TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

[J T]

Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 4:58pm (EDT+4) [e-mail] (Edwin=A0Pawlowski) says: It may be hogwash, but it is a standard and a common ground for comparisons.

You'd expect the government to step in and make them only say waterproof if it actually is. But, the government is the ones that said Clinton didn't have sex, Grade B beef is now Grade A, and so on. Common ground for comparison is probably the best we can look for.

What they told me was it is not so good when submerged for 24 hours.

I'd like to know what the results are after they've dried out for a few days. Even more, I'd like to know the test results if they'd let the glues set for a month or so before their test.

That's for curiosity only, doesn't really matter, I'm not tossing my Titebond II, and when it's gone, I plan on getting more. If I needed lower glue-up temps, or time, then I'd consider III. But, I don't, so it's II.

JOAT

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

- Nanny Ogg

[Dave Hinz]

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.

[Leon]

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.

[Todd Fatheree]

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

[J T]

Tue, Jul 13, 2004, 6:21pm (EDT+4) [e-mail] (Dave=A0Hinz) puts out: The bigger question, I think, is this - if Titebond is saying that Wood magazine was using it wrong to get the bad results (right?

Well, all in all, I'm thinkg Wood magazine WAS using it wrong. And, no, still haven't read the article.

You gonna build a boat that's gonna be left in the water for long periods of time, and not use an appropriate adhesive? That's what it sounds like Wood magazine was doing. You're experienced enough to build a boat, you're gonna be sharp enough to follow recommendations in the plans on glue. I doubt people makng boat plans are gonna recommend anything but epoxy, rescorcinal, etc., particularly if the boat it apt to be left in the water for awhile. HOWEVER, any protective coating over the glue, paint, epoxy, etc., which is usual on a boat, would also give different test results - which I think Wood magazine should also have included. Since the Titebond label aready says not for prolonged submersion, or below the waterline on boats, the test was pointless, in the long run, except as a way to fill magazine space, or to kill some time.

Now, if they were to make a few boats, all to the same pattern, nothing fancy, just knock together in a day or two type, say three for each type of adhesive. One, no paint, or other protection. One, just paint. One, paint and/or epoxy and fibreglass. Then test them for a year, trailer, car-top, or in the back of a pickup, to the water, in the water for a few hours, then back. But, a few times leave them i the water for two, three days straight. That I would call a realistic type of test. They could give a monthly update, that'd give some useful information, fill magazine space, and kill time for these people. Hell, even a couple of weeks might give some useful results.

JOAT

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

- Nanny Ogg

[WayneKelly]

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.

[Leon]

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.

[Dave Hinz]

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

Great example of this sort of a tactic.

[Leon]

You gonna build a boat that's gonna be left in the water for long periods of time, and not use an appropriate adhesive?

So buying a glue that is labeled WATER PROOF is not an appropriate adhesive? Exactly what label whould we be looking for???

Since the Titebond label aready says not for prolonged submersion, or below the waterline on boats,

The label FRONT LABEL does NOT say that at all. It simply says WATER PROOF with absolutely no reference to lead you to believe that it has stipulations.

The FRONT label is suppose to indicate what you are truly buying.

[Charlie Self]

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

[Leon]

submersion",

But uh... Never mind you.. LOL... Would it harm the water proof raincoat?

[Leon]

Correction ,

The Front label is suppose to "indicate" or "point to" what you are truly buying. Otherwise all the stores should turn the merchandise backwards so that you can see what you are really getting. Why should the front label be different from the back label or not refer to the back label.

It really is in the best interest of the consumer and the manufacturer to be up front with claims of what the product will or will not do. If there is a possibility that the label could mislead, note that stipulation on the label making the claim.

[Dave Hinz]

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".

[RKON]

The issue was that they hid the problem. But yes, it was a deadly combination.

[Dave Hinz]

Right. How about this: "Fizz Beer" on the front, but on the back: "Fizz is actually cat urine. Not to be used as beer."

Or change the words to "Water resistant" or "More water resistant". The word "proof" implies an absolute - this won't break, it won't burn, it won't dissolve in water, etc. If it's just pretty good in water, then it's resistant. If it's actively going to disintergrate in water, call it "water absorbant" or "removable with water" and make it a feature.

[Leon]

I think that reflects the true problem with the labeling.

[RKON]

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

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 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."

Fair Enough.

Did anyone notice the glaring omission? It's right in front of you. This is what Leon has been saying all along.

[RKON]

Amen !! That is what Leon has been saying all along.

[B a r r y]

Well put.

Barry

[NoOne N Particular]

There was also Firestone tire problems in the days of the Pinto. Self destructing tires and impact explosive gas tank.

Wayne