"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

Based on a test that should not have been done in the manner it was. If
you get past the marketing hype, I wonder if the results would be
different under more realistic conditions. If they were both given a
spray
of water similar to rainfall, followed by sunshine, then some morning dew,
etc.

Yes I think that the results would be different and both of the glues would
probably hold up under higher pressure. Still, both were tested eually and
it only seems logical that the glue designed to be used around "X" amount of
water would do better than a glue that was designed to be used in less than
"X" amount of water. This was not really a test of, does the glue pass the
test or not, both certainly did, but the under dog did better.


How many samples were tested?

IIRC, 1 for each glue type and test. And that may be the problem. Although
the tests were used with pieces of wood from the same board and the glue was
applied in an equal manner, the results could have been a fluke. Perhaps
best 5 of 8 tests or best average of 3 testings would have indicated
different results.

If could also be an anomaly if only one test piece was done.

True, and very likely. Or Wood Magazine matched the results to the wrong
glue. While I still believe that as long as the test was consistant for
both glues, TB3 was tested closer to its intended usage than TB2 was. A
larger sampleing, and I hope for Franklins sake, hopefully would yield
better results with TB3 than TB2 on this particular test.


If the results were the same in repeated testing I'd be
far more concerned.

Yeah, That is what I am thinkng. But given the results, Wood Magazine or
Franklin has some serious explaining to do.

They also state that the same board was used in the
testing. We all know that wood can vary quite a bit over a few feet of
length. Could be a factor if only one sample was done and each type was
from a different section of the wood. .

"IIRC" the maple board had consistant grain.

There is no doubt the poly glues performed much better under the
conditions
and I'd expect them to do so. I have to imagine that Franklin would have
done some testing to establish that TB3 is stronger than TB2 under normal
conditions or real use. FWIW, Franklin specs state that the TB2 meets the
Type II specs while the TB3 meets Type I specs.

I am not sure what Type I or II mean, but if Type II means that it will hold
up better under wet conditions than Type I, the test would indicate that TB2
probably easily passes the Tpye II specs also.

ANYWAY.. ;~) LOL.. I did send an email to Franklin asking their view on
the test results, in the magazine that they bought a full page add for the
back cover.