"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .

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.

Yes the test was severe. But one would think that TB3 would do better than
TB2. That's it.


I happen to like Wood magazine, but this test is completely wrong.

Wrong or not, if the results are correct, why does a water resistant glue do
better than a water proof glue when soaked in water?


The product should have been tested within the limits of its design.
Period.

The results would be the same. The TB2 was tested way farther than its
design limits than the TB3 was and it held up better.


The Titebond people could end up demanding a retraction and re-testing. I
would.


What do you think the results would chang to? I could see how there would
be a problem if the TB2 failed miserably against other water proof glues in
the PVA catagory because it is not sold as water proof. What reason could
the TB2 have done better in this water test against TB3.
Neither glue was designed to be used to this extreme but the glue that
should have done better, did not.








Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome