Runny TiteBond III vs II (with pictures)

Page 1 of 3  
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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:50:54 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:03:10 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

I clicked on that first incorrect link. It presented some sort of scam sit e. 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 win dow": Right click the bottom task bar, click onto Task Manager, then high light 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 an ything.
Sonny
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 3:37:48 PM UTC-4, Sonny wrote:

I needed to call Microsoft, to have it fixed. The 800 number was bogus, f or Microsoft.... I called, they wanted $200 to fix the issue.

ghlight 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.

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 2:47:53 PM UTC-5, DerbyDad03 wrote:

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 w eek, so I was/am even more touchy. Just clicking X wouldn't removed the p age, .... 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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/09/2016 1:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

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., ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 5:03:00 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

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.

Well, it ain't anywhere near double the price, but I definitely hear what y ou 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

There is also the extended work time associated with III. I'm not just messy, I'm also really slow. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/09/2016 5:13 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: ...

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tuesday, August 9, 2016 at 6:39:25 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/09/2016 6:39 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote: ...

I was thinking more of trying to prevent it in the first place...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/09/2016 7:01 PM, dpb wrote: ...

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.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/9/2016 7:36 PM, dpb wrote:

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/10/2016 10:33 AM, Leon wrote:

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
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/10/2016 1:25 PM, dpb wrote:

Ditto.

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.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/11/2016 12:49 PM, Jack wrote: ...

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...
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 8/11/2016 2:01 PM, dpb 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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 08/11/2016 4:51 PM, Leon wrote: ...

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...
--



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thursday, August 11, 2016 at 6:02:49 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:

I inverted my new bottle of TBIII (manufactured sometime this year) and it seems to be a little thicker than before. Still not as thick as the 2014 bottle of TBII, but I need the open time so I'm going to hang on to it.
I did do a quick test of the TBIII. I glued a ripped edge of a scrape to the face of another and let it dry overnight. The result of the hammer blow follows...
http://i.imgur.com/JnpgHxx.jpg
There a bit of cheat involved here. The scrap that I used had some dry rot on one side. The crack started at the rot and then continued along the grain line. I'm sure the rot weakened the wood somewhat, but it still took a pretty good hit to get it to crack. I probably should have hit it from the other side.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.