http://www.elmers.com/product/detail/E7300

I noticed this stuff at my local Home Depot the other day, and it looks like
it's probably Elmer's answer to Titebond III. I love Titebond III, but I don't
love the price, and the Elmer's product is a good dollar or more cheaper for a
pint bottle. Has anybody used this product, and if so how do you like it?

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

In article , Steve Turner
wrote:

I noticed this stuff at my local Home Depot the other day, and it looks like
it's probably Elmer's answer to Titebond III. I love Titebond III, but I
don't
love the price, and the Elmer's product is a good dollar or more cheaper for
a
pint bottle. Has anybody used this product, and if so how do you like it?

I've used it and had no problems, even under load.

--
Woodworking and more at http://www.woodenwabbits.com

I've used it and had no problems, even under load.

Same here. I used it to glue up a jewelry box after 2-3 fat ones and a
pint of fine Scotch. I did get a DUI later but the box came out OK.

i have used a lot of it. When they first started carrying it, the
price difference was even larger, so I used it on some glue lam beams
that were site built. (LOTS of glue, LOTS of mess, 100 clamps...)

It saved me a bunch of money when the price difference on a gallon was
something like $15. Locally, (YMMV) a gallon is still about that much
different when comparing the two. Since it has been out a while, the
price has closed, especially on the smaller bottles. A look this
afternoon revealed $2 a bottle difference in the 16 oz package.
Honestly, I can't tell any difference between performance.

I cannot believe I found this (it's so old it has mold on it!):

http://www.diyprojects.info/bb/ftopic70.html

See how many names you recognize after you read the posts. (Leon....
is that you?)

Check out post #18 here... since you do fine woodwork, if it is true,
it may be of some value:

http://www.sawmillcreek.org/showthre...s-Elmers/page2

I have used Elmers for about 3 or 4 years now (they don't always have
it in stock) since my big beam, and for all manner of repairs big and
small. Never had a hitch. My tightfisted squarehead upbringing won't
let me buy Titebond anymore... especially since it is as much as $2 a
pint difference here.

As a side benefit, there are some videos somewhere on the internet
that compare stainability of TBIII and Elmer's max. I can tell you
personally Elmer's is more stainable than TB and stains more evenly,
but still, it is just stained glue. You won't mistake it for wood
grain.

Robert

On 1/10/2012 1:38 AM, wrote:
i have used a lot of it. When they first started carrying it, the
price difference was even larger, so I used it on some glue lam beams
that were site built. (LOTS of glue, LOTS of mess, 100 clamps...)

It saved me a bunch of money when the price difference on a gallon was
something like $15. Locally, (YMMV) a gallon is still about that much
different when comparing the two. Since it has been out a while, the
price has closed, especially on the smaller bottles. A look this
afternoon revealed $2 a bottle difference in the 16 oz package.
Honestly, I can't tell any difference between performance.

Thanks Robert; it's always good to hear your perspective! :-)

I don't take on very many projects and I'm a pretty slow and methodical worker,
so I don't buy glue in very large quantities. I bought a gallon of TBII once,
but it went bad before I could get it all used up, and these days I usually buy
quarts. I've been using Titebond III for most everything I do, not because
it's waterproof (I really couldn't care less about that), but because I like
the texture, the color, and the slightly longer open time, and in my experience
it seems as strong or stronger than Titebond II. However, I don't like the
fact that (compared to TBII) it seems to have solids that separate and settle
to the bottom of the container over time. You need to keep the stuff agitated
or it turns into a gloppy mess. Titebond II never did that for me. Wondering
how the Elmer's product will fare in this regard.

I started off with a fresh quart of Titebond III on my current rocking chair
project
(http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?s...833292&type=3),
and this thing has gobbled up a LOT of glue because both the rockers and the
back braces are laminated, so I'm just about out of this batch. I have another
chair waiting in the wings, and on this one I want to try the Elmer's Wood Glue
Max. It's good to hear you've had such positive results with it; I look
forward to trying it out.

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On Jan 10, 8:32*am, Steve Turner
wrote:

I don't take on very many projects and I'm a pretty slow and methodical worker,
so I don't buy glue in very large quantities.

I RARELY buy a gallon of glue. Thinking here as I am typing, almost
never. But buying two gallons of it gave me *plenty* left over to put
in old dish detergent bottles to keep in the truck for miscellaneous
use. Otherwise, I would probably have had the opportunity to use it
on so many things.

I bought a gallon of TBII once,
but it went bad before I could get it all used up, and these days I usually buy
quarts. *I've been using Titebond III for most everything I do, not because
it's waterproof (I really couldn't care less about that), but because I like
the texture, the color, and the slightly longer open time, and in my experience
it seems as strong or stronger than Titebond II.

Check out that link above. It seems that TB3 is not as strong as
TB2. I have read that in other venues, and even seen other tests that
seem to suggest that. I can't remember how long ago that was, and it
is entirely possible that the Titebond family has changed formulas.
That being said, I have never had a Titebond adhesive joint fail
regardless of the numeric designation.

However, I don't like the
fact that (compared to TBII) it seems to have solids that separate and settle
to the bottom of the container over time. *You need to keep the stuff agitated
or it turns into a gloppy mess. *Titebond II never did that for me. *Wondering
how the Elmer's product will fare in this regard.

Yeah... what is that stuff in the TB3? One of my amigos (a suspicious
fellow, really...) told me that it was some kind of solids to provide
better joint filling, hence less resin, resulting in a less strong
joint than with TB2. Take that for what it is worth. But personally,
I don't to make sure my glue is properly mixed up before I use it.

You need to keep the stuff agitated
or it turns into a gloppy mess. Titebond II never did that for me. Wondering
how the Elmer's product will fare in this regard.

After a couple of months in the tool box of my truck in South Texas
sunshine TB2 will get almost gel like. The first time, I threw the
bottle away and bought another. But the second time that happened, I
called the 800 # on the bottle and actually talked to a guy in
support. He told me that as long as it had no hard lumps or pieces in
it, I could use it with no problem. I did and there were no
problems. However, when it turns to gel there is a dramatically
shorter window for work time. Adding a tiny bit of water will get it
back to its original viscosity, but the work time is still much
shorter than fresh.

So far, no problem with the Elmer's. This was a pretty long, brutal
summer, but the Elmers hung on. It *seems* a bit thicker, but spreads
fine.

I started off with a fresh quart of Titebond III on my current rocking chair
project
(http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?s...71101.740....),
and this thing has gobbled up a LOT of glue because both the rockers and the
back braces are laminated, so I'm just about out of this batch.

Hey... not good! I love looking at your chairs and the link doesn't
work. ; (

I haven't seen any of your work in a while. All I am doing these days
is repair work, so I live vicariously through you, Karl, Leon, and a
couple of others.

(As a sidebar, I got to see Leon's new pantry/buffet over the
Christmas holidays. WOW.... the man is an artist. Literally,
gorgeous work. Didn't see anything new from Karl as he had already
installed the giant desk he built earlier in the month. Saw the
pictures, though. Most impressive. And then when you see the shop he
built it in... he had to go out one shop door and walk around the
building to get to the other side of the desk!)

It's good to hear you've had such positive results with it; I look
forward to trying it out.

Post up some rocker pictures!

Let me know what you think of the Elmer's.

Robert

On 1/8/2012 9:09 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
http://www.elmers.com/product/detail/E7300

I noticed this stuff at my local Home Depot the other day, and it looks
like it's probably Elmer's answer to Titebond III. I love Titebond III,
but I don't love the price, and the Elmer's product is a good dollar or
more cheaper for a pint bottle. Has anybody used this product, and if so
how do you like it?

Looks like; haven't seen it locally yet.

There's really no reason to use Type III unless you really need either
a) The extra waterproof (+) feature, or
b) The lower chalk temperature.

Otherwise, you're just paying the premium for no reason over Type II or
even the old original Type I.

When was using a _lot_, I was buying the "Ol' Yeller" altho I notice the
price differential isn't what it used to be for it, either.

http://woodworker.com/olyeller-wood-glue-mssu-909-293.asp

(+) Don't be confused by the "waterproof" designation. It means it
passes the ANSI Type I Standard, but that may not be what you think it
means. I'll not quote the Standard here, you can look it up, but
basically it means it'll stand occasional wet but isn't waterproof in
the sense that most think of in common English definitions. If you need
that, _then_ is when you need another adhesive; polyurethane,
resorcinal, epoxy, whatever....

--

On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, wrote:
Check out that link above. It seems that TB3 is not as strong as
TB2. I have read that in other venues, and even seen other tests that
seem to suggest that. I can't remember how long ago that was, and it
is entirely possible that the Titebond family has changed formulas.
That being said, I have never had a Titebond adhesive joint fail
regardless of the numeric designation.

Isn't that contrary to another test done by Fine Woodworking (I think)? I'm
pretty sure I read in a mag somewhere that III beat II in several categories
(but not all), but I didn't get the impression that out and out strength was
one of them. Oh well, for what I'm doing they're both probably so strong that
any difference doesn't make any... difference.

I started off with a fresh quart of Titebond III on my current rocking chair
project
(http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?s...371101.740...),
and this thing has gobbled up a LOT of glue because both the rockers and the
back braces are laminated, so I'm just about out of this batch.

Hey... not good! I love looking at your chairs and the link doesn't
work. ; (

No worky, eh? Ok, try this one:

http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?s...l =3610d3345d

I've made quite a bit of progress since these pictures were posted; I need to
catch my photo album up to speed. The chair is all together now, and all that
needs to be done is final shaping, sanding, and finishing.

I haven't seen any of your work in a while. All I am doing these days
is repair work, so I live vicariously through you, Karl, Leon, and a
couple of others.

(As a sidebar, I got to see Leon's new pantry/buffet over the
Christmas holidays. WOW.... the man is an artist. Literally,
gorgeous work. Didn't see anything new from Karl as he had already
installed the giant desk he built earlier in the month. Saw the
pictures, though. Most impressive. And then when you see the shop he
built it in... he had to go out one shop door and walk around the
building to get to the other side of the desk!)

Yeah, I can't keep up with either of those boys, especially Leon! He makes
beautiful stuff, and he does it ten times faster than I could ever do. I'm
too... (what's the word -MIKE-?)... "anal"? :-)

--
"Our beer goes through thousands of quality Czechs every day."
(From a Shiner Bock billboard I saw in Austin some years ago)
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/10/2012 1:17 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, wrote:
Check out that link above. It seems that TB3 is not as strong as
TB2. I have read that in other venues, and even seen other tests that
seem to suggest that. ...

Isn't that contrary to another test done by Fine Woodworking (I think)?
I'm pretty sure I read in a mag somewhere that III beat II in several
categories (but not all), but I didn't get the impression that out and
out strength was one of them. Oh well, for what I'm doing they're both
probably so strong that any difference doesn't make any... difference.

....

Unless I misread, that's what he said, too....

TB III wins over TB II in

a) Passes ANSI Type I instead of Type II waterproof test,
b) Has longer open time, and
c) Has lower chalk temperature (lowest, actually).

It doesn't quite meet II in strength; I forget ranking wrt original Type I

--

On 1/10/2012 1:58 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/10/2012 1:17 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, wrote:
Check out that link above. It seems that TB3 is not as strong as
TB2. I have read that in other venues, and even seen other tests that
seem to suggest that. ...

Isn't that contrary to another test done by Fine Woodworking (I think)?
I'm pretty sure I read in a mag somewhere that III beat II in several
categories (but not all), but I didn't get the impression that out and
out strength was one of them. Oh well, for what I'm doing they're both
probably so strong that any difference doesn't make any... difference.

...

Unless I misread, that's what he said, too....

TB III wins over TB II in

a) Passes ANSI Type I instead of Type II waterproof test,
b) Has longer open time, and
c) Has lower chalk temperature (lowest, actually).

It doesn't quite meet II in strength; I forget ranking wrt original Type I

Ok, I was thinking (in the article that I read) that III beat out II in
strength, but I could be turned around. It wouldn't be the first time. :-)

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/10/2012 2:00 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
....

Ok, I was thinking (in the article that I read) that III beat out II in
strength, but I could be turned around. It wouldn't be the first time. :-)

Well, I didn't go look up the FWW article, but my recollection was that
II beat III in their testing. Again, it's possible my recollection is
flawed...

OK, let's see what Titebond themselves says...

Hmmm....there's the question and the anomaly resolved methinks...

They publish that

TBII 3750 psi 72% wood failure
TBIII 4000 psi 57% wood failure

in the physical properties section.

The FWW test was exclusively a breakage test iirc. The anomaly in the
above data is that they claim a (marginally) higher strength for the
joint but there's a significantly higher fraction of failures of the
joint over the surrounding wood w/ II vis a vis II.

Explain that!

--

wrote:
On Jan 10, 8:32 am, Steve
wrote:

I don't take on very many projects and I'm a pretty slow and methodical worker,
so I don't buy glue in very large quantities.

I RARELY buy a gallon of glue. Thinking here as I am typing, almost
never. But buying two gallons of it gave me *plenty* left over to put
in old dish detergent bottles to keep in the truck for miscellaneous
use. Otherwise, I would probably have had the opportunity to use it
on so many things.


snip

I bought a gallon to use for cracked bowls. Sometimes a rough-turned
bowl will crack while drying. I mixed titebond II half & half with
water, put it in a plastic tub with a cover and submerged the cracked
bowl in it for a couple of days. The cracks closed and after drip
drying for a week it was still impossible to find the cracks in some.
Some didn't work.


--
Gerald Ross

I'm so poor I can't even pay attention.

On 1/10/12 1:17 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
Yeah, I can't keep up with either of those boys, especially Leon! He
makes beautiful stuff, and he does it ten times faster than I could ever
do. I'm too... (what's the word -MIKE-?)... "anal"? :-)


Meticulous :-)


--

-MIKE-

"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com

---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply

On 1/10/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:
....
OK, let's see what Titebond themselves says...publish that

TBII 3750 psi 72% wood failure
TBIII 4000 psi 57% wood failure

in the physical properties section.

... The anomaly in the
above data is that they claim a (marginally) higher strength for the
joint but there's a significantly higher fraction of failures of the
joint over the surrounding wood w/ II vis a vis II.
....

That is III vis a vis II above, of course.

I'll also note that as a "probabilistic engineer" given the marginal
difference in strengths and the apparently confounding results of the
wood failure percentages I'd wager that while the two values undoubtedly
are a mean or median of the test data, it is highly unlikely in my
estimation that the difference in the population means would be
"statistically significant" at any level of confidence. IOW, I'm
guessing there's enough spread in the measurements of strength that the
two are essentially indistinguishable in reality.

--

On 1/10/2012 2:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/10/12 1:17 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
Yeah, I can't keep up with either of those boys, especially Leon! He
makes beautiful stuff, and he does it ten times faster than I could ever
do. I'm too... (what's the word -MIKE-?)... "anal"? :-)


Meticulous :-)

You're too kind. :-)

--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

On 1/10/2012 1:01 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/8/2012 9:09 AM, Steve Turner wrote:
http://www.elmers.com/product/detail/E7300

I noticed this stuff at my local Home Depot the other day, and it looks
like it's probably Elmer's answer to Titebond III. I love Titebond III,
but I don't love the price, and the Elmer's product is a good dollar or
more cheaper for a pint bottle. Has anybody used this product, and if so
how do you like it?

Looks like; haven't seen it locally yet.

There's really no reason to use Type III unless you really need either
a) The extra waterproof (+) feature, or
b) The lower chalk temperature.

Otherwise, you're just paying the premium for no reason over Type II or
even the old original Type I.

When was using a _lot_, I was buying the "Ol' Yeller" altho I notice the
price differential isn't what it used to be for it, either.

http://woodworker.com/olyeller-wood-glue-mssu-909-293.asp

(+) Don't be confused by the "waterproof" designation. It means it
passes the ANSI Type I Standard, but that may not be what you think it
means. I'll not quote the Standard here, you can look it up, but
basically it means it'll stand occasional wet but isn't waterproof in
the sense that most think of in common English definitions. If you need
that, _then_ is when you need another adhesive; polyurethane,
resorcinal, epoxy, whatever....

Precisely concerning the so called "water proof" TBIII. It is good glue
but several years ago Wood magazine did a test of many types of glues.
TBII out performed TBIII in the water tests. I questioned Franklin
about that and they simply regurgitated the "special" conditions that
let a glue company get away with claiming water proof.
IIRC it has a slightly longer open time compared to TBII.

I only use TBIII when I am using darker colored wood, oak and darker. I
use Gorilla White glue on light colored woods like maple.

On 1/10/2012 12:48 PM, wrote:
Snip



After a couple of months in the tool box of my truck in South Texas
sunshine TB2 will get almost gel like. The first time, I threw the
bottle away and bought another. But the second time that happened, I
called the 800 # on the bottle and actually talked to a guy in
support. He told me that as long as it had no hard lumps or pieces in
it, I could use it with no problem. I did and there were no
problems. However, when it turns to gel there is a dramatically
shorter window for work time. Adding a tiny bit of water will get it
back to its original viscosity, but the work time is still much
shorter than fresh.

Hey nailshooter! I had the same problem with TBIII, an unopened bottle.
When I called the 800 number they told me to jar the bottle of glue
against the palm of my hand 5~6 times. The gel immediately returned to
its previous liquid state.

It was great to see you and Kathy and thanks again for dinner!

And now that I can get a hard copy, what was the name of the tints you
are using for staining?

FWIW I just learned that Seagrave Coatings is manufacturing Bartley's
gel stains and varnishes again. They acquired the Lawrence McFadden
stuff when they went out of business. No word about the LMF products
yet. The Bartley priducts appear to be available now in very limited
colors. Apparently the varnish is available now for about $22 per
quart. High priced but worth it if it turns out to be be the same
product as the old.

On 1/10/2012 10:55 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
On 1/10/2012 2:39 PM, -MIKE- wrote:
On 1/10/12 1:17 PM, Steve Turner wrote:
Yeah, I can't keep up with either of those boys, especially Leon! He
makes beautiful stuff, and he does it ten times faster than I could ever
do. I'm too... (what's the word -MIKE-?)... "anal"? :-)


Meticulous :-)

You're too kind. :-)


Meticulous is the right word Steve. I am AR and that has been in full
force for the past couple of years. LOL

On 1/11/2012 7:29 AM, Leon wrote:
....

Precisely concerning the so called "water proof" TBIII. It is good glue
but several years ago Wood magazine did a test of many types of glues.
TBII out performed TBIII in the water tests. I questioned Franklin about
that and they simply regurgitated the "special" conditions that let a
glue company get away with claiming water proof.
....

Well, they claim it passes the ANSI Standard and that Type II doesn't.
There are a defined set of procedures in the Standards. Elmer's makes
the same claim(s) on their new "MAX" wood glue.

If TBII "outperformed" TBIII on some other test protocol, that means
only that the particular test regimen was more suited to the former and
not the latter; not that there's anything wrong w/ the product or the
claim.

The Standards are what they are and were developed for specific reasons.
It's probably (undoubtedly?) true that the manufacturers have perverted
those reasons some for marketing purposes, granted.

--

On 1/11/2012 8:05 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/11/2012 7:29 AM, Leon wrote:
...

Precisely concerning the so called "water proof" TBIII. It is good glue
but several years ago Wood magazine did a test of many types of glues.
TBII out performed TBIII in the water tests. I questioned Franklin about
that and they simply regurgitated the "special" conditions that let a
glue company get away with claiming water proof.
...

Well, they claim it passes the ANSI Standard and that Type II doesn't.
There are a defined set of procedures in the Standards. Elmer's makes
the same claim(s) on their new "MAX" wood glue.

If TBII "outperformed" TBIII on some other test protocol, that means
only that the particular test regimen was more suited to the former and
not the latter; not that there's anything wrong w/ the product or the
claim.

The Standards are what they are and were developed for specific reasons.
It's probably (undoubtedly?) true that the manufacturers have perverted
those reasons some for marketing purposes, granted.

--

I would not have a problem with the tests if they described degrees of
water resistance and not actually call the product water proof.

On 1/11/2012 8:09 AM, Leon wrote:
....

I would not have a problem with the tests if they described degrees of
water resistance and not actually call the product water proof.

Well, I don't know what "degrees of water resistance" is, either. I can
go read the ANSI Standard test protocols.

--

On 1/11/2012 8:21 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:09 AM, Leon wrote:
...

I would not have a problem with the tests if they described degrees of
water resistance and not actually call the product water proof.

Well, I don't know what "degrees of water resistance" is, either. I can
go read the ANSI Standard test protocols.

--

The last time I read it the Water Proof classification never used the
word water proof in the test procedure or description.

Simply put the glue had to be water resistant and or hold up for x
amount of hours under certain wet conditions.

If the glue is to be used under constant wet conditions it will
certainly fail, not what I would call water proof.

Another clear cut example of a known and understood meaning of a word
being changed by a particular organization to mean some thing else
altogether.

On 1/11/2012 1:46 PM, Leon wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:21 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:09 AM, Leon wrote:
...

I would not have a problem with the tests if they described degrees of
water resistance and not actually call the product water proof.

Well, I don't know what "degrees of water resistance" is, either. I can
go read the ANSI Standard test protocols.

--

The last time I read it the Water Proof classification never used the
word water proof in the test procedure or description.

Simply put the glue had to be water resistant and or hold up for x
amount of hours under certain wet conditions.

If the glue is to be used under constant wet conditions it will
certainly fail, not what I would call water proof.

Another clear cut example of a known and understood meaning of a word
being changed by a particular organization to mean some thing else
altogether.

Again, marketers do that all the time, unfortunately. I suppose at some
point some enterprising lawyer will glom onto this one like they did the
small engine manufacturers and horsepower and we'll get even less useful
measurements as a result.

The actual ANSI test is designed for the laminated products folks and
the Type I test actually is a combination of a soak/boil/dry cycle
(three repetitions of same iirc) and then an evaluation of the
specimens. No delamination allowed and some specifications on shear
strength, etc., etc., etc., ...

But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

I can't/don't fault the general comment other than to recognize the
horse has already left the barn on that regard and as is generally the
case one needs must read the limitations/application sections on the
actual data sheet(s) not just the front (marketing) label. That's true
for virtually any product.

It is why when the subject comes up I do remind folks that if they
really need "waterproof" in the ordinary sense that then TB III isn't
the answer.

Guess we could always hope for a change but don't think it's going to
happen (at least in this life).

--

On 1/11/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:
On 1/11/2012 1:46 PM, Leon wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:21 AM, dpb wrote:
On 1/11/2012 8:09 AM, Leon wrote:
...

I would not have a problem with the tests if they described degrees of
water resistance and not actually call the product water proof.

Well, I don't know what "degrees of water resistance" is, either. I can
go read the ANSI Standard test protocols.

--

The last time I read it the Water Proof classification never used the
word water proof in the test procedure or description.

Simply put the glue had to be water resistant and or hold up for x
amount of hours under certain wet conditions.

If the glue is to be used under constant wet conditions it will
certainly fail, not what I would call water proof.

Another clear cut example of a known and understood meaning of a word
being changed by a particular organization to mean some thing else
altogether.

Again, marketers do that all the time, unfortunately. I suppose at some
point some enterprising lawyer will glom onto this one like they did the
small engine manufacturers and horsepower and we'll get even less useful
measurements as a result.

The actual ANSI test is designed for the laminated products folks and
the Type I test actually is a combination of a soak/boil/dry cycle
(three repetitions of same iirc) and then an evaluation of the
specimens. No delamination allowed and some specifications on shear
strength, etc., etc., etc., ...

But for 99% of TBIII buyers The big letters Water Proof is not going to
fill the bill of what they will expect. It is going to be one of those
fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me situations. Hey the
glue failed in wet conditions, did you read the label that pretty much
disclaims water proof as most any retail customer would expect? No...


But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL



I can't/don't fault the general comment other than to recognize the
horse has already left the barn on that regard and as is generally the
case one needs must read the limitations/application sections on the
actual data sheet(s) not just the front (marketing) label. That's true
for virtually any product.

It is why when the subject comes up I do remind folks that if they
really need "waterproof" in the ordinary sense that then TB III isn't
the answer.

Exactly!



Guess we could always hope for a change but don't think it's going to
happen (at least in this life).

This and a million other things like this.

On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:47:56 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:

But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL


No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

On Jan 11, 8:20*pm, Nova wrote:

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? *LOL

No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.

Similarly, I would like the wording to be more accurate.

If you remember back in the 60s - 80s, you bought watches that were
"waterproof". Being kind of a watch nut at the time, I had several
diver type watches, and sports watches over the year that proudly
imprinted that right on the face and also on the backs of a few of
them.

Think how stupid I felt when contacting the manufacturer and having
him tell him that swimming in a pool with my watch wasn't covered
under warranty. I thought the watch was "waterproof" (mostly because
it said so, and even gave the depth) but the manufacturer said they
were only guidelines. Further, when the watch seals failed, they
pointed out that the although the watch was marked as "waterproof"
they offered no warranty if it leaked.

After serious litigation from upper end watch buyers (not my dinky
diver's model) watches are either waterproof (no bull**** - you do the
maintenance and you get the guarantee) or as most are now, they are
"water resistant". Some even advertise they are water resistant to a
certain depth.

I received a nice diver's watch (still my favorite style) a couple of
years ago and it had all the international symbols on the paperwork
that said it is OK for "this" (pic of hand washing) and "this" (pic of
a guy showering) and "this" ( a guy with an umbrella in the rain. It
said it is NOT OK for "this" and showed a guy in a scuba tank.

Yet, on the watch itself, it says it is "Water resistant to 100
Meters". Says so front and back.

An email to CASIO, and they said that water leaking into the watch was
specifically NOT covered by warranty, but that I could do the
activities listed as OK with confidence. They told me that I could
send them the watch if it leaked, and they would decide what was
covered and what wasn't.

So I asked "what is the siginificance of water resistant to 100
meters?". They replied that it was a guideline, and if I wanted to
dive to that depth I should be fine as the watches were built to that
standard. But they also told me that if it leaked, it wasn't
covered. After all, it was a guideline, a build standard from them.
Nothing more.

I am not a very bright guy, and I don't like being mislead by ad copy
monkeys, or engineers that are cute corporate lackeys.

Either it is waterproof, or it isn't. Screw some twisty pile of test
crap standards that were a corporate engineer's wet dream to detail
out. If some ****wad makes me lose money on a job or embarrasses me
professionally because they were wordsmithing or being creative at my
expense, screw 'em.

I use NP1 all the time. It IS waterproof. I repair outside damage to
masonry, wood, metal and rubber. It is a fine adhesive and sealer,
and it is completely waterPROOF. I also use PL400.

I use different epoxies as needed. They are waterPROOF. I have used
them to glue together stone gutters that hold water. The do not
leak. They often hold water for a month. I installed these gutters
about 10 years ago and they are still waterPROOF.

So all I want is what these idiots advertise. You can see for
yourself, they advertise TB3 as waterproof, when I know for a fact it
isn't.

http://www.titebond.com/tbiiivspolyu...lyurethane.htm

Again, I don't care about a self designed test. You cannot hijack a
commonly used word, redefine it, and make it your own to suit your
advertising campaign. If it isn't waterproof, don't blow the smoke up
my ass. If it is simply water resistant, say so. One of my favorite
adhesives for general framing/subfloor/beam building/sheetrock hanging/
panel adhering is PL400. It dries to a hard plastic. **And when
properly applied** I have NEVER seen it fail, no matter what I used to
for or under any conditions. Yet it clearly states that it is "not
recommended for permanent water immersion". Good enough. I
understand. Not "waterproof".

My first failure with TB3 was the last time I used it. I used it to
repair a wood deck, and after it was wet off and on for a few days,
not immersed, not holding water, not under constant water barrage, but
wet, it changed colors and let go. Burned once is plenty for me.
Never again.

Robert

On 1/11/2012 8:20 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:47:56 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:

But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL


No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.

But hey Jack, it still is not melting. Water proof glue is not going
to keep the wood dry it should however never fail with any type
application of water.

Glue that is labeled water proof should be hummmmmm "water proof", not
just water resistant.

On 1/12/2012 1:32 AM, wrote:
On Jan 11, 8:20 pm, wrote:

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL

No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.

Similarly, I would like the wording to be more accurate.

If you remember back in the 60s - 80s, you bought watches that were
"waterproof". Being kind of a watch nut at the time, I had several
diver type watches, and sports watches over the year that proudly
imprinted that right on the face and also on the backs of a few of
them.

Think how stupid I felt when contacting the manufacturer and having
him tell him that swimming in a pool with my watch wasn't covered
under warranty. I thought the watch was "waterproof" (mostly because
it said so, and even gave the depth) but the manufacturer said they
were only guidelines. Further, when the watch seals failed, they
pointed out that the although the watch was marked as "waterproof"
they offered no warranty if it leaked.

After serious litigation from upper end watch buyers (not my dinky
diver's model) watches are either waterproof (no bull**** - you do the
maintenance and you get the guarantee) or as most are now, they are
"water resistant". Some even advertise they are water resistant to a
certain depth.

I received a nice diver's watch (still my favorite style) a couple of
years ago and it had all the international symbols on the paperwork
that said it is OK for "this" (pic of hand washing) and "this" (pic of
a guy showering) and "this" ( a guy with an umbrella in the rain. It
said it is NOT OK for "this" and showed a guy in a scuba tank.

Yet, on the watch itself, it says it is "Water resistant to 100
Meters". Says so front and back.

An email to CASIO, and they said that water leaking into the watch was
specifically NOT covered by warranty, but that I could do the
activities listed as OK with confidence. They told me that I could
send them the watch if it leaked, and they would decide what was
covered and what wasn't.

So I asked "what is the siginificance of water resistant to 100
meters?". They replied that it was a guideline, and if I wanted to
dive to that depth I should be fine as the watches were built to that
standard. But they also told me that if it leaked, it wasn't
covered. After all, it was a guideline, a build standard from them.
Nothing more.

I am not a very bright guy, and I don't like being mislead by ad copy
monkeys, or engineers that are cute corporate lackeys.

Either it is waterproof, or it isn't. Screw some twisty pile of test
crap standards that were a corporate engineer's wet dream to detail
out. If some ****wad makes me lose money on a job or embarrasses me
professionally because they were wordsmithing or being creative at my
expense, screw 'em.

I use NP1 all the time. It IS waterproof. I repair outside damage to
masonry, wood, metal and rubber. It is a fine adhesive and sealer,
and it is completely waterPROOF. I also use PL400.

I use different epoxies as needed. They are waterPROOF. I have used
them to glue together stone gutters that hold water. The do not
leak. They often hold water for a month. I installed these gutters
about 10 years ago and they are still waterPROOF.

So all I want is what these idiots advertise. You can see for
yourself, they advertise TB3 as waterproof, when I know for a fact it
isn't.

http://www.titebond.com/tbiiivspolyu...lyurethane.htm

Again, I don't care about a self designed test. You cannot hijack a
commonly used word, redefine it, and make it your own to suit your
advertising campaign. If it isn't waterproof, don't blow the smoke up
my ass. If it is simply water resistant, say so. One of my favorite
adhesives for general framing/subfloor/beam building/sheetrock hanging/
panel adhering is PL400. It dries to a hard plastic. **And when
properly applied** I have NEVER seen it fail, no matter what I used to
for or under any conditions. Yet it clearly states that it is "not
recommended for permanent water immersion". Good enough. I
understand. Not "waterproof".

My first failure with TB3 was the last time I used it. I used it to
repair a wood deck, and after it was wet off and on for a few days,
not immersed, not holding water, not under constant water barrage, but
wet, it changed colors and let go. Burned once is plenty for me.
Never again.

Robert


It is truly unfortunate that our society has become conditioned/forced
to accept false representation with "special club" explanations.
In another thread the term "assault" takes on a totally different
meaning where the "law" is concerned. Look the word up in the
dictionary and it is described as you and I learned, to do physical harm
to to some one. The law describes assault as some one breaking into
your house while you are there. I call that trumping up breaking and
entering charges.

I see the day when a guy running a meth lab catches his house on fire.
The fire department arrives to put out the fire. The meth lab people
will not open the door to the firemen because they don't want to get
caught with the goods. The fireman breaks down the door to gain entry
with his large ax and is later brought up on assault charges by the meth
guy and his weasel attorney.

Adjust a society for the dumb and you end up with a dumb society.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:14:10 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
In another thread the term "assault" takes on a totally different
meaning where the "law" is concerned. Look the word up in the
dictionary and it is described as you and I learned, to do physical harm
to to some one.

The problem is that words like assault can take on a number of other
meanings. Take verbal assault for example. If can be mentally damaging
if it is prolonged enough and severe enough. One might argue that an
adult should have enough common sense to know better than to be
injured by a verbal assault, but what if it was an adult verbally
assaulting a child? Not having enough 'life' experience knowing how to
handle such an onslaught, a child can experience severe emotional
trauma. To me, that is as bad as any physical assault.

On 1/12/2012 7:28 AM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:14:10 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
In another thread the term "assault" takes on a totally different
meaning where the "law" is concerned. Look the word up in the
dictionary and it is described as you and I learned, to do physical harm
to to some one.

The problem is that words like assault can take on a number of other
meanings. Take verbal assault for example. If can be mentally damaging
if it is prolonged enough and severe enough. One might argue that an
adult should have enough common sense to know better than to be
injured by a verbal assault, but what if it was an adult verbally
assaulting a child? Not having enough 'life' experience knowing how to
handle such an onslaught, a child can experience severe emotional
trauma. To me, that is as bad as any physical assault.



The difference here is that you qualify the word assault with verbal.
No question there what that means.

A person breaks into your house and you are there and do not see that
person however he assaulted you.


I just don't get it.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:54:56 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 8:20 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:47:56 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:

But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL


No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.

But hey Jack, it still is not melting. Water proof glue is not going
to keep the wood dry it should however never fail with any type
application of water.

Glue that is labeled water proof should be hummmmmm "water proof", not
just water resistant.

Check the breaks under a microscope to make sure the wood itself isn't
the culprit.

And good luck getting any marketing dept. to operate with any honor.
If you have any luck there, proceed on to Searz, Thompson's,
Minwhacked, and a few others.

--
We are always the same age inside.
-- Gertrude Stein

On 1/12/2012 7:52 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 06:54:56 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 8:20 PM, Nova wrote:
On Wed, 11 Jan 2012 17:47:56 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 1/11/2012 2:10 PM, dpb wrote:

But, indeed, it is not a test for and does not claim to be "waterproof"
as for continuous exposure. It covers stuff like structural ply, etc.,
that may be exposed during construction and the like so that it won't
delaminate between the time the subfloor goes down and the final roof
goes on or the like where there may be weather in between.

If you bought a rain coat that said water proof, would you expect it to
eventually melt in the rain? LOL


No, but if I bought a rain coat I wouldn't expect it to keep me dry if
I jumped in a lake.

But hey Jack, it still is not melting. Water proof glue is not going
to keep the wood dry it should however never fail with any type
application of water.

Glue that is labeled water proof should be hummmmmm "water proof", not
just water resistant.

Check the breaks under a microscope to make sure the wood itself isn't
the culprit.


Don't need to look under a microscope. The definition of water proof by
"the club" says that the water proof glue will fail.


And good luck getting any marketing dept. to operate with any honor.
If you have any luck there, proceed on to Searz, Thompson's,
Minwhacked, and a few others.


All do it some degree but now so blatantly as much as TBIII.

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:51:59 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

The difference here is that you qualify the word assault with verbal.
No question there what that means.

A person breaks into your house and you are there and do not see that
person however he assaulted you.

I just don't get it.

Would you like to have it explained to you again, pobrecito?


--
I have the consolation of having added nothing to my private fortune during
my public service, and of retiring with hands clean as they are empty.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Count Diodati, 1807

On 1/12/2012 7:14 AM, Leon wrote:

It is truly unfortunate that our society has become conditioned/forced
to accept false representation with "special club" explanations.

Hey, Bubba, 88% of the population of HISD is a "minority", you voted for
"change", that old "pound" bag of coffee is now 10 oz, that rug company
is "going out of business", that $30/mo cell phone is actually $75/mo,
that "meat" in your TV dinner is really gravy, ad infinitum ...

Oh yeah, and the Federal Law is clear and concise:

"....in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall
be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made
or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any
combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement
fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or
material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of
the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions
prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are
customary or usual."

Simply put, the picture of that double meat cheeseburger on the wall,
upon which you make your decision to buy, does not have to look anything
like what you get, and the what is supposedly "meat" and "cheese" is
defined by the corporate seller.

Got that?

Even the "Toddlers with Tiaras" crowd are not stupid enough to put up
with that when buying a car, but all bets are off about what they will
put in their mouths based on advertising ... (well, that may be a bit
too lenient on that disgusting bunch)

Just a few more areas where the permeating grip of the asshat lawyers
have on every aspect of this culture will eventually choke it to "death"
(yep, the _legal_ definition of even that is up for grabs).

Yes, Virginia, we really are collectively that stupid ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On 1/12/2012 9:54 AM, Swingman wrote:
On 1/12/2012 7:14 AM, Leon wrote:

It is truly unfortunate that our society has become conditioned/forced
to accept false representation with "special club" explanations.

Hey, Bubba, 88% of the population of HISD is a "minority", you voted for
"change", that old "pound" bag of coffee is now 10 oz, that rug company
is "going out of business", that $30/mo cell phone is actually $75/mo,
that "meat" in your TV dinner is really gravy, ad infinitum ...

Oh yeah, and the Federal Law is clear and concise:

"....in determining whether an advertisement is misleading, there shall
be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made
or suggested by statement, word, design, device, sound, or any
combination thereof, but also the extent to which the advertisement
fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or
material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of
the commodity to which the advertisement relates under the conditions
prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are
customary or usual."

Simply put, the picture of that double meat cheeseburger on the wall,
upon which you make your decision to buy, does not have to look anything
like what you get, and the what is supposedly "meat" and "cheese" is
defined by the corporate seller.

Got that?

Even the "Toddlers with Tiaras" crowd are not stupid enough to put up
with that when buying a car, but all bets are off about what they will
put in their mouths based on advertising ... (well, that may be a bit
too lenient on that disgusting bunch)

Just a few more areas where the permeating grip of the asshat lawyers
have on every aspect of this culture will eventually choke it to "death"
(yep, the _legal_ definition of even that is up for grabs).

Yes, Virginia, we really are collectively that stupid ...



You know, I did not vote for any of them. ;~)
And as I mentioned earlier the more we change things for the dumb the
more dumb our society becomes.

On 1/12/2012 8:50 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:51:59 -0600, Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

The difference here is that you qualify the word assault with verbal.
No question there what that means.

A person breaks into your house and you are there and do not see that
person however he assaulted you.

I just don't get it.

Would you like to have it explained to you again, pobrecito?


If you understand and can explain it with out wonder, you are part of
the problem.

On 1/10/2012 1:38 AM, wrote:
i have used a lot of it. When they first started carrying it, the
price difference was even larger, so I used it on some glue lam beams
that were site built. (LOTS of glue, LOTS of mess, 100 clamps...)

It saved me a bunch of money when the price difference on a gallon was
something like $15. Locally, (YMMV) a gallon is still about that much
different when comparing the two. Since it has been out a while, the
price has closed, especially on the smaller bottles. A look this
afternoon revealed $2 a bottle difference in the 16 oz package.
Honestly, I can't tell any difference between performance.

I cannot believe I found this (it's so old it has mold on it!):

http://www.diyprojects.info/bb/ftopic70.html

See how many names you recognize after you read the posts. (Leon....
is that you?)


YES! LOL

Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 07:14:10 -0600, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
In another thread the term "assault" takes on a totally different
meaning where the "law" is concerned. Look the word up in the
dictionary and it is described as you and I learned, to do physical
harm to to some one.

The problem is that words like assault can take on a number of other
meanings. Take verbal assault for example. If can be mentally damaging
if it is prolonged enough and severe enough. One might argue that an
adult should have enough common sense to know better than to be
injured by a verbal assault, but what if it was an adult verbally
assaulting a child? Not having enough 'life' experience knowing how to
handle such an onslaught, a child can experience severe emotional
trauma. To me, that is as bad as any physical assault.

To me Dave, a lot - no... most of that mental stuff is so much garbage. Not
that I condone verbal onslaughts, but come on - we all grew up with this
kind of thing when life was a different way. It did not permanantly harm us
or turn us into "something". The most of what this stuff is about is the
modern day psychology that tries to convince us that all of these
irreparable harms will occur. Like lawyers, the field of psychology is
filled with those who promote their own agenda, for their own well being.
Our society has become too focused on harms that multiple generations before
us survived just fine. Maybe if we didn't pamper ourselves so damned
much...

--

-Mike-

On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:19:24 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Our society has become too focused on harms that multiple generations before
us survived just fine. Maybe if we didn't pamper ourselves so damned
much...

Possibly. But consider what trigger created a Ted Bundy or a Clifford
Olson? Were they flawed from birth or did something else cause them to
be? Something that you or I may consider to be innocuous and just
"part of growing up?"

Apparently, the US has had more serial killers than any other nation.
There has to be some reason for that ~ Societal or otherwise. It
appears that all the nations that value freedoms the way we do, USA,
Canada, England, et al, have had the most serial killers. It looks
like our freedoms may spawn an aberrant form of thinking that causes
serial killers to come into existence.

It's something to think about. Society has changed from when you and
I were growing up. And yes I do agree. I think we pamper ourselves too
much. Just like our fathers thought about us, we feel the same about
our younger generation. But even though I've apparently turned into a
critiquing old fart, I admit that I'm too old to really understand
many of the pressures that our children face.

On 1/13/2012 12:51 AM, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jan 2012 23:19:24 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
Our society has become too focused on harms that multiple generations before
us survived just fine. Maybe if we didn't pamper ourselves so damned
much...

Possibly. But consider what trigger created a Ted Bundy or a Clifford
Olson? Were they flawed from birth or did something else cause them to
be? Something that you or I may consider to be innocuous and just
"part of growing up?"

And how long ago were those two doing their deeds?


Apparently, the US has had more serial killers than any other nation.

And that could be because our laws are too damn screwed up. Break into
some ones house while some one is there and it is a contrived as an
assault. Become a serial killer and you have millions spent on you to
by tax payers to determine if you are crazy or not and you end up being
rewarded so to speak.

Society seems worse off with the touchy feeley method of discipline.