| Official Luthiers Forum! http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/ |
|
| Frustrated with CA and binding... http://www.luthiersforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10101&t=29835 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Bobby M [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:46 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Frustrated with CA and binding... |
This wknd I cut the channels and installed the binding on the back. I put a wash coat of shellac on the top, back, sides and in the channels and used the green automotive tape to tape the binding to the channel about 2" apart around the back. Used a pipette and wick'd in thin CA. Let it sit 24 hours and went to remove the tape. Aaarrrggghh! I was trying my best to wipe down any CA runs, but the tape was bound tight to the sides. 2 1/2 hours of scraping and sanding later to remove the tape and CA I came to the conclusion the binding had to come off. Way too thin in some spots due to how much scraping and sanding I had to do to get the tape and CA off. I've still got a spot or two (see pic) yet to remove residual tape. My questions are: Is this just a problem caused by wic'ing in too much CA? Should I have used thick or medium CA instead? Is this a normal problem using this method? I'm aggravated (probably cause I still feel like hell from my cold also) by having to recut my ledges and rebend a couple more strips of binding in addition to the wasted time. Would fish glue or Titebond II give a good bond using the tape method? If so I'm really leaning towards using one of those as I can clean up the squeeze out much easier as I go. A side note for those who haven't tried fish glue yet. I've used hot hide and Titebond and now fish glue for joining tops, backs, kerfing, neck and tail blocks and rims to the sides. After trying all 3, I'm really liking the fish glue the most for initial tack and placement ease as well as cleanup. For the beginner it's longer open time than hot hide and initial tack compared to the Titebond make it much easier to work with. Attachment: IMG_0289.jpg
|
|
| Author: | Kent Chasson [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
Too much CA. Just wick in tiny amounts between the tape. Then remove the tape and go over the whole thing. |
|
| Author: | Fred Tellier [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
Thin Ca wicks a great distance into a joint and does not differentiate between the tape to guitar joint and the binding guitar joint. A tiny drop goes a long way, tape a couple pieces of wood together and put a drop every 1/8" along the seam and then after a few minutes pry them apart, you will see the travels of the CA into the joint. As stated above you can hose it on after the tape is removed, A good investment is a bottle of CA debonder or Nitro Methane to remove CA. Fred |
|
| Author: | muthrs [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 8:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
Are you using micro-pipettes? Beautiful top by the way. What is that? |
|
| Author: | Ken C [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 9:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
You could use acetone to soften or remove CA if needed. I bind using CA all the time, and at times I will get CA that runs up alongside the tape. I just peel the tape off and clean up with a scraper or sandpaper when I level the bindings. I haven't found it a big deal. Not sure why you had to remove so much material. Were you trying to remove the CA that wicked into the sides? That really isn't necessary as the color should even out under finish or when pore filled. You can use titebond with the binding tape. Unless you have great joints, though, you will likely need some heavy rubber bands or rope to pull the bindings up tight while the glue sets. Ken |
|
| Author: | Bobby M [ Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
Thanks all for the advice. I went to the micro pipettes this time and went with the "less is more", wic'd the CA between the tape lightly, pulled the tape and then went back around the whole top and sides and it worked perfectly. Got the top binding on, now I'll just have to bend a couple more pieces for the back and redo it later this week. Muthrs, it's a bearclaw Alaskan Spruce top, thank you for the compliment! |
|
| Author: | Colin S [ Tue Nov 09, 2010 4:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
You like fish glue, so why not use it for gluing the binding? I know others like it, but I don't believe that CA should play any part in instrument building. I only use HHG or fish and they have never let me down yet. Colin |
|
| Author: | Pat Hawley [ Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
When I install my bindings, I have them 1 - 2 mm proud of the surface of the guitar. So when I tape them in place, there will be a gap between the taut tape and the purflings. This gives me a little lee-way in having the CA wick into the purfling a little under the tape. If it also starts to wick under the tape on the surface of the guitar, I know I have been too sloppy with the CA. Having said that, I still tend to glue a little tape to the top and more to the sides. The best method I have found for getting the residual tape/glue off is with coarse (60 grit) sand paper. However, when I do this, I am not so much thinking about sanding as I am thinking about transferring the residual glue off the guitar and into the sand paper. So I don't take off any wood in the process. And, yes, it does take me a couple of hours. To address Colin's question about why not use another glue I would say that CA offers the unique advantage of allowing you to assemble your bindings/purflings dry - under no constraints or time pressures that come with other glues. This also allows you to see and correct any gaps which is difficult to do while gluing with other glues. These two features are quite significant to me and make CA worth the disadvantages of the fumes and, perhaps, a little extra clean-up time. Pat |
|
| Author: | Laurent Brondel [ Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
Colin S wrote: I know others like it, but I don't believe that CA should play any part in instrument building. Colin, I am not interested in starting an argument here, but I am interested in knowing your reasoning for this.
|
|
| Author: | hugh.evans [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 10:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
For the most part I agree that CA's have extremely limited applications in the construction of musical instruments. Open time is extremely limited, the bonds are irreversible, strength in shear is virtually non-existant, etc. Since I work in the adhesives industry I have seen them used for every aspect of guitar builds (yes, it's difficult not to cringe sometimes.) I personally believe that they only belong in binding and inlays as they are non-structural and predominantly in tension. |
|
| Author: | Bob Garrish [ Wed Nov 10, 2010 1:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
CA is harder to use than many other adhesives for various reasons, but it's more than capable of the job. 'CA doesn't work' is like 'glue starvation', it's a strawman for user error. I know a guy who built a guitar completely with CA about thirty years ago...it's still together and playing. Bridges glued to the finish, a very low energy surface, with CA have been holding onto tops for many years now. That's the most stressed joint in an instrument in shear load. It is easier to separate CA with shock than many other glues, also stated as one of the strengths of hide glue by some repair people, but that doesn't have any bearing on it's load carrying ability. A guy in a recent repair thread mentioned having repaired hundreds of bridge cracks with CA with only one return (which was then a success) in a large number of years. That's after a bunch piled on saying CA wasn't the right repair and wouldn't hold. |
|
| Author: | Chris Paulick [ Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Frustrated with CA and binding... |
I'm a fan of CA for bindings and purfs and inlay and rosettes. Just look at my tuts and it's obvious. Although I've been using capulary tips on my small tubes of Harbor Freight CA for the past year. Far better control of the CA which is nice. |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|