TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

[Todd Fatheree]

It wouldn't bother me any. If it doesn't say "Guiness" on the front, I don't care what the back says. ;-)

todd

[NoOne N Particular]

Please don't give anybody ideas about another way for the government to control our lives. Let the market decide. If Franklin gets enough complaints, or if sales falter, they will "fix" it. It is early yet and I am still willing to give Franklin an opportunity to respond. Besides, I am not going to build anything that is going underwater for more than a few seconds or minutes, and I don't think that 99.999% of the people that purchase TBIII will either. Personally, I think they either need to remove the waterproof labelling because that implies that water will not affect the product at all, or more clearly define their definition of waterproof on the container.

Wayne

[bridger]

if you're building a boat you go to the marine supply to buy glue. what you will find there is epoxy.

if you're building cabinets and furniture you go to the lumberyard or the hardware store. what you will find there is yellow glue.

[J T]

Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 8:42pm (EDT+4) [e-mail] (Leon) puts out: The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.

Then why's there a back label?

JOAT

We've got a lot of experience of not having any experience.

- Nanny Ogg

[WayneKelly]

LOL! Do you actually do any woodworking, or just hang out in usenet groups making an ass of yourself.

[Leon]

I think bridger has adequate wood working credentials.

[WayneKelly]

He doesn't know shit about glue.

[Charlie Self]

Leon responds:

Surely. More so than Mr. Kelly has shown.

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

[Charlie Self]

WayneKelly blares:

And you are...what kind of expert?

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

[Dan Cullimore]

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."

[Jules]

[Edwin Pawlowski]

experienced

substantionally

Did you read the article and see how it was tested? Not a question of being touchy, it was put to a test it was not intended to be used.

OK let's compare a Bradley tank and a Chevy. The auto editor takes the Chevy to the woods and bashes into a tree. He then declares it no good because it cannot take down the tree.

Same as the Chevy is not made for or intended for knocking over trees, Titebond is not designed to be used submerged. You think that more R & D is going to get that Chevy to be capable of knocking down trees? Ed [e-mail]

[Edwin Pawlowski]

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 [e-mail]

[Leon]

The interesting part of the Wood test though is although the test was beyond the TB3 limits, it was WAY beyond the TB2 limits and the TB2 did better than the TB3.

[J. Clarke]

If I were building something on which I was going to depend for my life I would rely on test results from third parties, not words on a product label. The only thing I would be looking for on the product label would be the brand name and product identification.

[J. Clarke]

Or resorcinol.

[J. Clarke]

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.

[Robert Bonomi]

It'll be more than one issue out, if they do. 2 months is the absolute _minimum_ lead-time for something to make it into a magazine of this type, and space is generally assigned 4-6 months in advance.

Assuming a serious flaw/problem/issue in the testing procedure, one might see a 'minimal' announcement of 'test results problems' 2-3 months after publication, and a re-do of the story another 2-3 months after that.

[RKON]

In the response I received back from TB on the use of waterproof on their bottle I asked about the ANSI/HPVA tests. Where is information that I can view without paying $75 Dollars..

The Response I received was: "If you go to our website

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:

Frome website FAQ:

"What is the difference between the ANSI/HPVA Type I and Type II water-resistance specification?"

Notice how they say Water-resistance specification. Where is the word Waterproof???????????

answer:

"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 145°F 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 120°F 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."

[Leon]

Wood did state in the article that the water testing was beyond the limits of the glues tested. I suspect the they may simply renounce that statement and stick to their guns.