Re: Gloy is NOT PVA

From: davidhatton@totalise.co.uk
Date: 03/26/06-06:44:08 AM Z
Message-id: <E1FNUbI-000BFa-2q@webm7.global.net.uk>

('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is) Hi Terry (and thanks to those who replied),

Terry said
It is from the horse's moth that Gloy is made up of PVA + a
> plasticiser+a preservative.
>

Personally I have a problem with horses finding them the least reliable of creatures fit only to be rendered into glue as soon as possible. The
reason for the headline is that I have reason to believe that this is not the case No PVA in Gloy). I'm not a chemist but why does PVA require a
preservative and a plasticiser? Is PVA not an adequate adhesive in its own right?

The my 'research' shows Gloy as a brand to be part of the historical record at least as early as 1918 and I suspect that PVA was not in the
mainstream of adhesive manufacture at that time. Could it be that the current Gloy has been re-engineered in recent years with modern
components ? The original ingredients would have deteriorated without a preservative I agree, but surely not PVA (unless the plasticiser is
corn syrup or something).

Any thoughts?

David H

---- Message sent via Totalise Webmail - http://www.totalise.co.uk Up to 2Mb Broadband now from just £11.99 a month
Received on Sun Mar 26 09:18:55 2006