Post
by Alan Carruth » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:35 pm
Did you scrape the under surface of the bridge just before gluing it? Tests done at the Forest Products Lab back in the '40s found that they got better glue joints on surfaces worked within 15 minutes of applying glue. The reason is 'surface energy', which sounds sort of 'new age' but isn't.
When you remove material from a surface you're breaking molecular bonds; weak ones, to be sure, but still... It can take a while for those open bond sites to find something to latch onto, and if you put glue on the surface during that time it forms a stronger bond. The test for surface energy is to spritz the surface with a mist of water. Water is a polar molecule: there's a slight electrical charge on the two ends, so it's attracted to open bond sites. If the water beads up the surface energy is low; in fact, they determine the exact surface energy by measuring the angle of the edge of the drop to the surface. If the water spreads out into a film the surface energy is high.
Some materials seem to naturally have lower surface energy than others; they're just harder to glue. I once used a fossil mammoth ivory bridge on a guitar, and the literature that came with it warned that it could be hard to glue. I did the spritz test, and the water beaded right up. It makes sense; the stuff has been in the ground for a few thousand years, and there's not much chemistry left that hasn't been done. Scraping it re-activated the surface, but not for long. When I put it down I had everything ready and warm, scraped the surface of the bridge lightly, slapped some hide glue on the top and the bridge, and clamped it. No problems.
Another thing that can happen is that the wood of the bridge absorbs moisture from the glue, and the surface swells a little. This makes the flat surface become a little convex; the edges curl up. It might not be much, but it's enough to give a thicker glue line along the edges. Since most of the strength of the glue line is chemical rather than mechanical, the thicker glue line is weaker. From what I can see on the photo, it looks as though the bridge peeled up more or less cleanly along the back edge, which would be consistent with this. Once it starts to peel there's less glue surface to carry the load, and the stress at the edge rises, so it peels faster.
The solution for this is two fold. One is to be careful with the grain direction on the bridge. Wood swells more tangentially than radially, so a flat cut bridge will be more prone to this than a quartered one. Actually, IMO, the best cut for bridge wood is skew, since it as the highest splitting resistance, but doesn't tend to incur the penalty of flat cut. Particularly avoid flat cut with the with the ring lines cupping downward.
The other is to make the gluing surface slightly concave from front to back. holding a straight edge on it you should just see a bit of light in the middle, and, of course, you must avoid having the surface fall away at the edges, particularly the back edge.
'Toothing' the surface is more likely to make the bond weaker than stronger. Again, most of the strength of he bond seems to be chemical, and a thicker line tends to be weaker. Martin came up with the 'belly' bridge when they started to get a lot of warranty calls on the narrower 'bar' bridges after switching to steel strings. Recently, luthier Mario Proulx has pointed out that he's had no problems gluing bridges like the early Martin ones down with hide glue, but he doesn't tooth them the way Martin did. The old ones I've seen at toothed to the point where they only have about half the effective glue area of a smooth surface, so it's no wonder they let go.
I've never had any problems gluing down IRW, or anything else, that I could attribute to oils on the surface. When I have had problems it's always been from the stuff I mention above.
You probably know most or all of this, and I hope you won't take the reminder as criticism. This is probably the most highly stressed glue line on the guitar, and it's worth some effort to get it just right.