On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 11:52:30 -0500, Harry Everhart
wrote:

The Real Tom Tom @ www.WorkAtHomePlans.com wrote:
hey! don't knock the american public school system. If our schools
were any good, it would be differcult for people to standout and
succeed, since eveyone would be too smart. By pumping out dummies,

Hi Tom -
If you believe that education creates better people - and you believe
that America is the best country in the world to live in - then you must
therefore believe that our education system made our country better.
My view point - I was a public school teacher for 33 years in the
backwoods of PA. I have seen many great teachers there come and go. I
feel our students do very well for themselves. Our system is not perfect
and we are constantly trying to improve it. If you would spend a few
years in our system - you would come out with nothing but admiration.
Lots of people try to be teachers - and leave after a couple years
burned out.
I am no idea what you do for a living - but I am sure it is not as easy
a target as public schools - everyone that goes through a school as a
student thinks they are an expert on education. :-)
Harry


I love our public school system!

Because it teaches children that school is a 100% education, I only
have to compete with foreigners for my computer consulting positions.
Only they are willing to self-learn nonschool taught programming
languages, and since I can speak/read/write english(bad at times) and
they don't, I get to name my own price.

Go America!

tom

wrote:

The OD for 3/4" schedule 10 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 40 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 80 pipe is 1.050".

The ID's are different for each.

Why did you not say that the OD for *1.050* schedule 10 (or 40 or 80)
pipe is 1.050" ? Because to most of the plumbing world (and yourself),
it's known as 3/4" nominal ID pipe, not 1.050 OD. Are we arguing over
how a pipe is "measured" or "sized" vs. how it is "named" or "called"?
How are we to reconcile that 3/4" pipe is named for its nominal ID, yet
it is hardly ever called 1.050" pipe, unless it is called by something
for which it is "measured"?

Because the ID was the most important characteristic in terms of
determining the pipe's resistance to flow, water pipe was named for its
ID. The 3/4" pipe size was thus established by some 'primordial 3/4" ID
pipe' whose OD turned out to be 1.050". When they made pipe with other
wall thickneses, for the sake of compatibility with existing fittings
(and dies) which thread onto the OD, they varied the ID slightly to be
able to keep the OD constant. Nevertheless, they persisted in calling
it by its nominal ID.

However, some types of tubing were always named for their OD, thereby
avoiding this whole mess.

%mod%

wrote:
wrote:

The OD for 3/4" schedule 10 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 40 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 80 pipe is 1.050".

The ID's are different for each.

Why did you not say that the OD for *1.050* schedule 10 (or 40 or 80)
pipe is 1.050" ? Because to most of the plumbing world (and
yourself),
it's known as 3/4" nominal ID pipe, not 1.050 OD.

No, not to me. Further, I have never heard anyone else refer to pipe
that way either. It is referred to as I did above, by nominal size and
schedule. '3/4" nominal ID pipe' is an oxymoron. Nobody calls it
'3/4" nominal ID pipe. They call it '3/4" pipe', or '3/4" schedule 40
pipe', or whatever schedule they are using.

They are all 3/4" pipe. I've never heard anyone refer
to pipe as 'nominal pipe', 'nominal ID pipe', or 'ID' pipe.

The nominal size for pipe does NOT corresond to a specific ID,
it corresponds to a range of IDs. Without knowing the schedule
you cannot determine the ID for pipe from the nominal size.
However if you know the nominal size you do know the OD, that
is unambiguous. Therefor to say that pipe is 'sized by ID' is
wrong.

? Are we arguing over
how a pipe is "measured" or "sized" vs. how it is "named" or
"called"?
How are we to reconcile that 3/4" pipe is named for its nominal ID,
yet
it is hardly ever called 1.050" pipe, unless it is called by
something
for which it is "measured"?

Again, pipe is not mesured by ID and it is never called 'nominal ID'
or even 'nominal' either. 3/4" pipe is called 3/4" pipe,
understood to be schedule 40 unless otherwise specified and also
understood to have no dimensions equal to 3/4" unless the speaker
or the listener does not understand pipe.


Because the ID was the most important characteristic in terms of
determining the pipes resistance to flow, water pipe was named for
its
ID. The 3/4" pipe size was thus established by some 'primordial 3/4"
ID
pipe' whose OD turned out to be 1.050". When they made pipe with
other
wall thickneses, for the sake of compatibility with existing fittings
(and dies) which thread onto the OD, they varied the ID slightly to
be
able to keep the OD constant. Nevertheless, they persisted in calling
it by its nominal ID.


I suspect, though I cannot verify this, that nominal pipe sizes were
established by taking the actual ID and subtracting an allowance
for accumulated scale (corrosion allowance). Since I haven't verified
that, I didn't suggest it befor now. I think my GUESS is as good as
yours. The fact is that for any given nominal size AND schedule
the standard SPECIFIES the OD and the wall thickness, from which
the ID may be calculated. Without knowing the scedule you do not
know the ID. Pipe is not sized by ID.

Further, if you are doing a flow calculation, as I have, you
will use the ID appropriate to the schedule and not a 'nominal'
ID.

The actual ID for schedule 40 pipe is ALWAYS larger than the nominal
size so calling it nominal ID makes no more sense than calling it
nominal OD etymology notwithstanding. Adding 'ID' or 'OD' to the
word 'nominal' does not convey any additional information and may,
in fact, mislead people as to the dimensions of the pipe.

However, some types of tubing were always named for their OD, thereby
avoiding this whole mess.


And I have not, as someone suggested, confused tubing with pipe.

--

FF

In article . com, wrote:

However if you know the nominal size you do know the OD, that
is unambiguous.

For a given material, perhaps. As a general rule regardless of material,
definitely not: 3/4" steel, copper, and CPVC all have different OD.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt.
And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

bill a wrote:
Wayne Whitney wrote:
That is a common misconception Try taking a ruler to 1/2"
nominal Schedule 40 pipe sometime.
So what's your point? 1/2" sched 40 is .680" OD.

What was the ID?

--

FF

bill a wrote:
Wayne Whitney wrote:
That is a common misconception Try taking a ruler to 1/2"
nominal Schedule 40 pipe sometime.
So what's your point? 1/2" sched 40 is .680" OD.

What is the ID?

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

However if you know the nominal size you do know the OD, that
is unambiguous.

For a given material, perhaps. As a general rule regardless of
material,
definitely not: 3/4" steel, copper, and CPVC all have different OD.


After writing this:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...c?dmode=source

I was so sure you were confusing pipe with tubing that I
almost didn't look for this:

http://nrha.web-pros.com/How-To/plum...ipe/copper.htm

Amusingly enough the actual ID for copper tubing is ALSO larger
than the nominal size.

Copper and CPVC pipe indeed is made to a common dimentional standard
that is different from the ASTM standard for steel, SS, or PVC.

E.g. Two standards, ASTM D-1785 for steel (including Stainless), and
PVC, but ASTM D-2846 for copper and CPVC.

However, it appears that ASTM d-1785 refers to PIPE while ASTM D-2846
refers to TUBE, and the sources for CPVC refer to it as CPVC PIPE
in copper-TUBE sizes and far too many sources on the web use the
terms pipe and tube interchangeably for copper and CPVC. E.g.
according to THOSE people, pipe IS tube for copper, regardless of
the meaning of 'is'.

SO I think I'll stick with my earlier contention that the copper
and CPVC in your basement are TUBE (though 3/4" tube, not 7/8"
while the galvanized and black steel, and the PVC are PIPE for
those of us who distinguish between the two.

This looks like it might be a very good source:

http://www.pipefitter.com/Pipedatabk.html

--

FF

"Harry Everhart" wrote in message
...
I am putting a tankless gas water heater in my home. All of the copper
is in the concrete slab so I am going to run an insulated copper tube
"up and over" to the kitchen. The water heater will be a foot from the
two bathrooms and showers. the "up and over" tube will feed the kitchen
sink and dish water - nothing else.

How much water is in a 100 foot by 1/2 inch copper tube?
How much water is in a 100 foot by 3/4 inch copper tube?
How much water is in a 100 foot by 1/4 inch copper tube?

I am too lazy to look it up - I am wondering if any of you experts on
here have the info off-hand. I am thinking of putting thinning tubing to
the kitchen because less water would be in it to cool down etc.

Right now I am running two 50 gallon electric water heaters in a house
for two adults - I am wasting alot of energy keeping all that water hot
- and the tanks are far away from where the hot water is needed anyway
running thru a cold concrete slab.

Harry

This is ReRe

1/2" = .0158 gallons per lineal foot or 1.58 gallons in 100'
3/4" = .0277 gallons per lineal foot or 2.77 gallons in 100'

On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
bill a wrote:
you are dead wrong, dude.



wrote in message
oups.com...

bill a wrote:
Wayne Whitney wrote:
[that pipe is measured by ID, FF]
That is a common misconception Try taking a ruler to 1/2"
nominal Schedule 40 pipe sometime.
So what's your point? 1/2" sched 40 is .680" OD.

My point is stated in the article. I'll repeat it now. Pipe is
not measured by ID. It is measured by OD and wall thickness.
I think you are confusing mechanical tubing with sched 40 pipe.

No, I am not.

Dear Mr Troll:

The OD for 3/4" schedule 10 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 40 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 80 pipe is 1.050".

The ID's are different for each.

================================================== ===============

Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: TYPE K
3/4" has a .875 Outer diameter...inner .745

Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: TYPE L
3/4" has a .875 Outer diameter...inner .785 .251 CONTENT PER FT

Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: TYPE M
3/4" has a .875 Outer diameter...inner .811 .269 CONTENT PER FT


Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: Medical Gas, K and L
3/4" has a .875 Outer diameter...inner .785 .336 CONTENT PER FT


Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: ACR
3/4" has a .750 Outer diameter...inner .666 .242 CONTENT PER FT


(ACR)Copper tube for air-conditioning and refrigeration field service is designated by actual OD, outside diameter.

On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
bill a wrote:
you are dead wrong, dude.



wrote in message
oups.com...

bill a wrote:
Wayne Whitney wrote:
[that pipe is measured by ID, FF]
That is a common misconception Try taking a ruler to 1/2"
nominal Schedule 40 pipe sometime.
So what's your point? 1/2" sched 40 is .680" OD.

My point is stated in the article. I'll repeat it now. Pipe is
not measured by ID. It is measured by OD and wall thickness.

I think you are confusing mechanical tubing with sched 40 pipe.

No, I am not.

Dear Mr Troll:

The OD for 3/4" schedule 10 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 40 pipe is 1.050".
The OD for 3/4" schedule 80 pipe is 1.050".

The ID's are different for each.


Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: TYPE ACR
3/4 OUTER IS .750 INNER IS .666 CONTENT GAL .242 PER FT

Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: TYPE M
3/4 OUTER IS .875 INNER IS .811 CONTENT GAL FT .269 PER FT

Dimensions and Physical Characteristics of Copper Tube: TYPE L
3/4 OUTER IS .875 INNER IS .785 CONTENT GAL FT .251 PER FT




http://www.copper.org/publications/p...e_handbook.pdf

On 4/15/2014 5:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
bill a wrote:

Nine years later, did we find answer?


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

Stormin Mormon wrote in
:

On 4/15/2014 5:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
bill a wrote:

Nine years later, did we find answer?



Hold on a bit. My PC Jr is just about finished running the calcs.

I would run PEX homeruns to each fixture, no joints buried in walls. PEX with sharkbites in easy to work with, far cheaper than copper and no one will steal it from your home. If it freezes it will be undamaged when thawed.....

the electric tankless sound like a good idea, but have major disadvantages.

I would run PEX with recurcliating lines, insulate with expanding foam, and keep the existing tanks...

even if you install tankless keep the existing tanks for easy reconversion

On 4/15/2014 7:47 PM, Red Green wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote in
:

On 4/15/2014 5:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
bill a wrote:

Nine years later, did we find answer?



Hold on a bit. My PC Jr is just about finished running the calcs.

My TRS-80 needs more time.

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

On Tuesday, March 15, 2005 2:05:04 PM UTC-4, Harry Everhart wrote:
I am putting a tankless gas water heater in my home. All of the copper
is in the concrete slab so I am going to run an insulated copper tube
"up and over" to the kitchen. The water heater will be a foot from the
two bathrooms and showers. the "up and over" tube will feed the kitchen
sink and dish water - nothing else.

How much water is in a 100 foot by 1/2 inch copper tube?
How much water is in a 100 foot by 3/4 inch copper tube?
How much water is in a 100 foot by 1/4 inch copper tube?

I am too lazy to look it up - I am wondering if any of you experts on
here have the info off-hand. I am thinking of putting thinning tubing to
the kitchen because less water would be in it to cool down etc.

Right now I am running two 50 gallon electric water heaters in a house
for two adults - I am wasting alot of energy keeping all that water hot
- and the tanks are far away from where the hot water is needed anyway
running thru a cold concrete slab.

Harry

It would be intersting to see how this project worked out for the OP, did he love it or hate it? has the now 9 year old tankless failed? questions like this....

Red Green writes:
Stormin Mormon wrote in
:

On 4/15/2014 5:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
bill a wrote:

Nine years later, did we find answer?



Hold on a bit. My PC Jr is just about finished running the calcs.

100' of 1/2" copper holds 4.07 gallons.

$ printf '%f\n' $(( (3.1415926 * (.5 * .5) * (100 * 12)) / 231 ))
4.079990

FWIW

In article ,
(Scott Lurndal) wrote:

Red Green writes:
Stormin Mormon wrote in
:

On 4/15/2014 5:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
bill a wrote:

Nine years later, did we find answer?



Hold on a bit. My PC Jr is just about finished running the calcs.

100' of 1/2" copper holds 4.07 gallons.

$ printf '%f\n' $(( (3.1415926 * (.5 * .5) * (100 * 12)) / 231 ))
4.079990

FWIW

It's length * pi r^2, not d^2. 1.02 gal.

100' of 1/2" copper holds 4.07 gallons.

$ printf '%f\n' $(( (3.1415926 * (.5 * .5) * (100 * 12)) / 231 ))
4.079990

FWIW

It's length * pi r^2, not d^2. 1.02 gal.

Is the above "1/2" diameter the internal or external diameter of the
tube? I would think it's the internal diameter so the radius should
be less than 0.25".
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

Stormin Mormon wrote in news:s7t3v.72058$Ru1.62088
@fx02.iad:

On 4/15/2014 7:47 PM, Red Green wrote:
Stormin Mormon wrote in
:

On 4/15/2014 5:11 AM, wrote:
On Thursday, March 17, 2005 10:29:15 AM UTC-7,
wrote:
bill a wrote:

Nine years later, did we find answer?



Hold on a bit. My PC Jr is just about finished running the calcs.

My TRS-80 needs more time.


That's what you get for reluctance to change.

In article ,
CRNG wrote:

100' of 1/2" copper holds 4.07 gallons.

$ printf '%f\n' $(( (3.1415926 * (.5 * .5) * (100 * 12)) / 231 ))
4.079990

FWIW

It's length * pi r^2, not d^2. 1.02 gal.

Is the above "1/2" diameter the internal or external diameter of the
tube? I would think it's the internal diameter so the radius should
be less than 0.25".

You're right, it is internal diameter. Or at least close to it. 1/2"
nominal copper has an OD of 0.625". Type K has a wall thickness of
0.049", and type L has a wall thickness of 0.040". The ID is either
0.527" or 0.545". So it's either 1.13 or 1.21 gal.