"J T" wrote in message
...
Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) (Leon)
claims:
I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
60% more and was out performed by TBII.

Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many.

Again regardless of the condidtion, the better glue performed worse than the
lessor glue in the area that the better glue should have stood out as being
better.


If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances
are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out -
for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the
saturated wood just peeled off.

Apparently you have not read the article. I was not going to reprint the
article here, just giving the results of the article where the TB III water
proof glue should have done better than the non water proof glues. Again,
the joint on TB III did not fail, it simply was out performed by TBIII.

And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was
clamped, and so on.

READ the article. The joints were clamped for the time recomended by the
maker and allowed to cure for 72 hours.

I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never
will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in
a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e.,
paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying
about it holding..

The same for me. But after reading the article, I probably never would TB
III at all. If I need water proof I'll stick with Poly.


Details, more details.

READ THE ARTICLE