wrote:

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are
facts and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow
50% of the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is
just a tad less than 1/2".)

Do the math , Jerry . That 1/4" hole has only a quarter the area of a 1/2"
hole , and thus a quarter of the amount of flow . I went with PVC ... we
have a high iron content in our water here rusty stains in the grout of our
new shower and electrolysis can be a problem .

--
Snag

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:15:31 -0600, wrote:

I was at a building supply store yesterday, and had time to spare

....and Home Guy has a hate crime against PEX.

Learn about it in a few minutes at a supply store. Hornswaggle.

I was at a building supply store yesterday, and had time to spare. I
grabbed a roll of 1/2" PEX and a stick of 1/2" copper pipe. I held them
end to end. The OD is about the same, but the ID of the PEX is about
15% or 20% smaller, because the walls of the PEX are thicker. This
means that there will be less water available at the fixture, when using
PEX. For most fixtures, such as a sink or toilet this is likely not a
problem, becuase those fixtures usually have a 1/4" supply tube feeding
that fixture anyhow.

But for a bathtub. washing machine faucet, or an outdoor spigot, that
would make the flow slightly less than with copper or steel pipe.
(Probably 15 or 20% less, since the pipe is that same amount)

But it gets MUCH worse. The fittings for copper or steel pipe are
always LARGER than the pipe itself. The fittings for PEX are SMALLER,
since they fit inside the pipe. I grabbed a 1/2" brass PEX fitting from
the shelf and looked at the ID of the hole inside this fitting. The ID
of the fitting is just a tad over 1/4". Thus, about 50% of the ID of
rigid copper. That is a significant difference.

While feeding a toilet or sink from 1/2" PEX may be acceptable, I'd find
the amount of water at a bathtub, washing machine and particularly an
outdoor spigot to be less than desirable.

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are facts
and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow 50% of
the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is just a tad
less than 1/2".)

I think this explains the reason that PEX pipe is supposed to be
installed using a manifold, whereas each fixture has it's own pipe.
This manifold system may be perfect for new construction, where there is
a basement and easy access inside walls to install everything. But to
daisy-chain pipes, from room to room, seems like the result would be
completely unacceptable. And in places that have no basement, and the
plumbing is being replaced in an existing building, running a huge
bundle of pipes to distribute to all the fixtures in the home would be
really messy.

I guess the only way to use PEX, still have adaquate water, and daisy
chain the pipes would be to use 1' or larger PEX as the "feed pipe" and
use 3/4" for everything else. (This would allow about the same flow as
using 3/4" and 1/2" copper or steel pipe, which is common in homes).

This fact alone is what made my final decision to NOT use PEX in my
home. I MUST daisy-chain my pipes, since there is no basemnt and some
pipes will be exposed. Having two exposed pipes (hot andd cold) is one
thing, but if I used a manifold system, I'd have 14 pipes exposed at one
location. (NO THANKS)!

I did check into using 1" PEX but those fittings are even more costly
and would require buying TWO crimping tools, since most of those tools
are either ONE SIZE ONLY, or fit 1/2" and 3/4" combined, but not 1".
Plus, I will have several outdoor spigots attached and I need adaquate
flow.

Even if PEX is great pipe (as some people seem to believe), you can not
deny that the fittings are TOO SMALL for some uses. Why they do not
make fittings that fit over the OUTSIDE of the PEX (to eliminate the
restrictions), I will never know...... I suppose there is just no way
to attach them.....

"Terry Coombs" wrote in message
...
wrote:

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are
facts and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow
50% of the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is
just a tad less than 1/2".)

Do the math , Jerry . That 1/4" hole has only a quarter the area of a
1/2" hole , and thus a quarter of the amount of flow . I went with PVC ...
we have a high iron content in our water here rusty stains in the grout
of our new shower and electrolysis can be a problem .

That is right. Double or half the hole size and the flow is 4 times or 1/4
the flow. I had a house I lived in redone with the PEX. It was about 25
years old and plumbed with copper pipe. The copper kept getting pin hole
leaks in it, so after repairing it several times I decided it was time to
redo all the pipes. Called a plummer in and he used the PEX but I think it
was the 3/4 inch size.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:15:31 -0600, wrote:

snip

Even if PEX is great pipe (as some people seem to believe), you can not
deny that the fittings are TOO SMALL for some uses. Why they do not
make fittings that fit over the OUTSIDE of the PEX (to eliminate the
restrictions), I will never know...... I suppose there is just no way
to attach them.....



You are overlooking a number of factors:

It doesn't matter if the diameter is smaller as long as it can deliver
adequate flow at pressure. Max flow in 1/2 PEX will certainly be lower
than 1/2 copper, but the required flow as determined by the fixture is
way less than maximum flow.

Here's a link to test results comparing copper systems and several
varieties of PEX systems under actual conditions:

http://www.toolbase.org/PDF/CaseStud...r_pressure.pdf

PEX system have fewer, usually a lot fewer, fittings. The fittings in
copper systems generally contribute the biggest flow restriction in
any given run. In PEX, there are usually NO fittings in any given run
other than the ball valve at the end.

Often the most efficient way to handle retrofits is to do a run of 3/4
to the bathroom or kitchen, and then put a mini manifold there, with
individual 1/2 runs to the fixtures.

Are there situations where you have to worry about the flow rate using
PEX? Absolutely. But they are far less common than you suggest, and
are usually easily addressed by upsizing one or two runs or sections
of runs.

I've done repiping both ways...copper and PEX, several times. After
using PEX, I won't go back to copper except for old work.

Your analysis is valid as far as it goes. Yes the pipe is smaller ID.
Yes the fittings are smaller ID. But in actual system configurations,
as described in the above report, PEX works as well as conventional
copper. There are very few situations where the difference in maximum
flow rate matters.

Nobody is making you use anything you don't want, but don't try so
hard to talk yourself out of trying it....


Paul F.

On 03/10/2015 3:25 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Terry wrote in message
...
wrote:

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are
facts and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow
50% of the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is
just a tad less than 1/2".)

Do the math , Jerry . That 1/4" hole has only a quarter the area of a
1/2" hole , and thus a quarter of the amount of flow . I went with PVC ...
we have a high iron content in our water hererusty stains in the grout
of our new shower and electrolysis can be a problem .

That is right. Double or half the hole size and the flow is 4 times or 1/4
the flow. ...

Ain't that linear, no...

First, flow is nonlinear process; there is an induced pressure drop
along the run that is complex and dependent on all kinds of variables.

W/O getting into a whole treatise on fluid dynamics, one advantage of
PEX is smoother surface so the length pressure loss is less--how much,
precisely, I've not looked up so not sure how much an affect to assign.

But, the restrictions of the fittings are similar to a flow orifice but
not as severe. There's a local pressure loss but much of that is
recovered. Again, without actual handbook data and some calculations
don't know a comparative flow rate after X feet of one versus the other
given a set supply pressure but I'm certain it's not a factor of 4.

Somebody want to let a consulting contract?

--

On 3/10/2015 4:15 PM, wrote:
I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this.

Ever hear of someone getting the PEX ripped from the walls of their house?

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 16:44:38 -0400, Dick
wrote:

On 3/10/2015 4:15 PM, wrote:
I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this.

Ever hear of someone getting the PEX ripped from the walls of their house?

....Home Guy has never seen an 18 year old home full of PEX.

On 3/10/2015 3:49 PM, Oren wrote:
On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:15:31 -0600, wrote:

I was at a building supply store yesterday, and had time to spare

...and Home Guy has a hate crime against PEX.

Learn about it in a few minutes at a supply store. Hornswaggle.

Time to spare? LMFAO! He must have been taking a break from his spare
time of posting in here 24/7.

On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 03/10/2015 3:25 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Terry wrote in message
...
wrote:

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are
facts and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow
50% of the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is
just a tad less than 1/2".)

Do the math , Jerry . That 1/4" hole has only a quarter the area of a
1/2" hole , and thus a quarter of the amount of flow . I went with PVC ...
we have a high iron content in our water hererusty stains in the grout
of our new shower and electrolysis can be a problem .

That is right. Double or half the hole size and the flow is 4 times or 1/4
the flow. ...

Ain't that linear, no...

First, flow is nonlinear process; there is an induced pressure drop
along the run that is complex and dependent on all kinds of variables.

W/O getting into a whole treatise on fluid dynamics, one advantage of
PEX is smoother surface so the length pressure loss is less--how much,
precisely, I've not looked up so not sure how much an affect to assign.

But, the restrictions of the fittings are similar to a flow orifice but
not as severe. There's a local pressure loss but much of that is
recovered. Again, without actual handbook data and some calculations
don't know a comparative flow rate after X feet of one versus the other
given a set supply pressure but I'm certain it's not a factor of 4.

Somebody want to let a consulting contract?

--

It's already been done:

http://www.toolbase.org/PDF/CaseStud...r_pressure.pdf

IDK if it's truly a fair comparison. They said something about previously
using PEX barbed, but then switching to NPT threaded connections. Isn't
that still a barb type fitting, the part that goes in the PEX? But if it's
done like a typical house would be done, the result is that 1/2" PEX and 1/2"
copper perform about the same.

On 03/10/2015 4:49 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 at 4:40:17 PM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 03/10/2015 3:25 PM, Ralph Mowery wrote:
"Terry wrote in message
...
wrote:

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are
facts and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow
50% of the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is
just a tad less than 1/2".)

Do the math , Jerry . That 1/4" hole has only a quarter the area of a
1/2" hole , and thus a quarter of the amount of flow . I went with PVC ...
we have a high iron content in our water hererusty stains in the grout
of our new shower and electrolysis can be a problem .

That is right. Double or half the hole size and the flow is 4 times or 1/4
the flow. ...

Ain't that linear, no...

First, flow is nonlinear process; there is an induced pressure drop
along the run that is complex and dependent on all kinds of variables.

....
But, the restrictions of the fittings are similar to a flow orifice but
not as severe. There's a local pressure loss but much of that is
recovered. Again, without actual handbook data and some calculations
don't know a comparative flow rate after X feet of one versus the other
given a set supply pressure but I'm certain it's not a factor of 4.

Somebody want to let a consulting contract?

--

It's already been done:

http://www.toolbase.org/PDF/CaseStud...r_pressure.pdf

IDK if it's truly a fair comparison. They said something about previously
using PEX barbed, but then switching to NPT threaded connections. Isn't
that still a barb type fitting, the part that goes in the PEX? But if it's
done like a typical house would be done, the result is that 1/2" PEX and 1/2"
copper perform about the same.

I'd have to read it much more thoroughly than just the quick scan but it
basically confirms what I knew had to be true. As you note, digging
into the details of the differences to see how much, if any, they biased
it in favor of the desired result but it ain't worth the effort; net
result is you'll get sufficient water either way with reasonable care in
design/layout.

--

On Tue, 10 Mar 2015 14:15:31 -0600, wrote:

I was at a building supply store yesterday, and had time to spare. I
grabbed a roll of 1/2" PEX and a stick of 1/2" copper pipe. I held them
end to end. The OD is about the same, but the ID of the PEX is about
15% or 20% smaller, because the walls of the PEX are thicker. This
means that there will be less water available at the fixture, when using
PEX. For most fixtures, such as a sink or toilet this is likely not a
problem, becuase those fixtures usually have a 1/4" supply tube feeding
that fixture anyhow.

One of the advertized advantages of PEX is HIGHER water flow for the
same sized pipe. (due to ferwe couplings and wider bends, I imagine)

But for a bathtub. washing machine faucet, or an outdoor spigot, that
would make the flow slightly less than with copper or steel pipe.
(Probably 15 or 20% less, since the pipe is that same amount)

Your guess is way off.

Check out the report at
http://www.toolbase.org/PDF/CaseStud...r_pressure.pdf
But it gets MUCH worse. The fittings for copper or steel pipe are
always LARGER than the pipe itself. The fittings for PEX are SMALLER,
since they fit inside the pipe. I grabbed a 1/2" brass PEX fitting from
the shelf and looked at the ID of the hole inside this fitting. The ID
of the fitting is just a tad over 1/4". Thus, about 50% of the ID of
rigid copper. That is a significant difference.

Like I said, your assumptions are WAY off. See the report at
http://www.toolbase.org/PDF/CaseStud...r_pressure.pdf

While feeding a toilet or sink from 1/2" PEX may be acceptable, I'd find
the amount of water at a bathtub, washing machine and particularly an
outdoor spigot to be less than desirable.

I dont think any of you PEX lovers can argue with this. Facts are facts
and a 1/4" hole inside of a PEX fitting is only going to allow 50% of
the water flow that a 1/2" copper pipe will allow, (which is just a tad
less than 1/2".)

Not fact.

I think this explains the reason that PEX pipe is supposed to be
installed using a manifold, whereas each fixture has it's own pipe.
This manifold system may be perfect for new construction, where there is
a basement and easy access inside walls to install everything. But to
daisy-chain pipes, from room to room, seems like the result would be
completely unacceptable. And in places that have no basement, and the
plumbing is being replaced in an existing building, running a huge
bundle of pipes to distribute to all the fixtures in the home would be
really messy.

I guess the only way to use PEX, still have adaquate water, and daisy
chain the pipes would be to use 1' or larger PEX as the "feed pipe" and
use 3/4" for everything else. (This would allow about the same flow as
using 3/4" and 1/2" copper or steel pipe, which is common in homes).

This fact alone is what made my final decision to NOT use PEX in my
home. I MUST daisy-chain my pipes, since there is no basemnt and some
pipes will be exposed. Having two exposed pipes (hot andd cold) is one
thing, but if I used a manifold system, I'd have 14 pipes exposed at one
location. (NO THANKS)!

I did check into using 1" PEX but those fittings are even more costly
and would require buying TWO crimping tools, since most of those tools
are either ONE SIZE ONLY, or fit 1/2" and 3/4" combined, but not 1".
Plus, I will have several outdoor spigots attached and I need adaquate
flow.

Even if PEX is great pipe (as some people seem to believe), you can not
deny that the fittings are TOO SMALL for some uses. Why they do not
make fittings that fit over the OUTSIDE of the PEX (to eliminate the
restrictions), I will never know...... I suppose there is just no way
to attach them.....

On 3/12/2015 4:51 AM, Mac wrote:


Yah, galvanized is reliable and doing new work is ok........... but I
****ing hate doing repair on it.


Best way to repair is to abandon it and use PEX.

On 03/12/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
....

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

I'm having a hard time believing that...there's just too much of it in
existence to be so. Must be other mitigating factors as well methinks
if so...

--

On 03/12/2015 10:59 AM, dpb wrote:
On 03/12/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
...

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

I'm having a hard time believing that...there's just too much of it in
existence to be so. Must be other mitigating factors as well methinks if
so...

That is, other than just blanket prohibition on cast/galvanized, must be
something else in the particular residence as well.

I'm involved w/ a local nonprofit that buys/rehabs some of the oldest
single-family residences in town (albeit, being in SW KS, nothing is all
_that_ old; just a little over 125 yr since founding) and many of these
have serious structural issues such that as are insurance is iffy at
best. But other than the _very_ few w/ some lead water entrance service
lines, there's nothing that isn't still approved Code practice if it
were up to repair including virtually all galvanized and cast waste
other than the inevitable patchups where plastic has been grafted in to
fix issues.

Once we do the necessary foundation work, etc., etc, etc., often the
main waste stack and occasionally even some of the plumbing is
salvageable if it had been replaced/updated so, since we're a nonprofit
w/ limited means, we do everything w/ as little cash outlay as possible.

Never had any difficulty getting the end product fully insured at
reasonable rates even w/ that existing...

--

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:23:55 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On 3/12/2015 4:51 AM, Mac wrote:


Yah, galvanized is reliable and doing new work is ok........... but I
****ing hate doing repair on it.


Best way to repair is to abandon it and use PEX.

.... use the left over 3/4" pipe for bar clamps

What you can salvage.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:12:25 -0600, wrote:

I have not lived where there is Natural gas, for years now. What are
they now using to pipe it?

PEX! Check it out. Meter to the house. Imagine that.

On 03/12/2015 3:12 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:52:12 -0400, wrote:


And, priced it (and particularly fittings) recently????
Even black pipe - try to get a gasfitter to install it today.


I have not lived where there is Natural gas, for years now. What are
they now using to pipe it? I thought it was still black iron pipe? Any
form of plastic would be my LAST choice for gas. If for no other
reason, the black iron would hold up much longer than any plastic during
a house fire. The extra minutes could make a huge difference during the
time the FD is coming and they shut off the gas.

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).
....

5. GAS PIPING MATERIALS: These recommendations apply to
all gas piping run on the customer’s side of the meter. Since gas
piping will form a permanent part of the building, inside and
above ground piping shall be standard weight iron or steel
(galvanized or black), malleable iron fittings and approved shutoff
valves or corrugated stainless steel tubing system. For ferrous
gas piping underground installation see Page 32.
Copper pipe or tubing shall not be installed in any piping for
gas.
6. PLASTIC PIPING MATERIAL: Plastic polyethylene pipe
materials and compression couplings must be approved for
natural gas applications and must be installed underground.
All plastic pipe and fittings must conform to ASTM D2513 ( 60
psi and above high density pipe approved 3408).

--

On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:52:12 -0400, wrote:


And, priced it (and particularly fittings) recently????
Even black pipe - try to get a gasfitter to install it today.


I have not lived where there is Natural gas, for years now. What are
they now using to pipe it? I thought it was still black iron pipe?

For underground typically plastic. For inside, either black pipe
or corrogated stainless steel tubing. Black pipe doesn't work well
underground. I was living in a condo complex in the 90s, within about
5 years of being built, the underground black pipe between meter and
units was failing. I wouldn't believe it could get so bad so quick,
if I hadn't seen it myself. The pipe was like swiss cheese. The pipe
was supposed to be wrapped in tape, coated in tar, to protect it from
water. You could see what they did. The top of the pipe was coated,
with tar runnning off it. In other words, they just poured some over
it while the trench was still open. Seeing that, even if it was done
properly, it wouldn't be my first choice. I'd go with the plastic for
underground.


Any
form of plastic would be my LAST choice for gas. If for no other
reason, the black iron would hold up much longer than any plastic during
a house fire. The extra minutes could make a huge difference during the
time the FD is coming and they shut off the gas.


Which is why it's not used inside, AFAIK.



I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

Many places allow galvanized now too.



And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

At least half the homes in the US have existing galvanized water pipes
and even more have cast iron sewer stacks.

IDK about half. Starting in about the 50s copper for water became
typical. Even in the 60s I don't recall seeing galvanized used anymore.


They have worked flawlessly
for years and years.

IDK about that. A lot may depend on the water. Around here seems within
25 years they were screwed, from rusting/corrosion, the pipe becoming
constricted.



But then again, Insurance Companies know little
about construction. All they know is how to get people's money, and
rarely give much of it back.

In a house fire, usually the last thing still standing, is the cast iron
stack. And if a fire starts in (for example) the basement of a home,
and the owner uses his garden hose to put out the fire, (from outdoor,
thru a window), before the FD arrives, which pipe will last longer, iron
pipe of a plastic material, when the flames are crawling along the floor
joists? Of course the metal pipe will!

The water pipe lasting in a fire wouldn't be on my list of concerns.



But you said "Canadian". Apparently they allow their insurance
companies to make laws based on which industry pays them more. It
appears the PEX and PVC (Plastics companies) paid them off better than
the steel/iron industry.....

I doubt anyone is paying off the insurance companies. They make
their analysis, set their rates on experience with claims.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:29:29 -0500, dpb wrote:

6. PLASTIC PIPING MATERIAL: Plastic polyethylene pipe
materials and compression couplings must be approved for
natural gas applications and must be installed underground.
All plastic pipe and fittings must conform to ASTM D2513 ( 60
psi and above high density pipe approved 3408).

PEX and NG have expansion connections. No crimp rings, that I've seen.
Expand the PEX and it contracts on the fitting.

On 03/12/2015 2:50 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:29:29 -0500, wrote:

6. PLASTIC PIPING MATERIAL: Plastic polyethylene pipe
materials and compression couplings must be approved for
natural gas applications and must be installed underground.
All plastic pipe and fittings must conform to ASTM D2513 ( 60
psi and above high density pipe approved 3408).

PEX and NG have expansion connections. No crimp rings, that I've seen.
Expand the PEX and it contracts on the fitting.

That was just one utility guide; not sure just how old. How quickly a
given utility/jurisdiction accepts newer materials methods is quite
variable...

--

On 03/12/2015 2:42 PM, trader_4 wrote:
....

I doubt anyone is paying off the insurance companies. They make
their analysis, set their rates on experience with claims.

Oh, I don't doubt there's payoffs involved (lobbying is a way of life up
north as well as down here I'd guess ) but it just doesn't make sense
there would be a very large class of standard building practice that
isn't insurable simply for being of that particular construction and/or
vintage. Then is where there would be so much hue and cry the
regulators would step in.

I'd be curious to know the actual conditions but I'm thinking it must be
something much more like the situation I described where the whole
structure is to the point of being uninsurable for a host of reasons,
not just galvanized potable water plumbing on its own. Just doesn't
make sense there wouldn't be so much as to be an untenable position to
take and unreasonable expectation to force everybody in the situation to
change.

Can see that it could be replaced as acceptable in new building or in
extensive remodeling as is, say, some wiring practices but it would be
over the top to require ripping it out while still functional.

--

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:52:12 -0400, wrote:


And, priced it (and particularly fittings) recently????
Even black pipe - try to get a gasfitter to install it today.


I have not lived where there is Natural gas, for years now. What are
they now using to pipe it? I thought it was still black iron pipe? Any
form of plastic would be my LAST choice for gas. If for no other
reason, the black iron would hold up much longer than any plastic during
a house fire. The extra minutes could make a huge difference during the
time the FD is coming and they shut off the gas.

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

At least half the homes in the US have existing galvanized water pipes
and even more have cast iron sewer stacks. They have worked flawlessly
for years and years. But then again, Insurance Companies know little
about construction. All they know is how to get people's money, and
rarely give much of it back.

In a house fire, usually the last thing still standing, is the cast iron
stack. And if a fire starts in (for example) the basement of a home,
and the owner uses his garden hose to put out the fire, (from outdoor,
thru a window), before the FD arrives, which pipe will last longer, iron
pipe of a plastic material, when the flames are crawling along the floor
joists? Of course the metal pipe will!

But you said "Canadian". Apparently they allow their insurance
companies to make laws based on which industry pays them more. It
appears the PEX and PVC (Plastics companies) paid them off better than
the steel/iron industry.....

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:59:57 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 03/12/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
...

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

I'm having a hard time believing that...there's just too much of it in
existence to be so. Must be other mitigating factors as well methinks
if so...
Well, I spend every morning in a general insurance office and I hear
all kinds of houses with 1) cast iron stacks 2) knob and tube wiring
3)galvanized water pipes 4) services less than 100 amps, 5) houses
with woodburning stoves as primary source of heat or un-certified
woodburning appliances and 6) houses with aluminum wiring and no
current inspection having trouble getting insurance coverage,

If you are already insured they cannot or will not stop covering you,
but if you buy a house with any of these "problems", good luck. Might
get away with one, but 2 or more and if you get coverage it WILL be
expensive.

On 03/12/2015 4:22 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:59:57 -0500, wrote:

On 03/12/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
...

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

I'm having a hard time believing that...there's just too much of it in
existence to be so. Must be other mitigating factors as well methinks
if so...
Well, I spend every morning in a general insurance office and I hear
all kinds of houses with 1) cast iron stacks 2) knob and tube wiring
3)galvanized water pipes 4) services less than 100 amps, 5) houses
with woodburning stoves as primary source of heat or un-certified
woodburning appliances and 6) houses with aluminum wiring and no
current inspection having trouble getting insurance coverage,

If you are already insured they cannot or will not stop covering you,
but if you buy a house with any of these "problems", good luck. Might
get away with one, but 2 or more and if you get coverage it WILL be
expensive.

That's more what I would expect; it's a combination of things but again
it seems like given the number of houses of the age a general
prohibition en toto would raise such a hullabaloo that there would be
riots in the streets.

Sounds to me like most of the problems in the above cases would really
be electrical, not plumbing from an underwriting risk.

As in my related story, that we don't try to skrimp on; the plumbing can
get by with in many cases at least for main stacks.

--

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:17:41 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 03/12/2015 10:59 AM, dpb wrote:
On 03/12/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
...

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

I'm having a hard time believing that...there's just too much of it in
existence to be so. Must be other mitigating factors as well methinks if
so...

That is, other than just blanket prohibition on cast/galvanized, must be
something else in the particular residence as well.

I'm involved w/ a local nonprofit that buys/rehabs some of the oldest
single-family residences in town (albeit, being in SW KS, nothing is all
_that_ old; just a little over 125 yr since founding) and many of these
have serious structural issues such that as are insurance is iffy at
best. But other than the _very_ few w/ some lead water entrance service
lines, there's nothing that isn't still approved Code practice if it
were up to repair including virtually all galvanized and cast waste
other than the inevitable patchups where plastic has been grafted in to
fix issues.

Once we do the necessary foundation work, etc., etc, etc., often the
main waste stack and occasionally even some of the plumbing is
salvageable if it had been replaced/updated so, since we're a nonprofit
w/ limited means, we do everything w/ as little cash outlay as possible.

Never had any difficulty getting the end product fully insured at
reasonable rates even w/ that existing...
With water damage claims being by far the biggest cost to insurers
here in Canada, cast plumbing stacks and galvanized pipes are a very
high risk. When cast iron rots from the inside you don't see there is
a problem untill the "**** hits the floor", Galvanized water pipes
also deteriorate from the inside - where the damage cannot be seen
untill the pipe fails, spraying water everywhwere. Doesn't help when
you have "agressive" water either.

Losses from water damage caused by old iron pipes by far excedes the
damage caused by old/bad wiring..

Don't believe me? Check out
:http://www.grassroots.ca/homeowner_h...-insurance.php

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 14:12:25 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:52:12 -0400, wrote:


And, priced it (and particularly fittings) recently????
Even black pipe - try to get a gasfitter to install it today.


I have not lived where there is Natural gas, for years now. What are
they now using to pipe it? I thought it was still black iron pipe? Any
form of plastic would be my LAST choice for gas. If for no other
reason, the black iron would hold up much longer than any plastic during
a house fire. The extra minutes could make a huge difference during the
time the FD is coming and they shut off the gas.

They all want to use the corrugated flexible stanless steerl crap with
the yellow plastic covering.

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

At least half the homes in the US have existing galvanized water pipes
and even more have cast iron sewer stacks. They have worked flawlessly
for years and years. But then again, Insurance Companies know little
about construction. All they know is how to get people's money, and
rarely give much of it back.

In a house fire, usually the last thing still standing, is the cast iron
stack. And if a fire starts in (for example) the basement of a home,
and the owner uses his garden hose to put out the fire, (from outdoor,
thru a window), before the FD arrives, which pipe will last longer, iron
pipe of a plastic material, when the flames are crawling along the floor
joists? Of course the metal pipe will!

But you said "Canadian". Apparently they allow their insurance
companies to make laws based on which industry pays them more. It
appears the PEX and PVC (Plastics companies) paid them off better than
the steel/iron industry.....

No pay-ffs. And the insurance companies are regulated.

I've personally seen a lot of cast iron drain/waste pipe failures and
have had to repair a few of them. I've seen a LOT of failed galvanized
water pipe too, and have been involved in repairing them. Go to remove
the damaged pipe and it breaks 6 feet away. Get it all patched up and
turn on the water and you find another fitting cracked just beyond
the last repair. I finally convinced my friend to replace the entire
run with copper, all across the basement. (was piping to the laundry).
When he redid the upstairs bathroom, he had to replace both hot and
cold rizers up the wall, which meant he also had to redo the kitchen
pipes - and they put plastic drains in at the same time (the cast iron
had rust blisters all over)

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:27:57 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 03/12/2015 4:22 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 10:59:57 -0500, wrote:

On 03/12/2015 10:52 AM, wrote:
...

And take into account virtually no (Canadian, anyway) insurance
company is willing to write new business on a building with ANY
galvanized waterpipe or cast iron sewer pipe. (for good reason, I
might add!!!)

I'm having a hard time believing that...there's just too much of it in
existence to be so. Must be other mitigating factors as well methinks
if so...
Well, I spend every morning in a general insurance office and I hear
all kinds of houses with 1) cast iron stacks 2) knob and tube wiring
3)galvanized water pipes 4) services less than 100 amps, 5) houses
with woodburning stoves as primary source of heat or un-certified
woodburning appliances and 6) houses with aluminum wiring and no
current inspection having trouble getting insurance coverage,

If you are already insured they cannot or will not stop covering you,
but if you buy a house with any of these "problems", good luck. Might
get away with one, but 2 or more and if you get coverage it WILL be
expensive.

That's more what I would expect; it's a combination of things but again
it seems like given the number of houses of the age a general
prohibition en toto would raise such a hullabaloo that there would be
riots in the streets.

Sounds to me like most of the problems in the above cases would really
be electrical, not plumbing from an underwriting risk.

As in my related story, that we don't try to skrimp on; the plumbing can
get by with in many cases at least for main stacks.
Like I said in my first post - they "y is willing to write new
business on a building with ANY galvanized waterpipe or cast iron
sewer pipe.". This means you cannot change insurers or buy the house
and have it insured, and liability-wize the plumbing has a higher loss
ratio than the wiring by a significant amount.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 18:02:37 -0400, wrote:

No pay-ffs. And the insurance companies are regulated.

That's what they say, but they are just like the government, they kiss
butt to those who pay them off...... The "regulated" part os just what
they want us to believe.....

I've personally seen a lot of cast iron drain/waste pipe failures and
have had to repair a few of them. I've seen a LOT of failed galvanized
water pipe too, and have been involved in repairing them. Go to remove
the damaged pipe and it breaks 6 feet away. Get it all patched up and
turn on the water and you find another fitting cracked just beyond
the last repair. I finally convinced my friend to replace the entire
run with copper, all across the basement. (was piping to the laundry).
When he redid the upstairs bathroom, he had to replace both hot and
cold rizers up the wall, which meant he also had to redo the kitchen
pipes - and they put plastic drains in at the same time (the cast iron
had rust blisters all over)

As I've mentioned before, I worked for a plumber for almost 10 years in
the 80's. I have seen it all. I worked in a large city where many
homes were close to 100 years old. I ran into a lot of crap plumbing.
But the type of city water did not seem to clog the really old
galvanized pipes too much. Yet, in the suburbs where many people had
wells (including my parents home), those galv pipes were very clogged.
An yea, they could be a huge pain to fix. I can count the number of
times I'd fix tht stuff in my parents home, and for days afterwards the
faucet strainers were filling up with rust chunks. My dad was very
stubborn about changing all of the pipes. But one time I had a bunch of
copper pipe left over from a job, and I just replaced the main from the
meter to everything in the basement and water heater. I only left the
galv rizer pipes inside the walls. Dad was shocked to see how much
pressure there was. And his original galv. pipes were only about 35
years old.

But in the city with the city water, some of those pipes were 50, 60,
even 70 years old and still worked well. What I hated were those lead
pipes. When I encountered them, if they had a leak, I would buy a screw
on adaptor, and connect copper or galv pipes from there on. The lead
rarely sprung a leak, but I never got the knack of repairing them. I
did however learn to lead together cast iron drain pipes, and in fact I
enjoyed doing them. I rarely encountered bad cast iron pipes, but did a
few times. Most of my leading was on broken toilet flanges, and a few
times to modify the stack pipes for an addition.

As far as drain pipes, I never thought twice about replacing them with
PVC. Those galv drain pipes were always a problem and clogged easily.
It was much easier to just replace them than repair the galv. pipes.
But generally I left the cast iron stack alone.

I did have one unusual situation. Two very elderly women lived together
and told me that none of the sinks or bathtub drain had worked in 15
years. They had bucketed the water out of the door or window all those
years. But they kept dumping draino and other chemicals down the drains
for all of those 15 years. I quickly found that no snake or anything
else would go down those pipes, and as soon as my pipe wrench touched
any of them, they just fell apart. Those pipes were like swiss cheese.
I went to the basement of this 2 story home, and decided to replace all
the 1-1/2" galv drain pipes all the way to the second floor. I told the
owners I had to rip out some walls, and they would need to get a
plasterer. They agreed. When I went to the basement to remove one of
the main pipes, I put the wrench on it, and the pipe broke off the cast
iron stack. Moments later the entire stack and most of the galv pipes
from inside the walls came crashing down. I got hit by a large section
of pipe, and almost got knocked out. But worse yet was all that crud
that poured all over me, which had all those chemicals. It hot in my
eyes, burned my skin real badly, and I ended up ripping off my clothing
in that basement and using a hose from the laundry tub to wash myself
off. I found a blanket in that basement, wrapped myself in it and drove
to the hospital ER. After being treated, I called those women and
explained what happened and why I left without telling them.

It took me several days for my eyes to recover and I had burns all over
parts of my body. It was not for at least a week I went back to that
job, with a sawsall grinder and a rented cutting torch and just removed
everything. Even the vent pipe in the attic was full of holes.
Apparently the fumes from all those chemicals ate that up.

I ended up replacing every drain pipe in the home, used a fernco to
couple 4" PVC to the cast iron stub 3" above the basement floor, and had
to install a new vent pipe out of the roof. Then I had to haev a roofer
come and patch around the roof flashing, because that was a very steep
and high roof and I was not going up there. It turned out to be a
costly job for those women, and they still needed to get a plasterer to
replace considerable wall damage. And I really tried hard to not take
out too much of the walls and ceilings. But almost every fixture,
toilets and everything had to be removed...

That was the worst plumbing job I ever did.

On top of all the building damage, those women had all sorts of antiques
in that basement and much was ruined by all that crud and chemicals.
Yet those women were understanding. I explained to them that those
chemicals had destroyed all the pipes and they understood.

I was never more glad to leave that job for the last time.

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:18:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



I prefer copper but with all the copper theft, I'd prolly choose PEX.

There's always galvanized steel pipe. Time tested and lasts 50 years or
more.

Depends on water quality. Here it's soft. My galvanized is 56 years
old. No leaks, but it's reducing in flow.
PEX doesn't meet code here. Must be galvanized or copper.
I'll replace it myself later this year. With galvanized.
It'll cost me about $150 for pipe and fittings.
Or $250 if I buy cutting dies and pipe cutter. Probably go that way.

I did not know there were still places that do not allow PEX !!!!
I'm also curious where you live?

Cutting your own pipe is much cheaper and saves time running to the
hardware or plumbing stores to get special lengths cut. Since galv is
not used much anymore, look on Craigslist - Ebay, etc for used threading
tools. I have a complete set of that stuff from when I was in business,
and I see those tools sold cheaply at auctions all the time.

I'm curious why you're not using copper? It's easier to use. CPVC is
easier and cheaper yet, but dont let that stuff freeze. But I bet they
dont allow that either....

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 23:03:26 -0600, wrote:

On Thu, 12 Mar 2015 19:18:05 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:



I prefer copper but with all the copper theft, I'd prolly choose PEX.

There's always galvanized steel pipe. Time tested and lasts 50 years or
more.

Depends on water quality. Here it's soft. My galvanized is 56 years
old. No leaks, but it's reducing in flow.
PEX doesn't meet code here. Must be galvanized or copper.
I'll replace it myself later this year. With galvanized.
It'll cost me about $150 for pipe and fittings.
Or $250 if I buy cutting dies and pipe cutter. Probably go that way.

I did not know there were still places that do not allow PEX !!!!
I'm also curious where you live?


Morton Grove, IL. It's Cook county and probably closely follows
Chicago code. Anyway, I looked at the code.

Cutting your own pipe is much cheaper and saves time running to the
hardware or plumbing stores to get special lengths cut. Since galv is
not used much anymore, look on Craigslist - Ebay, etc for used threading
tools. I have a complete set of that stuff from when I was in business,
and I see those tools sold cheaply at auctions all the time.

I'm curious why you're not using copper? It's easier to use. CPVC is
easier and cheaper yet, but dont let that stuff freeze. But I bet they
dont allow that either....

I never sweated copper fittings. But I just priced copper and it's
about the same cost so I may go with it. I'll decide later.
I've done a lot of steel pipe, and it's easy for me. But copper
should be easier.
My Ridgid dies/cutter were stolen long ago. I really don't care to
buy another set.

trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

Many places allow galvanized now too.


The main problem with galvy is the propensity for zinc flakes
to clog burner orifices.

writes:

Like I said in my first post - they "y is willing to write new
business on a building with ANY galvanized waterpipe or cast iron
sewer pipe.". This means you cannot change insurers or buy the house
and have it insured, and liability-wize the plumbing has a higher loss
ratio than the wiring by a significant amount.

The why's and wherefore's of canadian homeowners insurance:

http://www.fsco.gov.on.ca/en/insuran...ochures-11.pdf

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
trader_4 writes:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

Many places allow galvanized now too.


The main problem with galvy is the propensity for zinc flakes
to clog burner orifices.

Has anyone ever actually seen that happen? I've heard that raised
as one of the theoretically reasons that some places don't allow
galvanized, but it seems very unlikely to me. And if it's so, why
is it that galvanized is now allowed and used in many places for nat
gas, including here?

On 03/13/2015 8:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

Many places allow galvanized now too.


The main problem with galvy is the propensity for zinc flakes
to clog burner orifices.

Has anyone ever actually seen that happen? I've heard that raised
as one of the theoretically reasons that some places don't allow
galvanized, but it seems very unlikely to me. And if it's so, why
is it that galvanized is now allowed and used in many places for nat
gas, including here?

I've done some looking at various times in the past and have never found
any definitive reasons, either.

The problem w/ the flaking hypothesis (which have heard before too but
never found really documented in a utility handbook/standard) in my mind
is the galvanizing is on the outside of the pipe, they inside is just
black pipe...

I've seen some talk of some reaction w/ trace impurities and the zinc
and all kinds of other speculation but never any clear cut explanation.

--

On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:02:43 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 03/13/2015 8:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

Many places allow galvanized now too.


The main problem with galvy is the propensity for zinc flakes
to clog burner orifices.

Has anyone ever actually seen that happen? I've heard that raised
as one of the theoretically reasons that some places don't allow
galvanized, but it seems very unlikely to me. And if it's so, why
is it that galvanized is now allowed and used in many places for nat
gas, including here?

I've done some looking at various times in the past and have never found
any definitive reasons, either.

The problem w/ the flaking hypothesis (which have heard before too but
never found really documented in a utility handbook/standard) in my mind
is the galvanizing is on the outside of the pipe, they inside is just
black pipe...

I've seen some talk of some reaction w/ trace impurities and the zinc
and all kinds of other speculation but never any clear cut explanation.
The natural gas today is lower sulphur than in the past, the
galvanizing is different, and it has been proven that the actual
incidence of zinc flaking is very low. Also, code now requires a
"condensate drip trap" before all gas appliances, where the flakes and
any other "fall-out" accumulates.

That's my "best read" of the situation. All of my gas is black pipe
except for one little LB that is galvanized because that's all I had,
and all I DIDN"T have in black pipe when I replaced the water heater.
Been 57 months now, and the water heater hasn't gone out yet - - -.

On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:26:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:02:43 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 03/13/2015 8:34 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 9:27:11 AM UTC-4, Scott Lurndal wrote:
writes:
On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 3:13:40 PM UTC-4, wrote:

I have propane gas, and I am allowed to use copper or black iron.
That's all..... (not including the flex pipes behind a range, which are
often brass).

Many places allow galvanized now too.


The main problem with galvy is the propensity for zinc flakes
to clog burner orifices.

Has anyone ever actually seen that happen? I've heard that raised
as one of the theoretically reasons that some places don't allow
galvanized, but it seems very unlikely to me. And if it's so, why
is it that galvanized is now allowed and used in many places for nat
gas, including here?

I've done some looking at various times in the past and have never found
any definitive reasons, either.

The problem w/ the flaking hypothesis (which have heard before too but
never found really documented in a utility handbook/standard) in my mind
is the galvanizing is on the outside of the pipe, they inside is just
black pipe...

I've seen some talk of some reaction w/ trace impurities and the zinc
and all kinds of other speculation but never any clear cut explanation.
The natural gas today is lower sulphur than in the past, the
galvanizing is different, and it has been proven that the actual
incidence of zinc flaking is very low. Also, code now requires a
"condensate drip trap" before all gas appliances, where the flakes and
any other "fall-out" accumulates.

The trap has been there on gas lines for a very long time, it's
nothing new. Like DPB, I've never seen anything that established
the alleged zinc flaking to begin with.



That's my "best read" of the situation. All of my gas is black pipe
except for one little LB that is galvanized because that's all I had,
and all I DIDN"T have in black pipe when I replaced the water heater.
Been 57 months now, and the water heater hasn't gone out yet - - -.

There is plenty of galvanized around here too, including by the gas
company at the meter.

On 03/14/2015 9:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:26:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:02:43 -0500, wrote:

....[ ? galvanized prohibition for NG]...

I've done some looking at various times in the past and have never found
any definitive reasons, either.

The problem w/ the flaking hypothesis (which have heard before too but
never found really documented in a utility handbook/standard) in my mind
is the galvanizing is on the outside of the pipe, they inside is just
black pipe...

I've seen some talk of some reaction w/ trace impurities and the zinc
and all kinds of other speculation but never any clear cut explanation.
The natural gas today is lower sulphur than in the past, the
galvanizing is different, and it has been proven that the actual
incidence of zinc flaking is very low. Also, code now requires a
"condensate drip trap" before all gas appliances, where the flakes and
any other "fall-out" accumulates.

The trap has been there on gas lines for a very long time, it's
nothing new. Like DPB, I've never seen anything that established
the alleged zinc flaking to begin with.

That's my "best read" of the situation. All of my gas is black pipe
except for one little LB that is galvanized because that's all I had,
and all I DIDN"T have in black pipe when I replaced the water heater.
Been 57 months now, and the water heater hasn't gone out yet - - -.

There is plenty of galvanized around here too, including by the gas
company at the meter.

Some NG supplies may be somewhat lower in impurities but most are simply
related to where the gas came from...lower at one place is probably
simply owing to a different source as supplies have changed...as the
Hugoton field around here has depleted over the past 80 years some wells
have started to produce some H2S which is toxic in concentrations of
roughly 300 ppm or so but standards generally require "sweet gas"
concentrations of 25 ppm or less; most take it down farther than that to
the 5-10 ppm levels. Doing that also cleans up other impurities. I
don't know that residential supply standards have changed significantly
in 50 yr or more so really don't think that's a real factor.

Agree on the drip taps; they've been installed here from the time first
got the first feed off the pipeline that Grandpa got in part for the
right-of-way across the land back in the mid-30s. I swapped out a water
heater a couple of years ago that had been in place since, afaik, folks
remodeled the house in the early 80s and there was neither any moisture
nor any discernible solids in the bottom of it after all that time, but
it was there just in case.

The lines are mostly black iron; I do not know what the half-mile or so
of line from the pipeline connection in the pasture to the farmstead
actually is; I don't remember altho I _think_ I recall that Dad ran a
new line back in early 60s when we put in the feedlot and a grain dryer
but I don't remember what it was...I keep waiting for it to develop a
leak and have to replace it...

--

On Sat, 14 Mar 2015 09:34:08 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 03/14/2015 9:00 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Friday, March 13, 2015 at 4:26:03 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 10:02:43 -0500, wrote:

...[ ? galvanized prohibition for NG]...

I've done some looking at various times in the past and have never found
any definitive reasons, either.

The problem w/ the flaking hypothesis (which have heard before too but
never found really documented in a utility handbook/standard) in my mind
is the galvanizing is on the outside of the pipe, they inside is just
black pipe...

I've seen some talk of some reaction w/ trace impurities and the zinc
and all kinds of other speculation but never any clear cut explanation.
The natural gas today is lower sulphur than in the past, the
galvanizing is different, and it has been proven that the actual
incidence of zinc flaking is very low. Also, code now requires a
"condensate drip trap" before all gas appliances, where the flakes and
any other "fall-out" accumulates.

The trap has been there on gas lines for a very long time, it's
nothing new. Like DPB, I've never seen anything that established
the alleged zinc flaking to begin with.

That's my "best read" of the situation. All of my gas is black pipe
except for one little LB that is galvanized because that's all I had,
and all I DIDN"T have in black pipe when I replaced the water heater.
Been 57 months now, and the water heater hasn't gone out yet - - -.

There is plenty of galvanized around here too, including by the gas
company at the meter.

Some NG supplies may be somewhat lower in impurities but most are simply
related to where the gas came from...lower at one place is probably
simply owing to a different source as supplies have changed...as the
Hugoton field around here has depleted over the past 80 years some wells
have started to produce some H2S which is toxic in concentrations of
roughly 300 ppm or so but standards generally require "sweet gas"
concentrations of 25 ppm or less; most take it down farther than that to
the 5-10 ppm levels. Doing that also cleans up other impurities. I
don't know that residential supply standards have changed significantly
in 50 yr or more so really don't think that's a real factor.

Agree on the drip taps; they've been installed here from the time first
got the first feed off the pipeline that Grandpa got in part for the
right-of-way across the land back in the mid-30s. I swapped out a water
heater a couple of years ago that had been in place since, afaik, folks
remodeled the house in the early 80s and there was neither any moisture
nor any discernible solids in the bottom of it after all that time, but
it was there just in case.

The lines are mostly black iron; I do not know what the half-mile or so
of line from the pipeline connection in the pasture to the farmstead
actually is; I don't remember altho I _think_ I recall that Dad ran a
new line back in early 60s when we put in the feedlot and a grain dryer
but I don't remember what it was...I keep waiting for it to develop a
leak and have to replace it...
Generally the old underground stuff was bitumen coated black iron,
with welded and wrapped joints. Stuff lasted virtually forever because
there was no oxygen contact to the iron.

On 03/14/2015 10:15 AM, wrote:
....

The lines are mostly black iron; I do not know what the half-mile or so
of line from the pipeline connection in the pasture to the farmstead
actually is; I don't remember altho I _think_ I recall that Dad ran a
new line back in early 60s when we put in the feedlot and a grain dryer
but I don't remember what it was...I keep waiting for it to develop a
leak and have to replace it...

Generally the old underground stuff was bitumen coated black iron,
with welded and wrapped joints. Stuff lasted virtually forever because
there was no oxygen contact to the iron.

I've no idea; it's only bare black iron where the feeds come above
ground but I've not had reason to disturb the ground so no idea what was
laid or even who actually laid it. Since it's service from the meter
(which is a relatively recent addition that the pipeline companies got a
way to break the original right-of-way agreement of un-metered farmstead
use when Panhandle Eastern sold the line) I'm certain a new line was
laid by dad and not the pipeline company; I don't know if one of the
conditions grandpa also got was for them to run the feed line to the
house when they laid the big line or not; I'd presume that would have
been too much even then.

--