Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Woodworking (rec.woodworking) Discussion forum covering all aspects of working with wood. All levels of expertise are encouraged to particiapte. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The
first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken. The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed. I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?) the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of manufacture. The product was bought at HD. I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way. The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick. Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II? Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted: www.imgur.co/3VJaMgV 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed I'm a messy guy, so the runniness might be an issue for me. |
#2
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
"DerbyDad03" wrote in message ... I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken. The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed. I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?) the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of manufacture. The product was bought at HD. I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way. The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick. Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II? I've never used TB3, no reason to so, I have no idea if it is normal. How well does it stick stuff together? If fine, use it but If you don't like the runniness use TB2. |
#3
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:50:54 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken. The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed. I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?) the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of manufacture. The product was bought at HD. I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way. The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick. Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II? Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted: www.imgur.co/3VJaMgV 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed I'm a messy guy, so the runniness might be an issue for me. Sorry, I screwed up the first link. Here are all three images again: Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted: www.imgur.com/3VJaMgV 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed |
#4
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
Sorry, I screwed up the first link. Here are all three images again: I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam site. The window opened, telling me there was some sort of virus and that I needed to call Microsoft, to have it fixed. The 800 number was bogus, for Microsoft.... I called, they wanted $200 to fix the issue. Not being computer savy, I called Best Buy's tech. The tech at Best Buy told me it was a scam and how to remove the "error window": Right click the bottom task bar, click onto Task Manager, then highlight Google Chrome (or whatever you're using), then click "end task". To be on the safe side, do a full scan of your computer, see if it detects anything. Sonny |
#5
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-4, Sonny wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote: Sorry, I screwed up the first link. Here are all three images again: I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam site. The window opened, telling me there was some sort of virus and that I needed to call Microsoft, to have it fixed. The 800 number was bogus, for Microsoft.... I called, they wanted $200 to fix the issue. Not being computer savy, I called Best Buy's tech. The tech at Best Buy told me it was a scam and how to remove the "error window": Right click the bottom task bar, click onto Task Manager, then highlight Google Chrome (or whatever you're using), then click "end task". To be on the safe side, do a full scan of your computer, see if it detects anything. Sonny I sincerely apologize. I did not get anything like that on either of my computers. Just a site saying there are "no sponsors for you at this time". My computers are fairly well protected, so maybe that's it. Again I apologize. One letter off, .co instead of .com. |
#6
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam site. Sonny I sincerely apologize. I did not get anything like that on either of my computers. Just a site saying there are "no sponsors for you at this time". My computers are fairly well protected, so maybe that's it. Again I apologize. One letter off, .co instead of .com. Look carefuly - the first link is imgur dot co it should be imgur dot com Best not to re-post the spammy one, in replying ... John T. |
#7
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I sincerely apologize. Think nothing of it. I'm computer illiterate and naive about this sort of thing, so that stuff catches me off guard. I bought a new computer this week, so I was/am even more touchy. Just clicking X wouldn't removed the page, .... part of the scam window, I guess. I posted Best Buys' fix, in case someone else would happen to be as dumb as I. Sonny |
#8
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. .... I dunno'; I've used a _lot_ of both (as well as just plain ol', plain ol', Titebond) and never really was anything I noticed with either... On stirring, I think I recall it actually mentions some where that it (TB III, that is) is thixotropic (it becomes less viscous when agitated or stirred but will return to it's static viscosity over time when left still). I know their datasheets instruct that if becomes overly thick to not actually stir but agitate "by firmly tapping bottle on a hard surface" until returns to normal rather than by actual stirring. The datasheet from TB for the three lists the following properties: Product III II I Strength (psi) 4,000 3,750 3,600 Open Time(min) 10 5 5 Chalk Temperature(F) 47° 55° 50° Viscosity (cps) 4,200 3,200 3,400 which indicates the TBIII is spec'ed as the more viscous of the three. So, I must say from my experience it's something I've not experienced so can't really comment other than the question raised/symptoms presented aren't my experience. I will say that other than the slight difference in chalk temperature vis a vis TB I but distinctly lower than TB II, I see no reason to spend double for TB III _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project exposed to damp; once a joint is strong enough that it's generally the wood that breaks prior to the joint (which occurs in a very high fraction of well-prepared joints even w/ TB I) it's strong enough so what's the point? I'm not saying not to use it, simply that it seems pretty pointless to spend money for no real added benefit unless you do have that specific reason. $0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., etc., ... -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#9
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:03:00 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. ... I dunno'; I've used a _lot_ of both (as well as just plain ol', plain ol', Titebond) and never really was anything I noticed with either... On stirring, I think I recall it actually mentions some where that it (TB III, that is) is thixotropic (it becomes less viscous when agitated or stirred but will return to it's static viscosity over time when left still). I know their datasheets instruct that if becomes overly thick to not actually stir but agitate "by firmly tapping bottle on a hard surface" until returns to normal rather than by actual stirring. That what it says on the bottle, but according to Leon in the May 2014 "Titebond II followup" thread, the TB guys told him: "Titebond III, Titebond Extend and Titebond II Extend Wood Glues all contain large particles to allow for longer open and assembly times. These products can settle and it is recommended to mix well before each use. Mixing must be done mechanically (i.e. with a stick) as tapping or shaking the bottle will not affect mixing of these high viscosity wood glues. Without mixing, the benefit of the larger particles will be lost and use of the un-extended versions may be better for your use. The datasheet from TB for the three lists the following properties: Product III II I Strength (psi) 4,000 3,750 3,600 Open Time(min) 10 5 5 Chalk Temperature(F) 47° 55° 50° Viscosity (cps) 4,200 3,200 3,400 which indicates the TBIII is spec'ed as the more viscous of the three. So, I must say from my experience it's something I've not experienced so can't really comment other than the question raised/symptoms presented aren't my experience. I will say that other than the slight difference in chalk temperature vis a vis TB I but distinctly lower than TB II, I see no reason to spend double for TB III ... Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what you are saying. I had enough II left to glue up what I wanted to last night, so I'll decide what to do with the bottle of III I bought before I do anymore. Home Depot 16 oz Titebond II - $5.47 16 oz Titebond III - $6.97 _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project... There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-) |
#10
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/09/2016 5:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
.... Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what you are saying. I had enough II left to glue up what I wanted to last night, so I'll decide what to do with the bottle of III I bought before I do anymore. Home Depot 16 oz Titebond II - $5.47 16 oz Titebond III - $6.97 _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project... There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-) I was comparing to T I which is quite a lot closer to the 2X number albeit not quite...I see 1 gal at 16 and 26 at one location... Open time could be another valid reason, too, granted...particularly in warmer weather. I'll look at the jug on hand and see what I think; but I just don't recall the symptoms when were doing so much exterior and barn work and used it extensively because it's so exposed out there... Wonder if you stored it upside down and rotated it would help as it appears is what they're tech gurus are saying is happening --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#11
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:13:58 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote:
_unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project... There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-) That's my rationale as well. I use II most of the time, but if I have a project with a complex glue up, I switch to III. Except for the times I get archaic and use hide glue :-). -- When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross. |
#12
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 6:54:25 PM UTC-4, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:13:58 -0700, DerbyDad03 wrote: _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project... There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-) That's my rationale as well. I use II most of the time, but if I have a project with a complex glue up, I switch to III. Except for the times I get archaic and use hide glue :-). OK, Larry... Since you were the one that started the "Titebond III" thread back in 2014, basically asking the exact same question that I just asked, what do you think of what I show in the images from post #2 of this thread? Are you still finding the III to be a whole lot runnier than the II or do I have bad bottle? |
#13
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 08/09/2016 5:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: ... Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what you are saying. I had enough II left to glue up what I wanted to last night, so I'll decide what to do with the bottle of III I bought before I do anymore. Home Depot 16 oz Titebond II - $5.47 16 oz Titebond III - $6.97 _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project... There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-) I was comparing to T I which is quite a lot closer to the 2X number albeit not quite...I see 1 gal at 16 and 26 at one location... Open time could be another valid reason, too, granted...particularly in warmer weather. I'll look at the jug on hand and see what I think; but I just don't recall the symptoms when were doing so much exterior and barn work and used it extensively because it's so exposed out there... Wonder if you stored it upside down and rotated it would help as it appears is what they're tech gurus are saying is happening In some of the other threads related to III, that question came up. There didn't seem to be a consensus of whether it would work or what the rotation frequency should be. Someone (Leon?) postulated that once the particles began to separate out, rotating the container would simply move the material from the "new top" to the "new bottom". If the techs at TB say stirring is the only method to mix the particles back in, it doesn't seem like rotation would work. |
#14
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/09/2016 6:39 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
.... Someone (Leon?) postulated that once the particles began to separate out, rotating the container would simply move the material from the "new top" to the "new bottom". If the techs at TB say stirring is the only method to mix the particles back in, it doesn't seem like rotation would work. I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place... -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#15
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken. The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed. According to Franklin/TiteBond the TBIII and the Extend have an additive that settles to the bottom of the bottle. When it settles the glue is thinner. I had a gallon of Extend and it was runny too. Once just past half way through the gallon the glue was more like pudding. They shipped me a replacement. I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?) the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of manufacture. The product was bought at HD. I make it a habit to reach to the back of the display of glue and if any has dust on it I pass. This stuff has a short shelf life because of the settling. It is a shame that it is almost impossible to get these glues quickly after manufacture since placed like Woodcraft and HD buy in bulk. I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way. The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick. Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II? NO! I have a relatively new quart of TBIII and it is relatively thick and Because of the additive that extends the open time it should be thick and not runny. I am probably going to go back to TBII because of this. I prefer to buy in Gallons but that does me no good if I can't use the whole thing. Equal amounts applied to an ~6" piece of wood and tilted: www.imgur.co/3VJaMgV 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/2Ooc7uf 4-5 seconds later: www.imgur.com/AJ1c0ed I'm a messy guy, so the runniness might be an issue for me. |
#16
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
On 8/9/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken. The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed. According to Franklin/TiteBond the TBIII and the Extend have an additive that settles to the bottom of the bottle. When it settles the glue is thinner. I had a gallon of Extend and it was runny too. Once just past half way through the gallon the glue was more like pudding. They shipped me a replacement. I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?) the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of manufacture. The product was bought at HD. I make it a habit to reach to the back of the display of glue and if any has dust on it I pass. This stuff has a short shelf life because of the settling. It is a shame that it is almost impossible to get these glues quickly after manufacture since placed like Woodcraft and HD buy in bulk. I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way. The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick. Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II? NO! I have a relatively new quart of TBIII and it is relatively thick and Because of the additive that extends the open time it should be thick and not runny. I am probably going to go back to TBII because of this. I prefer to buy in Gallons but that does me no good if I can't use the whole thing. Thanks. It did seem too runny even to me and I'm about as far from a glue expert as there can be. I also don't use enough glue to ever be able to use it up before it separates. |
#17
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 4:02 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. ... I dunno'; I've used a _lot_ of both (as well as just plain ol', plain ol', Titebond) and never really was anything I noticed with either... On stirring, I think I recall it actually mentions some where that it (TB III, that is) is thixotropic (it becomes less viscous when agitated or stirred but will return to it's static viscosity over time when left still). I know their datasheets instruct that if becomes overly thick to not actually stir but agitate "by firmly tapping bottle on a hard surface" until returns to normal rather than by actual stirring. You are correct in your assumptions and about what you have read. BUT talking to the Franklin home office rep he says that bumping or shaking the glue will not restore the glue. It has to be stirred. The shaking as you mentioned is for restoring the glue to a more liquid state providing what you are shaking is not mostly the settled ingredient to extend open time. If the glue is too thin to begin with it has to be remixed by stiring. If you are stiring a partially used bottle it may be too late. Just like TBIII fails real world water proof tests, they fail to say you need to stir and that the glue is not real world water proof. That would hinder sales of the product. Their water proof classification by industry standards mentions nothing about being water proof in the analysis, only in the title of the classification. That may have changed but that is how it was shortly after TBIII was introduced and tested by a woodworking magazine. TBII actually tested better than TBIII in their tests when exposed to water. The datasheet from TB for the three lists the following properties: Product III II I Strength (psi) 4,000 3,750 3,600 Open Time(min) 10 5 5 Chalk Temperature(F) 47° 55° 50° Viscosity (cps) 4,200 3,200 3,400 which indicates the TBIII is spec'ed as the more viscous of the three. Correct, when fresh out of the factory. Let TBIII sit on the shelf for a year or so and the and the heavy ingredients in the bottle settle to the bottom and the top half becomes runny. So, I must say from my experience it's something I've not experienced so can't really comment other than the question raised/symptoms presented aren't my experience. I will say that other than the slight difference in chalk temperature vis a vis TB I but distinctly lower than TB II, I see no reason to spend double for TB III _unless_ you really do need the extra water resistance it offers for an outdoor or similar project exposed to damp; once a joint is strong enough that it's generally the wood that breaks prior to the joint (which occurs in a very high fraction of well-prepared joints even w/ TB I) it's strong enough so what's the point? I'm not saying not to use it, simply that it seems pretty pointless to spend money for no real added benefit unless you do have that specific reason. $0.02, imo, ymmv, etc., etc., etc., ... -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#18
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 7:12 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 8:08:14 PM UTC-4, Leon wrote: On 8/9/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. I came across a 2014 thread in the wRec where Leon detailed his conversations with TB and was advised to stir the product before use. Stirred, not shaken. The wRec was not the only site where the runniness of III vs. II was discussed. According to Franklin/TiteBond the TBIII and the Extend have an additive that settles to the bottom of the bottle. When it settles the glue is thinner. I had a gallon of Extend and it was runny too. Once just past half way through the gallon the glue was more like pudding. They shipped me a replacement. I also read the part about the date code, but unfortunately (mysteriously?) the date code is worn away enough that I can not determine the year of manufacture. The product was bought at HD. I make it a habit to reach to the back of the display of glue and if any has dust on it I pass. This stuff has a short shelf life because of the settling. It is a shame that it is almost impossible to get these glues quickly after manufacture since placed like Woodcraft and HD buy in bulk. I chucked a bent wire in my drill and stirred the product. It didn't seem to be lumpy or anything, but I stirred for a while any way. The following 3 pictures were taken roughly 4-5 seconds apart. As you can see, the III flows much more quickly than the II. I should add that the II is at least 2 years old, but doesn't seem gummy or overly thick. Let me know what you think. Is this the normal runniness of III vs. II? NO! I have a relatively new quart of TBIII and it is relatively thick and Because of the additive that extends the open time it should be thick and not runny. I am probably going to go back to TBII because of this. I prefer to buy in Gallons but that does me no good if I can't use the whole thing. Thanks. It did seem too runny even to me and I'm about as far from a glue expert as there can be. I also don't use enough glue to ever be able to use it up before it separates. If my bottle is over 4~6 months old I buy new. |
#19
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote:
.... I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place... .... Which obviously doesn't help with your current product, at least until you can (if you can) get it all back into suspension again, maybe could minimize subsequent occurrence. -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#20
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/09/2016 7:34 PM, Leon wrote:
.... If my bottle is over 4~6 months old I buy new. OTOH, I've routinely kept gallon jug for year or more after a spate of heavy work that was then idle and it seems just fine...for the T's II and III. I've even thinned "plain ol'" yellow glue that has gotten a little thick and never had joint failures with it as long as it is still at least running... Well, heck, let's just go look -- I'm pretty sure the TB III jug is downstairs not out in the barn... Huh! Pulled out the plug that had formed in the top and lo! and behold! there was a later of water on the top and the bottom third is essentially all the solids...still good color all way through but it'll need to sit in the paint shaker it appears before use. No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one was purchased if my recollection is at all right...as 'spearmint I turned it over...we'll see if it'll improve any overnight. -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#21
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb wrote:
No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one was purchased if my recollection is at all right Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#. The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011. |
#22
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:04:19 PM UTC-4, Spalted Walt wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb wrote: No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one was purchased if my recollection is at all right Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#. The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011. If the date code on the bottle I just bought is what I think it is, the the bottle is no more than 196 days old. I can't read the month, but the year appears to be 6 and the day 24. If it's this runny after a max shelf time of less than 7 months, they have a real problem with their product. This link is safe. Copied/pasted. :-) http://i.imgur.com/3BXcq49.jpg |
#23
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 2:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. My experience is TB III is runnier than Elmer's WW glue or TB II. I like it that way, and find it easier to use and spread. I only bought it once, a few years ago, and used it for a couple of years, with no apparent problems. I have also used Elmer's WW glue that was pretty dang old with zero problems, and once, someone gave me a gallon of TB I guess TB 1 and I had it for I bet 20 years. I used it only on scrap stuff, or non important stuff, and it worked fine. I just bought a container of TB II to replace the TB III I had used up, I did it because Leon said III wasn't as strong, or as good. Now, I wish I had bought the III, first because I like the runniness and the longer work time, and second because it is water resistant. I never really had a problem with regular Elmer's Cabinetmakers glue on outdoor furniture, cutting boards and so on, so the water "proof" qualities I'm not too concerned about. Nothing I've made with TB III shows any signs of failure, but the Elmer's has 40-50 years w/o failure, so it will be a long time after me before I can say the same for TB. I'm rather confident all TB and Elmer's and most all similar glues will work fine, and long past there expiration dates. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
#24
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/10/2016 9:56 AM, Jack wrote:
On 8/9/2016 2:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: I am running low on TB II, so I bought my first container of TB III. The first thing I noticed was how runny III was compared to II. So I jumped on the ole interweb and did some homework. My experience is TB III is runnier than Elmer's WW glue or TB II. I like it that way, and find it easier to use and spread. I only bought it once, a few years ago, and used it for a couple of years, with no apparent problems. I have also used Elmer's WW glue that was pretty dang old with zero problems, and once, someone gave me a gallon of TB I guess TB 1 and I had it for I bet 20 years. I used it only on scrap stuff, or non important stuff, and it worked fine. I just bought a container of TB II to replace the TB III I had used up, I did it because Leon said III wasn't as strong, or as good. Now, I wish I had bought the III, first because I like the runniness and the longer work time, and second because it is water resistant. I never really had a problem with regular Elmer's Cabinetmakers glue on outdoor furniture, cutting boards and so on, so the water "proof" qualities I'm not too concerned about. Nothing I've made with TB III shows any signs of failure, but the Elmer's has 40-50 years w/o failure, so it will be a long time after me before I can say the same for TB. I'm rather confident all TB and Elmer's and most all similar glues will work fine, and long past there expiration dates. If your TBIII was runny, it was old. In factory condition it is thicker. If runny, the open time is reduced. |
#25
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 7:47 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/09/2016 7:34 PM, Leon wrote: ... If my bottle is over 4~6 months old I buy new. OTOH, I've routinely kept gallon jug for year or more after a spate of heavy work that was then idle and it seems just fine...for the T's II and III. I've even thinned "plain ol'" yellow glue that has gotten a little thick and never had joint failures with it as long as it is still at least running... Well, heck, let's just go look -- I'm pretty sure the TB III jug is downstairs not out in the barn... Huh! Pulled out the plug that had formed in the top and lo! and behold! there was a later of water on the top and the bottom third is essentially all the solids...still good color all way through but it'll need to sit in the paint shaker it appears before use. No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one was purchased if my recollection is at all right...as 'spearmint I turned it over...we'll see if it'll improve any overnight. From what I understand the settled ingredient does not affect the strength of the glue. BUT that settlement is what extends the open time of the glue. If it settles out and it does not get mixed in the glue will have a shorter open time. |
#26
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 8:04 PM, Spalted Walt wrote:
On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb wrote: No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one was purchased if my recollection is at all right Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#. The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011. And according to Franklyn April 27, 2011 is 3 years past prime condition. IIRC they suggest not using glue 2 years past the date code. and that is unfortunate because it is often hard to find glue in the store that is not already 6~12 months old, essentially cutting the useful period, for the end user, in half. |
#27
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 9:42 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 9:04:19 PM UTC-4, Spalted Walt wrote: On Tue, 09 Aug 2016 19:47:22 -0500, dpb wrote: No date code I could decipher but it's probably 2 yr old since this one was purchased if my recollection is at all right Current lot numbering system is a 10 digit code. The format is: aymmddbat#. The "a" stands for Made in the U.S.A. The "y" is the last digit of the year of manufacture. Digits "mm" represent the month, and "dd" represent the day of the month. The final four digits represent the batch number used for quality control purposes. Therefore, a product with the lot number A104270023 was manufactured on April 27, 2011. If the date code on the bottle I just bought is what I think it is, the the bottle is no more than 196 days old. I can't read the month, but the year appears to be 6 and the day 24. If it's this runny after a max shelf time of less than 7 months, they have a real problem with their product. This link is safe. Copied/pasted. :-) http://i.imgur.com/3BXcq49.jpg You should email TiteBond. They usually respond quickly. |
#28
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/9/2016 7:36 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote: ... I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place... ... Which obviously doesn't help with your current product, at least until you can (if you can) get it all back into suspension again, maybe could minimize subsequent occurrence. I agree, shaking should prevent it from happening but apparently shaking does not work as well as stirring once the ingredient has settled in to a single blob. My comment to Titebond was that stirring is almost impossible with some bottles. |
#29
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet writes:
If your TBIII was runny, it was old. In factory condition it is thicker. If runny, the open time is reduced. Although runny may have different meaning to different readers. Need a viscometer or rheometer to measure it, I guess. |
#30
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/10/2016 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:
On 8/9/2016 7:36 PM, dpb wrote: On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote: ... I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place... ... Which obviously doesn't help with your current product, at least until you can (if you can) get it all back into suspension again, maybe could minimize subsequent occurrence. I agree, shaking should prevent it from happening but apparently shaking does not work as well as stirring once the ingredient has settled in to a single blob. My comment to Titebond was that stirring is almost impossible with some bottles. Well, had FSA County Committee this morning so been tied up but just looked at the container again after it sat overnight in inverted position. It seems to me it's back to essentially its original consistency; the glob in the bottom doesn't seem to be at all congealed as such any longer; if I picked up and starting using it in this condition w/o having seen it yesterday I'd suspect nothing. The date code is A20917xxxx so it's actually going on four year for this gallon instead of two; as said I routinely any more will have glue of this age or more since do work so sporadically given other obligations. The FAQ at the TB site on longevity does talk of the 1-2 yrs but goes on to say that if stored in temperate conditions it should be good beyond that; they just don't list any longer essentially to be covered. As noted, I've continued to use various manufactuers' PVA glues far past that age as long as it still acts and looks ok and have seen no indication of them not performing essentially as new so I really only judge by "if it flows, use it". OTOH, if I were building a $20,000 commission for somebody, yes, I'd go buy new product. I responded here to several other postings as well for conciseness but my conclusion is "it's ok" and at least for the 1/4th to 1/3rd of the gallon here of TB III, it seems that simply letting the solids migrate through the thinner portions overnight essentially reconstituted it without actually physically stirring it (imo a _very_ good result as I was just getting ready to actually do some work for which was planning on using it ) These results may not be universal, granted, just relating what I see and some past experiences fwiw (which may, may not be much... ) Oh...just thought of it -- mayhaps I can find some time this afternoon and just do a test joint and see how it behaves...if so, will report back on result. Anyway, hth some maybe... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#31
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote:
And according to Franklyn April 27, 2011 is 3 years past prime condition. IIRC they suggest not using glue 2 years past the date code. and that is unfortunate because it is often hard to find glue in the store that is not already 6~12 months old, essentially cutting the useful period, for the end user, in half. Titebond is still using the same arbitrary date example (April 27, 2011) in their FAQ, http://www.titebond.com/frequently_asked_questions.aspx , as you pointed out 3 yrs ago: http://www.homeownershub.com/woodwor...es-768392-.htm |
#32
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/10/2016 11:04 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
Leonlcb11211@swbelldotnet writes: If your TBIII was runny, it was old. In factory condition it is thicker. If runny, the open time is reduced. Although runny may have different meaning to different readers. Need a viscometer or rheometer to measure it, I guess. There was no question on the separated old container here; the top (very thin layer) was just water essentially and that which ran over the essentially solids in the bottom was warm syrup consistency... See other response on overall behavior... -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#33
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/10/2016 1:25 PM, dpb wrote:
The date code is A20917xxxx so it's actually going on four year for this gallon instead of two; as said I routinely any more will have glue of this age or more since do work so sporadically given other obligations. Ditto. The FAQ at the TB site on longevity does talk of the 1-2 yrs but goes on to say that if stored in temperate conditions it should be good beyond that; they just don't list any longer essentially to be covered. As noted, I've continued to use various manufactuers' PVA glues far past that age as long as it still acts and looks ok and have seen no indication of them not performing essentially as new so I really only judge by "if it flows, use it". OTOH, if I were building a $20,000 commission for somebody, yes, I'd go buy new product. Ditto. I've use TB and other glues way, way past the 2 year mark with no ill effects. When someone gave me the Gallon of TB (before the internet existed) I set it aside because I wasn't familiar with it, and used it only on less important stuff. Had that around for probably 20 years and it still seemed to work fine. I used Elmer's Cabinet Makers glue until rather recently. I still have a small container but I prefer TB III because it spreads easier and being advertised as water proof/resistant doesn't hurt. Also, setting aside the possibility that time flies for the aged, the Elmers open time seems to be a lot shorter than it used to be, and TB III a good bit less. Another thing, the Elmers, and the TB seemed to get thicker as it aged (a lot of age) the TB III did not seem to get thicker, or thinner, but I'd guess it was under 3 years old when used up. I no longer buy gallons of glue for the same reason I don't buy green bananas:-) -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
#34
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/11/2016 12:49 PM, Jack wrote:
.... Another thing, the Elmers, and the TB seemed to get thicker as it aged (a lot of age) the TB III did not seem to get thicker, or thinner, but I'd guess it was under 3 years old when used up. I no longer buy gallons of glue for the same reason I don't buy green bananas:-) As noted, clearly TBIII will tend to settle out by 4 yr, altho it certainly hasn't been unmoved in that whole time so the actual time since it was last used and such wasn't noticed is less than that altho I couldn't say just when...I generally only use it where it has the specific application, using TB II or other yellow glue of various sources routinely. Certainly the others do thicken; I think in their case they simply very slowly evaporate some water or slowly "dry" in place. As noted, I've thinned these with no seemingly ill effects to achieve roughly new consistency. I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say, pine. I don't have stress measuring rig but the maple is pretty stout in a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published spec's... -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#35
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb wrote:
On 08/11/2016 12:49 PM, Jack wrote: ... Another thing, the Elmers, and the TB seemed to get thicker as it aged (a lot of age) the TB III did not seem to get thicker, or thinner, but I'd guess it was under 3 years old when used up. I no longer buy gallons of glue for the same reason I don't buy green bananas:-) As noted, clearly TBIII will tend to settle out by 4 yr, altho it certainly hasn't been unmoved in that whole time so the actual time since it was last used and such wasn't noticed is less than that altho I couldn't say just when...I generally only use it where it has the specific application, using TB II or other yellow glue of various sources routinely. Certainly the others do thicken; I think in their case they simply very slowly evaporate some water or slowly "dry" in place. As noted, I've thinned these with no seemingly ill effects to achieve roughly new consistency. I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say, pine. I don't have stress measuring rig but the maple is pretty stout in a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published spec's... Good to know. From what I understand past the suggested dates to use, the thin glue on top is not compromised except for the fact that it will have a shortened open time and if not mixed the remainder in the bottom of the bottle will likely be to thick to use and or will have little actual glue left. It is likely that if you are down to and only use the part that has settled in the bottom that it may not be as strong. |
#36
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/11/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote:
.... Good to know. From what I understand past the suggested dates to use, the thin glue on top is not compromised except for the fact that it will have a shortened open time and if not mixed the remainder in the bottom of the bottle will likely be to thick to use and or will have little actual glue left. It is likely that if you are down to and only use the part that has settled in the bottom that it may not be as strong. Well, part of what I discovered and reported earlier was that simply turning it upside down and letting thicker bottom layer glob it's way back to the new bottom essentially reconstituted the whole mess back to basically, afaict, indistinguishable from new product or what one would get by actually stirring. So, I had no separated layers used; it looks/acts essentially like new product despite the age and the previously having separated... -- --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#37
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/11/2016 1:49 PM, Jack wrote:
Also, setting aside the possibility that time flies for the aged, the Elmers open time seems to be a lot shorter than it used to be, and TB III a good bit **less.** Just noted I mis-stated that. The TB III open time seemed a good bit **more**, as in longer open time, appreciated by those of us moving slower in the time space continuum. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
#38
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 08/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb wrote:
.... I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say, pine. I don't have stress measuring rig(*) but the maple is pretty stout in a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published spec's... .... (*) The "experimental test setup" was to set the glued up piece on a pair of solid horses and whack it w/ a 10-lb sledge... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#39
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/12/2016 9:55 AM, dpb wrote:
On 08/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb wrote: ... I suppose this is as good a place to report as any, I did make a test joint w/ the TBIII after the overnight upside-down reconstitution. It went on and spread basically as I recall normal and as I expected the joint failure was a combination of breaking the wood along the grain with a few areas the joint did fail. This was a sample of 1" soft maple about 12-14" long, so there's no pronounced length grain as in, say, pine. I don't have stress measuring rig(*) but the maple is pretty stout in a 1" thickness so I'd guess the joint strength not far off published spec's... ... (*) The "experimental test setup" was to set the glued up piece on a pair of solid horses and whack it w/ a 10-lb sledge... That's a perfect test, much better than reading about it, even from the manufacturer who often will shorten life expectations for a myriad of reasons. When I first started my cabinet shop, I was using all sorts of ridiculous fastening techniques when edge gluing boards. Full length splines, T&G, half lapped, even 3 foot all-threads through my butcher block work bench top. Then I read somewhere (way before the internet existed) that the glue joints were stronger than the wood. I did a similar test as yours, and discovered they were right, and the joints would rip out chunks of wood rather than along a glue line. From then on I've been happily gluing up wide boards from narrow boards with just a few clamps and glue. Never once had a failure in 40-50 years. I still have the workbench top with the all-threads bolts pretending to hold it together, and I smile every time I look at those bolts and the needless effort that went into putting them in. -- Jack Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life. http://jbstein.com |
#40
Posted to rec.woodworking
|
|||
|
|||
Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)
On 8/12/16 7:15 AM, Jack wrote:
On 8/11/2016 1:49 PM, Jack wrote: Also, setting aside the possibility that time flies for the aged, the Elmers open time seems to be a lot shorter than it used to be, and TB III a good bit **less.** Just noted I mis-stated that. The TB III open time seemed a good bit **more**, as in longer open time, appreciated by those of us moving slower in the time space continuum. The extra open time is the primary reason I'll use TBIII over the others if water resistance is not an issue. The second reason is TBIII is slightly darker when dried, a better match for oak. -BR |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Runny glue - Titebond 3 - frozen? | Woodworking | |||
Epoxy experts.....runny mess. | Metalworking | |||
Pictures of Steve Russell's stone crusher onalt.binaries.pictures.woodworking | Woodturning | |||
Titebond I vs. Titebond II | Woodworking | |||
Large spots appearing in latex paint - with runny gunk coming out! (seriously!) | Home Repair |