On 1/11/2012 1:46 PM, Leon wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:21 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:09 AM, Leon wrote:
...

I would not have a problem with the tests if they described degrees of
water resistance and not actually call the product water proof.

Well, I don't know what "degrees of water resistance" is, either. I can
go read the ANSI Standard test protocols.

--

The last time I read it the Water Proof classification never used the
word water proof in the test procedure or description.

Simply put the glue had to be water resistant and or hold up for x
amount of hours under certain wet conditions.

If the glue is to be used under constant wet conditions it will
certainly fail, not what I would call water proof.

Another clear cut example of a known and understood meaning of a word
being changed by a particular organization to mean some thing else
altogether.

Again, marketers do that all the time, unfortunately. I suppose at some
point some enterprising lawyer will glom onto this one like they did the
small engine manufacturers and horsepower and we'll get even less useful
measurements as a result.

The actual ANSI test is designed for the laminated products folks and
the Type I test actually is a combination of a soak/boil/dry cycle
(three repetitions of same iirc) and then an evaluation of the
specimens. No delamination allowed and some specifications on shear
strength, etc., etc., etc., ...

But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

I can't/don't fault the general comment other than to recognize the
horse has already left the barn on that regard and as is generally the
case one needs must read the limitations/application sections on the
actual data sheet(s) not just the front (marketing) label. That's true
for virtually any product.

It is why when the subject comes up I do remind folks that if they
really need "waterproof" in the ordinary sense that then TB III isn't
the answer.

Guess we could always hope for a change but don't think it's going to
happen (at least in this life).

--