethane glue is crap (it's especially bad in loose joints)

Agreed. I can't think of an application for this expensive glue.

> - Liquid hide glue and Hot hide glue perform the same

I don't think that's news. It was interesting how strong the glues
were compared to the PVA glues. More detailed testing in this area
would be worth seeing.

> - Open pore woods produce the strongest joints (no surprise)

Unproven. Most of the samples broke in the wood, so all that was
really shown is that ipe is a stronger wood than oak, which is
(slightly) stronger than maple.

John

[email protected] wrote:
>
> I kind of disagree, I just went back to my magazines for Wood magazine
> and saw their last review of glues in Sept '04 and I thought they were
> more thorough.
>
...snip other comments solely for brevity...

I tend to agree although I've not seen the other article you refer to.
I thought the FWW article, while reasonable in what it did do and of
some value, did lack depth in some areas it didn't cover, many of which
your comments address.

I think in particular that it would be of real interest value to do
comparative tests amongst the various manufacturers products of the same
or similar types, particularly the generics or "house brands".

I also agree that the results for the polyurethanes aren't surprising to
me for the test as performed -- but then again, that's not a place where
there's a real reason for using them...

It's a problem that to perform a really meaningful study of such a broad
subject is so far beyond the scope of a general readership magazine's
format that in order to make it fit it inevitably ends up as
superficial. I almost wish they would quit trying and simply
concentrate on method of work and design, frankly, but I know there's
interest and I suppose the articles are of at least some value,
particularly for the lesser experienced or newcomer.

imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., etc., ... :)

--

Leon wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> I kind of disagree, I just went back to my magazines for Wood magazine
>> and saw their last review of glues in Sept '04 and I thought they were
>> more thorough.
>>
>> They did different joints with strength tests, not one joint, they did
>> different tests with heat and water resistance etc...which I thought
>> made a lot more sense then this test, because woodworkers use
>> different joinery etc and some projects are inside, some are
>> out,although far fewer. But also, their test results came back a lot
>> different. For Instance many of the other PVA (yellow glues) glues
>> came back stronger and better than Titebond III (which received
>> nothing more than a very average review), yet for this magazine, this
>> joint was different and it received a good rating. Explain that one.
>
>
> Explain that one? Could it be that the Wood magazine test was faulty??
> Does it really seem likely that TBII out performed TBIII in the tests
> involving water? ...

I haven't seen the other article, I did look at FWW last night a little.
What strikes me on all of these is that none of the testers are
really pro's in the world of testing. That the FWW test joints were
sent to a lab for the actual testing certainly helps; I have no idea of
how the other tests were actually done, but if they returned a result
that Type I or II outperformed III in some water-related failure test
there's no doubt _something_ was wrong in at least that particular test.

Other tests I've seen (I'm thinking it was Chris Minck, who's an
industrial chemist so I give him some credibility) in FWW did a
comparison of the I, II, III for bond strength. As I recall it was the
simple edge joining test and the comparison results were in obverse
order to type number. But, even the lowest had a failure rate of nearly
2/3-rds fail of the wood, not the glue joint.

In summary, for "ordinary" woodworking, almost any of the glues are
adequately strong, providing in a well-made joint a glue bond that is as
strong as or stronger than the wood for again, common species. So,
selection is really strongly affected by other factors -- open time,
water resistance needs, creep, chalk temperature, etc., etc., etc., ...

If one has a particular application where glue bond strength is of a
critical importance, one would be well served to get assistance from a
manufacturer and/or USFPS or a university extension w/ a wood technology
program, etc., as opposed to rely on "testing" of the sort published in
any of the common magazines...

Again, imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., etc., ... :)

--

Robatoy wrote:
> On Jun 8, 2:29 pm, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
> [snipped for brevity]

You saying I'm wordy (or is that woody)??? :)

>> In summary, for "ordinary" woodworking, almost any of the glues are
>> adequately strong, providing in a well-made joint a glue bond that is as
>> strong as or stronger than the wood for again, common species. So,
>> selection is really strongly affected by other factors -- open time,
>> water resistance needs, creep, chalk temperature, etc., etc., etc., ...
>
> Pretty much sums it up, huh?

Yup... :)

--

Leon wrote:
> "dpb" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
>
> Snip
>
> ture, etc., etc., etc., ...
>> If one has a particular application where glue bond strength is of a
>> critical importance, one would be well served to get assistance from a
>> manufacturer and/or USFPS or a university extension w/ a wood technology
>> program, etc., as opposed to rely on "testing" of the sort published in
>> any of the common magazines...
>>
>> Again, imo, ymmv, $0.02, etc., etc., etc., ... :)
>>
>> --
>
> To be honest, I prefer TBIII not because of strength over I and II ...

That's good, because all tests I've seen show it actually is lower
strength... :) But again, it still is stronger bond than the wood
strength most of the time...

I don't like it as well for most usage because of the longer open time
(unless, of course, I need it or the chalk point advantage)... :)

--

"Kettering" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> The latest issue of Fine Woodworking (August) has the most
> comprehensive glue showdown I've seen. They tested all major
> woodworking glues across multiple wood types and across multiple joint
> tolerances. (tight, normal and loose).
>
> The conclusions:
> - Glue starvation in tight joints is a myth
> - PVA glues are as strong as epoxy. (even in dense tropical woods and
> even in gap filling conditions)
> - Polyurethane glue is crap (it's especially bad in loose joints)
> - Liquid hide glue and Hot hide glue perform the same
> - Open pore woods produce the strongest joints (no surprise)

Thanks for sharing. I think through the years that the term Glue
Starvation has been misunderstood and described incorrectly.

Glue Starvation is not a description of less glue, it is the description of
NO Glue. As long as there is a complete layer of glue between the pieces of
wood, that is enough. If you have NO Glue as in forget to apply glue or
only apply glue to a small percentage of the surfaces to be mated, that is
Glue Starvation.

Leon wrote:

> To be honest, I prefer TBIII not because of strength over I and II but
> because of the color it is when it cures.
>

And it doesn't run quite as much and has a slightly longer open time than I or
II. I use it for indoor or outdoor projects. Although I'll confess to the
occasional Neandertal attack resulting in the use of hide glue :-).

--
It's turtles, all the way down