Titebond III Does not Perform

Page 4 of 5  


spray
Yes I think that the results would be different and both of the glues would probably hold up under higher pressure. Still, both were tested eually and it only seems logical that the glue designed to be used around "X" amount of water would do better than a glue that was designed to be used in less than "X" amount of water. This was not really a test of, does the glue pass the test or not, both certainly did, but the under dog did better.

IIRC, 1 for each glue type and test. And that may be the problem. Although the tests were used with pieces of wood from the same board and the glue was applied in an equal manner, the results could have been a fluke. Perhaps best 5 of 8 tests or best average of 3 testings would have indicated different results.
>If could also be an anomaly if only one test piece was done.
True, and very likely. Or Wood Magazine matched the results to the wrong glue. While I still believe that as long as the test was consistant for both glues, TB3 was tested closer to its intended usage than TB2 was. A larger sampleing, and I hope for Franklins sake, hopefully would yield better results with TB3 than TB2 on this particular test.

Yeah, That is what I am thinkng. But given the results, Wood Magazine or Franklin has some serious explaining to do.
They also state that the same board was used in the

"IIRC" the maple board had consistant grain.

conditions
I am not sure what Type I or II mean, but if Type II means that it will hold up better under wet conditions than Type I, the test would indicate that TB2 probably easily passes the Tpye II specs also.
ANYWAY.. ;~) LOL.. I did send an email to Franklin asking their view on the test results, in the magazine that they bought a full page add for the back cover.

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

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?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
What you say is true but the testing conditions used are no less precise than most of the junk science that is so common.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
why are you taking it on faith that the new and "improved" glue is really better than the TBII? "New" isn't always better. If an independent test shows poor performance, I see no logic in expecting the testers to disregard the results and give a product more chances.
Edwin Pawlowski wrote: I have to imagine that Franklin would have

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

If you go beyond the water tests, TB# did out perform the TB2.
Besides, it is more expensive so it must be better. Right? Ed
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J T wrote:

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.

--
--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
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 9:26am snipped-for-privacy@nospam.invalid (J.Clarke) says: 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. <snip>
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, that's why buckets were invented. I know, there's boats been made, and some "still" made, with NO caulking, no glue, and not painted. And yeah, some outdoor furniture isn't painted, or finished. You seem to take it as a given that I don't know about any of that. Well, yeah, I do know about it - and none of it was the point.
You missed the point, which was about the glue.
By the way, a well made wooden boat doesn't "need" to leak.
And, with my attitude, you won't have to worry about getting invited for a ride in any boat I make. LMAO
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J T wrote:

Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of load.

But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry, the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry, or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain its structural integrity.

Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in the days of sail for that reason).

That's OK, I would have turned down the offer anyway. I'm crazy, but not _that_ crazy.

--
--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
Sun, Jul 11, 2004, 5:40pm snipped-for-privacy@nospam.invalid (J.Clarke) put out: Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of load.
Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail. Also, you don't define "very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures. And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it. But, I don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth. In this case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717. http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland (1717b)_p185.html Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history. From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from here: http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who knows?
But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry, the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry, or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain its structural integrity.
What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a real-life type test, and this is what I said. "Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted, epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain without paint? Not too many."
Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in the days of sail for that reason). <snip>
I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or not well made; and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing leaks. Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them together. Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of 2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and that painted. I never made one, but understand they didn't leak. So, I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all cold molded, and nobody realized it.
For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom, it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy, paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.
But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it was a realistic test. And, still don't.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J T wrote:

If you want to call it a fastener, then consider that the performance of glue ranges from that of a strand of spaghetti on up.

So which cultures build ocean-crossing vessels that depended on glue to maintain their structural integrity?

Not to maintain primary structural integrity.

Epoxy in some cases, resorcinol in others. And while it is possible to fiberglass over a cold-molded hull, that is not a necessary part of the process.

Caulking does not depend on any kind of adhesive unless you define the term _very_ loosely. Any source that equates caulking of wooden ships with adhesive bonding is at best questionable.

And what kind of boats did he glue together with it?

Please explain how that statement is different from an assertion that some kind of protective coating will always be used in glued construction.

If you consider the ships of the United States Navy to be "not well made" then perhaps your assertion might hold some validity.

I wasn't talking about frozen snot, I was talking about wood.

What leads you to believe that cold molded construction involves fiberglass? If you believe that either fiberglass or epoxy is a necessary part of the process then you have been very sadily misinformed. Cold molded construction requires veneer, a waterproof adhesive, a mold, and some means of applying pressure during cure--that might involve a two-part mold or a vacuum bag or some other process. There is no fiberglass involved and epoxy is not the best adhesive to use for the purpose.

Commonplace canoe construction.

If you put fasteners through the canvas then it leaked until the wood swelled. Unlike you, I _have_ owned such a canoe.

Very few canoes are in the water long enough at a time for seepage to be an issue. Take that same canoe and tie it up at a marina and leave it there for a year and you'll find water in the bilge even if it's kept under cover so no rain gets in. You seem to think that one either has a leak that sinks the boat or one has a dry bilge. The truth is in between.

Why would you need to caulk a plywood boat? However I think I'm beginning to see part of the problem. I suspect that you when you see the word "caulk" associate it with a product that you buy in a tube at Home Depot. That is not the sort of caulk that the Romans were using or the sort of caulk that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the British East India Company, the Spanish Armada, or any of numerous other outfits that were famed for being able to go anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to in wooden ships propelled by wind would be using. And that type of caulk is not used in the seams of modern boats either--the caulking is structural and must be driven into place with a mallet, a use to which such products are not amenable. When I think of a boat I don't think of something that sits on a trailer most of the time and gets towed down to the launching ramp to go fishing, I think of something that is launched once and stays in the water until it becomes necessary to remove it to clean the bottom or to prevent damage from ice, which vessel can when sufficient quantities of food and water are put aboard be aimed east and sailed until one bumps into Europe. The realities of such vessels are considerably different from the realities of trailer-boats.

And I still don't think it's realistic to depend on paint to keep the glue dry.

--
--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
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 3:42am snipped-for-privacy@nospam.invalid (J.Clarke) who says: If you want to call it a fastener, then consider that the performance of glue ranges from that of a strand of spaghetti on up.
If it's so bad, why'd you call it structural material?
So which cultures build ocean-crossing vessels that depended on glue to maintain their structural integrity?
Noah. http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/noahsarkpossible.htm http://www.giveshare.org/BibleStudy/241.gopherwood-ark.html There's more.
Not to maintain primary structural integrity.
See Noah.
Epoxy in some cases, resorcinol in others. And while it is possible to fiberglass over a cold-molded hull, that is not a necessary part of the process.
Fibreglass would be for me. It would help keep the bottom from abrading. I'm not taking about some sail boat or something, I'm talking about a boat that'll be run up on shore, in shallow water, in other words, used.
Caulking does not depend on any kind of adhesive unless you define the term _very_ loosely. Any source that equates caulking of wooden ships with adhesive bonding is at best questionable.
You might want to tell the British that. Their traditional method of caulking was oakum, then pine tar.
And what kind of boats did he glue together with it?
Didn't ask.
Please explain how that statement is different from an assertion that some kind of protective coating will always be used in glued construction.
Don't have to. I never said a couting would always be used.
If you consider the ships of the United States Navy to be "not well made" then perhaps your assertion might hold some validity.
Last I'd heard, most of them are now made out of steel.
I wasn't talking about frozen snot, I was talking about wood.
An unpainted, glued together boat?
What leads you to believe that cold molded construction involves fiberglass?
Mostly because I've read articles on people builting cold-molded boats that wanted them to a last a long, long time, without major maintenance.
If you believe that either fiberglass or epoxy is a necessary part of the process then you have been very sadily misinformed. Cold molded construction requires veneer, a waterproof adhesive, a mold,
No it doesn't. It does require thin wood, which can be strips. Watrproof adhesive, yeah that's best, but partly depends on usage, which you seem to ignore. A mold isn't necessary, if you apply directly over an old hull - some people call that cold-molding, some don't. You probably don't.
and some means of applying pressure during cure--that might involve a two-part mold or a vacuum bag or some other process.
Staples, or tacks will work.
There is no fiberglass involved and epoxy is not the best adhesive to use for the purpose.
Depends on who's doing it. There is more than one way.
Commonplace canoe construction.
Orange crate slats commonplace canoe construction?
If you put fasteners through the canvas then it leaked until the wood swelled. Unlike you, I _have_ owned such a canoe. Apparently you had a cheap canoe. I did say the Boy Scouts painted their canoes. And, the canvas canoes aren't made just by tacking canvas on, the canvas is protected with a coating - which makes the canoe waterproof. They don't need to have the wood swell so they won't leak.
Very few canoes are in the water long enough at a time for seepage to be an issue. Take that same canoe and tie it up at a marina and leave it there for a year and you'll find water in the bilge even if it's kept under cover so no rain gets in.
So? Condensation would do that.
You seem to think that one either has a leak that sinks the boat or one has a dry bilge. The truth is in between.
Do you think so?
Why would you need to caulk a plywood boat?
Well gee, I thought I'd either do that to piss you off, or to keep it from leaking.
However I think I'm beginning to see part of the problem. I suspect that you when you see the word "caulk" associate it with a product that you buy in a tube at Home Depot.
Ah, I see part of the problem. You think I don't know what caulk is. Well, I do. However, what I would use to caulk a plywood boat with, would indeed come in a tube. But, I don't sink so low as to shop at Home Depot.
That is not the sort of caulk that the Romans were using or the sort of caulk that the US Navy, the Royal Navy, the British East India Company, the Spanish Armada, or any of numerous other outfits that were famed for being able to go anywhere they wanted to any time they wanted to in wooden ships propelled by wind would be using. And that type of caulk is not used in the seams of modern boats either--the caulking is structural and must be driven into place with a mallet, a use to which such products are not amenable.
You left out that a "caulking iron" also has to be used in the process. I've already told you, I already know that, see somewhere up above about the oakum and pine tar. Wooden boats were often sheathed in sheet copper too, particularly war ships. So what? All sorts of things have been tried for caulking wooden boats, even horse manure. Again, so what?
When I think of a boat I don't think of something that sits on a trailer most of the time and gets towed down to the launching ramp to go fishing, I think of something that is launched once and stays in the water until it becomes necessary to remove it to clean the bottom or to prevent damage from ice,
Well now, you didn't say before, did you?
which vessel can when sufficient quantities of food and water are put aboard be aimed east and sailed until one bumps into Europe.
Well, that would be presuming it was in the Atlantic Ocean. Wouldn't work in the Pacific Ocean, or on a lake.
The realities of such vessels are considerably different from the realities of trailer-boats.
Gee, I am enlightened. I thought they were exacly the same.
And I still don't think it's realistic to depend on paint to keep the glue dry.
What is realistic is the fact that if someone makes a boat (a big boat, that can sail to Europe, if it's in the Atlantic ocean, and has enough food and water), that they're going to put paint on it. Or some kind of protective finish, unless maybe they've got a teak deck. Bottom paint is made specifically to put on the bottom of boats in sea water, to prevent under water growth, also called anti-fouling paint. But, maybe you won't paint the bottom, because you don't want to keep your glue dry.
On my income, I'll make a boat out of plywood, put it on a trailer, take it fishing, then trailer it back home, and enjoy the hell out of it. It'll probablyy be caulked with butyl caulk, probably from Ace Hardware, or Wal-Mart, fastened with glue and nails, fibreglassed along the seams and bottom, and painted with latex paint. As long as it works for me, I really don't give a damn about anyone else and what they've got.
I haven't had a lot to keep me occupied this weekend, and it's been fun, but you're just getting too silly. You're starting to sound like some of the officers I've worked for - "I know that's what I said, but that's not what I meant".
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(J. Clarke) put out: Actually, glue as a structural material in the construction of wooden boats is a very recent innovation and you'll find darned few other than cold-molded that use it to hold together anything that takes any kind of load.
Glue, structural material? I wouldn't call it a "structural material". I'd call it a fasener. Chemical fastener, rather than a mechanical fastener, such as a peg, or nail.
Yes, glues are structural materials. In fact TB 3 has limitations to not be used in load bearing or structural projects. TB2 does not have that limitation. Automotive wind shields and back glass is held in with a structural adhesive and or glue. Many GM minivans used structural ahdhesives and glues to bond the body panels together.
Also, you don't define "very recent". Actually, adhesives of various types have been used for a long time in different types of boatbuilding, and in various cultures. And, yeah, theres a lot more than just cold-molded that use it. But, I don't think cold-molded boats use an awful lot of Titebond, I'm reasonably sure they use epoxy - along with fibreglass cloth. In this case, I define "a long time" as hundreds of years. This doesn't come right out and say "glue", but here's a reference circa 1717. http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Shipbuilding/Sutherland (1717b)_p185.html Or, if you want to go a bit further back, here's a quote: "Adhesives are not a recent development but have been in use throughout history. From the Romans that caulked their ships with beeswax and wood tar to the Egyptians that used gum from the acacia tree and egg glue." from here: http://www.duroplastic.com/art_adsv.html Somewhere, withing the last year, I read an article that claimed cavemen developed some sort of epoxy glue. Don't know about that one, but who knows?
But your assertions with regard to the glue were that some kind of protective coating would always be used, and that is simply not the case. The correct solution is not to rely on paint to keep the glue dry, the correct solution is to use a glue that doesn't need to be kept dry, or even better, a construction that doesn't depend on glue to maintain its structural integrity.
What you claim was an assertion, was what I said in regards to a real-life type test, and this is what I said. "Of course it matters. To start with, if the wood wasn't painted, epoxied, or some type of protection, it's pretty well meaningless as far as I'm concerned. How many people re going to make a boat, then not paint it? Or, make a lawn chair, and leave it out in a driving rain without paint? Not too many."
Unless you're using cold-molded ply, it's going to leak. If it appears not to be then look for what's absorbing the water and make sure that it's not about to split your hull wide open (rice was a nasty cargo in the days of sail for that reason). <snip>
I'll remember that next time I sail over for a load of rice. I did say a "well-made" wooden boat doesn't need to leak. You seem to be talking about a wooden boat that's been damaged, and not repaired, or not well made; and yeah, I know of expensive boats, made with a balsa wood core, that sucks up water without anyone knowing - I also know their fibreglass sheathing was damaged, and not inspected, allowing leaks. Even a well-made boat can leak in that case. But, if a leaky boat makes you happy, no prob. The epoxy and fibreglass is what keeps cold-molded boats from leaking, a lot of times that's what holds them together. Long ago, the Boy Scouts had plans for a canoe, made out of 2X2s, I believe, orange crate slats, and then covered with canvas, and that painted. I never made one, but understand they didn't leak. So, I'd call that well made. A lot of (expensive) wooden canoes are still made in a similar manner, and their owners would be extremely peeved if they leaked. But, maybe all the boats and canoes I just cited were all cold molded, and nobody realized it.
For what it's worth, I am planning on at least one boat. But, no worries about it sinking, even if it were to leak. It'll have enough floatation, it wouldn't matter if I chainsawed a hole in the bottom, it'll still float. Plywood boat, caulk, glue, nails, fibreglass, epoxy, paint, I'm not worried about it leaking.
But, the original subject was a glue test, and I didn't think it was a realistic test. And, still don't.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mon, Jul 12, 2004, 1:25pm (EDT+4) snipped-for-privacy@swbell.net (Leon) claims: Yes, glues are structural materials. <snip> structural adhesive and or glue. Many GM minivans used structural ahdhesives and glues to bond the body panels together.
Might as well call nails structural material then, they hold wood together. However, I note you were saying "structural adhesive", which doesn't compute as "structural material", to me So, I did some looking.
Came up with this: From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913) Fastener \Fas"ten*er\, n. One who, or that which, makes fast or firm.
This: From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn) glue n : cement consisting of a sticky substance that is used as an adhesive
And, this: From WordNet (r) 1.7 (wn) adhesive adj : tending to adhere [ant: ] n : a substance that unites or bonds surfaces together
And then I found this: http://www.adhesivesmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2101,122100,00.html
Seems to me that structural bonding is the term, not structural material.
I do accept glue, nails, rivets, whatever, as being part of a whole structural package, always have, always will, no prob. But, to call them structural material, I don't buy it. But, you come up with some legitimate proof(s) that says they are, and I might change my mind. Until then, I'll be saying fasteners, and structural bonding, my new term. LOL
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you want. - Bernard M. Baruch More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting credit for your work. - JOAT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Back during my automotive days it was very important that we used structural glass adhesive to rebond new replacement windshields and the back glass. I always wondered how a shattered windshield provided much support. It was important that a wind shield not pop out if a car rolled over as the wind shield, back glass and the adhesive that held it in place helped keep the pillars in place so that the roof hopefully would not collapse.
(Leon)

http://www.adhesivesmag.com/CDA/ArticleInformation/features/BNP__Features__Item/0,2101,122100,00.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They don't shatter much in a rollover, and the strength they provide will be during the first roll, when most of the energy is dissipated. Even in the most impressive rollovers I've seen (4 or 5 rolls) the windshield still was mostly intact... the plastic layer inside keeps it in place, and it'll still have strength in tension even if the glass is cracked.
Rear windows, yeah, they'll break into tiny granular, not-very-sharp pieces. But, the C-pillars are much stronger, I'm guessing the structural contributions of the back window are trivial compared to the windshield.
Dave Hinz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:20:00 GMT, "Leon"

But it's one better! <G>
Barry
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

LOL Yeah. So It must be, according to its name.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And my "WalMart" Loctite galoo faired very well. More proof that (once they start stocking Two Cherries) all you need is a 'Mart...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Check out the responses that I have received form Titebond regarding the tests.
Look under Titebond response from headquarters posted this morning.

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

Site Timeline

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.