"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would
actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting.
From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the
waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".

I went to Franklins site and read the limitations of both glues.

Both the WATER PROOF labeled TB3 and the WEATHER RESISTANT labeled TB 2
have the same limitation of not using below a water line and both should not
be submerged for continued periods of time.

What is considered continuiously submerged? Since not to be used below the
water line would suggest that the joint would not hold up well if it would
never be out of the water, I have to believe that not continiousely
submerged would be short of used below the water line, like on an
application on the bottom of a boat that stays in the water for months on
end. Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2 weeks, or
1 day. Who knows?
Additionally the limitation on TB3 indicates to not use the TB3 on a
structural or load bearing application. TB2 does not have this limitation.
TB3 can be used in 10 degree F lower temperature that TB2.

Anyway, The TB 3 passes the Type 1 shear test after the test piece was
soaked in boiling water 2 times and dried out 2 times. TB 2 passes the Type
2 shear test after the test piece was soaked 3 times and driedout 3 times.

Titebond really does not indicate which glue is better when used around
normal and likely water exposure situations. It does indicate which glue
should not be used for structural or load bearing applications.

With all that information and the Wood Magazine test results, when would TB3
be a better choice over TB2? The only time that I see that TB3 would be a
better choice over TB2 is if you are going to use the project in boiling
water and will assembly of the project will be in 10 degree F colder
temperatures than TB2 can be use at.


The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests,
which
are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather
than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that rating
is IMO a bit misleading.

Very misleading indeed, along with the Water PROOF claim on the front label.





--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)