Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)

On 8/9/2016 4:02 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
>> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
>> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
> ...
>
> I dunno'; I've used a _lot_ of both (as well as just plain ol', plain
> ol', Titebond) and never really was anything I noticed with either...
>
> On stirring, I think I recall it actually mentions some where that it
> (TB III, that is) is thixotropic (it becomes less viscous when agitated
> or stirred but will return to it's static viscosity over time when left
> still). I know their datasheets instruct that if becomes overly thick
> to not actually stir but agitate "by firmly tapping bottle on a hard
> surface" until returns to normal rather than by actual stirring.

You are correct in your assumptions and about what you have read.
BUT talking to the Franklin home office rep he says that bumping or
shaking the glue will not restore the glue. It has to be stirred.
The shaking as you mentioned is for restoring the glue to a more liquid
state providing what you are shaking is not mostly the settled
ingredient to extend open time. If the glue is too thin to begin with
it has to be remixed by stiring. If you are stiring a partially used
bottle it may be too late.

Just like TBIII fails real world water proof tests, they fail to say you
need to stir and that the glue is not real world water proof. That
would hinder sales of the product.

Their water proof classification by industry standards mentions nothing
about being water proof in the analysis, only in the title of the
classification. That may have changed but that is how it was shortly
after TBIII was introduced and tested by a woodworking magazine. TBII
actually tested better than TBIII in their tests when exposed to water.





>
> The datasheet from TB for the three lists the following properties:
>
> Product III II I
> Strength (psi) 4,000 3,750 3,600
> Open Time(min) 10 5 5
> Chalk Temperature(F) 47° 55° 50°
> Viscosity (cps) 4,200 3,200 3,400
>
> which indicates the TBIII is spec'ed as the more viscous of the three.

Correct, when fresh out of the factory. Let TBIII sit on the shelf for
a year or so and the and the heavy ingredients in the bottle settle to
the bottom and the top half becomes runny.


>
> So, I must say from my experience it's something I've not experienced so
> can't really comment other than the question raised/symptoms presented
> aren't my experience.
>
> I will say that other than the slight difference in chalk temperature
> vis a vis TB I but distinctly lower than TB II, I see no reason to spend
> double for TB III _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
> it offers for an outdoor or similar project exposed to damp; once a
> joint is strong enough that it's generally the wood that breaks prior to
> the joint (which occurs in a very high fraction of well-prepared joints
> even w/ TB I) it's strong enough so what's the point?
>
> I'm not saying not to use it, simply that it seems pretty pointless to
> spend money for no real added benefit unless you do have that specific
> reason.
>
> $0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., etc., ...
>
> --
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-4, Sonny wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>=20
> >=20
> > Sorry, I screwed up the first link. Here are all three images again:
> >=20
>=20
> I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam s=
ite. The window opened, telling me there was some sort of virus and that =
I needed to call Microsoft, to have it fixed. The 800 number was bogus, f=
or Microsoft.... I called, they wanted $200 to fix the issue.
>=20
> Not being computer savy, I called Best Buy's tech.
>=20
> The tech at Best Buy told me it was a scam and how to remove the "error w=
indow": Right click the bottom task bar, click onto Task Manager, then hi=
ghlight Google Chrome (or whatever you're using), then click "end task". =
To be on the safe side, do a full scan of your computer, see if it detects =
anything.
>=20
> Sonny

I sincerely apologize. I did not get anything like that on either of=20
my computers. Just a site saying there are "no sponsors for you at this=20
time".

My computers are fairly well protected, so maybe that's it.

Again I apologize. One letter off, .co instead of .com.

On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:02:49 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
> > Good to know. From what I understand past the suggested dates to use,
> > the thin glue on top is not compromised except for the fact that it will
> > have a shortened open time and if not mixed the remainder in the bottom
> > of the bottle will likely be to thick to use and or will have little
> > actual glue left. It is likely that if you are down to and only use the
> > part that has settled in the bottom that it may not be as strong.
>
> Well, part of what I discovered and reported earlier was that simply
> turning it upside down and letting thicker bottom layer glob it's way
> back to the new bottom essentially reconstituted the whole mess back to
> basically, afaict, indistinguishable from new product or what one would
> get by actually stirring.
>
> So, I had no separated layers used; it looks/acts essentially like new
> product despite the age and the previously having separated...
>

I inverted my new bottle of TBIII (manufactured sometime this year) and it
seems to be a little thicker than before. Still not as thick as the 2014
bottle of TBII, but I need the open time so I'm going to hang on to it.

I did do a quick test of the TBIII. I glued a ripped edge of a scrape to
the face of another and let it dry overnight. The result of the hammer
blow follows...

http://i.imgur.com/JnpgHxx.jpg

There a bit of cheat involved here. The scrap that I used had some dry rot
on one side. The crack started at the rot and then continued along the
grain line. I'm sure the rot weakened the wood somewhat, but it still took
a pretty good hit to get it to crack. I probably should have hit it from
the other side.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:

>No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one
>was purchased if my recollection is at all right

Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#.
The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year
of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day
of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for
quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number
A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011.

On 8/9/2016 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 7:34 PM, Leon wrote:
> ...
>
>> If my bottle is over 4~6 months old I buy new.
>
> OTOH, I've routinely kept gallon jug for year or more after a spate of
> heavy work that was then idle and it seems just fine...for the T's II
> and III. I've even thinned "plain ol'" yellow glue that has gotten a
> little thick and never had joint failures with it as long as it is still
> at least running...
>
> Well, heck, let's just go look -- I'm pretty sure the TB III jug is
> downstairs not out in the barn...
>
> Huh! Pulled out the plug that had formed in the top and lo! and behold!
> there was a later of water on the top and the bottom third is
> essentially all the solids...still good color all way through but it'll
> need to sit in the paint shaker it appears before use.
>
> No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one
> was purchased if my recollection is at all right...as 'spearmint I
> turned it over...we'll see if it'll improve any overnight.


From what I understand the settled ingredient does not affect the
strength of the glue. BUT that settlement is what extends the open time
of the glue. If it settles out and it does not get mixed in the glue
will have a shorter open time.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:03:00 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. Th=
e
> > first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> > on the ole interweb and did some homework.
> ...
>=20
> I dunno'; I've used a _lot_ of both (as well as just plain ol', plain=20
> ol', Titebond) and never really was anything I noticed with either...
>=20
> On stirring, I think I recall it actually mentions some where that it=20
> (TB III, that is) is thixotropic (it becomes less viscous when agitated=
=20
> or stirred but will return to it's static viscosity over time when left=
=20
> still). I know their datasheets instruct that if becomes overly thick=20
> to not actually stir but agitate "by firmly tapping bottle on a hard=20
> surface" until returns to normal rather than by actual stirring.

That what it says on the bottle, but according to Leon in the May 2014
"Titebond II followup" thread, the TB guys told him:

"Titebond III, Titebond Extend and Titebond II Extend Wood Glues all
contain large particles to allow for longer open and assembly times.
These products can settle and it is recommended to mix well before each
use. Mixing must be done mechanically (i.e. with a stick) as tapping or
shaking the bottle will not affect mixing of these high viscosity wood
glues. Without mixing, the benefit of the larger particles will be lost
and use of the un-extended versions may be better for your use.


>=20
> The datasheet from TB for the three lists the following properties:
>=20
> Product III II I
> Strength (psi) 4,000 3,750 3,600
> Open Time(min) 10 5 5
> Chalk Temperature(F) 47=C2=B0 55=C2=B0 50=C2=B0
> Viscosity (cps) 4,200 3,200 3,400
>=20
> which indicates the TBIII is spec'ed as the more viscous of the three.
>=20
> So, I must say from my experience it's something I've not experienced so=
=20
> can't really comment other than the question raised/symptoms presented=20
> aren't my experience.
>=20
> I will say that other than the slight difference in chalk temperature=20
> vis a vis TB I but distinctly lower than TB II, I see no reason to spend=
=20
> double for TB III ...

Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what y=
ou are saying. I had enough II left to glue up what I wanted to last night,=
so=20
I'll decide what to do with the bottle of III I bought before I do anymore.

Home Depot

16 oz Titebond II - $5.47
16 oz Titebond III - $6.97

> _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
> it offers for an outdoor or similar project...

There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not
just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-)

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

>=20
> I sincerely apologize.=20

Think nothing of it. I'm computer illiterate and naive about this sort of=
thing, so that stuff catches me off guard. I bought a new computer this w=
eek, so I was/am even more touchy. Just clicking X wouldn't removed the p=
age, .... part of the scam window, I guess.

I posted Best Buys' fix, in case someone else would happen to be as dumb as=
I.

Sonny

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:

>
>If your TBIII was runny, it was old. In factory condition it is
>thicker. If runny, the open time is reduced.

Although runny may have different meaning to different readers.

Need a viscometer or rheometer to measure it, I guess.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:13:58 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> >> _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
> >> it offers for an outdoor or similar project...
> >
> > There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just
> > messy, I'm also really slow. ;-)
>
> That's my rationale as well. I use II most of the time, but if I have a
> project with a complex glue up, I switch to III.
>
> Except for the times I get archaic and use hide glue :-).
>
>

OK, Larry...

Since you were the one that started the "Titebond III" thread back in 2014,
basically asking the exact same question that I just asked, what do you
think of what I show in the images from post #2 of this thread?

Are you still finding the III to be a whole lot runnier than the II or do
I have bad bottle?

On 8/9/2016 7:36 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>> I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place...
> ...
>
> Which obviously doesn't help with your current product, at least until
> you can (if you can) get it all back into suspension again, maybe could
> minimize subsequent occurrence.


I agree, shaking should prevent it from happening but apparently shaking
does not work as well as stirring once the ingredient has settled in to
a single blob.

My comment to Titebond was that stirring is almost impossible with some
bottles.

On 8/9/2016 9:42 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:04:19 PM UTC-4, Spalted Walt wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one
>>> was purchased if my recollection is at all right
>>
>> Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#.
>> The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year
>> of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day
>> of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for
>> quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number
>> A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011.
>
> If the date code on the bottle I just bought is what I think it is, the
> the bottle is no more than 196 days old.
>
> I can't read the month, but the year appears to be 6 and the day 24. If
> it's this runny after a max shelf time of less than 7 months, they have
> a real problem with their product.
>
> This link is safe. Copied/pasted. :-)
>
> http://i.imgur.com/3BXcq49.jpg
>


You should email TiteBond. They usually respond quickly.

On 8/9/2016 8:04 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one
>> was purchased if my recollection is at all right
>
> Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#.
> The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year
> of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day
> of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for
> quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number
> A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011.
>
>


And according to Franklyn April 27, 2011 is 3 years past prime
condition. IIRC they suggest not using glue 2 years past the date code.
and that is unfortunate because it is often hard to find glue in the
store that is not already 6~12 months old, essentially cutting the
useful period, for the end user, in half.

On 8/9/2016 7:12 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 8/9/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
>>> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
>>> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
>>>
>>> I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations
>>> with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken.
>>> The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed.
>>
>> According to Franklin/TiteBond the TBIII and the Extend have an additive
>> that settles to the bottom of the bottle. When it settles the glue is
>> thinner. I had a gallon of Extend and it was runny too. Once just past
>> half way through the gallon the glue was more like pudding.
>>
>> They shipped me a replacement.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?)
>>> the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of
>>> manufacture. The product was bought at HD.
>>
>> I make it a habit to reach to the back of the display of glue and if any
>> has dust on it I pass. This stuff has a short shelf life because of the
>> settling.
>>
>> It is a shame that it is almost impossible to get these glues quickly
>> after manufacture since placed like Woodcraft and HD buy in bulk.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to
>>> be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way.
>>>
>>> The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is
>>> at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick.
>>>
>>> Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II?
>>
>> NO! I have a relatively new quart of TBIII and it is relatively thick
>> and Because of the additive that extends the open time it should be
>> thick and not runny.
>>
>> I am probably going to go back to TBII because of this. I prefer to buy
>> in Gallons but that does me no good if I can't use the whole thing.
>>
>>
>
> Thanks. It did seem too runny even to me and I'm about as far from a
> glue expert as there can be. I also don't use enough glue to ever be able
> to use it up before it separates.
>

If my bottle is over 4~6 months old I buy new.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
> > first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> > on the ole interweb and did some homework.
> >
> > I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations
> > with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken.
> > The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed.
>
> According to Franklin/TiteBond the TBIII and the Extend have an additive
> that settles to the bottom of the bottle. When it settles the glue is
> thinner. I had a gallon of Extend and it was runny too. Once just past
> half way through the gallon the glue was more like pudding.
>
> They shipped me a replacement.
>
>
>
> >
> > I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?)
> > the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of
> > manufacture. The product was bought at HD.
>
> I make it a habit to reach to the back of the display of glue and if any
> has dust on it I pass. This stuff has a short shelf life because of the
> settling.
>
> It is a shame that it is almost impossible to get these glues quickly
> after manufacture since placed like Woodcraft and HD buy in bulk.
>
>
> >
> > I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to
> > be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way.
> >
> > The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is
> > at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick.
> >
> > Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II?
>
> NO! I have a relatively new quart of TBIII and it is relatively thick
> and Because of the additive that extends the open time it should be
> thick and not runny.
>
> I am probably going to go back to TBII because of this. I prefer to buy
> in Gallons but that does me no good if I can't use the whole thing.
>
>

Thanks. It did seem too runny even to me and I'm about as far from a
glue expert as there can be. I also don't use enough glue to ever be able
to use it up before it separates.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:50:54 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
>
> I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations
> with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken.
> The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed.
>
> I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?)
> the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of
> manufacture. The product was bought at HD.
>
> I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to
> be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way.
>
> The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is
> at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick.
>
> Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II?
>
> Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted:
>
> www.imgur.co/3VJaMgV
>
> 4-5 seconds later:
>
> www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf
>
> 4-5 seconds later:
>
> www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed
>
> I'm a messy guy, so the runniness might be an issue for me.

Sorry, I screwed up the first link. Here are all three images again:

Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted:

www.imgur.com/3VJaMgV

4-5 seconds later:

www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf

4-5 seconds later:

www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

>=20
> Sorry, I screwed up the first link. Here are all three images again:
>=20

I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam sit=
e. The window opened, telling me there was some sort of virus and that I =
needed to call Microsoft, to have it fixed. The 800 number was bogus, for=
Microsoft.... I called, they wanted $200 to fix the issue.

Not being computer savy, I called Best Buy's tech.

The tech at Best Buy told me it was a scam and how to remove the "error win=
dow": Right click the bottom task bar, click onto Task Manager, then high=
light Google Chrome (or whatever you're using), then click "end task". To=
be on the safe side, do a full scan of your computer, see if it detects an=
ything.

Sonny

On 8/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 12:49 PM, Jack wrote:
> ...
>
>> Another thing, the Elmers, and the TB seemed to get thicker as it aged
>> (a lot of age) the TB III did not seem to get thicker, or thinner, but
>> I'd guess it was under 3 years old when used up. I no longer buy gallons
>> of glue for the same reason I don't buy green bananas:-)
>
> As noted, clearly TBIII will tend to settle out by 4 yr, altho it
> certainly hasn't been unmoved in that whole time so the actual time
> since it was last used and such wasn't noticed is less than that altho I
> couldn't say just when...I generally only use it where it has the
> specific application, using TB II or other yellow glue of various
> sources routinely.
>
> Certainly the others do thicken; I think in their case they simply very
> slowly evaporate some water or slowly "dry" in place. As noted, I've
> thinned these with no seemingly ill effects to achieve roughly new
> consistency.
>
> I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test
> joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It
> went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the
> joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain
> with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple
> about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say,
> pine. I don't have stress measuring rig but the maple is pretty stout
> in a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published
> spec's...
>

Good to know. From what I understand past the suggested dates to use,
the thin glue on top is not compromised except for the fact that it will
have a shortened open time and if not mixed the remainder in the bottom
of the bottle will likely be to thick to use and or will have little
actual glue left. It is likely that if you are down to and only use the
part that has settled in the bottom that it may not be as strong.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:04:19 PM UTC-4, Spalted Walt wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one
> >was purchased if my recollection is at all right
>
> Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#.
> The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year
> of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day
> of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for
> quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number
> A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011.

If the date code on the bottle I just bought is what I think it is, the
the bottle is no more than 196 days old.

I can't read the month, but the year appears to be 6 and the day 24. If
it's this runny after a max shelf time of less than 7 months, they have
a real problem with their product.

This link is safe. Copied/pasted. :-)

http://i.imgur.com/3BXcq49.jpg

On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
> On 08/09/2016 5:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> ...
>
> > Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what you are saying. I had enough II left to glue up what I wanted to last night, so
> > I'll decide what to do with the bottle of III I bought before I do anymore.
> >
> > Home Depot
> >
> > 16 oz Titebond II - $5.47
> > 16 oz Titebond III - $6.97
> >
> >> _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
> >> it offers for an outdoor or similar project...
> >
> > There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not
> > just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-)
>
> I was comparing to T I which is quite a lot closer to the 2X number
> albeit not quite...I see 1 gal at 16 and 26 at one location...
>
> Open time could be another valid reason, too, granted...particularly in
> warmer weather.
>
> I'll look at the jug on hand and see what I think; but I just don't
> recall the symptoms when were doing so much exterior and barn work and
> used it extensively because it's so exposed out there...
>
> Wonder if you stored it upside down and rotated it would help as it
> appears is what they're tech gurus are saying is happening
>
>

In some of the other threads related to III, that question came up. There
didn't seem to be a consensus of whether it would work or what the rotation
frequency should be.

Someone (Leon?) postulated that once the particles began to separate out,
rotating the container would simply move the material from the "new top" to
the "new bottom". If the techs at TB say stirring is the only method to mix
the particles back in, it doesn't seem like rotation would work.

>>
>> I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam site.
>> Sonny

>
>I sincerely apologize. I did not get anything like that on either of
>my computers. Just a site saying there are "no sponsors for you at this
>time".
>My computers are fairly well protected, so maybe that's it.
>Again I apologize. One letter off, .co instead of .com.


Look carefuly - the first link is

imgur dot co it should be
imgur dot com

Best not to re-post the spammy one, in replying ...

John T.

"DerbyDad03" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
>
> I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his
> conversations
> with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not
> shaken.
> The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was
> discussed.
>
> I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately
> (mysteriously?)
> the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of
> manufacture. The product was bought at HD.
>
> I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem
> to
> be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way.
>
> The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can
> see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II
> is
> at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick.
>
> Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II?

I've never used TB3, no reason to so, I have no idea if it is normal. How
well does it stick stuff together? If fine, use it but If you don't like the
runniness use TB2.

On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
...

I dunno'; I've used a _lot_ of both (as well as just plain ol', plain
ol', Titebond) and never really was anything I noticed with either...

On stirring, I think I recall it actually mentions some where that it
(TB III, that is) is thixotropic (it becomes less viscous when agitated
or stirred but will return to it's static viscosity over time when left
still). I know their datasheets instruct that if becomes overly thick
to not actually stir but agitate "by firmly tapping bottle on a hard
surface" until returns to normal rather than by actual stirring.

The datasheet from TB for the three lists the following properties:

Product III II I
Strength (psi) 4,000 3,750 3,600
Open Time(min) 10 5 5
Chalk Temperature(F) 47° 55° 50°
Viscosity (cps) 4,200 3,200 3,400

which indicates the TBIII is spec'ed as the more viscous of the three.

So, I must say from my experience it's something I've not experienced so
can't really comment other than the question raised/symptoms presented
aren't my experience.

I will say that other than the slight difference in chalk temperature
vis a vis TB I but distinctly lower than TB II, I see no reason to spend
double for TB III _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
it offers for an outdoor or similar project exposed to damp; once a
joint is strong enough that it's generally the wood that breaks prior to
the joint (which occurs in a very high fraction of well-prepared joints
even w/ TB I) it's strong enough so what's the point?

I'm not saying not to use it, simply that it seems pretty pointless to
spend money for no real added benefit unless you do have that specific
reason.

$0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., etc., ...

--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 08/09/2016 5:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

> Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what you are saying. I had enough II left to glue up what I wanted to last night, so
> I'll decide what to do with the bottle of III I bought before I do anymore.
>
> Home Depot
>
> 16 oz Titebond II - $5.47
> 16 oz Titebond III - $6.97
>
>> _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
>> it offers for an outdoor or similar project...
>
> There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not
> just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-)

I was comparing to T I which is quite a lot closer to the 2X number
albeit not quite...I see 1 gal at 16 and 26 at one location...

Open time could be another valid reason, too, granted...particularly in
warmer weather.

I'll look at the jug on hand and see what I think; but I just don't
recall the symptoms when were doing so much exterior and barn work and
used it extensively because it's so exposed out there...

Wonder if you stored it upside down and rotated it would help as it
appears is what they're tech gurus are saying is happening


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:13:58 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:

>> _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance
>> it offers for an outdoor or similar project...
>
> There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just
> messy, I'm also really slow. ;-)

That's my rationale as well. I use II most of the time, but if I have a
project with a complex glue up, I switch to III.

Except for the times I get archaic and use hide glue :-).


--
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross.

On 08/09/2016 6:39 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

> Someone (Leon?) postulated that once the particles began to separate out,
> rotating the container would simply move the material from the "new top" to
> the "new bottom". If the techs at TB say stirring is the only method to mix
> the particles back in, it doesn't seem like rotation would work.

I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place...

--

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote:
...

> I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place...
...

Which obviously doesn't help with your current product, at least until
you can (if you can) get it all back into suspension again, maybe could
minimize subsequent occurrence.

--


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 08/09/2016 7:34 PM, Leon wrote:
...

> If my bottle is over 4~6 months old I buy new.

OTOH, I've routinely kept gallon jug for year or more after a spate of
heavy work that was then idle and it seems just fine...for the T's II
and III. I've even thinned "plain ol'" yellow glue that has gotten a
little thick and never had joint failures with it as long as it is still
at least running...

Well, heck, let's just go look -- I'm pretty sure the TB III jug is
downstairs not out in the barn...

Huh! Pulled out the plug that had formed in the top and lo! and behold!
there was a later of water on the top and the bottom third is
essentially all the solids...still good color all way through but it'll
need to sit in the paint shaker it appears before use.

No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one
was purchased if my recollection is at all right...as 'spearmint I
turned it over...we'll see if it'll improve any overnight.

--


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/9/2016 2:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> on the ole interweb and did some homework.

My experience is TB III is runnier than Elmer's WW glue or TB II. I
like it that way, and find it easier to use and spread. I only bought
it once, a few years ago, and used it for a couple of years, with no
apparent problems. I have also used Elmer's WW glue that was pretty
dang old with zero problems, and once, someone gave me a gallon of TB I
guess TB 1 and I had it for I bet 20 years. I used it only on scrap
stuff, or non important stuff, and it worked fine.

I just bought a container of TB II to replace the TB III I had used up,
I did it because Leon said III wasn't as strong, or as good. Now, I
wish I had bought the III, first because I like the runniness and the
longer work time, and second because it is water resistant. I never
really had a problem with regular Elmer's Cabinetmakers glue on outdoor
furniture, cutting boards and so on, so the water "proof" qualities I'm
not too concerned about. Nothing I've made with TB III shows any signs
of failure, but the Elmer's has 40-50 years w/o failure, so it will be a
long time after me before I can say the same for TB. I'm rather
confident all TB and Elmer's and most all similar glues will work fine,
and long past there expiration dates.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 08/10/2016 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 7:36 PM, dpb wrote:
>> On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place...
>> ...
>>
>> Which obviously doesn't help with your current product, at least until
>> you can (if you can) get it all back into suspension again, maybe could
>> minimize subsequent occurrence.
>
>
> I agree, shaking should prevent it from happening but apparently shaking
> does not work as well as stirring once the ingredient has settled in to
> a single blob.
>
> My comment to Titebond was that stirring is almost impossible with some
> bottles.

Well, had FSA County Committee this morning so been tied up but just
looked at the container again after it sat overnight in inverted position.

It seems to me it's back to essentially its original consistency; the
glob in the bottom doesn't seem to be at all congealed as such any
longer; if I picked up and starting using it in this condition w/o
having seen it yesterday I'd suspect nothing.

The date code is A20917xxxx so it's actually going on four year for this
gallon instead of two; as said I routinely any more will have glue of
this age or more since do work so sporadically given other obligations.

The FAQ at the TB site on longevity does talk of the 1-2 yrs but goes on
to say that if stored in temperate conditions it should be good beyond
that; they just don't list any longer essentially to be covered. As
noted, I've continued to use various manufactuers' PVA glues far past
that age as long as it still acts and looks ok and have seen no
indication of them not performing essentially as new so I really only
judge by "if it flows, use it". OTOH, if I were building a $20,000
commission for somebody, yes, I'd go buy new product. :)

I responded here to several other postings as well for conciseness but
my conclusion is "it's ok" and at least for the 1/4th to 1/3rd of the
gallon here of TB III, it seems that simply letting the solids migrate
through the thinner portions overnight essentially reconstituted it
without actually physically stirring it (imo a _very_ good result as I
was just getting ready to actually do some work for which was planning
on using it :))

These results may not be universal, granted, just relating what I see
and some past experiences fwiw (which may, may not be much... ;) )

Oh...just thought of it -- mayhaps I can find some time this afternoon
and just do a test joint and see how it behaves...if so, will report
back on result.

Anyway, hth some maybe...



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 08/10/2016 11:04 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>
>>
>> If your TBIII was runny, it was old. In factory condition it is
>> thicker. If runny, the open time is reduced.
>
> Although runny may have different meaning to different readers.
>
> Need a viscometer or rheometer to measure it, I guess.

There was no question on the separated old container here; the top (very
thin layer) was just water essentially and that which ran over the
essentially solids in the bottom was warm syrup consistency...

See other response on overall behavior...

--


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/10/2016 1:25 PM, dpb wrote:

> The date code is A20917xxxx so it's actually going on four year for this
> gallon instead of two; as said I routinely any more will have glue of
> this age or more since do work so sporadically given other obligations.

Ditto.

> The FAQ at the TB site on longevity does talk of the 1-2 yrs but goes on
> to say that if stored in temperate conditions it should be good beyond
> that; they just don't list any longer essentially to be covered. As
> noted, I've continued to use various manufactuers' PVA glues far past
> that age as long as it still acts and looks ok and have seen no
> indication of them not performing essentially as new so I really only
> judge by "if it flows, use it". OTOH, if I were building a $20,000
> commission for somebody, yes, I'd go buy new product. :)

Ditto. I've use TB and other glues way, way past the 2 year mark with
no ill effects. When someone gave me the Gallon of TB (before the
internet existed) I set it aside because I wasn't familiar with it, and
used it only on less important stuff. Had that around for probably 20
years and it still seemed to work fine.

I used Elmer's Cabinet Makers glue until rather recently. I still have
a small container but I prefer TB III because it spreads easier and
being advertised as water proof/resistant doesn't hurt. Also, setting
aside the possibility that time flies for the aged, the Elmers open time
seems to be a lot shorter than it used to be, and TB III a good bit less.

Another thing, the Elmers, and the TB seemed to get thicker as it aged
(a lot of age) the TB III did not seem to get thicker, or thinner, but
I'd guess it was under 3 years old when used up. I no longer buy gallons
of glue for the same reason I don't buy green bananas:-)




--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 08/11/2016 12:49 PM, Jack wrote:
...

> Another thing, the Elmers, and the TB seemed to get thicker as it aged
> (a lot of age) the TB III did not seem to get thicker, or thinner, but
> I'd guess it was under 3 years old when used up. I no longer buy gallons
> of glue for the same reason I don't buy green bananas:-)

As noted, clearly TBIII will tend to settle out by 4 yr, altho it
certainly hasn't been unmoved in that whole time so the actual time
since it was last used and such wasn't noticed is less than that altho I
couldn't say just when...I generally only use it where it has the
specific application, using TB II or other yellow glue of various
sources routinely.

Certainly the others do thicken; I think in their case they simply very
slowly evaporate some water or slowly "dry" in place. As noted, I've
thinned these with no seemingly ill effects to achieve roughly new
consistency.

I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test
joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It
went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the
joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain
with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple
about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say,
pine. I don't have stress measuring rig but the maple is pretty stout
in a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published
spec's...

--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 08/11/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
...

> Good to know. From what I understand past the suggested dates to use,
> the thin glue on top is not compromised except for the fact that it will
> have a shortened open time and if not mixed the remainder in the bottom
> of the bottle will likely be to thick to use and or will have little
> actual glue left. It is likely that if you are down to and only use the
> part that has settled in the bottom that it may not be as strong.

Well, part of what I discovered and reported earlier was that simply
turning it upside down and letting thicker bottom layer glob it's way
back to the new bottom essentially reconstituted the whole mess back to
basically, afaict, indistinguishable from new product or what one would
get by actually stirring.

So, I had no separated layers used; it looks/acts essentially like new
product despite the age and the previously having separated...

--



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/11/2016 1:49 PM, Jack wrote:
Also, setting
> aside the possibility that time flies for the aged, the Elmers open time
> seems to be a lot shorter than it used to be, and TB III a good bit **less.**

Just noted I mis-stated that. The TB III open time seemed a good bit
**more**, as in longer open time, appreciated by those of us moving
slower in the time space continuum.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 08/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb wrote:
...

> I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test
> joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It
> went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the
> joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain
> with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple
> about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say,
> pine. I don't have stress measuring rig(*) but the maple is pretty stout in
> a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published
> spec's...
...

(*) The "experimental test setup" was to set the glued up piece on a
pair of solid horses and whack it w/ a 10-lb sledge... :)

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 8/12/2016 9:55 AM, dpb wrote:
> On 08/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb wrote:
> ...
>
>> I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test
>> joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It
>> went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the
>> joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain
>> with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple
>> about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say,
>> pine. I don't have stress measuring rig(*) but the maple is pretty
>> stout in
>> a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published
>> spec's...
> ...
>
> (*) The "experimental test setup" was to set the glued up piece on a
> pair of solid horses and whack it w/ a 10-lb sledge... :)

That's a perfect test, much better than reading about it, even from the
manufacturer who often will shorten life expectations for a myriad of
reasons.

When I first started my cabinet shop, I was using all sorts of
ridiculous fastening techniques when edge gluing boards. Full length
splines, T&G, half lapped, even 3 foot all-threads through my butcher
block work bench top.

Then I read somewhere (way before the internet existed) that the glue
joints were stronger than the wood. I did a similar test as yours, and
discovered they were right, and the joints would rip out chunks of wood
rather than along a glue line.

From then on I've been happily gluing up wide boards from narrow boards
with just a few clamps and glue. Never once had a failure in 40-50
years. I still have the workbench top with the all-threads bolts
pretending to hold it together, and I smile every time I look at those
bolts and the needless effort that went into putting them in.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 8/12/16 7:15 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/11/2016 1:49 PM, Jack wrote:
> Also, setting
>> aside the possibility that time flies for the aged, the Elmers open time
>> seems to be a lot shorter than it used to be, and TB III a good bit
>> **less.**
>
> Just noted I mis-stated that. The TB III open time seemed a good bit
> **more**, as in longer open time, appreciated by those of us moving
> slower in the time space continuum.

The extra open time is the primary reason I'll use TBIII over the others
if water resistance is not an issue. The second reason is TBIII is
slightly darker when dried, a better match for oak.

-BR

On 08/13/2016 4:06 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
...

> I inverted my new bottle of TBIII (manufactured sometime this year) and it
> seems to be a little thicker than before. Still not as thick as the 2014
> bottle of TBII, but I need the open time so I'm going to hang on to it.
...

I don't think there's anything wrong with it performance-wise, I'm still
amazed how much reconstitution seemed to occur in the jug here simply
from the inversion overnight. I've not gone back to look after it's sat
again a few days now...

While it's surely a pit*proverbial*a*ppendage* to actually stir in any
of the containers, it'd seem that should be the "gar-on-teed" way to
extend the useful life...

I'd gone thru an previous gallon during the barn project, but that went
back 15 yr ago or so and apparently it was used quickly enough so never
saw the symptoms before mentioned here to go check the now-getting-dated
current...

--


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> wrote:

>And according to Franklyn April 27, 2011 is 3 years past prime
>condition. IIRC they suggest not using glue 2 years past the date code.
> and that is unfortunate because it is often hard to find glue in the
>store that is not already 6~12 months old, essentially cutting the
>useful period, for the end user, in half.

Titebond is still using the same arbitrary date example (April 27, 2011) in their FAQ,
http://www.titebond.com/frequently_asked_questions.aspx

, as you pointed out 3 yrs ago:
http://www.homeownershub.com/woodworking/interesting-information-about-titebond-wood-glues-768392-.htm

On 8/9/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
>
> I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations
> with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken.
> The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed.

According to Franklin/TiteBond the TBIII and the Extend have an additive
that settles to the bottom of the bottle. When it settles the glue is
thinner. I had a gallon of Extend and it was runny too. Once just past
half way through the gallon the glue was more like pudding.

They shipped me a replacement.



>
> I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?)
> the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of
> manufacture. The product was bought at HD.

I make it a habit to reach to the back of the display of glue and if any
has dust on it I pass. This stuff has a short shelf life because of the
settling.

It is a shame that it is almost impossible to get these glues quickly
after manufacture since placed like Woodcraft and HD buy in bulk.


>
> I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to
> be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way.
>
> The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is
> at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick.
>
> Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II?

NO! I have a relatively new quart of TBIII and it is relatively thick
and Because of the additive that extends the open time it should be
thick and not runny.

I am probably going to go back to TBII because of this. I prefer to buy
in Gallons but that does me no good if I can't use the whole thing.


>
> Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted:
>
> www.imgur.co/3VJaMgV
>
> 4-5 seconds later:
>
> www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf
>
> 4-5 seconds later:
>
> www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed
>
> I'm a messy guy, so the runniness might be an issue for me.
>

On 8/10/2016 9:56 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 8/9/2016 2:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
>> first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped
>> on the ole interweb and did some homework.
>
> My experience is TB III is runnier than Elmer's WW glue or TB II. I
> like it that way, and find it easier to use and spread. I only bought
> it once, a few years ago, and used it for a couple of years, with no
> apparent problems. I have also used Elmer's WW glue that was pretty
> dang old with zero problems, and once, someone gave me a gallon of TB I
> guess TB 1 and I had it for I bet 20 years. I used it only on scrap
> stuff, or non important stuff, and it worked fine.
>
> I just bought a container of TB II to replace the TB III I had used up,
> I did it because Leon said III wasn't as strong, or as good. Now, I
> wish I had bought the III, first because I like the runniness and the
> longer work time, and second because it is water resistant. I never
> really had a problem with regular Elmer's Cabinetmakers glue on outdoor
> furniture, cutting boards and so on, so the water "proof" qualities I'm
> not too concerned about. Nothing I've made with TB III shows any signs
> of failure, but the Elmer's has 40-50 years w/o failure, so it will be a
> long time after me before I can say the same for TB. I'm rather
> confident all TB and Elmer's and most all similar glues will work fine,
> and long past there expiration dates.
>


If your TBIII was runny, it was old. In factory condition it is
thicker. If runny, the open time is reduced.