On 14 Jul 2004 14:01:16 GMT, firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlie Self)
while small blocks of wood don't accurately represent a lot of actual
use situations they do present one type of worst case in that the
sample will saturate quickly. what they don't cover is the stresses
generated in pieces where large wooden parts are glued together cross
grain. as the wood soaks and expands the stresses could get pretty
once again, if you're building something like that intended for
underwater use it would be wise to rely on something like big bolts
rather than yellow glue.
Seems like an entirely reasonable response. I'm an engineer myself,
and I've seen many examples where it is easy to unintentionally skew
an experiment and come up with flawed test data. It's possible that
is what happened in the Wood test.
Remember, the people that make Titebond are not likely to be amateurs
in test methods. It's likely that they are more competent in running
controlled tests than are the folks at Wood Magazine.
Also an engineer (a PE even...at least in my previous non-IT life), and all
I can say is that people aren't just sitting on ASTM standards subcommittees
because they enjoy the company of other engineers. They create meaningful
tests that are designed to test products in real-world conditions. That
way, you don't end up with some cockamamie (sp? you get the idea) test that
doesn't end up proving anything other than someone doesn't know how to
design a test that means something.
On 12 Jul 2004 22:19:32 -0700, n email@example.com (Nate Perkins) wrote:
Did you stop to consider that TiteBond III isn't ready for prime time but they
released the product anyway.
There was a lot of money spent advertising TB III before it was even in the
Maybe they decided to take a page from software developers and release a
defective product hoping to fix the formula before anyone noticed.
Well, we sure won't know with the lameass test that Wood Magazine did. I
get the impression from the response that Franklin has done the relevant
ASTM testing to back up their claim. Maybe the thing to do is to ask for a
copy of the test results.
A Response like this makes me realize how people get so defensive over
something they feel is the best. To me it is a sign of insecurity and the
failure to admit they may be wrong in their purchasing decision or their
favorite product. If you believe everything a corporation has to spew on you
then I have some Enron stock to sell you, Firestone Tires for your Ford
Explorer, or some swamp land in Louisiana. A perfect example of this is to
go out to Edmunds.com and look at the comments on all of the vehicles people
have bought. Everyone loves their vehicle it is the best and there is
nothing wrong with their decision. Although, the vehicle has been in the
shop 3 times to fix a weird smell from the a/c, the electronic door locks
don't work properly and etc...
What did Wood Magazine have to lose by this evaluation? What does Titebond
have tolose by the evaluation. It seems to me Titebond has more to lose.
No, the Firestone tires on the Ford Explorer, in combination, caused
more than a few major accidents. The odd thing is that those tires are
fine on other vehicles, and other tires are fine on that vehicle,
or so we've been asked to believe.
Some people seem to labor under the impression that "business" (including
the blind guy selling pencils on the street corner) is automatically evil
and will never do anything but lie, cheat, steal, and eat babies unless
monitored constantly by hordes of government inspectors, who we all know
are always perfectly honest and incorruptible and would never interfere
unnecessarily and are certain to be unfailingly polite.
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
The ANSI standards is a board consisting of industry companies writing the
standards in which they create products that adhere to those standards. It
is a nonprofit that gets all of its funding from all of the 100 dollar
reports and member dues. It doesn't mean Sh&% to the consumer unless you are
a gullible moron. there is nothing on ANSI.org geared for the consumer. Try
doing a search. It is just a bunch of hogwash they use.
Franklin is trying to redefine the word for waterproof. Would you buy a pair
of waterproof hip waders for fly fishing if you couldn't immerse the in
water for more than 20 minutes?
In the software world there is always jockeying over the standards and what
constitutes them. In the electronics world it is the same. A perfect example
of standards today's is DVD's. It is an absolute cluster on how many
different standards there are. Utterly confusing when picking out DVD media.
The standards for Glue is absolute Bull. It either works or it doesn't. I
have both TBII and Elmer's and I really don't give a hoot. If Wood Magazine
has exposed TB for what they are worth that is great. Isn't that what you
want from the magazine? to Give you fair and unbiased information?
It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for comparisons.
No, but I'd buy a glue that is suitable for intermittant watering because
that is the conditions I'm using it in. If it was to be submersed, I'd
either use epoxy or put in into hip wader for protection.
Franklin? They are taking advantage of an already mis-named standard. I
have no idea who came up with the terms and conditions, but I'd blame the
ANSI people and the industry representatives that puts them together. I
have no doubt that they meet the standard.
OK, does it work or does it not? Wood Magazine did not test according to
any published standard. What they told me was it is not so good when
submerged for 24 hours. OK, I'll buy that, but will it work for my lawn
furniture subjected to rain at times? They don't tell me that. They gave
me Bull and Hogwash, not facts that I can use to make a decision for my
Had they done test with 1 hour, 2 hour, 3 hour, etc. exposure, I'd take it
for what it is worth. They skipped the meaningful data. That is
questionable as to bias, for sure, not at all fair. Nothing wrong with a
torture test, but let us know at what point it failed, not what point beyond
normal use it was not good.
The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood
magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right? I think that's
the point), my question is - how touchy is this product that an experienced
woodworking outfit such as Wood magazine can use it wrong, such that it's
not going to perform right? If the process for using it is substantionally
different than other glues, maybe they need to do some more R&D before
releasing the product.
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.