The TBIII flap

I think most of the meaningful exchanges with respect to TBIII have taken place and the silly stuff has crept in. I have not read the article in Wood magazine. I have used both TBI and TBII. l have not used TBIII and do not intend to do so since I have no need for its alleged attributes. It appears to me, only from reading the comments of others, that Wood magazine *may* have been somewhat careless with their testing methods and possibly their conclusions as well. Wood magazine *may* have had an agenda or intent to what it wrote. However, I do not accuse them of that. It is also possible that Franklin *may* be giving serious thoughts to rewording the labels on the TBIII containers. I think they should make some appropriate changes to those labels to help avoid further confusion.
FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof" should mean exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of conditions.
Hoyt W.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Snip

That is what one would think until you see ad on the back cover of the magazine. Titebond III fills the page. I would have to think that Wood would not consciously make a customer look bad when their ad is on the back cover. At least not on this particular issue.

IMHO Franklin would be giving its customer more credit if they do change the label to indicate not quite what you may think.

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

This assumes that the people in charge of editorial content even know who is buying the advertising space at the time that they are planning the issue.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Lord, forgive my weakness -- I thought I could refrain from the silliness...

products - the article offered alternatives. Vote with your pocketbooks.

Never considered Waterproof a tautology. It *must* have conditions defined to accomplish the "proof" part of "waterproof". I'm quite content to read the current definition of waterproof and make up my own mind of the applicability of their product to my work at hand.
Heck - it's called the Ultimate Galoo. Mean's it'll be perfect for that Ultimate Router Table, Ultimate Router Table Fence, Ultimate Miter Gauge combo.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

should mean

I think the term should be appropriate to the audience intended. To a woodworker(at least I think to the majority of us), waterproof means just exactly that. Totally unaffected by water. Putting that on the container isn't just advertisement hype like Gorilla Glue claiming to be the toughest glue on the planet. (I'm NOT knocking Gorilla Glue, mind you. I like it and use it). It's just there is obvious advertising hype, and there are statements of fact that have usage implications. If TBIII isn't waterproof as defined the way it's users would most likely define it, then I would hope to see TBIII drop the waterproof claim.
Wayne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Franklin is not the only company using these terms. FWIW - I have a bottle of Elmer's Probond Polyurethane "Ultimate Glue" - in a little smaller letters is "waterproof". This is all on the FRONT of label. Back (actually right side of label - this is only a 4 oz. bottle & label is one piece & wraps around) has "Not for continous submersion or below water use."
I am not for or against either of these companies, just a satisfied consumer of each.
Big John
Take out the TRASH for E-mail.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hmmm. You got me to thinking (ouch! ouch!) so, after getting my best glasses on and my magnifying glass I went and looked at a small bottle of Titebond Polyurethane glue that I have in my garage. On the front of the bottle it says things like "bonds virtually everything", and "epoxy-like strength", and in a nice red banner "100% waterproof". But on the back in the user tips it says "Note: Not for structural applications below the waterline". Well, at least it said STRUCTURAL this time. Then I found this: "Passes ANSI Type I & II water-resistance testing". Water *resistance* testing!
Just an interesting note, Gorilla Glue also says "100% waterproof" on the front, but there are NO disclaimers about submersion. I went to the Gorilla Glue website and found this on their FAQ'S page.
Q. What do you mean by 100% Waterproof? A. Gorilla Glue meets the standard definition for waterproof. This means that once dried, the glue joint will not be affected by moisture.
There was no mention of what the "standard definition of waterproof" is, but when it says that the glue joint "will not be affected by moisture" that can only mean one thing. THEY NEED TO DEFINE WHAT MOISTURE IS!!! AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :-)
Oh well. For the work that I do, they all work. That is what it all comes down to really.
Wayne

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

And exactly what *does* "waterproof" mean? Can I immerse it for a year? A decade? A hundred years? What about boiling? Freezing?
It's not nearly as simply as just saying that "waterproof should mean waterproof". I'm afraid that my sympathies are with TiteBond on this one - they are using the term appropriately based on industry accepted standards. All the other companies use the same standard. The fact that their glue apparently doesn't do what it claims is a different issue, but they are, based on defined standards, correct in calling it waterproof.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think it's more or less obvious. It can get rained on, air dry and still be viable. However, it's not designed to remain submerged for an extended period of time. The only quandary, is what period of time will it withstand being wet? After all, nothing lasts forever.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
When something says "waterproof" the only limitation should be "how deep is the water?" Otherwise it is "water resistant".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg wrote:

Maybe it _should_ be but that's not the way it _is_.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 17 Jul 2004 19:41:04 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Greg) wrote:

In that case there is virtually *nothing* that is waterproof, since virtually everything will eventually degrade under continual immersion.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
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.