"joey" wrote in message
news:kPbIc.56109$MB3.34915@attbi_s04...
Not what I meant but yes more samples would be better but I think their
test
method doesn't tell the whole story.
The idea I was trying to convey in previous post is to try and determine
deteroration rate over repeated exposure the elements. In my hypothetical
test results TB2 while having a stronger initial strength then TB3 TB2
after
repeated exposure to water and drying didn't maintain its strength as well
as TB3

Yeah,....but your example was hypothetical, it did not really happen. I
under stand that under a different circumstance the out come could be
different. But could be is not yet fact. The testing reviled results that
one would not expect from a glue sold as superior and marketed as water
proof.
Until there are other tests by another third party, you have nothing other
than the Wood Magazine tests to base a good decision on when considering
which of the 2 glues to use if these are your only choices.

Further more, reading Franklins limitations on the 2 glues on their web page
indicates that there are more limitations on the TB3 glue than the TB2 glue
when it comes to using it in an application that require strength. Both
glues have the same limitations as far as being used around water. With
those facts why would one be labeled water proof?

The reason that TB3 is called water proof is that it passes shear tests
after the glue was soaked in boiling water on 2 occasions and dried out.
TB2 passes shear test on soakings on 3 occasions and dried out.

Which one sounds like the one that would hold up to "normal and common"
exposure to water to you?





BTW I wonder what the difference of 200, 300 or 1000PSI really translates
to. The difference of being hit by a pickup, 18 wheeler or a train