TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

Page 3 of 6  
wrote in message

the
comparisons.
experienced
substantionally
Apparently, Wood's problem is in reading the directions. The bottle says it is not mean for continuous submersion. Is there something unclear about that?
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:


How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion", exactly? Sounds like word-games to me, to make a product seem to be able to do something it can't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Does it matter? The important issue is that a cheaper, and even according to Franklin, an inferior product TiteBond II work better under those extreme conditions than the heavily advertized 'superior' TiteBond III. It's my opinion that Franklin might have released TB III to the market before the product was ready and they got CAUGHT by WOOD magazine.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:> How does "waterproof" reconcile with "not meant for continuous submersion",

Uh Huh... and,,,, most the other glues have the same stipulations and still performed better in this particular test TB3.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

still
Look...I don't own stock in Franklin, so I don't really have a stake in the outcome of a test. It's just that as an engineer, I want a test to be representative of the conditions that the product is designed to be applied in. So far, all I know from the Wood test is that if I was going to continuously submerge a joint, TB2 would be a better choice than TB3, although you probably don't really want to use either. How about this? I know this is crazy-talk here, but why doesn't Wood just do a test that tests a real-world application of the product that's in line with the instructions? Then, whichever product wins, fine.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:31:41 -0500, "Todd Fatheree"

We could be waiting many months for those results. WOOD was trying to accelerate the adverse conditions so they could bring us a timely report. I think they have done their readers a great service.
Of course this won't matter to people who spend all their free time preaching in a usenet news group and none in a workshop.<g>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dave, are they miscreants?
snipped-for-privacy@address.invalid wrote:

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

the
applied
I can certainly understand your point of view. But engineers are not a majority of the population that will be using TB3. For the rest of us, let the label say what it really stands for. Let them be UPFRONT with the stipulations. An "asterick" beside the words water proof could point to this on the back 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).
And IMHO that would make all the difference in the world as to whether one might mistake it for something that they might be really looking for or not.
It's the smoke and mirrorsmarketing approach that upsets most of the woodworkers buying and not just using what the boss supplies.
With the Mad Cow desease some people in the USA may want to insure where their beef is coming from. The labeling on the hamburger meat sold in the grocery store says pure 100% American grown beef.
The fact that it was grown in Chili, South America does not make the lable wrong but it certainly does not imply that it was NOT grown in the USA.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ahem. Engineers aren't real keen on marketing people redefining words with established definitions either.

Great example of this sort of a tactic.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that's
says it

submersion",
Why don't you read the relavant ASTM/ANSI standard and get back to me? This appears to be a case where the common-sense understanding and the technical meaning of a word in a specific context are at odds. Most likely, you should take your complaint to the relavant standards subcommittee rather than berating Franklin for following a standard which they may or may not have had a hand in writing.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

I'm not taking an attitude here, Todd, so why are you?

OK, so it depends on what your definition of the word 'is' is, then?

Standards aside, if someone claims their product is waterproof, or unbreakable, or non-staining, or "transparent when cured", or whatever, then it damn well ought to be waterproof, unbreakable, non-staining, or transparent when cured, not "Transparent when cured as defined by a standard which defines 'transparent' to be something other than transparent, and 'cured' to be defined as cured in specific, unusual laboratory conditions". If they claim it's waterproof, but that it can't be put in water, then it's not waterproof. "Well, it's water _resistant_", fine, but don't say something is waterproof* and have the disclaimer on the back somewhere saying "* Not for continuous exposure to water", 'cuz that ain't waterproof.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I think that these standards are credible and needed.
But, also IMHO Titebond could have taken the "High Road" and on its label immediately under the words "Water Proof" added the stipulation of the Standards. A simple "Asterick" would have been enough of a warning that "This" Water Proof" label may not be up to an individuals Water Proof Standards.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This
technical
The Standards that TB adheres to is ANSI/HPVA. In my letter to TB I asked: "Both of these organizations require purchase of a document in order to understand what the specifications are. Please tell where I can find this informationn free of charge."
The Response I received was: "If you go to our website www.titebond.com, select FAQs, and then go to Woodworking Glues. Scroll down and it will provide a "layperson" description of the two ANSI/HPVA tests. If you are looking for the actual test method, which is cumbersome and difficult to read, feel free to contact our Technical Support Group at 1-800-347-4583."
I did and the here is what is posted:
"What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II water-resistance specification? Both of these tests are conducted using 6" by 6" birch laminates glued together to make three-ply plywood. The test for Type I is clearly more stringent than Type II, and involves boiling the glue bonds and testing the specimens while they are wet.
Type I testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 1" by 3" specimens, boiling them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 145F oven for 20 hours. They are boiled for an additional 4 hours, then immediately cooled using running water. The specimens are sheared while wet, and the bonds must pass certain strength and wood failure requirements to pass the Type I specification.
Type II testing involves cutting the 6" by 6" assemblies into 2" by 5" specimens, soaking them for 4 hours, then baking the specimens in a 120F oven for 19 hours. This is repeated for a total of three cycles, and the bonds must not delaminate to pass the Type II specification."
Fair Enough.
Did anyone notice the glaring omission? It's right in front of you. This is what Leon has been saying all along.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz writes:

Quite easily, I think. My trench coat is "waterproof" but I'd hate to wear it underwater and expect it to keep me dry.
Charlie Self "Conservative, n: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal who wishes to replace them with others." Ambrose Bierce
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

submersion",
it
But uh... Never mind you.. LOL... Would it harm the water proof raincoat?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you expect it to come apart when wet, Charlie? A glue has a specific purpose, to hold things together. A trench coat has a specific purpose, to shed rain. If either of them fails to do so in wet conditions, then it fails to be "waterproof".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

OK, lets get back to the test. They said it failed at a particular point of pressure. What does that mean? It means the glue held for a long time, maybe longer than we would ever expect it to under normal every day conditions of rain, snow, sleet, or hail as long as the mailman is still making his rounds. They did NOT say it failed to hold up in outdoor furniture. They DID say it did not hold up as well as others in extreme test done in a way the product was not intended to be used in.
In real life situations, the test tells us nothing. Ed snipped-for-privacy@snet.net http://pages.cthome.net/edhome
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

submersion",
Here's my take on this controversy, having NOT read the Wood review:
Waterproof means the product will not fail when subject to getting wet. Yellow glue is not waterproof because if it gets wet it fails. The submersion test could only be relevent to define the outside limits of the material: obviously, 24 hours under water is too much. It doesn't define what the useful limit is (as someone else in this thread has pointed out). A fine point of distinction, this "waterproof" vs. "not meant for submersion", but valid none the less. If you must submerge your project best use epoxy. I used TB2 on an exterior deck about a year ago to patch knot holes in old redwood, and the stuff is still tight. Can't complain.
Dan "I can...but I don't want to."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan Cullimore wrote:

Actually, best use resorcinol, phenol-formaldehyde, or one of the other well proven technologies. While epoxy is decent, its real benefit is the variety of materials that it will bond, not its resistance to water immersion. Water penetration of the bond line is a well known problem with epoxy that the vendors and the aerospace and marine communities have been battling for decades--the current stuff is better than what was available 20 years ago but it's not as good as a technology optimized specifically for bonding wood. It doesn't happen quickly, but it does happen.

--
--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

I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?
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.