Minor nit--it was Dateline that set the GM trucks on fire--20-20 blew up Ford sedans about 20 years previously. Same guy though--the simple fact that he had a job after 20-20 speaks volumes about the integrity of the network news establishment.
You've clearly never owned a wooden boat. They leak like sieves until the planking takes up enough water to swell and tighten the seams down onto the caulking. And if there's no water in the bilge, be very afraid.
Further, there are some types, the Scandinavian Folkboats for example, that are quite capable of crossing oceans and that are traditionally finished bright, not painted.
Most who made it out of Lapacho or Jarrah would. That's the whole point of using very hard highly decay resistant exotic woods--you don't have to baby them that way.
With that attitude I strongly advise you not to go farther from land than you can swim in any boat that you have built.
It would make this sort of discussion much more fruitful if people would actually read the bloody label on the bloody product before commenting. From the label: "Not for continuous submersion or for use below the waterline". Also "Not for structural or load-bearing applications".
The "water-proof" claim I believe is based on ANSHI/HPVA Type I tests, which are aimed at the glues used to bond together the plies in plywood, rather than at glues for general-purpose bonding. As such, the use of that rating is IMO a bit misleading.
I'm a bit puzzled as to how much more "clean" one can get on this point than "not for continuous submersion".
Not what I meant but yes more samples would be better but I think their test method doesn't tell the whole story. The idea I was trying to convey in previous post is to try and determine deteroration rate over repeated exposure the elements. In my hypothetical test results TB2 while having a stronger initial strength then TB3 TB2 after repeated exposure to water and drying didn't maintain its strength as well as TB3 BTW I wonder what the difference of 200, 300 or 1000PSI really translates to. The difference of being hit by a pickup, 18 wheeler or a train
Yeah,....but your example was hypothetical, it did not really happen. I under stand that under a different circumstance the out come could be different. But could be is not yet fact. The testing reviled results that one would not expect from a glue sold as superior and marketed as water proof. Until there are other tests by another third party, you have nothing other than the Wood Magazine tests to base a good decision on when considering which of the 2 glues to use if these are your only choices.
Further more, reading Franklins limitations on the 2 glues on their web page indicates that there are more limitations on the TB3 glue than the TB2 glue when it comes to using it in an application that require strength. Both glues have the same limitations as far as being used around water. With those facts why would one be labeled water proof?
The reason that TB3 is called water proof is that it passes shear tests after the glue was soaked in boiling water on 2 occasions and dried out. TB2 passes shear test on soakings on 3 occasions and dried out.
Which one sounds like the one that would hold up to "normal and common" exposure to water to you?
I was just about to buy a gallon of TiteBond III to make some planters. They would almost certainly be continuously damp. Now I don't know what to buy.
Resorcinol.
Charlie Self "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it whether it exists or not, diagnosing it incorrectly, and applying the wrong remedy." Ernest Benn
That is the back label. Or a portion of it is. The rest is on a web page. The front label says "Waterproof" not once, but twice. No restrictions are made on the front, no asterisk, no limitations. From reading different things I knew there was a limitation so I read the back. If I was shopping for glue for the first time, I'd read the front label first. We should not be required to go to a web page to find the particular limitations of the term "waterproof" since we learned the dictionary term many years ago.
While I disagree with the testing procedure used by Wood Magazine, I have to also fault Franklin for not being very explicit.
I went to Franklins site and read the limitations of both glues.
Both the WATER PROOF labeled TB3 and the WEATHER RESISTANT labeled TB 2 have the same limitation of not using below a water line and both should not be submerged for continued periods of time.
What is considered continuiously submerged? Since not to be used below the water line would suggest that the joint would not hold up well if it would never be out of the water, I have to believe that not continiousely submerged would be short of used below the water line, like on an application on the bottom of a boat that stays in the water for months on end. Not Continuiously submerged could mean less than 1 week or 2 weeks, or
1 day. Who knows? Additionally the limitation on TB3 indicates to not use the TB3 on a structural or load bearing application. TB2 does not have this limitation. TB3 can be used in 10 degree F lower temperature that TB2.Anyway, The TB 3 passes the Type 1 shear test after the test piece was soaked in boiling water 2 times and dried out 2 times. TB 2 passes the Type
2 shear test after the test piece was soaked 3 times and driedout 3 times.Titebond really does not indicate which glue is better when used around normal and likely water exposure situations. It does indicate which glue should not be used for structural or load bearing applications.
With all that information and the Wood Magazine test results, when would TB3 be a better choice over TB2? The only time that I see that TB3 would be a better choice over TB2 is if you are going to use the project in boiling water and will assembly of the project will be in 10 degree F colder temperatures than TB2 can be use at.
Very misleading indeed, along with the Water PROOF claim on the front label.
real lab work is pretty exacting stuff. in the hard sciences a test should be done by more than one lab, (especially if the results run counter to available data) and all of the labs be held to very high standards. while the manufacturer's lab work (afaik) wasn't done independently (can't find anything about it on their website), neither was the magazines. further, the magazine's sample size was probably too small to be significant... and what kind of certification does their lab carry?
point being, more data is needed.
I know I should use it Charlie, but I really hate working with that stuff and it is expensive. I'm going to use a TiteBond, I just don't know with one.
FWIW I glued up four 3 inch fir strips using Gorilla glue to make a panel for a bird feeder 3 years ago. No battens or nails. It hangs outside year around. Its never been submerged but I doubt "water resistant" would have done as well. BTW Its for suet so its pretty greasy in the summertime too. Jack
hypothetical
Hypothetical yes but for me personally I'd be more interested in knowing which one has better long term holding power under real repeated exposure
Very subjective term there really is nothing that is water proof given enough time. Taking it to the extreme rivers erode mountains and waves erode coastlines
Right Type 1 boiled the wood, type 2 soaked the wood (didn't say what temp), type 1 also had higher baking temps for a little longer
Probably either one although the longer open time is attractive. Need better data to access wether it's really worth the extra money. I'm a hobbiest so the cost isn't a big deal even if it's a little better I might switch. Kind of funny I had reservations about even using it cause I know what to expect from TB and TB2 sorta like old friends! If I was in the business and used a lot of glue that would be another matter. I guess I'll know in 12 years if the stools recently made out last the previous ones :)
Exactly.!
Actually it appears that Franklin is using the a different definition for WATER PROOF than what the average or common wood worker would define as Water Proof. The Type 1 rating apparently is what defines Water Proof on the TB 3 label.
ADHESIVE, TYPE I FULLY WATERPROOF: Forms a bond that will retain practically all of its strength when "occasionally"subjected to a thorough wetting and drying; bond shall be of such quality that specimens will withstand shear and two cycle boil test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).
That does not mean Water Proof to me. I believe that Franklin should have qualified on the front of the label what their definition of Water Proof is.
Ah.... an acurate observation IMHO.
Gorilla or Elmer's ProBond Polyurethane will work well as the test indicated these to be 4 times stronger in strength than TB3.
Keep in mind also that TB3 did not fail the water test.!!!!!! It simply was outperformed in strength by its sister TB2. The point of my original post was to point out that TB2 seems to be stronger in a water application than TB3 and much cheaper.
In order of preference, resorcinol, epoxy, polyurethane. There are some others that will work well but are harder to find.
Or make them in such a manner that they hold together without glue.
Now... we are on the same page Edwin. The glue is simply marketed to be something that it is not, unless defined by its "standards" tests. Most people do not realize that the Water Proof label does mean Water Proof by common knowledge definitions.
No web page search is required unless you want to know the details of the testing. If you expect them to put the whole ANSI spec on each bottle then expect to pay about 40 bucks a bottle because the spec is copyrighted and ANSI charges for each copy.
Exactly. But the Franklyn web site indicates that the Limitations of TB3 are more restrictive than those of TB2 when it comes to use of the joint after it is cured. They basically admit that this glue has no better water resistant properties than TB2 unless you plan to immerse the joint in boiling water. So why sell TB3 at all?
HomeOwnersHub website 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.