"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...


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

Since those tests were not performed, that would be hard to say. But in
this particular case, the under dog came out ahead. This is what will have
to be addressed by Wood or Franklin.
It seems to me that Wood Magazine would have wanted this to be as fare as
possable in that the back cover of the magazine was supported paid for by
Franklin. "Perhaps" this test was done under advisement of all the glue
companies being represented, or not. If I were working at Wood Magazine, I
think I would want the test of a clients product to be "fair" in that
clients eyes.
It seems to me also that Franklin would want to know the results of the
tests before having their large back page ad on that particular issue. The
article and the back page ad condradict each other greatly and the article
effectively nulifies the back page ad.
I imagine there are going to be "mad" red faces and "embarrased" red faces
on both sides that we may never know about.

After reaching a certain point beyond design limits, the results can
easily
be changed or nulled.

Absdolutely true but these results will equally factor in on the conclusion.

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.

I see what you are saying here, and to compare to the glue test, the bolt
that failed the test would be the one that also had the extra protection
against corrosion. Remember, the WATER PROOF glue was the one with the
added water protection to make it water proof and it performed worse that
the glue with out the added water protection.

The glue test results go against my way of thinking. I was greatly
suprised.


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.

Unfortunately, these are the only test results that I know of that include
the names other makers of glues.
Your boss tells you to buy a PVA glue that will be exposed to water and
sometimes submerged in water. You want documentation to back up your
decision in case the glue you choose does not perform adequately. TB2 and
TB3 are your only choices.
So, with this limited information which do you choose? The glue that says
that it is water proof, or the glue that did better in a water test. What
makes it really frustrating is that Franklin was both the winner and looser
in this test. The test indicates that Franklin glues are being labeled
incorrectly at the factory.

NOW...

Take a look at what Franklin says about the limitations of TB2 and TB3.

Titebond II Premium Wood Glue passes Type II water-resistance tests. Do not
use for joints below the waterline or continuous submersion. Do not use when
temperature, glue or materials are below 55°F. Freezing may not affect the
function of the product but may cause it to thicken. Agitation should
restore product to original form. Because of variances in the surfaces of
treated lumber, it is a good idea to test for adhesion. KEEP FROM FREEZING.
KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN.

Titebond III Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline.
Not for structural or load bearing
applications. Use when temperature, glue and materials are above 45°F. Store
product below 75°F.
Storage above this temperature may cause product to thicken and reduce the
usable shelf life. If
thickened, shake vigorously by firmly tapping bottle on a hard surface until
product is restored to
original form. Because of variances in the surfaces of treated lumber, it is
a good idea to test for
adhesion. KEEP FROM FREEZING.
KEEP OUT OF THE REACH OF CHILDREN.

TB II has less limitations than TB III except for low temperature use.
TBIII can be used above 45 degreesF and TB II can be used above 55 degreesF.

TB III says not to use for structural or load bearing applications. TB II
does not have that limitation.

While neither should be used below the waterline, a water line is normally
a constant and use in that condition would probably result in failure. Also
neither should be used in continuous submersion. I read that the joint can
be submerged but not for an on going period, continuous period of time. I
believe that the purpose of stating not to be used below a water line AND
stating not for continuous submersion is to indicate that there is a
difference in the two. If the glue should never be used under water, that
limitation should be the only one stated concerning applications that will
be subjected to water.

The test on both Titebond glues lasted approximately 73 hours. 72 hours
before being submerged and for curing and 1 hour being submerged. Of the 73
hour life of both joints, 72 out of water and 1 hour under water, the
submerged time was not constant. With the test limitations indicated by
Titebond, the test was valid.

I find it odd that Titebond 3 has the same and more limitations than
Titebond 2. This would seem to substantiate Wood Magazines test results.
Neither joint failed because neither was constantly kept below a water line
and neither joint failed because it was continuously submerged. The test
indicated that the TB 3 joint proved weaker than TB 2, backing up the
limitation that TB 3 should not be used for structural or load bearing
surfaces.

Titebonds stated limitations are quite interesting and contradictory when
comparing the TB2 and TB 3 capabilities.