On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:18:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:

The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that it
was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them on an
18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.

I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
would.
Ed

I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I
believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to
illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.

I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and
Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and
separated by measured force.)

Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the
three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough
sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to
Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged. And
why did T2 fare better?

JP
**************
T1 user 98% of the time...the other two reserved for CA on my wounds!