I think most of the meaningful exchanges with respect to TBIII have taken place and
the silly stuff has crept in. I have not read the article in Wood magazine. I have
used both TBI and TBII. l have not used TBIII and do not intend to do so since I have
no need for its alleged attributes. It appears to me, only from reading the comments
of others, that Wood magazine *may* have been somewhat careless with their testing
methods and possibly their conclusions as well. Wood magazine *may* have had an
agenda or intent to what it wrote. However, I do not accuse them of that. It is also
possible that Franklin *may* be giving serious thoughts to rewording the labels on
the TBIII containers. I think they should make some appropriate changes to those
labels to help avoid further confusion.
FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof" should mean
exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of conditions.
Hoyt W.
"Hoyt Weathers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
Lord, forgive my weakness -- I thought I could refrain from the silliness...
> I have not read the article in Wood magazine.
I did. For those folks that are truely affronted by Franklin and their
products - the article offered alternatives. Vote with your pocketbooks.
>
> FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof"
should mean
> exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of
conditions.
Never considered Waterproof a tautology. It *must* have conditions defined
to accomplish the "proof" part of "waterproof". I'm quite content to read
the current definition of waterproof and make up my own mind of the
applicability of their product to my work at hand.
Heck - it's called the Ultimate Galoo. Mean's it'll be perfect for that
Ultimate Router Table, Ultimate Router Table Fence, Ultimate Miter Gauge
combo.
"Hoyt Weathers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >>>>>>>>>snippage <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof"
should mean
> exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of
conditions.
>
> Hoyt W.
>
I think the term should be appropriate to the audience intended. To a
woodworker(at least I think to the majority of us), waterproof means just
exactly that. Totally unaffected by water. Putting that on the container
isn't just advertisement hype like Gorilla Glue claiming to be the toughest
glue on the planet. (I'm NOT knocking Gorilla Glue, mind you. I like it and
use it). It's just there is obvious advertising hype, and there are
statements of fact that have usage implications. If TBIII isn't
waterproof as defined the way it's users would most likely define it, then I
would hope to see TBIII drop the waterproof claim.
Wayne
> If TBIII isn't
>waterproof as defined the way it's users would most likely define it, then I
>would hope to see TBIII drop the waterproof claim.
>
>Wayne
Franklin is not the only company using these terms. FWIW - I have a bottle of
Elmer's Probond Polyurethane "Ultimate Glue" - in a little smaller letters is
"waterproof". This is all on the FRONT of label. Back (actually right side of
label - this is only a 4 oz. bottle & label is one piece & wraps around) has
"Not for continous submersion or below water use."
I am not for or against either of these companies, just a satisfied consumer of
each.
Big John
Take out the TRASH for E-mail.
Hmmm. You got me to thinking (ouch! ouch!) so, after getting my best
glasses on and my magnifying glass I went and looked at a small bottle of
Titebond Polyurethane glue that I have in my garage. On the front of the
bottle it says things like "bonds virtually everything", and "epoxy-like
strength", and in a nice red banner "100% waterproof". But on the back in
the user tips it says "Note: Not for structural applications below the
waterline". Well, at least it said STRUCTURAL this time. Then I found
this: "Passes ANSI Type I & II water-resistance testing". Water
*resistance* testing!
Just an interesting note, Gorilla Glue also says "100% waterproof" on the
front, but there are NO disclaimers about submersion. I went to the Gorilla
Glue website and found this on their FAQ'S page.
Q. What do you mean by 100% Waterproof?
A. Gorilla Glue meets the standard definition for waterproof. This means
that once dried, the glue joint will not be affected by moisture.
There was no mention of what the "standard definition of waterproof" is, but
when it says that the glue joint "will not be affected by moisture" that can
only mean one thing. THEY NEED TO DEFINE WHAT MOISTURE IS!!!
AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!! :-)
Oh well. For the work that I do, they all work. That is what it all comes
down to really.
Wayne
"WilliaJ2" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > If TBIII isn't
> >waterproof as defined the way it's users would most likely define it,
then I
> >would hope to see TBIII drop the waterproof claim.
> >
> >Wayne
>
> Franklin is not the only company using these terms. FWIW - I have a bottle
of
> Elmer's Probond Polyurethane "Ultimate Glue" - in a little smaller letters
is
> "waterproof". This is all on the FRONT of label. Back (actually right side
of
> label - this is only a 4 oz. bottle & label is one piece & wraps around)
has
> "Not for continous submersion or below water use."
>
> I am not for or against either of these companies, just a satisfied
consumer of
> each.
>
> Big John
>
>
>
> Take out the TRASH for E-mail.
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 16:01:31 -0500, Hoyt Weathers <[email protected]>
wrote:
>FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof" should mean
>exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of conditions.
And exactly what *does* "waterproof" mean? Can I immerse it for a
year? A decade? A hundred years? What about boiling? Freezing?
It's not nearly as simply as just saying that "waterproof should mean
waterproof". I'm afraid that my sympathies are with TiteBond on this
one - they are using the term appropriately based on industry accepted
standards. All the other companies use the same standard. The fact
that their glue apparently doesn't do what it claims is a different
issue, but they are, based on defined standards, correct in calling it
waterproof.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
"Tim Douglass" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> And exactly what *does* "waterproof" mean? Can I immerse it for a
> year? A decade? A hundred years? What about boiling? Freezing?
I think it's more or less obvious. It can get rained on, air dry and still
be viable. However, it's not designed to remain submerged for an extended
period of time. The only quandary, is what period of time will it withstand
being wet? After all, nothing lasts forever.
On 17 Jul 2004 19:41:04 GMT, [email protected] (Greg) wrote:
>When something says "waterproof" the only limitation should be "how deep is the
>water?"
>Otherwise it is "water resistant".
In that case there is virtually *nothing* that is waterproof, since
virtually everything will eventually degrade under continual
immersion.
Tim Douglass
http://www.DouglassClan.com
Leon wrote:
> "Hoyt Weathers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> Snip
>
>>Wood magazine *may* have had an agenda or intent to what it wrote.
>>However,
> I do not accuse them of that.
>
> That is what one would think until you see ad on the back cover of the
> magazine. Titebond III fills the page. I would have to think that Wood
> would not consciously make a customer look bad when their ad is on the
> back
> cover. At least not on this particular issue.
This assumes that the people in charge of editorial content even know who is
buying the advertising space at the time that they are planning the issue.
>>It is also possible that Franklin *may* be giving serious thoughts to
> rewording the labels on
>> the TBIII containers. I think they should make some appropriate changes
>> to
> those
>> labels to help avoid further confusion.
>
> IMHO Franklin would be giving its customer more credit if they do change
> the label to indicate not quite what you may think.
>
>> FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof"
> should mean
>> exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of
> conditions.
--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
"Hoyt Weathers" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Snip
>Wood magazine *may* have had an agenda or intent to what it wrote. However,
I do not accuse them of that.
That is what one would think until you see ad on the back cover of the
magazine. Titebond III fills the page. I would have to think that Wood
would not consciously make a customer look bad when their ad is on the back
cover. At least not on this particular issue.
>It is also possible that Franklin *may* be giving serious thoughts to
rewording the labels on
> the TBIII containers. I think they should make some appropriate changes to
those
> labels to help avoid further confusion.
IMHO Franklin would be giving its customer more credit if they do change the
label to indicate not quite what you may think.
> FWIIW, I stand with those of you who think that the word "waterproof"
should mean
> exactly that and nothing less - with no caveats or a sub-set of
conditions.