TiteBond Responce from Headquarters

[Leon]

Yes, so would I. But how many people going into the local Wal Mart or Woodcraft store are looking for Water Proof glue for a project that their life is going to depend on?

[Leon]

I read one of the descriptions of Type I and found the words Water Proof only in the title.

Notice that Water Proof is only in the Name of the test and not in the description. I suspect this is where Titebond gets its Water Proof definition.

I got this information from

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).

ADHESIVE, TYPE II WATER-RESISTANT: 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 the three cycle cold soak

test specified in ANSI/HPVA HP (2000).

[Charlie Self]

Why would they renounce the statement? The tests were beyond the design limits of the glues tested. It's hard to renounce the truth, outside of politics.

One thing bothered me: all the test sizes shown were of small blocks of wood. If the submersion testing was of similar sized pieces, the porosity of the wood had to play an important part in the results, with the possibility of water seepage through the test blocks during the 24 hour period.

Charlie Self "When you appeal to force, there's one thing you must never do - lose." Dwight D. Eisenhower

[J. Clarke]

If it's a boat that is going to be used in water deep enough to be over their head and far enough from land that they can't swim the distance easily then they're depending on it for their lives.

If it's a pool toy and it comes apart, then they either learn from their mistake or don't and so what?

[bridger]

that is interesting. it makes me wonder if they mixed up the samples.

[bridger]

seems most publications have space reserved for "corrections" near where letters to the editor are. could be a notice there.

[bridger]

what, and claim that franklin claims titebond is intended for continuous submersion? that'll do wonders for Wood Mag's credibility....

[WayneKelly]

Shit disturber Charlie, expert shit disturber.;-) Tis good to see you are still around.

[bridger]

blatant troll...

Charlie-

please do not feed the trolls.

[bridger]

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 large.

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.

[bridger]

sounds like darwin awards stuff- man builds boat with glue from mall wart and takes it out on the open sea....

[WayneKelly]

You couldn't wipe your own ass without a set of instructions.

[Dave Hinz]

Not yet, probably tonight.

OK, ...

More to the point, the Chevy is called the Chevy Treecutter, but buried in the owners manual is a statement "Not to be used for taking down trees".

No, I think they shouldn't call it the Chevy Treecutter.

[Dave Hinz]

Er, front tells you what it is, back tells you how to apply it, I would guess. They shouldn't give conflicting information if the seller isn't lying to the customers.

[Mike Richardson]

Two labels?

Milk Bottles good reason for two labels, Top says see other end for instructions. Bottom says?

Open other end.

Elegant solution for ocmplicated issue.

So for front back, we could arrange a committee to get wording right, would have to choose twist versus rotate vs flip etc..

OK Joat?

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Right. While I don't absolve Franklin for touting waterproof, (as opposed to resistant) it does meet the ANSI standards. The front label should have an asterisk pointing out the standard it meets. It should be tested in accordance with intended use to be meaningful to the consumer.

If the tester says "this is good for strength, but turns black" I will not use it on my whirligigs, but it will be my first choice for the ebony laundry cart I'm building.

In this case, even though it failed at a fairly low psi, it is perhaps more than I'd need anyway. Wood Magazine did not bother to tell us that. Ed

[Tim Douglass]

I guess the question that leaps out at me is what do you call a glue that is actually *waterproof*, that is, usable for continuous submersion? I've only ever seen glues labeled as "water resistant" or "water proof" I don't recall anything beyond that. So how do you differentiate between the "waterproof" glue that is not appropriate for continuous submersion and the "waterproof" glue that is?

Tim Douglass

[Dave Hinz]

Sums up my point better than I have. Thanks, Tim, for putting it so clearly.

[Leon]

Darn spell checker, Re-anounce it.

[Leon]

I guess that glue will be called Special Super Super Super Duper Extra Water Proof, Now with Kryptonite.