|
|
|
|
Titebond III Does not Perform
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Jul 2004 09:47:43 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:
Jay Pique wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jul 2004 21:18:36 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski"
wrote:
The author acknowledges the limiation but does it anyway. He notes that
it was a severe test. Sort of like testing bicycle tires by putting them
on an 18 wheeler then saying they did not fare well.
I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong. The
product should have been tested within the limits of its design. Period.
The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing.
I would.
Ed
I almost agree - and certainly would if my name were Franklin. I
believe the test is useful in a very limited context, ie. if only to
illustrate just how illusive some product comparisons can really be.
I'm in the "planning" stages of a comparison between the Three-Ts and
Gorilla glue. (Joints are glued and set, but not yet soaked and
separated by measured force.)
Perhaps I'll do the testing after 1, 3 and 24 hours for each of the
three samples I've made. Statistically probably not a large enough
sample size for any real conclusions, but potentially a spur to
Titebond to come clean on "waterproof" but not to be submerged.
I'm a bit puzzled as to how much more "clean" one can get on this point
than "not for continuous submersion".
I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters.
They would almost certainly be continuously damp.
Now I don't know what to buy.
In order of preference, resorcinol, epoxy, polyurethane. There are some
others that will work well but are harder to find.
Or make them in such a manner that they hold together without glue.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
|