Bob Smalser up to something?

[John E Hardiman]

Bob on the Boat Design Forum (http://boatdesign.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8082) a more "focused" board.

Are you going to publish? I'd like a copy of the raw data. I'll trade it for a yet to be named submersible project.

Edit...dislyxeya

[ 07-16-2005, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: John E Hardiman ]

[Bob Smalser]

Check your email, John.

[George Roberts]

Bob seems to post that view everywhere.

I think his tests are about as invalid as those most people produce.

Certainly different glue methods require different repair methods. There are very few materials that cannot be bonded.

[Bob Smalser]

OK then, George...go ahead and rebond any crossgrain wood joint of your choosing contaminated with aliphatic residue with whatever you like and go test it. I'll mea culpa if it holds up for one year with normal use and seasonal movement.

Or just take this theme, do your own testing and publish the results for discussion.

Of 4 professional strip canoe builders at the Lake Union boat festival, three were unaware of this. The argument that epoxy and fabric doesn't fail over aliphatic glue lines is valid for a new boat when those glue lines are microscopic, but not a feathered-in patch, where the north and south edges at 6:1 or greater feather will require gluing over a whole lot of PVA glueline.

Ditto the arguments that I should be doing this as a blind test using a tensiometer in the USDA Peel Test. Feel free to do that and trump me....but you'll find all that's unnecessary....the meter will either read 100 or zero to ten, as the epoxy either sticks to the glue residue or it doesn't.

But maybe I could find somebody who doesn't recognize these glues to make the test "blind".

[ 07-16-2005, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[captain's gig]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:


the epoxy either sticks to the glue residue or it doesn'tAll spinsters are unmarried is true or false?

[ 07-16-2005, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: captain's gig ]

[paladin]

as a really novice boatbuilder.......I gotta agree with Bob. The boats that I have built over about 40 years were built using the recommendations of the designer...with few exceptions. I always try to read up on the latest stuff....and only once have I deviated from that.
When I started Neper I decided NOT to use polyester resin and glass over plywood, and not use the popular glues of the time. i spent a couple of years in college with a fellow who was a chemistry major and he worked part time with Reichold Chemical company, with epoxies. Jim Brown just about divorced me as a friend for using epoxy adhesives...and his boat "Scrimshaw" was framed, the centerboard case, centerboard, rudder and other parts built using epoxy adhesives, and he swore it would never hold together...i shipped everything to him when I went back to 'nam in '69...and 15 years later I asked how it was holding together....He replied he finally broke the centerboaard after hitting something underwater at speed....
The one thing that my friend, Charles Bartlett, did say...was don't mix the adhesives....
And 40 years later it still holds true. None of my boats has ever had a glue line to fail or have a problem with the skin separating from the hull....NEVER.....

[Peter Malcolm Jardine]

Given Bob's very straightforward methodologies, I prefer to believe them until that time that when I use them, they don't work. When that time comes, I'll be sure to report them. As the old saying goes, don't light a coal oil lamp. You'll burn a lot of oil. ;)

As for the semantics of woodworking, I'm not sure it's a very broad subject. :D

Thanks for your posts Bob, they're easy for me to reason and absorb. :cool:

[RonW]

So Bob, what happened to the glue repairable thread on this board?

Did you delete it?

There was a lot of good info in that thread. Are we going to have to go to another board to get the results of the water logged test?

Just because everyone doesn't agree with you,isn't a bad thing, as I recall it only pushed you into exstending your testing, which is good.

I seriously doubt that you will get any more free samples from titebond though.

[Puka]

Durn......I had bookmarked that test. Now nuthin comes up? What gives?
I would say most were highly appreciative of your efforts Mr Bob Smalser, sir!

Could you just speed up the immersion test pls, so I can get off the fence and make a decision! (with cheek abulge)

[ 07-17-2005, 02:47 AM: Message edited by: Puka ]

[Hughman]

One more vote for Bob to repost. smile.gif

[Dave Fleming]

There was a reason Bob had the thread pulled and I for one fully agree with his decision

If anyone wishes the URL to the full article let me know .
Whups.. I see JEH has provided that link. redface.gif

[ 07-17-2005, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Dave Fleming ]

[Bob Cleek]

A bit more focus on boatbuilding in this forum would be a good thing. I always enjoy Bob's posts. I don't know where he gets the time and energy to do all he does, but it is sure interesting! We need more people in here who know what they are doing, and less with BS opinions and no experience!

[ 07-17-2005, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: Bob Cleek ]

[ssor]

I know that there are members here that have many years more experience than I in the building and repair of boats. Several of these members have demonstrated their craftsmanship in words and pictures of their work.
There are also members here of long standing that are a little too quick to find fault with the minutiae in the work of proven craftsmen. I am always pleased when Bob Smalser, BobCleek, or Dave Flemming are willing to take the time and show and tell their latest effort.

[John E Hardiman]

I'm sorry Bob, if I'd known that the topic had already been hashed and pushed some hot buttons, I would have let it stay on the other forum.

That said,I still think that QUALITATIVE results are as valid as QUANTITATIVE results especially, as George Roberts points out, because all standardized tests/gradings have failings of one sort or another. I cannot count the number of times that I've been involved in material/process selection arguments where an item was advanced based upon one poorly chosen selection criteria; i.e. I would never make any marine machine fitting out of 17-4 PH no matter how good it looks.

IMHO, the prudent engineer/builder looks at all data available, QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, before making a decision to proceede with a particular material or construction method. To do otherwise is a disservice to the customer and reflects poorly upon the individual's grasp of the real problems associated with ship/boat building.

[Stu Fyfe]

I always read Bob's postings with utmost respect. Thank you for your time and effort. I'm sure most forumites are in agreement.

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by John E Hardiman:
...I still think that QUALITATIVE results are as valid as QUANTITATIVE results especially, as George Roberts points out, because all standardized tests/gradings have failings of one sort or another.Hell, I'd like to see that, too, John....but doing that gets complicated quickly, and I'm not sure it's worth it, given the relative simplicity of the decision of what glue to use or not to use for a given application.

For example, from my experience I believe that the epoxy-resorcinol bond is much stronger than even the epoxy-epoxy bond, and the epoxy-resin bond and the epoxy-poly bonds are weaker than either. And getting a good epoxy-epoxy bond isn't as easy as it looks, with load of variables...between amine blush effects and the variables of the 7-day curing period.

To measure that with reliability, one would need to test a dozen or more samples of each to obtain even the tiniest margin of statistical reliability.

Moreover, what other factors affect these bonds taking my simple builder's repairability test and turning it into something quantitative?

Clamping pressure is one biggie....sure, you can replicate glueline residue by clamping two tiles together with plastic or waxed paper in between. But do they leave a residue? You bet they do...and whatever you clean it off with may also either affect the glue or also leave a residue....and how does all this affect the results?

Wood species is another big variable. Does White Oak not like epoxy? Does liquid poly work better on cedar than Doug Fir?

So while I'm willing to support someone's broader test, I don't think the end result will be any less arguable....and will certainly be a lot of time and trouble that goes way beyond my intent...

...which simply to demonstrate that glue choices dramatically affect the repairability and attendant longevity of your work.

Given that perhaps 7 out of 10 professional woodworkers haven't considered this like they should, and 9 out of 10 amateur woodworkers are too happy just getting the job done to think that far past their nose, I believe I'm getting my point across.

The bile is just part of breaking new ground....either shooting the messenger or embarrassing an experienced hand by pointing out some short-sightedness...but when the bile goes beyond rational argument, such a piece won't be sponsored by me.

[ssor]

A comprehensive test would end up looking like the play schedule for the play-offs for some major athletic event.
Forty pieces of white oak gluedto forty pieces of white oak
Forty pieces of teak glued to forty pieces of teak.
Round two; forty pieces of white oak glued to forty pieces of teak.
In each case you must use a different type of glue. So in the end you must glue with titebond, urethane, epoxy, epoxy/resorsinol, or what ever else is in your locker, Forty each of the oak to oak and the teak to teak. Then you must repeat the test with all of the glues with the oak to teak combination.
And that only involves two of the many spieces of wood that we use for boat building.
In the end you learn that the white horse is six inches taller than the black horse.

[captain's gig]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:


Ditto the arguments that I should be doing this as a blind test using a tensiometer in the USDA Peel Test. Feel free to do that and trump me....but you'll find all that's unnecessary....the meter will either read 100 or zero to ten, as the epoxy either sticks to the glue residue or it doesn't.
Well then, there is something I had not thought of. There is no need to write the final exam, I will simply explain to the professor I already know all the answers and he should grade me accordingly.

[mmd]

Thanks for doing this testing, Bob. It's always great when folks, of their own volition and at their own expense, do materials testing and publish the results for others to make use of.

The commentary from the peanut gallery, when not couched in terms of reasoned and polite debate (or even refutation, if the case needs be) should be weighed according to the courage and conviction of the commentator to stand behind his remarks by revealing his real identity. tongue.gif :D

[captain's gig]

Originally posted by mmd:
It's always great when folks .. do materials testing and publish the results for others to make use of.

That dog won't hunt.

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by mmd:
... should be weighed according to the courage and conviction of the commentator to stand behind his remarks by revealing his real identity. tongue.gif :D Oh....I wouldn't go that far. It's understandable. Quick and easy glues have been a sacred cow for decades. I'm just surprised that so few folks have checked this out for themselves either before that 700-hour project and, worse, the extension of that....selling a hull that can't be adequately repaired to some unsuspecting soul.

But an unanticipated and amusing result is that my little article sure does flush out just who it is that's using the wrong glues in marine work. ;)

[ 07-17-2005, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: Bob Smalser ]

[Puka]

Kinda off topic....but good for light relief.
Not trying to add to your workload Bob, but would
lowering your test specimen to 33' cut the time frame in half for your immersion test? I am thinking of doing an accelerated test with various encapsulated samples to 100'.
(Testing the permeability of epoxy film thickness)

Rowland Stanley.

Puka is our affectionate nick name of our boat.
Pukka Sahib--(Jolly good fellow)

[ 07-17-2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: Puka ]

[Bob Smalser]

Originally posted by Puka:
....lowering your test specimen to 33' cut the time frame in half for your immersion test? I am thinking of doing an accelerated test with various encapsulated samples to 100'.
I don't have any more than 9 feet to lower anything into....and sinking it in a black plastic tub out in the sun would speed things up, but with heat, which isn't realistic.

If this is about epoxy, then write the Goo Brothers, as they've done all this already.

I'm doing it to see if PL Premium poly goo behaves more like 5200 or more like liquid poly when fully saturated over the long haul where 5200 is prone to failure....whether it might be usable in a strip-planked hull. So far, it's behaving like liquid poly, which isn't a proven marine glue like epoxy or resorcinol, but is probably a better choice than PVA's.

[captain's gig]

Originally posted by Puka:
.. would lowering your test specimen to 33' cut the time frame in half for your immersion test? I am thinking of doing an accelerated test with various encapsulated samples to 100'.
(Testing the permeability of epoxy film thickness)

Place your bets gentlemen, place your bets. I have a $2 wager on the exactor combination.

[ 07-17-2005, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: captain's gig ]

[Ellis Rowe]

It seems to me that Bob presents his testing methods and results very well. I don't have the impression that he misrepresents any of his methods. They are what they are, use them or don't. I've been pretty successful at building boats for over 30 years, and base some of my methods on anecdotal evidence. There just doesn't seem to be time enough to conduct comprehensive tests for everything I do, so when someone like Bob takes the time to conduct some simple testing, I appreciate it. Thanks Bob.

[carioca1232001]

mmd wrote:


Thanks for doing this testing, Bob. It's always great when folks, of their own volition and at their own expense, do materials testing and publish the results for others to make use of.
I second that !

It is a shame that politeness in some quarters, is a long lost quality :rolleyes:

You need not be rude to refute someone else´s claim, excepting if you have no legs to stand on, which seems to be the case.

[marwesmed]

Bob, Thanks for all the info that you have provided on this forum. Post like yours are one of the reasons that I still hang around here. If someone post something that will help me or keep me from making a mistake, that is what this forum is suppose to do isn't it.

[Dave Gray]

Ditto on the positive comments, Bob. If it weren't for people like you this forum would be much less interesting and less worthwhile.

[Popeye]

Originally posted by Ellis Rowe:
I don't have the impression that he misrepresents any of his methods. They are what they are, use them or don't. No argument from me either, it's just i am not a lemming and tend towards objective methods, which are, widely distributed and available for those wishing to investigate further. ok?

[Stan C]

Originally posted by Bob Smalser:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by mmd:
... should be weighed according to the courage and conviction of the commentator to stand behind his remarks by revealing his real identity. tongue.gif :D Oh....I wouldn't go that far. It's understandable. Quick and easy glues have been a sacred cow for decades. I'm just surprised that so few folks have checked this out for themselves either before that 700-hour project and, worse, the extension of that....selling a hull that can't be adequately repaired to some unsuspecting soul.

But an unanticipated and amusing result is that my little article sure does flush out just who it is that's using the wrong glues in marine work. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]Like I said in the origonal thread:

Bob is doing a public service with these tests.

And like he said- if you don't trust his testing then do your own.

As a new student of boatbuilding I'm glad to have seen the thread before it was deleted and think that the method was plenty good enough except that there was no repetition for statistical reassurance.

SC

[Stan C]

[ 07-18-2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Stan C ]