"Leon" wrote in message

Yes the test was severe. But one would think that TB3 would do better
than
TB2. That's it.

Disagree.



Wrong or not, if the results are correct, why does a water resistant glue
do
better than a water proof glue when soaked in water?

We don't know hte shole story.



The results would be the same. The TB2 was tested way farther than its
design limits than the TB3 was and it held up better.

We don't know that for sure.



What do you think the results would chang to? I could see how there would
be a problem if the TB2 failed miserably against other water proof glues
in
the PVA catagory because it is not sold as water proof. What reason
could
the TB2 have done better in this water test against TB3.
Neither glue was designed to be used to this extreme but the glue that
should have done better, did not.


What were the results after 4 hours? Ten hours? 30 hours?

After reaching a certain point beyond design limits, the results can easily
be changed or nulled. In your other post you use a comparison of two bolts.
Lets add another factor.

What if both bolts are exposted to a salt spray for ten years in you boat
trailer stored at the shore? Would the results be the same or would the
higher priced bolt made from a different alloy hold up better after a long
period of time while the first bolt would have let your suspenion fail 500
miles ago?

The 40¢ bolt may be plated or have alloys better suited for my use. If my
use requires they hold up the 300 pounds of torque it will not fail. If the
25¢ bolts rusts away, it certainly was no bargain if damage occurred or had
to be replaced at 25¢ plus labor.

All we know is that the test was done beyond the product design. Give me
results that matter under the condition that I'm going to use a product.
Ed