On 1/12/2012 1:32 AM, wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:20 pm, wrote:

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL

No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.

Similarly, I would like the wording to be more accurate.

If you remember back in the 60s - 80s, you bought watches that were
"waterproof". Being kind of a watch nut at the time, I had several
diver type watches, and sports watches over the year that proudly
imprinted that right on the face and also on the backs of a few of
them.

Think how stupid I felt when contacting the manufacturer and having
him tell him that swimming in a pool with my watch wasn't covered
under warranty. I thought the watch was "waterproof" (mostly because
it said so, and even gave the depth) but the manufacturer said they
were only guidelines. Further, when the watch seals failed, they
pointed out that the although the watch was marked as "waterproof"
they offered no warranty if it leaked.

After serious litigation from upper end watch buyers (not my dinky
diver's model) watches are either waterproof (no bull**** - you do the
maintenance and you get the guarantee) or as most are now, they are
"water resistant". Some even advertise they are water resistant to a
certain depth.

I received a nice diver's watch (still my favorite style) a couple of
years ago and it had all the international symbols on the paperwork
that said it is OK for "this" (pic of hand washing) and "this" (pic of
a guy showering) and "this" ( a guy with an umbrella in the rain. It
said it is NOT OK for "this" and showed a guy in a scuba tank.

Yet, on the watch itself, it says it is "Water resistant to 100
Meters". Says so front and back.

An email to CASIO, and they said that water leaking into the watch was
specifically NOT covered by warranty, but that I could do the
activities listed as OK with confidence. They told me that I could
send them the watch if it leaked, and they would decide what was
covered and what wasn't.

So I asked "what is the siginificance of water resistant to 100
meters?". They replied that it was a guideline, and if I wanted to
dive to that depth I should be fine as the watches were built to that
standard. But they also told me that if it leaked, it wasn't
covered. After all, it was a guideline, a build standard from them.
Nothing more.

I am not a very bright guy, and I don't like being mislead by ad copy
monkeys, or engineers that are cute corporate lackeys.

Either it is waterproof, or it isn't. Screw some twisty pile of test
crap standards that were a corporate engineer's wet dream to detail
out. If some ****wad makes me lose money on a job or embarrasses me
professionally because they were wordsmithing or being creative at my
expense, screw 'em.

I use NP1 all the time. It IS waterproof. I repair outside damage to
masonry, wood, metal and rubber. It is a fine adhesive and sealer,
and it is completely waterPROOF. I also use PL400.

I use different epoxies as needed. They are waterPROOF. I have used
them to glue together stone gutters that hold water. The do not
leak. They often hold water for a month. I installed these gutters
about 10 years ago and they are still waterPROOF.

So all I want is what these idiots advertise. You can see for
yourself, they advertise TB3 as waterproof, when I know for a fact it
isn't.

http://www.titebond.com/tbiiivspolyu...lyurethane.htm

Again, I don't care about a self designed test. You cannot hijack a
commonly used word, redefine it, and make it your own to suit your
advertising campaign. If it isn't waterproof, don't blow the smoke up
my ass. If it is simply water resistant, say so. One of my favorite
adhesives for general framing/subfloor/beam building/sheetrock hanging/
panel adhering is PL400. It dries to a hard plastic. **And when
properly applied** I have NEVER seen it fail, no matter what I used to
for or under any conditions. Yet it clearly states that it is "not
recommended for permanent water immersion". Good enough. I
understand. Not "waterproof".

My first failure with TB3 was the last time I used it. I used it to
repair a wood deck, and after it was wet off and on for a few days,
not immersed, not holding water, not under constant water barrage, but
wet, it changed colors and let go. Burned once is plenty for me.
Never again.

Robert


It is truly unfortunate that our society has become conditioned/forced
to accept false representation with "special club" explanations.
In another thread the term "assault" takes on a totally different
meaning where the "law" is concerned. Look the word up in the
dictionary and it is described as you and I learned, to do physical harm
to to some one. The law describes assault as some one breaking into
your house while you are there. I call that trumping up breaking and
entering charges.

I see the day when a guy running a meth lab catches his house on fire.
The fire department arrives to put out the fire. The meth lab people
will not open the door to the firemen because they don't want to get
caught with the goods. The fireman breaks down the door to gain entry
with his large ax and is later brought up on assault charges by the meth
guy and his weasel attorney.

Adjust a society for the dumb and you end up with a dumb society.