I want to add another yard hydrant to my well water system. I bought
some High-density Polyethylene (HDPE) black plastic water pipe, made to
be used underground. I told the guy I needed some brass barbed fittings
for that pipe, and he handed me an elbow and a tee in plastic bags.
They said PEX on the package, but were listed as 1" fittings. I opened
a package and stuck the fitting in the roll of pipe. It was very loose,
probably 1/8" gap. I said there are NOT for HDPE pipe. He told me it
would not matter. I knew it would, and asked him where the fittings are
for the HDPE. After getting the manager, he found a bin of HDPE
fittings, but they were all plastic. I placed the 1" barbed end of one
of those brass PEX fittings, against the barbed 1" end of the plastic
HDPE fitting. That proved that I was right. The 1" PEX fittings are
about 1/8" smaller than the 1" HDPE fittings.

WTF???? Shouldn't 1" PEX be the same size as HDPE? AN ACTUAL INCH?

Although I proved my point, I will have to go to an actual plumbing
store to get brass HDPE fittings. I refuse to use those plastic ones
underground. They are known to break, and while I may save $3 on a
fitting, having someone come with a backhoe, because of a busted
fitting, costs several hundred dollars, not to mention the aggravation,
and lawn damage.

Gunn,

Don't understand you. 1" pipe is the outside diameter. The barbs need an
inside diameter compatibility. Why would anyone think that PEX and HDPE
would have the same ID?

Dave M

On Sunday, November 17, 2013 11:36:13 AM UTC-5, David L. Martel wrote:
Gunn,



Don't understand you. 1" pipe is the outside diameter.

In the plumbing world, PIPE is measured by it's inside diameter.
Tubing is measured by it's outside diameter.



The barbs need an

inside diameter compatibility. Why would anyone think that PEX and HDPE

would have the same ID?



Dave M

I agree that I would not expect a fitting for PEX and poly to
be interchangeable. The poly fittings aren't even in the same
place in the stores I visit.

On 11/17/2013 11:36 AM, David L. Martel wrote:
Gunn,

Don't understand you. 1" pipe is the outside diameter. The barbs need an
inside diameter compatibility. Why would anyone think that PEX and HDPE
would have the same ID?

Dave M



The OD of 1" pipe is 1.305" The ID of schedule 40 is .824

Note that 2: pipe is not exactly double 1' but is 2.375

Wall thickness changes with larger size pipes also. It seems complex,
but once you get working with it, you can tell the pipe size from 20
feet away just by looking.

On Sun, 17 Nov 2013 17:19:55 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 11/17/2013 11:36 AM, David L. Martel wrote:
Gunn,

Don't understand you. 1" pipe is the outside diameter. The barbs need an
inside diameter compatibility. Why would anyone think that PEX and HDPE
would have the same ID?

Dave M



The OD of 1" pipe is 1.305" The ID of schedule 40 is .824

Note that 2: pipe is not exactly double 1' but is 2.375

Wall thickness changes with larger size pipes also. It seems complex,
but once you get working with it, you can tell the pipe size from 20
feet away just by looking.

Without measuring it, I can see that 1" HDPE is larger than one inch on
the outside. I'm not sure about PEX since I've used little of it, but
what I did use was 1/2" and it appeared to be smaller than 1/2" ID.

I've done my share of plumbing, and it appears that there is no standard
as far as what pipes are measured by their ID versus their OD. The
steel pipe was always their ID, as was rigid copper pipe. But once it
got to flexible (soft copper in a roll), that all changed. And it
appears that the plastic pipes are even more confusing.

You said that "you can tell the pipe size from 20 feet away just by
looking." I agree, and I could see that those PEX fittings were not
large enough to fit the HDPE, despite the guy in the store insisting it
would fit. But most of those guys dont know **** anyhow. They just
sell the stuff and dont know how to use it.

Until I get around to actualy measuring it, it appears that HDPE is a
true one inch ID, while PEX is the OD measurement.

It's too bad they never standarized the measurements of pipes, where all
used the ID of the pipe as the listed size. That would have made it
easier for everyone.

wrote in message
...
It's too bad they never standarized the measurements of pipes, where all
used the ID of the pipe as the listed size. That would have made it
easier for everyone.


I don't think there is anything in construction that measuers what it says
it is. Maybe some copper tubing that says 1/4 or 3/8 may be, but very
little else is.
The 2x4s are not that and seem to be srinking over the years. The 8 foot
long ones are often a few inches less in length to make up for the ones that
are layed flat on the top and bottom of the walls.

On 11/18/2013 3:35 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:

wrote in message
...
It's too bad they never standarized the measurements of pipes, where all
used the ID of the pipe as the listed size. That would have made it
easier for everyone.

But they did...but, it's like the old saw about serial communications
standards--"The nice thing about them is there are so many to choose from."

The difficulty is that making things such that everything had an even
fractional dimension yields sizes that aren't very useful for physical
reasons of either being excessively heavy or not heavy enough for common
use. Hence, even if it had been decreed to use such, the resulting
standards wouldn't have been followed, anyway.

History has much to do with things as well -- one can't simply throw
away whatever is in current use at any point in time and as materials
and manufacturing processes improve, it's necessary to modify to meet
those changing conditions and demands.

And, of course, pipe and tubing are two different things...


I don't think there is anything in construction that measuers what it says
it is. Maybe some copper tubing that says 1/4 or 3/8 may be, but very
little else is.
The 2x4s are not that and seem to be srinking over the years. The 8 foot
long ones are often a few inches less in length to make up for the ones that
are layed flat on the top and bottom of the walls.

"Precuts" for studs are sold as that and not as 8-footers. It's much
more economical that way for both producer and user rather than buying a
full 8 and having to cut every one down.

--

On Monday, November 18, 2013 1:35:58 PM UTC-8, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message

I don't think there is anything in construction that measuers what it says
it is. Maybe some copper tubing that says 1/4 or 3/8 may be, but very
little else is.

The 2x4s are not that and seem to be srinking over the years. The 8 foot

long ones are often a few inches less in length to make up for the ones that
are layed flat on the top and bottom of the walls.

Wrong. Ask for a 2x4 8' and you'll get an 8' 2x4. Ask for a 2x4 stud and you will get a 2x4 shorter than 8'.

Harry K

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:44:33 -0600, dpb wrote:


"Precuts" for studs are sold as that and not as 8-footers. It's much
more economical that way for both producer and user rather than buying a
full 8 and having to cut every one down.

I have never bought any 2x4 or other lumber that was too short. Most of
the time they are an eighth or quarter inch long. The ones called STUDS
are indeed made to facilitate the top and bottom plates. Ask for an 8
foot 2x4 if you want 8 feet, not a stud.

On Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:39:10 -0800 (PST), Harry K wrote:

Wrong. Ask for a 2x4 8' and you'll get an 8' 2x4. Ask for a 2x4
stud and you will get a 2x4 shorter than 8'.

Harry K

More than once I've gone to a lumberyard and asked the guy for a 2 inch
4 x 96. The smart ones get it, while the dummies just look at me stupid
and I have to explain it to them. It's usually the older guys that get
it, but the young ones dont.

On 11/19/2013 6:21 AM, wrote:

More than once I've gone to a lumberyard and asked the guy for a 2 inch
4 x 96. The smart ones get it, while the dummies just look at me stupid
and I have to explain it to them. It's usually the older guys that get
it, but the young ones dont.


You probably brought home a 1 13/16 by 3 13/16 / 96.
I can't remember the actual, but it's about that.

Did you ask for a pound of ten penny nails, but all
they had were ten dee nails?

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

"dpb" wrote in message ...
The 2x4s are not that and seem to be srinking over the years. The 8 foot
long ones are often a few inches less in length to make up for the ones
that
are layed flat on the top and bottom of the walls.

"Precuts" for studs are sold as that and not as 8-footers. It's much more
economical that way for both producer and user rather than buying a full 8
and having to cut every one down.



As the 2x4s seem to be a little less than they were a number of years back,
are the studs slightly longer to make up the differance ? Or are the walls
about 1/4 of an inch shorter ?

Years ago I bought some nominal 2x4s for a project and some nails that all
but penetrated 2 of them when nailing them together. A few years ago I
bought some more 2x4s and the nails out of the same box penetrated them by
about 1/8 of an inch. I measured the old 2x4s I had and they were slightly
thicker than the newer ones.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 4:06:59 AM UTC-8, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 11/19/2013 6:21 AM, wrote:
More than once I've gone to a lumberyard and asked the guy for a 2 inch
4 x 96. The smart ones get it, while the dummies just look at me stupid
and I have to explain it to them. It's usually the older guys that get
it, but the young ones dont.

You probably brought home a 1 13/16 by 3 13/16 / 96.
I can't remember the actual, but it's about that.


Speaking of which. It has been a long time since I last did any construction but I needed new racks on my PU a couple years ago. Asked for a bunch of 1X4. They for sure were not 3/4" or even near that thick, looked barely over 1/2". Have the dimensions changed to thinner standards? Are 2X lumber still near 1 1/2" thick?

Harry K
Did you ask for a pound of ten penny nails, but all

they had were ten dee nails?



--

.

Christopher A. Young

Learn about Jesus

www.lds.org

.

On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:08:18 AM UTC-8, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message ...
The 2x4s are not that and seem to be srinking over the years. The 8 foot
long ones are often a few inches less in length to make up for the ones
that
are layed flat on the top and bottom of the walls.

"Precuts" for studs are sold as that and not as 8-footers. It's much more
economical that way for both producer and user rather than buying a full 8
and having to cut every one down.

As the 2x4s seem to be a little less than they were a number of years back,
are the studs slightly longer to make up the differance ? Or are the walls
about 1/4 of an inch shorter ?

Years ago I bought some nominal 2x4s for a project and some nails that all
but penetrated 2 of them when nailing them together. A few years ago I
bought some more 2x4s and the nails out of the same box penetrated them by
about 1/8 of an inch. I measured the old 2x4s I had and they were slightly
thicker than the newer ones.

I was wondering the same. The walls can't be shorter than 96" or all kinds of sheet goods, ply, drywall would not fit without cutting. Stud length must have changed also.

Heaven help the guy who tries to rehab a house that was built with the old standards.

Harry K

On 11/19/2013 12:24 PM, Harry K wrote:
On Tuesday, November 19, 2013 8:08:18 AM UTC-8, Ralph Mowery wrote:
wrote in message ...
The 2x4s are not that and seem to be srinking over the years. The 8 foot
long ones are often a few inches less in length to make up for the ones
that
are layed flat on the top and bottom of the walls.

"Precuts" for studs are sold as that and not as 8-footers. It's much more
economical that way for both producer and user rather than buying a full 8
and having to cut every one down.

As the 2x4s seem to be a little less than they were a number of years back,
are the studs slightly longer to make up the differance ? Or are the walls
about 1/4 of an inch shorter ?

Years ago I bought some nominal 2x4s for a project and some nails that all
but penetrated 2 of them when nailing them together. A few years ago I
bought some more 2x4s and the nails out of the same box penetrated them by
about 1/8 of an inch. I measured the old 2x4s I had and they were slightly
thicker than the newer ones.

I was wondering the same. The walls can't be shorter than 96" or all
kinds of sheet goods, ply, drywall would not fit without cutting.
Studlength must have changed also.

Precuts are 92-5/8 dead-on and haven't changed...with the sole plate and
two top plates at 1-1/2 each, the total wall height is 97-1/8 which
leaves a nominal 7/8" gap assuming half-inch drywall on the ceiling.
This gives wiggle room and a little extra to account for the inevitable
irregularity in ceiling and floor joists. Hanging drywall, one lifts it
to the ceiling and levels leaving the gap at the bottom.

If you add 1x3 strapping to the ceiling as is often done on the right
coast, the resultant 1/8-in nominal gap is probably too fine a
tolerance; add a scrap 1/2" ply or OSB between the two top plates.

AFAIK they aren't yet supplying precuts to fit the newer single top
plate material-saving designs...but then again, I've not looked.

The real pita is the metric or 32nd-short ply that doesn't match up w/
tubaX thickness cleanly -- I suspect that's as much a reason for
thinning them down as the saving of material.

The original shift from finished four-sides 2x being 1-5/8 came about
owing to the same reason when ply became so popular -- it wasn't such a
big deal before w/ solid sheathing.

--