I've made a couple of tests of the relative strengths of these two
glues, and my empirical testing (limited, but real-world) tells me that
the Extend isn't as strong as the regular. The mfgr. literature shows
them to be very close in strength and their tech support line concurs
with their official position.
It's still stronger than the wood, right? If the wood fibers will separate
before the glue joint fails, what difference does it make if one glue
that's stronger than the wood isn't quite as strong as some other glue that's
also stronger than the wood?
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
How come we choose from just two people to run for president and 50 for Miss
that's the problem. the glue adhered to the end grain and didn't stick
to the face of the test pieces. I got essentially the same result twice
in a row. About 10% of the failed side had wood slivers extracted, but
the remainder of the glued joint had all the glue separated from it as
it failed. So it WASN'T stronger than the wood. NOW do you see why I'm
concerned about using a product for the first time? It's not doing what
I'd expect. Reality is more important to me than advertising, claims,
anecdotes, and opinion.
Doug Miller wrote:
On 12 Dec 2003, Bay Area Dave spake unto rec.woodworking:
No one, and by that I mean NOT A FREAKING SOUL, makes glued end-grain
joints, Dave. Or end-grain to face-grain joints. So your premise is BAD
to begin with.
Make two identical mortise and tenon joints, glue one with each kind,
and pull them apart with a hydraulic press. There's probably a measurable
difference in the strength. But unless you are going to subject the
furniture you build to that extreme, it isn't going to make a bit of
Hmmm... Not that I want to disagree with your disagreeing with that idiot
in my killfile, but... I made some poster frames too short. They're
completely supported by the posters, and need no strength, so I just fitted
in some extra pieces, end grain to end grain, no dowels. So, yes, I did
Didn't last worth a damn though. I broke two of them just assembling the
frames. For this, it didn't really matter. They look fine on the wall,
unless you get too close, and if you're that close to a poster, get a life!
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < firstname.lastname@example.org>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
This joint would fail under any conditions, regardless of glue used.
The only true test is edge jointing four strips of the same wood,
applying the same amount of glue to each joint, clamping at the same
pressure over the same period of time, then doing a tensile and shear
test on the joints.
You then run your tests until failure and measure the results. THAT
would produce your worst case scenraio.
ah, HOW is edge joining a "worst case scenario"??
DOESN'T ANYBODY READ BEFORE RESPONDING? IS EVERYONE ELSE IN AS MUCH OF A
HURRY AS I USUALLY AM, AND SKIMS THE THREAD, MISSING THE POINT??? THIS
WAS A FRICKIN' COMPARATIVE TEST, DESIGNED SO THAT THE BOND WOULD FAIL.
I WANTED TO SEE WHICH GLUE HELD B E T T E R.
Rick Chamberlain wrote:
We can all read. I've, for some bizarre reason, read every message in
this thread. I understand the point you're trying to make and the
points others are making.
Bottom line, you are wrong. Your test was not of the glue, because the
glue was not relevant to the failure of the joint. Period.
Please move on.
My reading comprehension is just fine. Just thought you'd might like to
learn how real engineers would test something - they use a valid testing
protocol. Your test was not comparative, since no one in their right
fricking mind would use a joint like that in any proper woodworking
You'd do well to take your own advice, Davy.
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.