Anyone test strength of TBII Extend vs. regular TBII?

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>MY conclusion so far, is that the regular glue is doing a better job
>than the extended. Regardless of advertised claims.
>
Of course, you haven't yet conducted any meaningful testing, so you have no
basis for forming any meaningful conclusions.
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dope
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>what part of "test" didn't you understand, Mr. Fountain of Knowledge?
>>
>>
>> Dave, which one of us had to perform actual testing in order to realize that
>> unreinforced end-grain joints have no strength?
>>
>> Which one of us drew the wrong conclusion, i.e. that the glue was at fault?
>>
>> Hint: it wasn't _me_ either time.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

on the second test I end grain glued two short pieces several inches
apart and then the next day slowly tightened a bar clamp across them to
see which one would fail first. As I expected, the Extended glue up
broke first. The other one came apart after I whacked the hell out of
it on the concrete floor. All I'm trying to prove/disprove is relative
strengths of these two glues. So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.

dave

Henry E Schaffer wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>...
>>DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
>>HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
>>WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
>>I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.
>
>
> I've been watching this thread, and more details have arrived with
> more questioning.
>
> One aspect hasn't been discussed - and that is were the two
> bonds/joints treated similarly with respect to being stressed (moved?)
> before they had fully set up?
>
> You mentioned that the Extended was stressed early. What about the
> Regular? This needs to be in terms of the setting time for each. Since
> those differ, a single time (e.g. 4 hrs) can't be used for both.
>
>>...

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:32:06 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't stick
>to the face of the test pieces.

Well _Duh_ !

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area
Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
> HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
> WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
> I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.

Dave.

We can all read. I've, for some bizarre reason, read every message in
this thread. I understand the point you're trying to make and the
points others are making.

Bottom line, you are wrong. Your test was not of the glue, because the
glue was not relevant to the failure of the joint. Period.

Please move on.

djb

--
There are no socks in my email address.

"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati"

Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:

> It was a meaningless test, because its design guaranteed that no relevant,
> useful information could be obtained from it -- unless you intend to actually
> build furniture using unreinforced end-grain joints such as the ones you
> "tested".

Building furniture does not equal all woodworking.

All testing is not a replication of exact uses.

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

> So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
> the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.

You could always go old school and use hide glue.

Juergen Hannappel <[email protected]> wrote:

> >> So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
> >> the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.
> >
> > You could always go old school and use hide glue.
>
> That is not really slow acting in a useful way: You have to cloamp for
> a long time but you cannot work it for more than a minute because as
> soon as it cools down it doest work any more.

You can use different bloom strengths, change the temp of the workshop
or add urea and end up with long work times.

Fri, Dec 12, 2003, 5:43pm (EST+5) [email protected] (Bay=A0Area=A0Dave) who
puts out:
I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
with their official position.

Well, how about some details, Bay Area Dave, rather than just your
unsupported word? Not that anyone here would doubt your unsupported
word, of course, but it would be nice to have some rational behind such
a statement. You must have an extremely well equipped lab to make those
tests. What did you you test? And how? Seeing as how modern
woodworking glues are stronger than the wood they're gluing, it really
doesn't matter much if one is slightly stronger, or weaker, than
another. Something along the lines of 2,500 lbs per square inch is the
figure that comes to mind. On the other hand:
http://www.jahozafat.com/TV_Shows/Simpsons/tlkcrazy.wav

JOAT
Life may not be the party we hoped for, but while we are here we might
as well dance.
- Unknown

Life just ain't life without good music. - JOAT
Web Page Update 12 Dec 2003.
Some tunes I like.
http://community-2.webtv.net/Jakofalltrades/SOMETUNESILIKE/

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dope
<[email protected]> wrote:
>what part of "test" didn't you understand, Mr. Fountain of Knowledge?

Dave, which one of us had to perform actual testing in order to realize that
unreinforced end-grain joints have no strength?

Which one of us drew the wrong conclusion, i.e. that the glue was at fault?

Hint: it wasn't _me_ either time.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Rick Chamberlain wrote:
>Why would you bother to test a joint that is doomed to fail, regardless
>of adhesive used?



It's the big lead up to when Bowel Area Dave slits his car
tires to see at what high rate of speed they fail.

Hey, a guy can dream, can't he?

UA100

My advice to myself is to ignore this thread!

Rick Chamberlain wrote:
snip

yes. That would indicate which one could hold up to near hurricane
force winds. That would be a legitimate test, LAWRENCE!! Let's get you
a job at Underwriters Lab.

dave

Lawrence Wasserman wrote:


> Would you do a "comparative" test of umbrellas by seeing which one
> made the best parachute?
>
>
>

Rich wrote:
>Are you ever not a horse-dick?


May I answer this?

UA100

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>last time, let me reiterate: it was COMPARATIVE!

Let _me_ reiterate: it was a meaningless comparison. Because the joint itself
has no inherent strength, such joints are never used in practice -- so the
performance of the glue is absolutely irrelevant.

> regular vs extended.
>regular held much better.

Both failed due to their use in a suboptimal joint. So what? All you showed is
that the test was ill-designed.


> plus the extended failed on face to face
>glue-up; it came apart with hand pressure, but that may have been
>because I stressed that joint within 4 hours of gluing,

Gee, do ya think? I'm shocked.

>but it
>practically fell apart the next morning.
>

Just curious -- how long do the instructions for TB II Extend say to clamp the
joint before applying any stress to it?


>can we please drop this??

As long as you continue to insist that you performed a meaningful test that
demonstrated anything other than your own ignorance, I'll continue to disagree
with you.

>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This wasn't a project, it was a "destructive" test. sigh. Go back to
>>>one of the other newsgroups and impress them with your intelligence.
>>>
>>
>> It was a meaningless test, because its design guaranteed that no relevant,
>> useful information could be obtained from it -- unless you intend to actually
>> build furniture using unreinforced end-grain joints such as the ones you
>> "tested".

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Thanks, Doug. I'm 4 blocks from a Sears. Lowe's is over 30 miles until
they get a new one built not far from me.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>or liquid hide glue. not QUITE so old school, but still has a long
>>assembly time. couldn't find it at my local HD, but what else is new.
>>I'll check around town. thanks.
>>
>
> Woodcraft and Rockler both carry Titebond liquid hide glue. I have found when
> glue-shopping at Rockler that it's wise to check the expiration date.
>
> I _think_ I've seen it at Lowe's, but I could have hallucinated that.
>
> Sears used to sell it, too (with their name on it). Not sure if they still do.
> Check dates there also.
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 17:43:48 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>glues,

Hey Dave, here's a serious answer.

Modern glue should have a strength of somewhere around 2,000 psi, or
else it's not working. That's _strong_. Now any attempt to test this
needs a test sample of a couple of square inches minimum (or else edge
effects are troublesome) and that means big chunks of steel frame,
hydraulic rams and a load cell / LVDT to measure things. Like a lot
of people hereabouts who also do some metalworking, I've a bearing
press that would allow such a thing to be scraped together with a day
or two's effort. But without it, using techniques like "Hitting it
with a hammer and seeing which breaks first" is a bit like measuring
flammability by asking Johnny Knoxville to dip a dwarf in them and
light it.

There's also a huge variation in glue strength, owing to surface prep,
material properties, technique etc. Unless you can control this
(unlikely) or you repeat enough experiments to average them out, then
you're more likely to be measuring random effects of knotty timber or
poor sanding on one piece than you are measuring real glue
differences.


--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods

YOU are the one who brought up kf's; not me. Can't even keep track of
what YOU wrote, can you?

dave

John Sellers wrote:

> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Would I make your day if I give you the old heave-ho?
>
>
> Don't presume that I'll ever give a damn, BAD.
> Your killfile list isn't significant, apparently not even to you.
>
>
>
>>Well, I don't want to cater to your every whim, so try to be a
>
> little
>
>>more insulting next time....
>
>
> That's the tactic you use. Doesn't work, either.
>

Why Keeter, I didn't know you care so much!

dave

Unisaw A100 wrote:


>>Davie, I love you man. I mean I really LOVE you!
>
> UA100

thank you for your concern.

dave

John Sellers wrote:

snip
> Have a nice life,
> John Sellers
>

I don't know WHY I took him out of mine...I guess hope springs eternal
that these proponents of rudeness will turn over a new leaf...what was I
thinking?? :)

dave

Silvan wrote:
snip

> Hmmm... Not that I want to disagree with your disagreeing with that idiot
> in my killfile, but... I made some poster frames too short. They're

snip

EVERYTHING gets dusty in my shop after cutting mdf or after a sanding
session.

But I know what you mean; you want it fresh.

dave

Silvan wrote:

> Doug Miller wrote:
>
>
>>I _think_ I've seen it at Lowe's, but I could have hallucinated that.
>
>
> Nup, right there with the other stuff. Only comes in small bottles. No
> gallon jugs of liquid hide glue.
>
> I didn't buy any because it was very, very dusty.
>

It's getting old.Believe it or not I did paint part of my shop a REAL lite
pink once.It did NOT go well with the powermatic puke yellow though.
"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> :) But of course! How do you like the BS on the Wreck today?
>
> dave
>
> FOW wrote:
>
> > Hey Dave what color should I paint my shop? PINK ?
> >
> > "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
> >>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
> >>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
> >>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
> >>with their official position.
> >>
> >>dave
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>

T. wrote:

lame comments snipped

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> this was a COMPARATIVE test; a test between two TYPES of adhesive;
> therefore the test was one of less-than-ideal joints, Andy!
>
Why would you bother to test a joint that is doomed to fail, regardless
of adhesive used?

--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> worse case scenario. A destructive test is worthless if there is no
> failure, my friend!

Wrongo Dave.

This joint would fail under any conditions, regardless of glue used.
The only true test is edge jointing four strips of the same wood,
applying the same amount of glue to each joint, clamping at the same
pressure over the same period of time, then doing a tensile and shear
test on the joints.

You then run your tests until failure and measure the results. THAT
would produce your worst case scenraio.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> ah, HOW is edge joining a "worst case scenario"??
>
> DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
> HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
> WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
> I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.
>
> dave
>
> Rick Chamberlain wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> >>worse case scenario. A destructive test is worthless if there is no
> >>failure, my friend!
> >
> >
> > Wrongo Dave.
> >
> > This joint would fail under any conditions, regardless of glue used.
> > The only true test is edge jointing four strips of the same wood,
> > applying the same amount of glue to each joint, clamping at the same
> > pressure over the same period of time, then doing a tensile and shear
> > test on the joints.
> >
> > You then run your tests until failure and measure the results. THAT
> > would produce your worst case scenraio.
>
>
My reading comprehension is just fine. Just thought you'd might like to
learn how real engineers would test something - they use a valid testing
protocol. Your test was not comparative, since no one in their right
fricking mind would use a joint like that in any proper woodworking
project.

You'd do well to take your own advice, Davy.
--
Regards,

Rick

(Remove the HIGH SPOTS for e-mail)

I can see you are a paragon of restraint yourself, Keeter! How about
some of those infamous blank replies?

dave

Unisaw A100 wrote:

> Bowel Area Dave wrote:
>
>>last time,
>
>
>
>
> If only this were remotely true.
>
> sigh...
>
> UA100

what part of "test" didn't you understand, Mr. Fountain of Knowledge?
This wasn't a project, it was a "destructive" test. sigh. Go back to
one of the other newsgroups and impress them with your intelligence.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>that's the problem. the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't stick
>>to the face of the test pieces.
>
>
> Well, no kidding. The end grain wicked all the glue out of the joint. That's
> the expected result when attempting to make such a joint, which of course is
> why the mortise-and-tenon joint was invented.
>
>
>>>I got essentially the same result twice in a row.
>
>
> No surprise there either.
>
>>About 10% of the failed side had wood slivers extracted, but
>>the remainder of the glued joint had all the glue separated from it as
>>it failed.
>
>
> This is the expected behavior from a glue-starved joint.
>
>
>>So it WASN'T stronger than the wood.
>
>
> Assumes facts not in evidence. It's not possible to assess the strength of the
> glue, because there wasn't any in the joint to begin with.
>
>
>>NOW do you see why I'm
>>concerned about using a product for the first time? It's not doing what
>>I'd expect.
>
>
> You should be more concerned about why you expected such a joint to hold. The
> results were _exactly_ what I'd expect from a joint constructed as you
> describe.
>
>
>>Reality is more important to me than advertising, claims,
>>anecdotes, and opinion.
>
>
> Is it indeed? Reality dictates that one not attempt to make butt joints in end
> grain without some sort of reinforcement (mortise & tenon, biscuit, spline,
> half-lap, rabbet, what have you) so as to provide long grain to long grain
> glue surfaces, and that if one persists in doing so anyway, that one should
> expect exactly such joint failures as you have experienced.
>
>
>>dave
>>
>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave
>>
>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>>>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
>>>>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
>>>>with their official position.
>>>>
>>>
>>>It's still stronger than the wood, right? If the wood fibers will separate
>>>before the glue joint fails, what difference does it make if one glue
>>>that's stronger than the wood isn't quite as strong as some other glue that's
>>
>>>also stronger than the wood?
>>>
>>>--
>>>Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>>
>>>How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss
>>
>>America?
>>
>
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

"Bay Area Dave" wrote
> more of his disjointed sputum...
>

I'm done - no more banging my head on the wall.
As I said before - you're clueless, and that's not likely to change.

Have a nice life,
John Sellers

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>that's the problem. the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't stick
>to the face of the test pieces.

Well, no kidding. The end grain wicked all the glue out of the joint. That's
the expected result when attempting to make such a joint, which of course is
why the mortise-and-tenon joint was invented.

>> I got essentially the same result twice in a row.

No surprise there either.
>About 10% of the failed side had wood slivers extracted, but
>the remainder of the glued joint had all the glue separated from it as
>it failed.

This is the expected behavior from a glue-starved joint.

>So it WASN'T stronger than the wood.

Assumes facts not in evidence. It's not possible to assess the strength of the
glue, because there wasn't any in the joint to begin with.

>NOW do you see why I'm
>concerned about using a product for the first time? It's not doing what
>I'd expect.

You should be more concerned about why you expected such a joint to hold. The
results were _exactly_ what I'd expect from a joint constructed as you
describe.

> Reality is more important to me than advertising, claims,
>anecdotes, and opinion.

Is it indeed? Reality dictates that one not attempt to make butt joints in end
grain without some sort of reinforcement (mortise & tenon, biscuit, spline,
half-lap, rabbet, what have you) so as to provide long grain to long grain
glue surfaces, and that if one persists in doing so anyway, that one should
expect exactly such joint failures as you have experienced.

>
>dave
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
>>>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
>>>with their official position.
>>>
>>
>> It's still stronger than the wood, right? If the wood fibers will separate
>> before the glue joint fails, what difference does it make if one glue
>> that's stronger than the wood isn't quite as strong as some other glue that's
>
>> also stronger than the wood?
>>
>> --
>> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss
> America?
>

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

last time, let me reiterate: it was COMPARATIVE! regular vs extended.
regular held much better. plus the extended failed on face to face
glue-up; it came apart with hand pressure, but that may have been
because I stressed that joint within 4 hours of gluing, but it
practically fell apart the next morning.

can we please drop this??

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>This wasn't a project, it was a "destructive" test. sigh. Go back to
>>one of the other newsgroups and impress them with your intelligence.
>>
>
> It was a meaningless test, because its design guaranteed that no relevant,
> useful information could be obtained from it -- unless you intend to actually
> build furniture using unreinforced end-grain joints such as the ones you
> "tested".
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

I hope you resolved the color mismatch by re-painting and NOT by
swapping out your Powermatic gear! :)

dave

FOW wrote:

> It's getting old.Believe it or not I did paint part of my shop a REAL lite
> pink once.It did NOT go well with the powermatic puke yellow though.
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>:) But of course! How do you like the BS on the Wreck today?
>>
>>dave
>>
>>FOW wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hey Dave what color should I paint my shop? PINK ?
>>>
>>>"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>>>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
>>>>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
>>>>with their official position.
>>>>
>>>>dave
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

that's the problem. the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't stick
to the face of the test pieces. I got essentially the same result twice
in a row. About 10% of the failed side had wood slivers extracted, but
the remainder of the glued joint had all the glue separated from it as
it failed. So it WASN'T stronger than the wood. NOW do you see why I'm
concerned about using a product for the first time? It's not doing what
I'd expect. Reality is more important to me than advertising, claims,
anecdotes, and opinion.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
>>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
>>with their official position.
>>
>
> It's still stronger than the wood, right? If the wood fibers will separate
> before the glue joint fails, what difference does it make if one glue
> that's stronger than the wood isn't quite as strong as some other glue that's
> also stronger than the wood?
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

BAD, you really are a clueless asshole.

I read newsgroups, but post only infrequently because there appears to
be much more knowledge out there than I consider myself to possess.
It really jumps out at me when someone like you posts questions and
then retorts with name-calling and insults when others offer advice
that doesn't match your preconceived notion of what is proper.

I've seen many instances when you lambast other posters and invoke
your killfile. They give you multiple chances to grow up but you
still persist in childish behavior. Do you make friends with people
who see you in person? Or do you treat everyone you know like this?

I'm sure others here will help you with any WW task you undertake, but
you've got to realize what you're doing first. If you come here for
answers to questions, it includes the admission that you want more
knowledge than you now have. It appears that most here try to give
you all the information they can. That will always include some
good-natured humor (it's human nature), but you can't seem to roll
with the punches. It's when you try to punch back that makes you look
so ridiculous.

Not hoping this will help,
John Sellers


"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> back to the plonkee list - P L O N K !
>
> dave
>
> Rich wrote:
>
> > Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
> >>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me
that
> >>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular.
> >
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > As always you're not listening to the people who replied to yet
> > another worthless thread started by you.
> >
> > JOAT wants to know what kind of controls you used in your testing.
> > Even a white trash yokel, like me, living in a trailer knows that
> > testing in an uncontrolled environment provides meaningless
results.
> > Somehow I think the qualified scientists at Titebond performed
> > multiple controlled tests using top of the line scientific
measuring
> > devices to arrive at their conclusions. Now I know that doesn't
rank
> > up there with your observations, but I'm going to go with their
> > results.
> >
> > Dave and Andy try to apply some real world logic to your
conclusions.
> >
> > They're all right but you still have to argue your point, which
leads
> > me to the obvious question:
> >
> > Are you ever not a horse-dick?
> >
> > Rich
>

On 12 Dec 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:

> that's the problem. the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't
> stick to the face of the test pieces. I got essentially the same
> result twice in a row. About 10% of the failed side had wood slivers
> extracted, but the remainder of the glued joint had all the glue
> separated from it as it failed. So it WASN'T stronger than the wood.
> NOW do you see why I'm concerned about using a product for the first
> time? It's not doing what I'd expect. Reality is more important to
> me than advertising, claims, anecdotes, and opinion.

No one, and by that I mean NOT A FREAKING SOUL, makes glued end-grain
joints, Dave. Or end-grain to face-grain joints. So your premise is BAD
to begin with.

Make two identical mortise and tenon joints, glue one with each kind,
and pull them apart with a hydraulic press. There's probably a measurable
difference in the strength. But unless you are going to subject the
furniture you build to that extreme, it isn't going to make a bit of
difference.

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>This wasn't a project, it was a "destructive" test. sigh. Go back to
>one of the other newsgroups and impress them with your intelligence.
>
It was a meaningless test, because its design guaranteed that no relevant,
useful information could be obtained from it -- unless you intend to actually
build furniture using unreinforced end-grain joints such as the ones you
"tested".





--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

or liquid hide glue. not QUITE so old school, but still has a long
assembly time. couldn't find it at my local HD, but what else is new.
I'll check around town. thanks.

dave

p_j wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
>>the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.
>
>
> You could always go old school and use hide glue.

MY conclusion so far, is that the regular glue is doing a better job
than the extended. Regardless of advertised claims.

dave

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dope
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>what part of "test" didn't you understand, Mr. Fountain of Knowledge?
>
>
> Dave, which one of us had to perform actual testing in order to realize that
> unreinforced end-grain joints have no strength?
>
> Which one of us drew the wrong conclusion, i.e. that the glue was at fault?
>
> Hint: it wasn't _me_ either time.
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
> glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
> the Extend isn't as strong as the regular.

Dave,

As always you're not listening to the people who replied to yet
another worthless thread started by you.

JOAT wants to know what kind of controls you used in your testing.
Even a white trash yokel, like me, living in a trailer knows that
testing in an uncontrolled environment provides meaningless results.
Somehow I think the qualified scientists at Titebond performed
multiple controlled tests using top of the line scientific measuring
devices to arrive at their conclusions. Now I know that doesn't rank
up there with your observations, but I'm going to go with their
results.

Dave and Andy try to apply some real world logic to your conclusions.

They're all right but you still have to argue your point, which leads
me to the obvious question:

Are you ever not a horse-dick?

Rich

HorseDick <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> :) But of course! How do you like the BS on the Wreck today?
>
> dave
>
Are you referring to the BS you started and sustained? Seems like the
troll's calling the kettle black.

In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> ...
>DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
>HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
>WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
>I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.

I've been watching this thread, and more details have arrived with
more questioning.

One aspect hasn't been discussed - and that is were the two
bonds/joints treated similarly with respect to being stressed (moved?)
before they had fully set up?

You mentioned that the Extended was stressed early. What about the
Regular? This needs to be in terms of the setting time for each. Since
those differ, a single time (e.g. 4 hrs) can't be used for both.
> ...
--
--henry schaffer
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>on the second test I end grain glued two short pieces several inches
>apart and then the next day slowly tightened a bar clamp across them to
>see which one would fail first.

Was the elapsed time between the glue up and the test at least as long
as the "time to reach full strength" for the Extended?

One reason I ask is that the titebond.com web site says that the cure
time for the regular is 24 hours. I would guess that the cure time is
longer for Extended - which makes me wonder if you tested the Extended
before it had reached full strength.

>As I expected, the Extended glue up
>broke first. The other one came apart after I whacked the hell out of
>it on the concrete floor. All I'm trying to prove/disprove is relative
>strengths of these two glues. So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
>the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.

One of them will break first - the quantitative question is whether
the difference between the two makes any real difference. If the
regular had a bond strength of, e.g. 3750 psi, and the Extended was
weaker - down around 3500 psi - would that make you want to avoid the
Extended?

I've searched the titebond web site and can't find any indication that
they have Extended - let alone specifications on its behavior.

--henry

>Henry E Schaffer wrote:
>> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>...
>>>DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
>>>HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
>>>WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
>>>I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.
>>
>> I've been watching this thread, and more details have arrived with
>> more questioning.
>>
>> One aspect hasn't been discussed - and that is were the two
>> bonds/joints treated similarly with respect to being stressed (moved?)
>> before they had fully set up?
>>
>> You mentioned that the Extended was stressed early. What about the
>> Regular? This needs to be in terms of the setting time for each. Since
>> those differ, a single time (e.g. 4 hrs) can't be used for both.
--
--henry schaffer
[email protected]

In article <[email protected]> I wrote:
> ...
> I've searched the titebond web site and can't find any indication that
>they have Extended - let alone specifications on its behavior.

Whoops - it's spelled Extend -

Then details can be found. It appears to be specified as having a
*slightly higher* bond strength (by a couple of percent.) But I can't
find any indication of how long it takes to reach full bond strength.
Perhaps it says so on the bottle?
--
--henry schaffer
[email protected]

don't you mean pissing into the wind?

dave

Myxylplyk wrote:

> Doug,
> give up, you're whispering to the wind....
>
> Myx
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:%%HCb.16075$P%[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>MY conclusion so far, is that the regular glue is doing a better job
>>>than the extended. Regardless of advertised claims.
>>>
>>
>>Of course, you haven't yet conducted any meaningful testing, so you have no
>>basis for forming any meaningful conclusions.
>>
>>>Doug Miller wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dope
>>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>what part of "test" didn't you understand, Mr. Fountain of Knowledge?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Dave, which one of us had to perform actual testing in order to realize that
>>>>unreinforced end-grain joints have no strength?
>>>>
>>>>Which one of us drew the wrong conclusion, i.e. that the glue was at fault?
>>>>
>>>>Hint: it wasn't _me_ either time.
>>
>>--
>>Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>>
>>How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?
>
>
>

Andy Dingley wrote:

> There's also a huge variation in glue strength, owing to surface prep,
> material properties, technique etc. Unless you can control this
> (unlikely) or you repeat enough experiments to average them out, then
> you're more likely to be measuring random effects of knotty timber or
> poor sanding on one piece than you are measuring real glue
> differences.

This is what this thread needs. <g>
http://sms.mike.neir.org/

-- Mark

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>this was a COMPARATIVE test; a test between two TYPES of adhesive;
>therefore the test was one of less-than-ideal joints, Andy!
>
What, exactly, was your purpose in conducting, and comparing the results of,
two utterly meaningless tests?

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

Bowel Area Dave wrote:
>last time,



If only this were remotely true.

sigh...

UA100

Doug,
give up, you're whispering to the wind....

Myx

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%%HCb.16075$P%[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >MY conclusion so far, is that the regular glue is doing a better job
> >than the extended. Regardless of advertised claims.
> >
> Of course, you haven't yet conducted any meaningful testing, so you have no
> basis for forming any meaningful conclusions.
> >
> >Doug Miller wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dope
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >>>what part of "test" didn't you understand, Mr. Fountain of Knowledge?
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave, which one of us had to perform actual testing in order to realize that
> >> unreinforced end-grain joints have no strength?
> >>
> >> Which one of us drew the wrong conclusion, i.e. that the glue was at fault?
> >>
> >> Hint: it wasn't _me_ either time.
>
> --
> Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
>
> How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

:) But of course! How do you like the BS on the Wreck today?

dave

FOW wrote:

> Hey Dave what color should I paint my shop? PINK ?
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
>>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
>>with their official position.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>or liquid hide glue. not QUITE so old school, but still has a long
>assembly time. couldn't find it at my local HD, but what else is new.
>I'll check around town. thanks.
>
Woodcraft and Rockler both carry Titebond liquid hide glue. I have found when
glue-shopping at Rockler that it's wise to check the expiration date.

I _think_ I've seen it at Lowe's, but I could have hallucinated that.

Sears used to sell it, too (with their name on it). Not sure if they still do.
Check dates there also.

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:05:31 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> referred to:

>This is what this thread needs. <g>
>http://sms.mike.neir.org/
>
> -- Mark

Loved it! However, I fail to see some of the humour in the periodic
table. I understand it's a parody, but what I don't get is why real
elements like garlic, pasta, and zinfandel are included with the other
obviously silly ones.

Luigi
Replace "no" with "yk" for real email address

back to the plonkee list - P L O N K !

dave

Rich wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular.
>
>
> Dave,
>
> As always you're not listening to the people who replied to yet
> another worthless thread started by you.
>
> JOAT wants to know what kind of controls you used in your testing.
> Even a white trash yokel, like me, living in a trailer knows that
> testing in an uncontrolled environment provides meaningless results.
> Somehow I think the qualified scientists at Titebond performed
> multiple controlled tests using top of the line scientific measuring
> devices to arrive at their conclusions. Now I know that doesn't rank
> up there with your observations, but I'm going to go with their
> results.
>
> Dave and Andy try to apply some real world logic to your conclusions.
>
> They're all right but you still have to argue your point, which leads
> me to the obvious question:
>
> Are you ever not a horse-dick?
>
> Rich

Scott Cramer wrote:

> No one, and by that I mean NOT A FREAKING SOUL, makes glued end-grain
> joints, Dave. Or end-grain to face-grain joints. So your premise is BAD
> to begin with.

Hmmm... Not that I want to disagree with your disagreeing with that idiot
in my killfile, but... I made some poster frames too short. They're
completely supported by the posters, and need no strength, so I just fitted
in some extra pieces, end grain to end grain, no dowels. So, yes, I did
it.

Didn't last worth a damn though. I broke two of them just assembling the
frames. For this, it didn't really matter. They look fine on the wall,
unless you get too close, and if you're that close to a poster, get a life!

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

Doug Miller wrote:

> I _think_ I've seen it at Lowe's, but I could have hallucinated that.

Nup, right there with the other stuff. Only comes in small bottles. No
gallon jugs of liquid hide glue.

I didn't buy any because it was very, very dusty.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan <[email protected]>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/

ah, HOW is edge joining a "worst case scenario"??

DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.

dave

Rick Chamberlain wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>worse case scenario. A destructive test is worthless if there is no
>>failure, my friend!
>
>
> Wrongo Dave.
>
> This joint would fail under any conditions, regardless of glue used.
> The only true test is edge jointing four strips of the same wood,
> applying the same amount of glue to each joint, clamping at the same
> pressure over the same period of time, then doing a tensile and shear
> test on the joints.
>
> You then run your tests until failure and measure the results. THAT
> would produce your worst case scenraio.

i gave a partial explanation. I also did face to face and it failed.

dave

Scott Cramer wrote:

> On 12 Dec 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
>
>
>>that's the problem. the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't
>>stick to the face of the test pieces. I got essentially the same
>>result twice in a row. About 10% of the failed side had wood slivers
>>extracted, but the remainder of the glued joint had all the glue
>>separated from it as it failed. So it WASN'T stronger than the wood.
>>NOW do you see why I'm concerned about using a product for the first
>>time? It's not doing what I'd expect. Reality is more important to
>>me than advertising, claims, anecdotes, and opinion.
>
>
> No one, and by that I mean NOT A FREAKING SOUL, makes glued end-grain
> joints, Dave. Or end-grain to face-grain joints. So your premise is BAD
> to begin with.
>
> Make two identical mortise and tenon joints, glue one with each kind,
> and pull them apart with a hydraulic press. There's probably a measurable
> difference in the strength. But unless you are going to subject the
> furniture you build to that extreme, it isn't going to make a bit of
> difference.

Bowel Area Dave wrote:
>Keith, I worship you.



Thanks Davie.

UA100

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Would I make your day if I give you the old heave-ho?

Don't presume that I'll ever give a damn, BAD.
Your killfile list isn't significant, apparently not even to you.


> Well, I don't want to cater to your every whim, so try to be a
little
> more insulting next time....

That's the tactic you use. Doesn't work, either.

this was a COMPARATIVE test; a test between two TYPES of adhesive;
therefore the test was one of less-than-ideal joints, Andy!

dave

Andy Dingley wrote:

> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:32:06 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't stick
>>to the face of the test pieces.
>
>
> Well _Duh_ !
>

Would I make your day if I give you the old heave-ho?

Well, I don't want to cater to your every whim, so try to be a little
more insulting next time....

dave

John Sellers wrote:

> BAD, you really are a clueless asshole.
>
> I read newsgroups, but post only infrequently because there appears to
> be much more knowledge out there than I consider myself to possess.
> It really jumps out at me when someone like you posts questions and
> then retorts with name-calling and insults when others offer advice
> that doesn't match your preconceived notion of what is proper.
>
> I've seen many instances when you lambast other posters and invoke
> your killfile. They give you multiple chances to grow up but you
> still persist in childish behavior. Do you make friends with people
> who see you in person? Or do you treat everyone you know like this?
>
> I'm sure others here will help you with any WW task you undertake, but
> you've got to realize what you're doing first. If you come here for
> answers to questions, it includes the admission that you want more
> knowledge than you now have. It appears that most here try to give
> you all the information they can. That will always include some
> good-natured humor (it's human nature), but you can't seem to roll
> with the punches. It's when you try to punch back that makes you look
> so ridiculous.
>
> Not hoping this will help,
> John Sellers
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>back to the plonkee list - P L O N K !
>>
>>dave
>>
>>Rich wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>>>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>>>>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me
>
> that
>
>>>>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dave,
>>>
>>>As always you're not listening to the people who replied to yet
>>>another worthless thread started by you.
>>>
>>>JOAT wants to know what kind of controls you used in your testing.
>>>Even a white trash yokel, like me, living in a trailer knows that
>>>testing in an uncontrolled environment provides meaningless
>
> results.
>
>>>Somehow I think the qualified scientists at Titebond performed
>>>multiple controlled tests using top of the line scientific
>
> measuring
>
>>>devices to arrive at their conclusions. Now I know that doesn't
>
> rank
>
>>>up there with your observations, but I'm going to go with their
>>>results.
>>>
>>>Dave and Andy try to apply some real world logic to your
>
> conclusions.
>
>>>They're all right but you still have to argue your point, which
>
> leads
>
>>>me to the obvious question:
>>>
>>>Are you ever not a horse-dick?
>>>
>>>Rich
>>
>

worse case scenario. A destructive test is worthless if there is no
failure, my friend!

dave

Rick Chamberlain wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
>
>>this was a COMPARATIVE test; a test between two TYPES of adhesive;
>>therefore the test was one of less-than-ideal joints, Andy!
>>
>
> Why would you bother to test a joint that is doomed to fail, regardless
> of adhesive used?
>

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:jImDb.16389$P%[email protected]...
> I _think_ I've seen it at Lowe's, but I could have hallucinated that.
>

Nope - it's there at mine...
Better up the dosage - no hallucinations yet. :)

Hey Dave what color should I paint my shop? PINK ?

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
> glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
> the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
> them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
> with their official position.
>
> dave
>
>

The titebond site is a bit confusing, but it's there...

I waited at least 20 hours or more for the face glued piece, but I had
stressed it (without failure) at around 3 - 4 hours, which possibly
messed up the bond, although it didn't budge at the time.

If it is nearly as strong as the regular, then I'm fine with it. I'm
gonna do more testing when the temperate is well above their minimum
requirements to see if that makes a difference.

dave


Henry E Schaffer wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>on the second test I end grain glued two short pieces several inches
>>apart and then the next day slowly tightened a bar clamp across them to
>>see which one would fail first.
>
>
> Was the elapsed time between the glue up and the test at least as long
> as the "time to reach full strength" for the Extended?
>
> One reason I ask is that the titebond.com web site says that the cure
> time for the regular is 24 hours. I would guess that the cure time is
> longer for Extended - which makes me wonder if you tested the Extended
> before it had reached full strength.
>
>
>>As I expected, the Extended glue up
>>broke first. The other one came apart after I whacked the hell out of
>>it on the concrete floor. All I'm trying to prove/disprove is relative
>>strengths of these two glues. So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
>>the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.
>
>
> One of them will break first - the quantitative question is whether
> the difference between the two makes any real difference. If the
> regular had a bond strength of, e.g. 3750 psi, and the Extended was
> weaker - down around 3500 psi - would that make you want to avoid the
> Extended?
>
> I've searched the titebond web site and can't find any indication that
> they have Extended - let alone specifications on its behavior.
>
> --henry

[email protected] (p_j) writes:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> So far, I'm reluctant to commit to using
>> the Extended, but I need a slower acting glue.
>
> You could always go old school and use hide glue.

That is not really slow acting in a useful way: You have to cloamp for
a long time but you cannot work it for more than a minute because as
soon as it cools down it doest work any more.
--
Dr. Juergen Hannappel http://lisa2.physik.uni-bonn.de/~hannappe
mailto:[email protected] Phone: +49 228 73 2447 FAX ... 7869
Physikalisches Institut der Uni Bonn Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany
CERN: Phone: +412276 76461 Fax: ..77930 Bat. 892-R-A13 CH-1211 Geneve 23

In article <[email protected]>, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
>glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
>the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
>them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
>with their official position.
>
It's still stronger than the wood, right? If the wood fibers will separate
before the glue joint fails, what difference does it make if one glue
that's stronger than the wood isn't quite as strong as some other glue that's
also stronger than the wood?

--
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss America?

In article <[email protected]>,
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>ah, HOW is edge joining a "worst case scenario"??
>
>DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
>HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
>WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
>I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.
>
>dave
>
<...snipped...>

Would you do a "comparative" test of umbrellas by seeing which one
made the best parachute?



--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland
[email protected]