Official Luthiers Forum!

I noticed this at Hobby Lobby. The claim is:

" It glues woods together BETTER than any other glue. Why? It flows inside the grain of the two pieces of wood, grabs hold of the grain from the inside, then it connects the pieces so strongly that they can only be parted by breaking the wood. It’s not as fast setting as CA but it makes much stronger joints and it is almost weightless when dry."

The manufacturers site is here: http://www.deluxematerials.com/products_emulsion.html

Is this anything more than diluted Titebond?

Thanks -
Brook

I guess we'll have to wait for one of the more chemically knowledgeable people
to chime in, but it sure sounds to me like a modified Titebond type adhesive. I'm
always suspicious of single-source "miracle cures".

_________________
Gene

Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason- Mark Twain

What's wrong with good old Titebond, LMI white, Fish glue, or Hot Hide Glue - we have such great choices now. Don't get me wrong Brook I appreciate that you brought this up but I am wondering what applications in guitar building that this glue addresses that is not already addressed very well with the above choices.

I am always suspicious of "better/best" type claims and completely reluctant to take a chance on my guitars when the above glues work so very well for the things that we do. From reading the site it seems to me like this company is trying to gain the attention of the CA users in the RC model airplane market. That market is dominated by CA users and AR glues have been out of favor for a couple decades now for the excess weight and effects of moisture and wood.

Lastly, glues used for guitar building need to release in some socially acceptable manner like heat and not a lot of it for that matter. If this is thinned Titebond it should release with heat. But "thinned" and "wicking action" are not the same thing - when our chemists weigh-in here I would be interested in addressing how thinned Titebond is not necessarily the same thing/meaning as say the wicking action of thin CA.

" It glues woods together BETTER than any other glue. Why? It flows inside the grain of the two pieces of wood, grabs hold of the grain from the inside, then it connects the pieces so strongly that they can only be parted by breaking the wood. It’s not as fast setting as CA but it makes much stronger joints and it is almost weightless when dry."

It may indeed be a fine glue, but that quote just raises all sorts of red flags. Whenever you hear blanket claims that a new product is just universally "better", you know it's a bunch of marketing hype. Also the fact that they emphasize mechanical adhesion (not a strong point of PVA's) over specific adhesion, demonstrates a gross misunderstanding of adhesive properties of PVA. To give them benefit of the doubt, it may have some actual merit and the misunderstanding may just be by the marketing department trying to come up with things to boast.

So far though, I don't see anything that really motivates me to jump on it.

_________________
Eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation.

I love using CA for bindings. The taping then wicking process makes it relatively easy to do a perfect job. Same for rosettes. The usual worries about brittleness and aging discoloration of CA made the blurb for this glue catch my attention. Even if this new glue itself is effective however, it might have a high enough water content to be a problem. I was hoping some of you ex-RC model folks might have used this stuff, as I assume many glue joints in model airplanes are highly stressed.

Hesh, though I agree with your comments, I think there are some glue joints on a guitar that do not need to be reversible, i.e. the normal uses of CA by many luthiers.

Well, maybe I will try some experiments if I can find the time...

Brook buddy either you are misunderstanding me or I am misunderstanding you.

You said that you think that some joints on a guitar need to be reversible - I said this too.

I get the impression that you are implying that joints where some Luthiers "normally" use CA are what needs to be reversible. Is this correct?

If so to the contrary - where some use CA like bindings and rosettes are something that does not have to be reversible.

In fact some of us will not use CA at all on our guitars except to inlay a stinkin fret board marker.....

I built, flew and taught RC flying for many years and this included planes, helicopters, and one jet. CA was the cat's meow for us because the bond was excellent and would never let go. We also used balsa, very porous wood that the CA would wick into well. Where the balsa ribs met the spruce wing spars CA would not work as well so we used gap filling, medium viscosity CA there. AR glues were not used at all anywhere and scorned......

Epoxy was used to mount engine mounts and firewalls - applications where very high strength was needed and hardwoods and plywood might be what was being glued.

Thin CA requires that you have a perfect fit of the parts and it can cook off with hardwoods prior to wicking in very far. This is my primary objection to CA use on guitars no matter how easy some think using it is. You may get a false bond.

One of the best builders on the OLF IMHO reported that he used CA for binding and when attempting to remove a binding a major section just popped off - it was not actually glued on well but gave no hint of this to the builder until he tried to remove it.

And then back to my first point - with such great traditional choices, time tested, used by many over and over again - why do we need anything else?

"You said that you think that some joints on a guitar need to be reversible - I said this too."

Sorry, but you missed the negative in the sentence "do NOT need to be reversible".

Some of the best builders on the planet do use CA for the uses mentioned. Since I have no detailed info on the situation of the peeled binding I cannot comment. I do know that I have read about failures with ALL of the glues you mention. I have personally experienced failure with the LMI glue, but I still love it.

Why do we need anything else? Well, for example, purfling does vary in width and that can cause surprises when fitting it into a rosette channel. If I have a purfling strip that is .031" and I am gluing it into a .032" slot, I am a much happier guy if I can slowly fit it in dry and then wick in the glue. I am even happier when I then flood the CA over the top of recessed abalam to avoid any potential sanding damage problems. If I am using a water-based glue such as all of the ones you mention, then the process becomes much more prone to difficulties with the swelling of the materials and other issues.

Another example of the benefit of using a non-water-based glue is Rick Turner's use of CA to glue bridges directly to the polyester finish. Besides the obvious advantage of speed, this also prevents the bit of minor grain-raising from the water-based glues that can sometimes be seen under the finish around the bridge.

I do use all of the glues you mention and have used most of them for decades in other types of woodworking. When Titebond first came out my father said it was just a gimmick and that white Elmer's had always been just fine. You are implying that you are not open to "improved" products or processes, which I am sure you do not really mean. A final example, why use nitro lacquer when shellac has been proven for hundreds of years? Why use cat polyester when lacquer has been proven for decades?

In any case I do genuinely appreciate your taking the time to offer your opinions!
Regards,
Brook

Hi Brook - you are correct - I missed the negative in your statement, my apologies my friend. So it sounds like we are in violent agreement regarding some joints not needing to be reversible ......

Two things that I wanted to comment on.

First It's important, IMHO, on forums such as these that when describing a Luthier's methodology such as Rick's use of CA to glue bridges directly to the finish to set the context correctly. If we don't someone is surely going to go off and glue a bridge onto a KTM9 or french polished finish with CA and suffer the consequences.

Rick uses a cat poly finish with a rosewood sealer and gets great results. I know from my experiences with Joe White and a guitar that he did for me with a beautiful cat poly finish that this finish is as tough as nails. I also know that although when I heard about the use of CA for a bridge I cringed I am sure that Rick would not use CA for bridges, in conjunction with a cat poly finish, if it did not work well for him. I would go so far as to add the type and viscosity of the CA will come into play here as well. Accuracy is important.

Nonetheless some would still not been keen to use CA for gluing on a bridge even on a cat poly finish - to each their own but again the finish that Rick uses sets the stage for his ability to use CA for bridges glued directly onto the finish.

And my other point here is that in terms to being open to innovation - not at the risk of the integrity of the build quality of my guitars.

I am learning, I believe we all are here, to build guitars and I most certainly don't know 1/2 as much as on a good day as I might think that I do. This is why I am inclined to use the methods and products that have traditionally been time tested "best practices." You won't see me placing my instruments or the people who use them at any risk that I can avoid by simply using what has worked well for others. Although I am sure that we all benefit from those that push the envelope - I am not one of them when it comes to build quality in terms of experimenting with glues that have not been used on guitars prior.

In addition I tend to build the same guitars over and over again but with prospective improvements limited to a few each time on every one. It's important to me to keep the number of variables down so that the things that I do change can be reviewed with some level of isolation.

So my question, why do we need anything else, has different answers for different individuals based on what we are each attempting to achieve and I accept this completely. Testing glues on a guitar that I spend over 100 hours to build is not something that I have any interest what-so-ever in doing.

But I am happy to read about the results here when those inclined to do so do in fact do so.

Peace

I agree with everything you say - that is why I was hoping that someone else had actually tested the "new" glue in question! Even if they had, I would not use it on a guitar myself until more evidence was in, or unless I conducted some exhaustive and years long test of my own. I think it is safe to say that it is the factory guys like Taylor that have the resources to seriously test new procedures and products, and we do owe those guys a lot for this issue alone.

Absolutely Brook - complete agreement here too. I have a borrowed copy of the Taylor Guitars book and Bob Taylor is certainly one of the modern day trend setters in terms of guitar construction.

Not to high-jack the thread but we also owe the factories a great deal in terms of the demand that they create for guitars and the new players that they spawn every day by offering value at all levels of the marketplace.

Hesh,

Heh, I appreciate your sense of caution in all things related to putting our beloved git-boxes together, but I usually feel that you are overdoing the CA cautions. I think CA is a fine adhesive. I wouldn't join Rosewoods any other way than soaking the joint with thin CA.

If my memory serves, one of the first mentions of CA'ing a bridge directly onto a catalyzed polyester finish came from Jean Larrivee, back around Red Book number 1 or so. (Right around the same breath where he mentioned that he buys it by the 55 gallon drum and uses it for everything.) I haven't heard any repentence from Jean since, and my 15 year old L-09 is looking good, so I moved CA to the low risk category some time ago.

_________________
Jim Kirby
kirby@udel.edu

One thing I would like to bring up, notwithstanding reversiblilty is, it doesn't really matter much about penetraton into substrate as no matter how much penetration there is, there's still the bond. The separation between the 2, 3,... things being bonded.

Unless the glue provides a substantial improvement of the mechanical properties of the wood itself penetration doesn't really help it much. Plain white glue does the same "break the wood first". In time, I'm sure we'll hear more about the general properties, good or bad.

_________________
Billy Dean Thomas
Covina, CA

"Multi famam, conscientiam, pauci verentur."
(Many fear their reputation, few their conscience)