5 minute epoxy question

My wife bought some "5 minute epoxy", sets in 5 minutes, handling strength in 15 minutes, full strength in one hour. Question - is this stuff as strong
as the stuff that takes a half hour to set and has to dry overnight for full strength?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Ook" <Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam> wrote in message

No, it is not as strong. Is it strong enough? Probably, unless the application is very highly stressed.
--
Jim in NC



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed.
Ook: See this thread for a full discussion:
<http://groups.google.com/group/rec.models.rc.air/browse_frm/thread/a766acf562b90a0d/54475d35f26edf94?lnk=gst&q=Epoxy+xtrength&rnum=1#54475d35f26edf94
It's under "epoxy xtrength". Despite the typo, the content of the thread addresses your question.
                Marty
--
Big-8 newsgroups: humanities.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*
See http://www.big-8.org for info on how to add or remove newsgroups.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ook wrote:

In general, no.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 24 Feb, 00:24, "Ook" <Ook Don't send me any freakin' spam at zootal dot com delete the Don't send me any freakin' spam> wrote:

Forty years ago when my tech group was very involved in epoxy resin development for home use (the stuff you buy at the hardware store or hobby shop) we found you could formulate epoxys with all kinds of properties. Our main aim was to have predictable pot life and the fastest cure possible at the end of the pot life. With epoxies this is a contradictory set of requirements as anything you do to make pot life longer tends very strongly to also make full cure a lot longer. None the less our systems held a very substantial portion of the US market for many years so we must have done something right.
The most critical ingredient in epoxy performance is mixing the two parts in the right ratio and mixing them properly. The two tube systems were developed to allow sort of automatic dispensing in the right ratio so the consumer did not have to use his brain. Mixing is a big problem. Unlike a polyester resin where almost any half mixed batch will cure just fine and reach very close to its design strength poorly mixed epoxies are crap. They will have microscopic or larger areas that are very soft due to under cross linking. So as a consumer mixing properly is critical. Our rule of thumb was to mix in a clear container with good lighting. Time how long it takes to mix well enough that the refraction lines due to different optical refractive indexes of the two parts can no longer be seen. Then mix again for the same length of time. This gets the mixing down to a molecular level. Most epoxies are used in an under mixed state regardless of the pot life on the label and as a result give a crappy strength bond compared to the possible bond the product can produce if properly mixed.
You can also easily formulate a epoxie for about any bond strength you wish in terms of tensil strength. There are applications where you purposely formulate for a lower tensil because that kind of bond gives you a bit of flex rather then being glass hard. I have used commercial epoxies that were formulated for extreme flex and were like rubbers. So it all depends on the particular formulation of epoxie you purchased as to how strong it is after cure. But let me be clear, ultimate strength has very little at all to do with pot life. I can and have made epoxies with one hour pot life that were total rubber after full cure and would not have glued balsa together worth a hoot.
The usual hardware store epoxies in general are all formulated to have tensiles considerably higher then the tensil of hard woods. Perhaps a factor of ten higher in the most favorable grain direction to maximize the strength of the wood. They are also usually so hard that brittle failure can be a problem in any impact failure mode regardless of pot life. The real test of any glue joint is how does it fail. If it fails in the glue joint the glue is the weak link. If it fails in the material glued the glue is more then strong enough for the application. In general it is close to impossible in lab testing to get any of the commercial hardware store epoxies to fail in the glue joint if they are properly mixed and applied to the wood while still within pot life. Even if you are gluing a real hard wood. Try it yourself. Glue two hunks of wood together end grain to end grain and side grain to side grain, let the joint cure for at least 30 times the stated pot life and break the joint. Look at the break and you will see it goes thru the wood, not thru the glue. Even a very weak glue like titebond will give this kind of break and it only has a small fraction of the tensil that a typical epoxy has.
But be aware that on this group science and test results mean nothing at all and very few will believe a word I say on the topic. And it makes no real difference to me if they do or do not believe. We sold tons of the long pot life stuff so we made money either way. Personally I prefer 12 minute pot life on the rare occasions I use an epoxy. It is a lot more convenient to mix and use due to the longer pot life. You need to mix for about two to three minutes so with five minute stuff you use much of the pot life mixing. In truth I very seldom use an epoxy as it is a poor glue for most applications vs the other choices. About all it really has going for it is viscosity so it will stay someplace close to where you put it and short gel time so it holds fairly fast. But for most wood applications there are much better glues such as titebond or when the application is not critical CA. Some of the softer CAs you can get these days are really pretty good. Too bad you can not get them from hobby shops. Hobby shop CA is pretty crappy stuff most of the time. Epoxy is the best choice for fuel proofing fire walls. And it is the best choice for glass or carbon laminates. Polyesters are also fine in either application if you do not mind the stink. And they do not yellow in sunlight. If the wood is at all oily a polyester is better. So like most of life if the product is used properly and in the correct application it will work just fine. And if misused it will fail. I guess that is why I can not swap glasses with my wife and have either of us see worth a hoot. Right product, wrong application.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

--------------
The two tube dispensers (Devcon) are good. Hobby-Poxy used to cure to a somewhat stiff rubbery feeling joint.
Your lack of appreciation for your fellow modelers is puzzling. Many are quite bright and eager to learn from professionals. Every group of humans has its not so bright component. Including chemists, engineers, etc. After all, even Bush holds a Masters Degree, so merely having credentials no longer means anything. I doubt that it ever did.
I use epoxy for sealing and fuel proofing mostly. I do agree that most of the pot life of 5-minute epoxy is consumed in the mixing process. Most times the results of a thorough mixing of 5-minute epoxy is satisfactory, strength wise, plus it fills voids. I'm in the habit of mixing fibers in my epoxies as I feel the epoxy lacks strength otherwise. Yes, the fibers decrease pot life too.
I use CA for tacking while building and aliphatic resin glues for the majority of building. I am used to aliphatic's characteristics and can assemble things rather quickly with this type of glue. The fact that it is water soluble provides an endearing property. It seems to have a very long shelf life, is inexpensive and is available everywhere. As you pointed out, the majority of glues available are stronger than the wood that is being glued together. Even aliphatic resin (Titebond/Carpenters Glue).
Some of the folks in the hobby have moved on to the new (to me) foaming glues. I haven't seen the need to move and adapt. My old ways work at my working pace and are not critical when it comes to jigging and compressing the parts together. Maybe that should have been pressing the parts together.
We are fortunate to have such as you contributing to our collective knowledge base - even if you think we are stupid. Who knows? Maybe we are. <G>
Ed Cregger
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
| But be aware that on this group science and test results mean | nothing at all and very few will believe a word I say on the topic.
Say something crazy, and we won't believe it without some pretty serious proof. But as for this post, I don't really see anything really crazy except for this claim.
Saying `people will say I'm wrong, but I'm not!' is best reserved for posts where people will say you're wrong. I don't think this is such a post. Quit trying to be a martyr!
| You need to mix for about two to three minutes so with five minute | stuff you use much of the pot life mixing.
Indeed. Which is the main reason I really prefer not to use 5 minute epoxy -- you don't have enough time to work. Usually the strength isn't an issue, because it's already way stronger than anything you're gluing together unless you mess up the mixing.
| In truth I very seldom use an epoxy as it is a poor glue for most | applications vs the other choices.
People might disagree with this statement, but the rest of your post is pretty much spot-on.
| Some of the softer CAs you can get these days are really pretty | good. Too bad you can not get them from hobby shops. Hobby shop CA | is pretty crappy stuff most of the time.
So, which CA do you suggest? Or, where do you get this good CA?
I've found `Wal-Mart' epoxies to be comparable to hobby store epoxies, but I've found standard consumer CA to be a good deal inferior to hobby store CA. So what's better than hobby store CA glue?
--
Doug McLaren, snipped-for-privacy@frenzied.us
`Mate, this parrot wouldn't VOOM if you put four million volts through
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeehah, someone who has a clue about adhesives...
I also spent several years manufacturing structural adhesives and a bit of adhesive formulating under my belt, and I agree heavily with the technical issues presented here. One spot where you run into quibbles in discussions about hobby epoxy systems is the general quality of the epoxy systems offered on the consumer market. There is really little to no theoretical reason for a highly reactive system with short pot life/cure time to suffer in properties in comparison to systems with longer pot lives/cure times. It has more to do with the resin chemistry, the additives/fillers, and the curative family chosen. That said, so many of the epoxy products offered at retail are little more than downpacked straight epoxy resin, which btw is reasonably fine for laminates such as glass or carbon fibre/epoxy matrices, but sucks the proverbial donkey balls as a structural adhesive. "However", given that we are most often bonding substrates with mediocre mechanical properties, such as lite ply, balsa, spruce plywood, whatever, as long as the epoxy is, as you mentioned, thoroughly mixed, it will usually provide a bond of reasonable strength that matches or exceeds the substrates involved. A "real" structural epoxy is more than downpacked Epon 828 or Dow 362 or whatever - it is a system consisting of a combination of one or more of, and perhap other materials, epoxy resin, reactive or non-reactive diluents, structural fillers, wetting agent, rubber modifier, etc.
Even with longer pot life consumer systems, many people have a lack on understanding of the importance of proper mix ratio and thorough mixing, and have a hard time differentiating between catalytic cure, such as in polyester or vinyl ester systems, and addition reactions such as in epoxies. I continually hear people say things like "yeah if you want your epoxy to cure faster add more curative"... no no no no no! You need to match the number of reactive sites on the resin to those on the hardener. and depending on what you buy the manufacturer may specifiy mixing by volume (common in consumer systems) or by weight (far better, and more common in industrial systems but not prevalent). I think the "Part A" and "Part B" nomenclature was/is an attempt to remove focus from just the resin side, but over time due to the large number of "resin" and "hardener" systems out there "B" has automatically and irrevocably become "hardener" in many people's minds. Yes, it is a curative, but it and the resin are a team...they work best together in the right ratio. I understand that part of this misunderstanding is because for one resin, there are oodles of curative choices that sometimes demand different ratios, but that is the nature of the beast.. the reactivity is primarily manipulated through the curative side and the number of reactive site sper molecule and the molecular weight vary between choices. Epoxy curative is not a catalyst where you vary the addition level to manipulate cure time. It is an addition reaction - A + B ABABABAB etc, and there is one ratio whre each reactive site is satisfied with one of opposite gender. (p.s. don't get into oddball systems that don't apply to consumer and most commericial adhesive systems please...).
Another area people is mixing - some think "thorough mixing" involves stirring madly for 15 seconds. Nope. One minute or more of quality mixing is needed, and that invloves scraping down the walls and bottom of the containers to give every molecule of the curative the best chance of meeting an available molecule of the resin. Think "micro" versus "macro".
Aliphatic resins like Titebond, carpenter's glue etc. are far, far better than most people give them credit for, and I use the mextensively in model construction, usuallt reserving CA for tacking bits together while the aliphatic glue dries . They penetrate the substrate, are flexible and therefore "tough", reducing stress risers at brittle interfaces like most CA joints, distributing loads better. Epoxy should be reserved for composite laminates, filled structural adhesives, fuelproofing and the like. CA is really, honeslty, a very, very mediocre adhesive for most applications - consumer CA systems are generally never modified for elongation and flexibility, and there are really only a limited number of CA systems in commercial adhsvvie catalogs that offer flex and elastomeric behaviour, but they do exist. CA is convenient, little else. It cures in a heartbeat, which satisifies most people's impatience, and beacause so many model sturctures are overbuilt or use material with mediocre sturctural propeties, you can "get away" with CA many times. But most systems are brittle and reduce the potential strength of many structures. An understanding of adhesive properties and the substrates involved can go a long way to making better structures.

strength
strong
full
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
mjd wrote:

Thank you very very much for that..it explains some less than ideal epoxy joins I have had in the past.
I totally concur in the use of e.g. PVA for most model work..I generally use CA exclusively, but have had extreme problems with it not curing fast except when used with porous balsa, and its gap filling abilities are fairly poor, it's brittle, and when used with ply, failures are not uncommon. It is also a bastard to sand and the drips ruin anything they touch that can't be soaked in acetone.
I tried aliphatic, but that too seemed to leave a brittle residue..the last model was made almost entirely with simple white PVA, and frankly, it was ideal. Some areas were tacked with CA first before applying the white glue though. I just used more pins and had to plan the build to allow an hour or three for stuff to dry out.
Epoxy I use only with glass cloth to reinforce metal to wood joins.
The one unreinforced join I made with epoxy - a brass tube slide bolt glued to a hatch - failed before the model even got COVERED. Should have used JB weld etc. Or mixed as you say, I guess.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I would say a lot of people's satisfaction with CA comes from the fact that a lot of our airframe structures are overbuilt, not that this is a bad thing, but the convenience factor of CA then outweighs the negatives and you end up with a structure that works, which in the vast majority of cases is "okay". No arguing instant cure rocks for the impatient like me. But for sure, many joints are substandard no matter how hard you try to do a good job with the CA. Plywood/hardwood joints generally stink because the CA barely penetrates the surface, and as such the stresses are concentrated on the surface of the exterior lamination which to me nearly defeats the purpose of using ply or hardwood (hard as in harder than balsa) in the first place.
Brass is a pig to bond. Rough up the surface like crazy, and if you can put a strip of glass cloth over it to the substrate life will be better.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very interesting! What effect does thinning epoxy with IPA have on the epoxys' properties.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote8 wrote:

Might make it easier to mix!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Plenty, I do not recommend it, EXCEPT when you are brushing a thin coat on say an engine compartment for fuelproofing. IPA has a failry low vapor pressure and takes a while to evaporate. In a thin film such as fuel proofing, chances are good that the IPA will have a chance to flash off leaving pure epoxy behind. But if any kind of cross-section is involved, such as most stuctural bonds, IPA will be left suspended in the epoxy matrix and will negatively affect it's mechanical properties. I would lean towards MEK as a brushing solvent myself, as it is a very effective solvent and flashes off quite a bit more quickly. And I would totally stay away from attempts to thin the epoxy for mixing with any kind of solvent. There are specific diluents formulated for epoxy systems, both reactive and non-reactive, but they aren't available in an 8 ounce bottle at the glue store, and these are generally formulated into an adhesive system by the adhesive manufacture who, you would hope, has a competent formulator on staff.
As an example of solvent problems, at work I regularly need to apply a thin layer of rubber to surfaces we are working with to act as an intermediary bonding layer. This is not epoxy, but the scenario is totally relevant. I cut it with about an equal part by weight of MEK, basically "to taste" i.e. I am happy with the viscosity. It is then rolled or bnrushed on. The thin film surfaces cure to a high quality film with no residual solvent, even in a fairly reactive (fast cure) blend. However, the material left over in the mixing cup, which may be 1/4" deep, eventually cures into a miserable chunk of weak rubber, easily torn, breaks into chunks, elongation is ruined, nothing compared to the virgin material if allowed to cure in a similar cross-section. It is ridden with residual MEK and continues to shrink over time as the remaining MEK tries to worm it's way out to atmosphere etc.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Addition of solvent ruins the physical properties of the cured joint. In fairly fresh cured joints the solvent acts as in internal lubricant and make the cured resin more flexable but at the same time dashes the tensil strength. After the joint has stood for a period of months the solvent will diffuse out and evaporate and the cured resin will become exceedingly brittle and have even less tensil properties. You can often crush it between your finger nails if there was much solvent used. So if you want the cured product to have any kind of physical strength do not ever add any solvents.
There are uses where such additions are important and desireable. But those uses have nothing to do with mechanical strength of the cured product. Off hand I can not think of any such uses in model building with the possible exception of laminates where the only purpose of the laminate is cosmetic. In such cases it does make the stuff very easy to sand after the solvent is fully evaporated due to the brittleness. When I do laminates they are not cosmetic so I never thin the resin.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well, I add methanol to epoxy under 2 circumstances with no obvious ill affects :
first is when I fuel proof the inside of a fuselage and the firewall etc,
second is in laminating to slow down the speed of the cure.
I have not seen any obvious adverse strength effects from this but I haven't done any comparative testing. Painting the inside of the fuse with thinned epoxy adds strengh in addition to the fuel proofing effect because it helps fill any deficiency in the gluing that ARTFs sometimes suffer from. Strength is probably not the ultimate consideration here, but in laminating it's obviously much more important. Does anyone have any manufacturers' data on how much ill-effect 10% of methanol has on standard laminating epoxies ?
I once asked Fbiretech what was in the epoxy thinners they sell and they said it was methanol and that it is preferable to acetone which is "a bit aggressive to epoxy resin when it is in its pre mixed state". They didn't mention any adverse effects on strength but I didn't specifically ask that question.
I only use 30 minute and 1 hour epoxy and I don't know if it is any different in this regard from the 5 minute stuff. Probably not.
Just my experience...
--
Boo

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.