Sat, Jul 10, 2004, 3:50am (EDT+4) firstname.lastname@example.org (Leon)
I don't think it really matters how realistic the testings were. What
matters is that all glues were treated and tested the same. TBIII cost
60% more and was out performed by TBII.
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.
If a controlled test doesn't compare to real-life, then chances
are, the test is worthless. Besides, waay too many details left out -
for all I know, the glue could have held, and a thin layer of the
saturated wood just peeled off.
And, you didn't say how long the glue was given to set, if it was
clamped, and so on. I've not used any Titebond III, and possibly never
will, because Titebond II does it for me. But, if I did use it, even in
a boat, I wouldn't be having it without some type of protection, i.e.,
paint, epoxy, fibreglass, etc., over it, and I wouldn't be worrying
about it holding..
Details, more details.
Making a success of the job at hand is the best step toward the kind you
- Bernard M. Baruch
More likely, your boss gets a raise and/or promotion, from getting
credit for your work.