Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"joey" wrote in message
Actually it might matter, true it failed this test but.. The test sounds
like a 1 time shock test and not repeated cycles of getting damp and
drying
out over and over.. that would normally be the case outside over time.
One glue could very well maintain its strength or atleast deteriorate at
a lesser rate and another glue wouldn't. Sorta like a sprinter vs a
marathon runner.

The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a
bogus
test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
editors of Wood magazine.

Minor nit--it was Dateline that set the GM trucks on fire--20-20 blew up
Ford sedans about 20 years previously. Same guy though--the simple fact
that he had a job after 20-20 speaks volumes about the integrity of the
network news establishment.

Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

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

J T wrote:

Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) (Leon)
claims:
I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
60% more and was out performed by TBII.

Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it?

You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until the
planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down onto the
caulking. And if there's no water in the bilge, be very afraid.

Further, there are some types, the Scandinavian Folkboats for example, that
are quite capable of crossing oceans and that are traditionally finished
bright, not painted.

Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many.

Most who made it out of Lapacho or Jarrah would. That's the whole point of
using very hard highly decay resistant exotic woods--you don't have to baby
them that way.

If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances
are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out -
for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the
saturated wood just peeled off.

And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was
clamped, and so on. I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never
will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in
a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e.,
paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying
about it holding..

With that attitude I strongly advise you not to go farther from land than
you can swim in any boat that you have built.

Details, more details.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

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

Leon wrote:

The submerged time was 24 hours and considerably longer than the 1 hour
that I indicated.

IHMO however, a Water Proof glued joint being submerged for 1 day during a
4 day test is not beyond the manufacturers stated limitations of
continuiously being submerged or use below a water line like a glue
aplication on a boat bottom.

I guess we should ask Franklin what their definition of Water Proof is.

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".

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.

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

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".

And why did T2 fare better?

JP
**************
T1 user 98% of the time...the other two reserved for CA on my wounds!

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

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
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

"Leon" wrote in message
om...
If your indicating that perhaps a larger sampling would give different
results, I agree. Like best 5 out of 8.

This could have been a fluke in that a lesser glue did better than a
better
glue. Either way, in this particular test, neither glue had the advantage
as both test pieces were taken from the same board with IIRC consistent
grain.

"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

Brian Jones writes:

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.


Resorcinol.

Charlie Self
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or
not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn

"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".

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.

That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page.
The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are
made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different
things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was shopping
for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should not
be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of the
term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.

While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have to
also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.

"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)

real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test
should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run
counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high
standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done
independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither
was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably
too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does
their lab carry?


point being, more data is needed.

FWIW I glued up four 3 inch fir strips using Gorilla glue to make a
panel for a bird feeder 3 years ago. No battens or nails. It hangs
outside year around. Its never been submerged but I doubt "water
resistant" would have done as well.
BTW Its for suet so its pretty greasy in the summertime too.
Jack

David wrote in message m...
Excellent point! 'Waterproof' claims are far different than
merely 'water resistant'. A submersion test seems
legitimate. I doubt Franklin can pursue any legal recourse
against the magazine.

RKON wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .

The test was done outside of the capability of the material. It is a

bogus

test as the glue was not designed to be submerged. Reminds me of 20-20
setting GM trucks ablaze. Poor journalism on the part of the author and
editors of Wood magazine.
Ed

http://pages.cthome.net/edhome



Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best Wood
Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......

In case one forgot what waterprrof means:

wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.

I do not see any asterisks or footnotes on the Ad. I think they are making a
bold claim and they are fair game. If they can't even compete then maybe
they should have it read " The Best Wood Glue Ever as long as you don't
immerse it Water" And based on the tests it doesn't appear to be the best
regardless.

It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming unglued
in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.
You don't use Titebond by chance do you?

Rich

"Leon" wrote in message
...

"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.

Hypothetical yes but for me personally I'd be more interested in knowing
which one has better long term holding power under real repeated exposure

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?

Very subjective term there really is nothing that is water proof given
enough time. Taking it to the extreme rivers erode mountains and waves erode
coastlines

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.

Right Type 1 boiled the wood, type 2 soaked the wood (didn't say what temp),
type 1 also had higher baking temps for a little longer

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

Probably either one although the longer open time is attractive. Need
better data to access wether it's really worth the extra money. I'm a
hobbiest so the cost isn't a big deal even if it's a little better I might
switch. Kind of funny I had reservations about even using it cause I know
what to expect from TB and TB2 sorta like old friends!
If I was in the business and used a lot of glue that would be another
matter. I guess I'll know in 12 years if the stools recently made out last
the previous ones





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

"RKON" wrote in message
news:_H_Hc.21218$r3.13006@okepread03...
Hold on there Ed. The back cover of the same issue. It reads "The Best
Wood
Glue Ever". It goes on to say What makes Titebond III Ultimate Wood Glue
the best ever? It's Waterproof, yet it cleans up with water......

In case one forgot what waterprrof means:

wa·ter·proof - Impervious to or unaffected by water.

Exactly.!

Actually it appears that Franklin is using the a different definition for
WATER PROOF than what the average or common wood worker would define as
Water Proof. The Type 1 rating apparently is what defines Water Proof on
the TB 3 label.

ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically
all of its strength when "occasionally"subjected to a thorough wetting and
drying; bond shall be of such quality that specimens will withstand shear
and two cycle boil test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

That does not mean Water Proof to me. I believe that Franklin should have
qualified on the front of the label what their definition of Water Proof is.


It seems to me that marketing went a bit to far and they are coming
unglued
in their claims. I wouldn't jump all over the testing performed in the
article. They have set themselves up by making the bold claims.

Ah.... an acurate observation IMHO.

Gorilla or Elmer's ProBond Polyurethane will work well as the test indicated
these to be 4 times stronger in strength than TB3.

Keep in mind also that TB3 did not fail the water test.!!!!!! It simply was
outperformed in strength by its sister TB2. The point of my original post
was to point out that TB2 seems to be stronger in a water application than
TB3 and much cheaper.

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)

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
.. .
That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page.
The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are
made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different
things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was
shopping
for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should
not
be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of the
term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.

While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have
to
also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.

Now... we are on the same page Edwin. The glue is simply marketed to be
something that it is not, unless defined by its "standards" tests. Most
people do not realize that the Water Proof label does mean Water Proof by
common knowledge definitions.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"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".

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.

That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page.
The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are
made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different
things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was
shopping
for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should
not be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of
the term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.

No web page search is required unless you want to know the details of the
testing. If you expect them to put the whole ANSI spec on each bottle then
expect to pay about 40 bucks a bottle because the spec is copyrighted and
ANSI charges for each copy.

While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have
to also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.

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

wrote in message
...


real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test
should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run
counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high
standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done
independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither
was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably
too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does
their lab carry?


point being, more data is needed.

Exactly. But the Franklyn web site indicates that the Limitations of TB3
are more restrictive than those of TB2 when it comes to use of the joint
after it is cured. They basically admit that this glue has no better water
resistant properties than TB2 unless you plan to immerse the joint in
boiling water. So why sell TB3 at all?

What you say is true but the testing conditions used are no less precise
than most of the junk science that is so common.

wrote in message
...


real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test
should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run
counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high
standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done
independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither
was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably
too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does
their lab carry?


point being, more data is needed.

"joey" wrote in message
news:U4eIc.56732$MB3.2498@attbi_s04...


Hypothetical yes but for me personally I'd be more interested in knowing
which one has better long term holding power under real repeated exposure

Well yeah...that is reasonable but what do you do in the mean time? You
have to go with the test results available and what Franklyn "actualy uses"
as the definition of Water Proof.

Very subjective term there really is nothing that is water proof given
enough time. Taking it to the extreme rivers erode mountains and waves
erode
coastlines

Yes... so you have to compare the two glues and see which has the most
strength in those type aplications involving water. Common knoledge defines
Water Proof as not being affected by water. From the "get go" the TiteBond
label is misleading to a majority of woodworkers. You and I no longer fall
within that group as we now know that the TiteBonds Water Proof label is not
defined by the common knowledge definition.

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.

Right Type 1 boiled the wood, type 2 soaked the wood (didn't say what
temp),
type 1 also had higher baking temps for a little longer

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

Probably either one although the longer open time is attractive.

That's right. You cannot use the common definition of Water Proof to back
up you decision of which one to use.

Need better data to access wether it's really worth the extra money. I'm a
hobbiest so the cost isn't a big deal even if it's a little better I might
switch.

I agree, but so far the TB2 has shown to be better than TB3 in at least one
test. ;~)
The information at Titebonds site certainly does not back up TB3 as being
superior to TB2.


Kind of funny I had reservations about even using it cause I know
what to expect from TB and TB2 sorta like old friends!
If I was in the business and used a lot of glue that would be another
matter. I guess I'll know in 12 years if the stools recently made out
last
the previous ones

Its a tough choice. Consider this. You know how a higher priced same brand
item is usually equated as better. I bet Franklin is betting most people
will equate this the same way also. If the TB3 glue was the same price as
TB2, would you think it was superior to TB2 knowing that it is truely not
water proof? I think we are witnessing a way for Franklin to market a
product with about the same qualities for a higher price.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


No web page search is required unless you want to know the details of the
testing. If you expect them to put the whole ANSI spec on each bottle
then
expect to pay about 40 bucks a bottle because the spec is copyrighted and
ANSI charges for each copy.

I think what Edwin is indicating here is that the WaterProof label in this
instance should be clarified on the bottle front label as not really being
water proof as a common person would define it and that it is more of a
description of the ANSI spec.

"Leon" wrote in message

I think what Edwin is indicating here is that the WaterProof label in
this
instance should be clarified on the bottle front label as not really being
water proof as a common person would define it and that it is more of a
description of the ANSI spec.


Right, Leon.

I just took an unscientific poll from a group of one person. I asked my wife
about the glue from what she saw on the label.

Would you use the TB3 for outdoor furniture?
Yes

Would you use the TB3 for a boat or pool device?
Yes

Showed her the label of TB2 and asked the same questions.
Answer was yes, no. The difference being waterproof versus water resistant.

I then asked her to read the back of the label. What is the ANSI spec? Of
course she had no idea as do most of us at least until this discussion made
me look it up.
Ed

I believe that Franklin is using smoke and mirrors here. ;~)

Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 9:26am lid (J.=A0Clarke) says:
You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until
the planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down
onto the caulking. snip

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, that's why buckets were invented. I
know, there's boats been made, and some "still" made, with NO caulking,
no glue, and not painted. And yeah, some outdoor furniture isn't
painted, or finished. You seem to take it as a given that I don't know
about any of that. Well, yeah, I do know about it - and none of it was
the point.

You missed the point, which was about the glue.

By the way, a well made wooden boat doesn't "need" to leak.

And, with my attitude, you won't have to worry about getting
invited for a ride in any boat I make. LMAO

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 3:25pm (EDT+4) (Leon)
asks:
snip Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2
weeks,
or 1 day. Who knows? snip

I do, I do. LMAO

Based on an article I read some time in the past, and forget the
article, and where I read it, I think the "usual" meaning, is for a boat
taken out of the water after each use, and stored dry. Trailer it to
the water, use it, trailer it back home, and let it sit until the next
time. Sounds like a reasonable enough interpretation to me.

However, you'd have to be careful to keep the boat well covered
while sitting, to keep rain out of it. Fresh water (rain) getting to
the wood, would not be good. However, some people keep a few cloth bags
of salt in the bilges (bottom) of their boat, because salt water won't
rot wood. I think that's used mosely in small sail boats. Sounds like
a pretty good idea tho, just in case.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

why are you taking it on faith that the new and "improved"
glue is really better than the TBII? "New" isn't always
better. If an independent test shows poor performance, I
see no logic in expecting the testers to disregard the
results and give a product more chances.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
I have to imagine that Franklin would have
done some testing to establish that TB3 is stronger than TB2 under normal
conditions or real use. FWIW, Franklin specs state that the TB2 meets the
Type II specs while the TB3 meets Type I specs.

J T wrote:

Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 9:26am lid (J.*Clarke) says:
You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until
the planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down
onto the caulking. snip

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, that's why buckets were invented. I
know, there's boats been made, and some "still" made, with NO caulking,
no glue, and not painted.

Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden boats
is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.

And yeah, some outdoor furniture isn't
painted, or finished. You seem to take it as a given that I don't know
about any of that. Well, yeah, I do know about it - and none of it was
the point.

You missed the point, which was about the glue.

But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the case.
The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry, the
correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry, or even
better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain its
structural integrity.

By the way, a well made wooden boat doesn't "need" to leak.

Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears not
to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that it's not
about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in the days of
sail for that reason).

And, with my attitude, you won't have to worry about getting
invited for a ride in any boat I make. LMAO

That's OK, I would have turned down the offer anyway. I'm crazy, but not
_that_ crazy.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

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

"David" wrote in message
. com...
why are you taking it on faith that the new and "improved"
glue is really better than the TBII? "New" isn't always
better. If an independent test shows poor performance, I
see no logic in expecting the testers to disregard the
results and give a product more chances.

If you go beyond the water tests, TB# did out perform the TB2.

Besides, it is more expensive so it must be better. Right?
Ed

Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm lid (J.=A0Clarke) put out:
Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden
boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.

Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural
material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a
mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail. Also, you don't define
"very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for
a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures.
And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it. But, I
don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm
reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth. In this
case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come
right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717.
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html=

Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives
are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history.=A0
From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to
the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from
he http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html
Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen
developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who
knows?

But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the
case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry,
the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry,
or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain
its structural integrity.

What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a
real-life type test, and this is what I said.
"Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many."

Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears
not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that
it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in
the days of sail for that reason). snip

I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did
say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be
talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or
not well made; and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa
wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know
their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing
leaks. Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky
boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps
cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them
together. Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of
2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and
that painted. I never made one, but understand they didn't leak. So,
I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still
made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if
they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all
cold molded, and nobody realized it.

For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no
worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough
floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom,
it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy,
paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.

But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it
was a realistic test. And, still don't.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

J T wrote:

Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm lid (J.*Clarke) put out:
Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden
boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.

Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural
material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a
mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail.

If you want to call it a fastener, then consider that the performance of
glue ranges from that of a strand of spaghetti on up.

Also, you don't define
"very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for
a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures.

So which cultures build ocean-crossing vessels that depended on glue to
maintain their structural integrity?

And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it.

Not to maintain primary structural integrity.

But, I
don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm
reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth.

Epoxy in some cases, resorcinol in others. And while it is possible to
fiberglass over a cold-molded hull, that is not a necessary part of the
process.

In this
case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come
right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717.
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html
Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives
are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history.
From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to
the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from
he http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html

Caulking does not depend on any kind of adhesive unless you define the term
_very_ loosely. Any source that equates caulking of wooden ships with
adhesive bonding is at best questionable.

Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen
developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who
knows?

And what kind of boats did he glue together with it?

But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the
case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry,
the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry,
or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain
its structural integrity.

What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a
real-life type test, and this is what I said.
"Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many."

Please explain how that statement is different from an assertion that some
kind of protective coating will always be used in glued construction.

Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears
not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that
it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in
the days of sail for that reason). snip

I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did
say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be
talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or
not well made;

If you consider the ships of the United States Navy to be "not well made"
then perhaps your assertion might hold some validity.

and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa
wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know
their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing
leaks.

I wasn't talking about frozen snot, I was talking about wood.

Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky
boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps
cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them
together.

What leads you to believe that cold molded construction involves fiberglass?
If you believe that either fiberglass or epoxy is a necessary part of the
process then you have been very sadily misinformed. Cold molded
construction requires veneer, a waterproof adhesive, a mold, and some means
of applying pressure during cure--that might involve a two-part mold or a
vacuum bag or some other process. There is no fiberglass involved and
epoxy is not the best adhesive to use for the purpose.

Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of
2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and
that painted.

Commonplace canoe construction.

I never made one, but understand they didn't leak.

If you put fasteners through the canvas then it leaked until the wood
swelled. Unlike you, I _have_ owned such a canoe.

So,
I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still
made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if
they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all
cold molded, and nobody realized it.

Very few canoes are in the water long enough at a time for seepage to be an
issue. Take that same canoe and tie it up at a marina and leave it there
for a year and you'll find water in the bilge even if it's kept under cover
so no rain gets in. You seem to think that one either has a leak that
sinks the boat or one has a dry bilge. The truth is in between.

For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no
worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough
floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom,
it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy,
paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.

Why would you need to caulk a plywood boat? However I think I'm beginning
to see part of the problem. I suspect that you when you see the word
"caulk" associate it with a product that you buy in a tube at Home Depot.
That is not the sort of caulk that the Romans were using or the sort of
caulk that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the British East India Company, the
Spanish Armada, or any of numerous other outfits that were famed for being
able to go anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to in wooden ships
propelled by wind would be using. And that type of caulk is not used in
the seams of modern boats either--the caulking is structural and must be
driven into place with a mallet, a use to which such products are not
amenable. When I think of a boat I don't think of something that sits on a
trailer most of the time and gets towed down to the launching ramp to go
fishing, I think of something that is launched once and stays in the water
until it becomes necessary to remove it to clean the bottom or to prevent
damage from ice, which vessel can when sufficient quantities of food and
water are put aboard be aimed east and sailed until one bumps into Europe.
The realities of such vessels are considerably different from the realities
of trailer-boats.

But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it
was a realistic test. And, still don't.

And I still don't think it's realistic to depend on paint to keep the glue
dry.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

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

Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 3:42am lid (J.=A0Clarke) who says:
If you want to call it a fastener, then consider that the performance of
glue ranges from that of a strand of spaghetti on up.

If it's so bad, why'd you call it structural material?

So which cultures build ocean-crossing vessels that depended on glue to
maintain their structural integrity?

Noah. http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm
http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/...rwood-ark.html
There's more.

Not to maintain primary structural integrity.

See Noah.

Epoxy in some cases, resorcinol in others. And while it is possible to
fiberglass over a cold-molded hull, that is not a necessary part of the
process.

Fibreglass would be for me. It would help keep the bottom from
abrading. I'm not taking about some sail boat or something, I'm talking
about a boat that'll be run up on shore, in shallow water, in other
words, used.

Caulking does not depend on any kind of adhesive unless you define the
term _very_ loosely. Any source that equates caulking of wooden ships
with adhesive bonding is at best questionable.

You might want to tell the British that. Their traditional method
of caulking was oakum, then pine tar.

And what kind of boats did he glue together with it?

Didn't ask.

Please explain how that statement is different from an assertion that
some kind of protective coating will always be used in glued
construction.

Don't have to. I never said a couting would always be used.

If you consider the ships of the United States Navy to be "not well
made" then perhaps your assertion might hold some validity.

Last I'd heard, most of them are now made out of steel.

I wasn't talking about frozen snot, I was talking about wood.

An unpainted, glued together boat?

What leads you to believe that cold molded construction involves
fiberglass?

Mostly because I've read articles on people builting cold-molded
boats that wanted them to a last a long, long time, without major
maintenance.

If you believe that either fiberglass or epoxy is a necessary part of
the process then you have been very sadily misinformed. Cold molded
construction requires veneer, a waterproof adhesive, a mold,

No it doesn't. It does require thin wood, which can be strips.
Watrproof adhesive, yeah that's best, but partly depends on usage, which
you seem to ignore. A mold isn't necessary, if you apply directly over
an old hull - some people call that cold-molding, some don't. You
probably don't.

and some means of applying pressure during cure--that might involve a
two-part mold or a vacuum bag or some other process.

Staples, or tacks will work.

There is no fiberglass involved and epoxy is not the best adhesive to
use for the purpose.

Depends on who's doing it. There is more than one way.

Commonplace canoe construction.

Orange crate slats commonplace canoe construction?

If you put fasteners through the canvas then it leaked until the wood
swelled. Unlike you, I _have_ owned such a canoe.
Apparently you had a cheap canoe. I did say the Boy Scouts painted
their canoes. And, the canvas canoes aren't made just by tacking canvas
on, the canvas is protected with a coating - which makes the canoe
waterproof. They don't need to have the wood swell so they won't leak.

Very few canoes are in the water long enough at a time for seepage to be
an issue. Take that same canoe and tie it up at a marina and leave it
there for a year and you'll find water in the bilge even if it's kept
under cover so no rain gets in.

So? Condensation would do that.

You seem to think that one either has a leak that sinks the boat or one
has a dry bilge. The truth is in between.

Do you think so?

Why would you need to caulk a plywood boat?

Well gee, I thought I'd either do that to **** you off, or to keep
it from leaking.

However I think I'm beginning to see part of the problem. I suspect that
you when you see the word "caulk" associate it with a product that you
buy in a tube at Home Depot.

Ah, I see part of the problem. You think I don't know what caulk
is. Well, I do. However, what I would use to caulk a plywood boat
with, would indeed come in a tube. But, I don't sink so low as to shop
at Home Depot.

That is not the sort of caulk that the Romans were using or the sort of
caulk that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the British East India Company,
the Spanish Armada, or any of numerous other outfits that were famed for
being able to go anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to in
wooden ships propelled by wind would be using. And that type of caulk is
not used in the seams of modern boats either--the caulking is structural
and must be driven into place with a mallet, a use to which such
products are not amenable.

You left out that a "caulking iron" also has to be used in the
process. I've already told you, I already know that, see somewhere up
above about the oakum and pine tar. Wooden boats were often sheathed in
sheet copper too, particularly war ships. So what? All sorts of things
have been tried for caulking wooden boats, even horse manure. Again, so
what?

When I think of a boat I don't think of something that sits on a trailer
most of the time and gets towed down to the launching ramp to go
fishing, I think of something that is launched once and stays in the
water until it becomes necessary to remove it to clean the bottom or to
prevent damage from ice,

Well now, you didn't say before, did you?

which vessel can when sufficient quantities of food and water are put
aboard be aimed east and sailed until one bumps into Europe.

Well, that would be presuming it was in the Atlantic Ocean.
Wouldn't work in the Pacific Ocean, or on a lake.

The realities of such vessels are considerably different from the
realities of trailer-boats.

Gee, I am enlightened. I thought they were exacly the same.

And I still don't think it's realistic to depend on paint to keep the
glue dry.

What is realistic is the fact that if someone makes a boat (a big
boat, that can sail to Europe, if it's in the Atlantic ocean, and has
enough food and water), that they're going to put paint on it. Or some
kind of protective finish, unless maybe they've got a teak deck. Bottom
paint is made specifically to put on the bottom of boats in sea water,
to prevent under water growth, also called anti-fouling paint. But,
maybe you won't paint the bottom, because you don't want to keep your
glue dry.

On my income, I'll make a boat out of plywood, put it on a trailer,
take it fishing, then trailer it back home, and enjoy the hell out of
it. It'll probablyy be caulked with butyl caulk, probably from Ace
Hardware, or Wal-Mart, fastened with glue and nails, fibreglassed along
the seams and bottom, and painted with latex paint. As long as it works
for me, I really don't give a damn about anyone else and what they've
got.

I haven't had a lot to keep me occupied this weekend, and it's been
fun, but you're just getting too silly. You're starting to sound like
some of the officers I've worked for - "I know that's what I said, but
that's not what I meant".

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

"J T" wrote in message
...
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm lid (J. Clarke) put out:
Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden
boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than
cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of
load.

Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural
material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a
mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail.


Yes, glues are structural materials. In fact TB 3 has limitations to not be
used in load bearing or structural projects. TB2 does not have that
limitation. Automotive wind shields and back glass is held in with a
structural adhesive and or glue. Many GM minivans used structural
ahdhesives and glues to bond the body panels together.






Also, you don't define
"very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for
a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures.
And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it. But, I
don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm
reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth. In this
case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come
right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717.
http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland(1717b)_p185.html
Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives
are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history.
From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to
the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from
he http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html
Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen
developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who
knows?

But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of
protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the
case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry,
the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry,
or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain
its structural integrity.

What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a
real-life type test, and this is what I said.
"Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted,
epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far
as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not
paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain
without paint? Not too many."

Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears
not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that
it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in
the days of sail for that reason). snip

I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did
say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be
talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or
not well made; and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa
wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know
their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing
leaks. Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky
boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps
cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them
together. Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of
2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and
that painted. I never made one, but understand they didn't leak. So,
I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still
made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if
they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all
cold molded, and nobody realized it.

For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no
worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough
floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom,
it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy,
paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.

But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it
was a realistic test. And, still don't.

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..


Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.

And my "WalMart" Loctite galoo faired very well.
More proof that (once they start stocking Two Cherries) all you need is a
'Mart...

Brian,
Try epoxy.

If you buy a 'quart kit' of WEST Epoxy {by Gueogeon Brothers} from a local
West Marine {NOT the same company}, it may seem expensive - due to the small
quantity. HOWEVER, it has SO MANY uses and abilities you will probably
wonder how you got along without it.

There are several 'mail order' sources as well. I use RAKA, from the company
of the same name in Florida. I am a 'small user' and get quantities of 3
gallons at a time. Another good outfit is System Three - they have an
EXCELLENT free booklet on the 'theory & practice' of using epoxies. Well
worth contacting them for it.

Regards & Good Luck,
Ron Magen
Backyard Boatshop
{PS - I also use Titebond II in many places where epoxy is either not
necessary, or I want something to simply 'squirt, smear, & clamp'. I use it
for the 'garden projects' & 'Nautically Themed' planters, etc. that stay
outdoors throughout the year. I've yet to have a 'glue failure'. }

wrote in message
...
On 11 Jul 2004 15:07:40 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

Brian Jones writes:

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.


Resorcinol.

I know I should use it Charlie, but I really hate working with that stuff
and it
is expensive.
I'm going to use a TiteBond, I just don't know with one.g

Charlie Self

Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
tests.

Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.


"patrick conroy" wrote in message
...

"Leon" wrote in message
. ..


Wood Magazine this month has a great article comparing the major brand
glues. The 6 page article tests for strength and water resistance.

And my "WalMart" Loctite galoo faired very well.
More proof that (once they start stocking Two Cherries) all you need is a
'Mart...

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
tests.

Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.

Leon-

thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
warrant their attention....

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:06:26 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
tests.

Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.

Leon-

thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
warrant their attention....

I agree with you Bridger, and I think it can be good for both parties.
Seems to work with Rob Lee anyhow.

JP

Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 1:25pm (EDT+4) (Leon)
claims:
Yes, glues are structural materials. snip structural adhesive and or
glue. Many GM minivans used structural ahdhesives and glues to bond the
body panels together.

Might as well call nails structural material then, they hold wood
together. However, I note you were saying "structural adhesive", which
doesn't compute as "structural material", to me So, I did some looking.

Came up with this:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Fastener \Fas"ten*er\, n. One who, or that which, makes fast or firm.

This:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
glue n : cement consisting of a sticky substance that is used as an
adhesive

And, this:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
adhesive adj : tending to adhere [ant: {nonadhesive}] n : a substance
that unites or bonds surfaces together

And then I found this:
http://www.adhesivesmag.com/CDA/Arti...122100,00.html

Seems to me that structural bonding is the term, not structural
material.

I do accept glue, nails, rivets, whatever, as being part of a whole
structural package, always have, always will, no prob. But, to call
them structural material, I don't buy it. But, you come up with some
legitimate proof(s) that says they are, and I might change my mind.
Until then, I'll be saying fasteners, and structural bonding, my new
term. LOL

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

Back during my automotive days it was very important that we used structural
glass adhesive to rebond new replacement windshields and the back glass. I
always wondered how a shattered windshield provided much support. It was
important that a wind shield not pop out if a car rolled over as the wind
shield, back glass and the adhesive that held it in place helped keep the
pillars in place so that the roof hopefully would not collapse.



"J T" wrote in message
...
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 1:25pm (EDT+4) (Leon)
claims:
Yes, glues are structural materials. snip structural adhesive and or
glue. Many GM minivans used structural ahdhesives and glues to bond the
body panels together.

Might as well call nails structural material then, they hold wood
together. However, I note you were saying "structural adhesive", which
doesn't compute as "structural material", to me So, I did some looking.

Came up with this:
From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)
Fastener \Fas"ten*er\, n. One who, or that which, makes fast or firm.

This:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
glue n : cement consisting of a sticky substance that is used as an
adhesive

And, this:
From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn)
adhesive adj : tending to adhere [ant: {nonadhesive}] n : a substance
that unites or bonds surfaces together

And then I found this:

http://www.adhesivesmag.com/CDA/Arti...122100,00.html

Seems to me that structural bonding is the term, not structural
material.

I do accept glue, nails, rivets, whatever, as being part of a whole
structural package, always have, always will, no prob. But, to call
them structural material, I don't buy it. But, you come up with some
legitimate proof(s) that says they are, and I might change my mind.
Until then, I'll be saying fasteners, and structural bonding, my new
term. LOL

Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
want.
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.
- JOAT

Well, that sounds like a good idea and I have exchanged 3 e-mails with him
today. I may be just short of being considered a heckeler from his view.
LOL.. I do however think it would be great if perhaps you or some one else
invite them to participate or at least check in with us once in a while.
The more requests from different people that they get the more credible and
perhaps worth while we will appear and the more likely their participation.

If any one wants to contact Steve Craig at Titebond,



Mr. Stone has been more than prompt with his replies.

If he is not the one to participate, I am sure that he would know the
person.







wrote in message
...
On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 17:33:08 GMT, "Leon"
wrote:

Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the
tests.

Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.

Leon-

thank you for taking the time to correspond with the folks at
titebond. you might consider inviting the titebond rep to post
directly to rec.woodworking. I have a couple of questions to ask and
I'm sure others do as well. I think we're a big enough forum to
warrant their attention....