Hi,

The water pipes in my kitchen are copper pipes buried in the concrete
floor without any insulation. I am hoping to redecorate the kitchen
and was hoping to re-route the pipes so that I could insulate them.
Presently it takes some time to get hot water at the hot tap.

To complicate matters I have a door on either side, so I can not run
pipes horizontally along the walls without hitting a door.

What is the group's opinion on the best way to run the pipes?

I could dig up the floor and bury new pipes in lagging but that sounds
like a messy job.

Another option is to box them in at ceiling level above the door.
After the door I could continue at ceiling level or drop them
out-of-sight, behind the kitchen units. I think boxing could look ugly
but perhaps in bathrooms and kitchens you can get away with it?

My other idea is to pass the pipes through the joists in the ceiling
above. On the plus side, the pipes would be out of sight, except for
one drop in the corner. But I fear there are disadvantages. The
boiler is in the middle of the kitchen and the bathroom is above. So
there are already a lot of pipes going through some sections of the
ceiling and the ring main also passes through those joists, so there
is not a great deal of room left. I could run the hot water pipe
through but I think I would have to leave the cold water pipe in the
floor.

If I did go through joists, I would have to use plastic pipe. Some
people claim copper is better as it is antibacterial, so I wonder if
copper would be better for hot water?

TIA for your opinions

On 17/09/2012 14:14, Fred wrote:
Hi,

The water pipes in my kitchen are copper pipes buried in the concrete
floor without any insulation. I am hoping to redecorate the kitchen
and was hoping to re-route the pipes so that I could insulate them.
Presently it takes some time to get hot water at the hot tap.

To complicate matters I have a door on either side, so I can not run
pipes horizontally along the walls without hitting a door.

What is the group's opinion on the best way to run the pipes?

I could dig up the floor and bury new pipes in lagging but that sounds
like a messy job.

Another option is to box them in at ceiling level above the door.
After the door I could continue at ceiling level or drop them
out-of-sight, behind the kitchen units. I think boxing could look ugly
but perhaps in bathrooms and kitchens you can get away with it?

My other idea is to pass the pipes through the joists in the ceiling
above. On the plus side, the pipes would be out of sight, except for
one drop in the corner. But I fear there are disadvantages. The
boiler is in the middle of the kitchen and the bathroom is above. So
there are already a lot of pipes going through some sections of the
ceiling and the ring main also passes through those joists, so there
is not a great deal of room left. I could run the hot water pipe
through but I think I would have to leave the cold water pipe in the
floor.

If I did go through joists, I would have to use plastic pipe. Some
people claim copper is better as it is antibacterial, so I wonder if
copper would be better for hot water?

TIA for your opinions


If the pipes are directly buried in the concrete without any protection
from the concrete, you really need to replace these anyway, as the
concrete eats the copper, so you will need to do both hot and cold if
this is the case.

Is your hot water supplied by a combi boiler (so heated on demadn) or
from a hot water cylinder?
What size are the pipes in the floor - if they are 22mm, then they will
take a lot longer to purge than 15mm.

Without actually seeing where everything is, it is hard to say what is
best - how about some photos of the kitchen to help visualise it?
(You can upload them to somewhere like tinypic.com then post links to them)

I wouldn't worry about plastic pipes and antibactierial, the pipes they
are installing in the road, and between the road and houses are all
plastic nowadays.

--
Toby...
Remove pants to reply

On Sep 17, 2:14*pm, Fred wrote:
Hi,

The water pipes in my kitchen are copper pipes buried in the concrete
floor without any insulation. I am hoping to redecorate the kitchen
and was hoping to re-route the pipes so that I could insulate them.
Presently it takes some time to get hot water at the hot tap.

To complicate matters I have a door on either side, so I can not run
pipes horizontally along the walls without hitting a door.

What is the group's opinion on the best way to run the pipes?

I could dig up the floor and bury new pipes in lagging but that sounds
like a messy job.

Another option is to box them in at ceiling level above the door.
After the door I could continue at ceiling level or drop them
out-of-sight, behind the kitchen units. I think boxing could look ugly
but perhaps in bathrooms and kitchens you can get away with it?

My other idea is to pass the pipes through the joists in the ceiling
above. On the plus side, the pipes would be out of sight, except for
one drop in the corner. But I fear there are disadvantages. *The
boiler is in the middle of the kitchen and the bathroom is above. So
there are already a lot of pipes going through some sections of the
ceiling and the ring main also passes through those joists, so there
is not a great deal of room left. I could run the hot water pipe
through but I think I would have to leave the cold water pipe in the
floor.

If I did go through joists, I would have to use plastic pipe. Some
people claim copper is better as it is antibacterial, so I wonder if
copper would be better for hot water?

TIA for your opinions


It won't help. The water will be cold whether the pipes are
insulatedor not.
The insulation just delays the cooling down by a few minutes.

The only way to get instant hot water is to either have the source/
store near to point of use or have a hot water circuit with a pump.
(Wastes lots of energy.)

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0100, Toby
wrote:

If the pipes are directly buried in the concrete without any protection
from the concrete, you really need to replace these anyway, as the
concrete eats the copper, so you will need to do both hot and cold if
this is the case.

Yes, I had heard that. I have "excavated" the CH pipes in some of the
other rooms because I was hoping to reduce my fuel bills by lagging
the pipes. I used plastic pipe which I lagged and then wrapped it all
in strong plastic and concreted back over them. I'm thinking now that
it might have been better to bring them above the floor.

I don't think boxing looks pretty. I have seen exposed pipes painted
the same colour as the skirting board. Some people like this, some do
not. I guess it is a matter of personal taste. If I did it again, I
wonder whether I might use chrome plated pipe. True, it would not be
lagged but would that matter if the heat was escaping into the room?

Is your hot water supplied by a combi boiler (so heated on demadn) or
from a hot water cylinder?

Cylinder.

What size are the pipes in the floor

I believe they are 15mm.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:


The only way to get instant hot water is to either have the source/
store near to point of use or have a hot water circuit with a pump.
(Wastes lots of energy.)

The cylinder is central to the house but the sink is under the kitchen
window so at one end of the house. I know some people use an electric
heater but then I'd have the problem of having to route 6mm^2 (?) T&E
to the sink and get a bigger fuse box to accommodate another MCB!

Why are pumps so expensive to run. I thought they were only about 40W,
though I appreciate if they were on all day, it would add up.

Fred wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

The only way to get instant hot water is to either have the source/
store near to point of use or have a hot water circuit with a pump.
(Wastes lots of energy.)

The cylinder is central to the house but the sink is under the kitchen
window so at one end of the house. I know some people use an electric
heater but then I'd have the problem of having to route 6mm^2 (?) T&E
to the sink and get a bigger fuse box to accommodate another MCB!

Why are pumps so expensive to run. I thought they were only about 40W,
though I appreciate if they were on all day, it would add up.

The cost of running a pumped domestic hot water system with continuously
circulating hot water isn't so much the energy used by the pump, but the
energy lost from the pipes the hot water is constantly circulating
through. This can add up to a few hundred watts just to keep the hot
water hot as it circulates. It's worth it for a hotel, but not for a
house (in general).

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

In message , Fred
writes
Hi,

The water pipes in my kitchen are copper pipes buried in the concrete
floor without any insulation. I am hoping to redecorate the kitchen
and was hoping to re-route the pipes so that I could insulate them.
Presently it takes some time to get hot water at the hot tap.

Look up earlier threads on *under sink water heaters*. The pressurised
storage types do not have a huge electrical load and are perfectly
adequate for normal kitchen activities.
--
Tim Lamb

On Sep 17, 6:20*pm, Fred wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:15:30 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:



The only way to get instant hot water is to either have the source/
store near to point of use or have *a hot water circuit with a pump.
(Wastes lots of energy.)

The cylinder is central to the house but the sink is under the kitchen
window so at one end of the house. I know some people use an electric
heater but then I'd have the problem of having to route 6mm^2 (?) T&E
to the sink and get a bigger fuse box to accommodate another MCB!

Why are pumps so expensive to run. I thought they were only about 40W,
though I appreciate if they were on all day, it would add up.


The pump is expensive to run if it's on continuously.
40x24x365=350Kwh/year=£40
The main energy loss is heat from the circulation pipe.
No loss in Winter, it heats the house but a big loss in Summer when no
heat is needed.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0100, Toby
wrote:

I wouldn't worry about plastic pipes and antibactierial, the pipes they
are installing in the road, and between the road and houses are all
plastic nowadays.

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron? I guess copper
was never used because of cost. I wonder whether it is less important
with cold water, whereas warmer water might encourage bugs to breed?
Hopefully the pipes in the road have constant flow so bugs never hang
around long?

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 18:33:24 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

The cost of running a pumped domestic hot water system with continuously
circulating hot water isn't so much the energy used by the pump, but the
energy lost from the pipes the hot water is constantly circulating
through. This can add up to a few hundred watts just to keep the hot
water hot as it circulates. It's worth it for a hotel, but not for a
house (in general).

Thank you. I hadn't understood that before.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 20:38:25 +0100, Tim Lamb
wrote:

Look up earlier threads on *under sink water heaters*. The pressurised
storage types do not have a huge electrical load and are perfectly
adequate for normal kitchen activities.

Thanks.

On 17/09/2012 18:14, Fred wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0100, Toby
wrote:

If the pipes are directly buried in the concrete without any protection
from the concrete, you really need to replace these anyway, as the
concrete eats the copper, so you will need to do both hot and cold if
this is the case.

Yes, I had heard that. I have "excavated" the CH pipes in some of the
other rooms because I was hoping to reduce my fuel bills by lagging
the pipes. I used plastic pipe which I lagged and then wrapped it all
in strong plastic and concreted back over them. I'm thinking now that
it might have been better to bring them above the floor.

Buried and protected from the concrete is fine and looks better, but
does take considerably more effort to do!
The fact they are now insulated will mean a lot less heat is lost to the
ground.

I don't think boxing looks pretty. I have seen exposed pipes painted
the same colour as the skirting board. Some people like this, some do
not. I guess it is a matter of personal taste. If I did it again, I
wonder whether I might use chrome plated pipe. True, it would not be
lagged but would that matter if the heat was escaping into the room?

For CH pipes, no, as they are used in the winter and just act as more
radiation of heat into the room, you should lag them if they are passing
through somewhere you don't want heated (or needs protection from frost,
like under the ground floor)

For hot water, in winter, no, in summer, heat is wasted, but not enough
to worry about in a domestic environment where hot water is not used all
day IMHO. If pipes are buried directly in concrete, the concrete will
suck the heat out of them far more then them being in free air, or
lagged in concrete.

Do you get adequate flow from the hot water in the Kitchen, if the flow
is really slow, then it will take even longer to purge, you could
install a shower type pump on the hot side (I am assuming the cold is
direct mains pressure in the Kitchen, not from a tank)


Is your hot water supplied by a combi boiler (so heated on demadn) or
from a hot water cylinder?

Cylinder.

What size are the pipes in the floor

I believe they are 15mm.



--
Toby...
Remove pants to reply

Fred wrote:

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron?

Lead, at least in the house and out to the street. ("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead water
pipes & troughs.)

Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning, which is one reason why
people used to let a tap run for a while before filling a glass.

For years one could get grants to subsidise or totally pay for the cost of
replacing lead supply pipes by plastic.


--
Jeremy C B Nicoll - my opinions are my own.

Email sent to my from-address will be deleted. Instead, please reply
to replacing "aaa" by "284".

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 10:17:26 +0100, Toby
wrote:

Do you get adequate flow from the hot water in the Kitchen, if the flow
is really slow, then it will take even longer to purge, you could
install a shower type pump on the hot side (I am assuming the cold is
direct mains pressure in the Kitchen, not from a tank)

I don't think the flow is particularly slow but I haven't measured it.
Your idea about a pump is a good one. Other posts have said
circulating the water is expensive but with this arrangement, the pump
would only move water when the tap was open, so might give the best of
both worlds (and yes, the cold water is mains).

Thanks again.

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
Fred wrote:

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron?

Lead, at least in the house and out to the street.

That's not really the water main.

Water mains tended to be cast iron, in relatively recent history. Before
that they could be elm.

("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead water
pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning,

No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't and in
soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in their drinking
water than was good for them but it still didn't really amount to
poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more lead from petrol.

In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
Fred wrote:

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron?

Lead, at least in the house and out to the street.

That's not really the water main.

Water mains tended to be cast iron, in relatively recent history. Before
that they could be elm.

("Plumbers" are called that because the latin word for lead is
"Plumba"; the Romans had lead water pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning,

No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't and in
soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in their drinking
water than was good for them but it still didn't really amount to
poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more lead from petrol.

unlikely if they were Romans. OTH, I grew up with soft water and lead pipes
and I don't think I got poisoned.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:
Fred wrote:

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron?

Lead, at least in the house and out to the street. ("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead water
pipes & troughs.)

IIRC its plumbum


Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning, which is one reason why
people used to let a tap run for a while before filling a glass.

For years one could get grants to subsidise or totally pay for the cost of
replacing lead supply pipes by plastic.




--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

harry wrote:
On Sep 17, 2:14 pm, Fred wrote:
Hi,

The water pipes in my kitchen are copper pipes buried in the concrete
floor without any insulation. I am hoping to redecorate the kitchen
and was hoping to re-route the pipes so that I could insulate them.
Presently it takes some time to get hot water at the hot tap.

To complicate matters I have a door on either side, so I can not run
pipes horizontally along the walls without hitting a door.

What is the group's opinion on the best way to run the pipes?

I could dig up the floor and bury new pipes in lagging but that
sounds like a messy job.

Another option is to box them in at ceiling level above the door.
After the door I could continue at ceiling level or drop them
out-of-sight, behind the kitchen units. I think boxing could look
ugly but perhaps in bathrooms and kitchens you can get away with it?

My other idea is to pass the pipes through the joists in the ceiling
above. On the plus side, the pipes would be out of sight, except for
one drop in the corner. But I fear there are disadvantages. The
boiler is in the middle of the kitchen and the bathroom is above. So
there are already a lot of pipes going through some sections of the
ceiling and the ring main also passes through those joists, so there
is not a great deal of room left. I could run the hot water pipe
through but I think I would have to leave the cold water pipe in the
floor.

If I did go through joists, I would have to use plastic pipe. Some
people claim copper is better as it is antibacterial, so I wonder if
copper would be better for hot water?

TIA for your opinions


It won't help. The water will be cold whether the pipes are
insulatedor not.
The insulation just delays the cooling down by a few minutes.

Nonsense. Well insulated hot water pipes keep the heat for quite a wile.

charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
wrote:
Fred wrote:

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron?

Lead, at least in the house and out to the street.

That's not really the water main.

Water mains tended to be cast iron, in relatively recent history.
Before that they could be elm.

("Plumbers" are called that because the latin word for lead is
"Plumba"; the Romans had lead water pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning,

No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't and
in soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in their
drinking water than was good for them but it still didn't really
amount to poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more lead from
petrol.

unlikely if they were Romans. OTH, I grew up with soft water and lead
pipes and I don't think I got poisoned.

But it affected brain cells, hence why the people of Glasgow were violent.
The very soft water dissolved lead.

On Sep 18, 8:15*am, Fred wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2012 14:41:43 +0100, Toby
wrote:

I wouldn't worry about plastic pipes and antibactierial, the pipes they
are installing in the road, and between the road and houses are all
plastic nowadays.

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron? I guess copper
was never used because of cost. I wonder whether it is less important
with cold water, whereas warmer water might encourage bugs to breed?
Hopefully the pipes in the road have constant flow so bugs never hang
around long?


Lead in the house. If thewater was acid,you got lead poisoning.
In the road they were cast/malleable iron

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 13:32:09 +0100, Jeremy Nicoll - news posts
wrote:

Fred wrote:

What were water mains before plastic came along? Iron?

Lead, at least in the house and out to the street. ("Plumbers" are
called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead
water
pipes & troughs.)

Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning, which is one reason
why
people used to let a tap run for a while before filling a glass.

For years one could get grants to subsidise or totally pay for the cost
of
replacing lead supply pipes by plastic.



Water sitting in a pipe is unlikely to cause any form of bodily damage and
probably a 100% certainty it won't poison. It is when it stops sitting in
a pipe that a problem might occur. :-)

Way back in a physics lesson (I think) we worked out that the amount of
water that people were 'supposed' to draw before collecting for use was
not optimum. It was fairly close to the amount required to ensure the
water with the highest concentration of lead would be what was used.
Obviously this depends on the pipework, etc. but I think it was based on a
fairly typical local house. And no, I cannot remember how much should be
drawn.

--
Rod

charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]


No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't and in
soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in their drinking
water than was good for them but it still didn't really amount to
poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more lead from petrol.

unlikely if they were Romans.

Difficult to tell if the OP was confining his comment to Romans. Lead was
used right up to and after the 60s.

OTH, I grew up with soft water and lead pipes
and I don't think I got poisoned.

If we are on about Romans and lead poisoning then their use of lead
compounds to sweeten food must get an honourable mention.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Steve Firth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]


No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't
and in soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in
their drinking water than was good for them but it still didn't
really amount to poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more
lead from petrol.

unlikely if they were Romans.

Difficult to tell if the OP was confining his comment to Romans. Lead
was used right up to and after the 60s.

OTH, I grew up with soft water and lead pipes
and I don't think I got poisoned.

If we are on about Romans and lead poisoning then their use of lead
compounds to sweeten food must get an honourable mention.

So that is why they married their horses.

--
Adam

On 2012-09-18, Steve Firth wrote:

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead water
pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

Are you sure? I thought plain "plumbum" meant lead & "plumbum nigrum"
referred to a black salt of lead.


Water sitting in lead pipes caused lead poisoning,

No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't and in
soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in their drinking
water than was good for them but it still didn't really amount to
poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more lead from petrol.

Dang, & people said gin was bad for you.

"ARW" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]


No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really didn't
and in soft water areas people may have got a bit more lead in
their drinking water than was good for them but it still didn't
really amount to poisoning. Arguably they were ingesting more
lead from petrol.

unlikely if they were Romans.

Difficult to tell if the OP was confining his comment to Romans. Lead
was used right up to and after the 60s.

OTH, I grew up with soft water and lead pipes
and I don't think I got poisoned.

If we are on about Romans and lead poisoning then their use of lead
compounds to sweeten food must get an honourable mention.

So that is why they married their horses.

It seems to be a more controversial theory than I thought. Grape must
concentrated by long boiling is still popular in some parts of Italy as a
seasoning. It is known as sapa. Apparently claims that Romans made it in
lead pans ending up with very high lead concentrations are regarded as
dodgy.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

Adam Funk wrote:

On 2012-09-18, Steve Firth wrote:

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead
water pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

Are you sure? I thought plain "plumbum" meant lead & "plumbum nigrum"
referred to a black salt of lead.


I was goin to resolve this with a quick visit to Google Translate (which
does Latin).

However, they claim "plumbum" is "tin" which is wrong, because "tin" is
"stannum".

But I also agree "plumbum" is "plain lead"

--
Tim Watts

In article ,
Tim Watts wrote:
Adam Funk wrote:

On 2012-09-18, Steve Firth wrote:

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead
water pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

Are you sure? I thought plain "plumbum" meant lead & "plumbum nigrum"
referred to a black salt of lead.


I was goin to resolve this with a quick visit to Google Translate (which
does Latin).

However, they claim "plumbum" is "tin" which is wrong, because "tin" is
"stannum".

I always wondered about the "Stannary towns of Cornwall". It now makes
sense.

But I also agree "plumbum" is "plain lead"


My Latin English dictionary agrees

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:20:42 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:




I was goin to resolve this with a quick visit to Google Translate (which
does Latin).


That's a coincidence as I used that a few hours ago after yet another
"discussion" with the other half.
Going to knock up a coat of arms on a badge with this on it,

Quicquid ego operor erit iniuriam

No Idea if it is a correct translation for what I want,
perhaps some Latin scholars could comment.

G.Harman

charles wrote:


I always wondered about the "Stannary towns of Cornwall". It now makes
sense.


And Tin is Sn in the periodic table, like lead is Pb



Starter for 10 for the group - why is Tungsten "W"?



--
Tim Watts

On 2012-09-19, Tim Watts wrote:

Adam Funk wrote:

On 2012-09-18, Steve Firth wrote:

Jeremy Nicoll - news posts wrote:

("Plumbers" are called
that because the latin word for lead is "Plumba"; the Romans had lead
water pipes & troughs.)

Errm. The Latin term for lead is plumbum nigrum.

So it is.


Are you sure? I thought plain "plumbum" meant lead & "plumbum nigrum"
referred to a black salt of lead.


I was goin to resolve this with a quick visit to Google Translate (which
does Latin).

However, they claim "plumbum" is "tin" which is wrong, because "tin" is
"stannum".

I remember those in connection with Pb & Sn on the periodic table.


But I also agree "plumbum" is "plain lead"

Hmm, Wikipedia says:

Up to the 17th century, tin was often not distinguished from lead:
lead was called plumbum nigrum (literally, "black lead"), while tin
was called plumbum candidum (literally, "bright lead").[38] Their
inherence through history can also be seen in other languages: the
word "olovo" means lead in Czech, but in Russian it ("олово") means
tin.[39] Lead's symbol Pb is an abbreviation of its Latin name
plumbum for soft metals; the English words "plumbing", "plumber",
"plumb", and "plumb-bob" also derive from this Latin root.[40]

Unfortunately foonote 38 refers to a chemistry reference book in
Russian. Note 40 is a link to a page that looks well-researched &
includes this:

Plumbum was the generic name for soft white metals with low melting
points, as lead and tin, and later also bismuth and their
alloys. Later plumbum was differentiated with the addition of black
and white: Plumbum album (white plumbum; or Plumbum candidum) for
Tin and Plumbum nigrum (black plumbum) for Lead.

That site's page on tin says:

From Plinys writings it appears that the Romans in his time did
not realize the distinction between Tin and Lead. He referred to
Tin as plumbum album (white lead) to distinguish it from Lead which
was called plumbum nigrum (black lead). Pliny referred to the
existence of Tin and Lead alloys, what we now know as solder, as
well as recipients of tinned copper. He wrote that the best mirrors
were made at Brundisium from a mixture of Copper and "stagnum". By
the Romans, the term stannum was mostly used for an alloy of Lead
and Silver obtained in the winning of Silver. Not until the sixth
century was it applied to Tin, but thereafter was commonly used in
this sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead#History
http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Pb
http://www.vanderkrogt.net/elements/element.php?sym=Sn


Interesting stuff. I've learned something already today.

Tim Watts wrote:
charles wrote:


I always wondered about the "Stannary towns of Cornwall". It now makes
sense.


And Tin is Sn in the periodic table, like lead is Pb



Starter for 10 for the group - why is Tungsten "W"?

Because it comes from wolframite, and was originally known as wolfram.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 18:18:13 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

But it affected brain cells, hence why the people of Glasgow were violent.
The very soft water dissolved lead.

Utter cock, you want to fight about it, Jimmy?

Actually, I recall many old lead pipes being taken out of Glasgow
houses and almost without exception, they were coated inside with a
brown sediment/scale which might have been lead-related but was likely
peat-based from the public supply. The public supply to Glasgow was
famously Loch Katrine, which was a catchment for thousands of acres of
moor and peatland surrounding.

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:55:05 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Starter for 10 for the group - why is Tungsten "W"?

Because it comes from wolframite, and was originally known as wolfram.

And was originally identified from ores dug up in Wolfram in the Black
Forest.

What connection does Strontium have to Scotland?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 10:09:49 +0100, wrote:

Quicquid ego operor erit iniuriam

Unexpected item in the bagging area?

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
[snip]

What connection does Strontium have to Scotland?

The milk up there is full of it following various bang noises including
Wiindscale with a following wind, Dounreay and Chernobyl.


--
€¢DarWin|
_/ _/

In article ,
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 11:55:05 +0100, John Williamson
wrote:

Starter for 10 for the group - why is Tungsten "W"?

Because it comes from wolframite, and was originally known as wolfram.

And was originally identified from ores dug up in Wolfram in the Black
Forest.

What connection does Strontium have to Scotland?

it was first found at Strontian.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:08:09 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

Quicquid ego operor erit iniuriam

Unexpected item in the bagging area?

Whatever I do will go wrong?

Steve Firth wrote:
"ARW" wrote:
Steve Firth wrote:
charles wrote:
In article
,
Steve Firth wrote:
[snip]


No, it didn't by and large. In hard water areas it really
didn't and in soft water areas people may have got a bit more
lead in their drinking water than was good for them but it
still didn't really amount to poisoning. Arguably they were
ingesting more lead from petrol.

unlikely if they were Romans.

Difficult to tell if the OP was confining his comment to Romans.
Lead was used right up to and after the 60s.

OTH, I grew up with soft water and lead pipes
and I don't think I got poisoned.

If we are on about Romans and lead poisoning then their use of
lead compounds to sweeten food must get an honourable mention.

So that is why they married their horses.

It seems to be a more controversial theory than I thought. Grape must
concentrated by long boiling is still popular in some parts of Italy
as a seasoning. It is known as sapa. Apparently claims that Romans
made it in lead pans ending up with very high lead concentrations are
regarded as dodgy.

Maybe they had a lot of good looking horses!

That's one for the historians to consider. Or maybe not:-(

--
Adam

ARW wrote:

Maybe they had a lot of good looking horses!

That's one for the historians to consider. Or maybe not:-(

Have you considered submitting your theory as a paper to a learned
journal?

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 19:35:09 +0100, Fred
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012 14:08:09 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

Quicquid ego operor erit iniuriam

Unexpected item in the bagging area?
I quite like that.


Whatever I do will go wrong?
Close, What I intended was

"What ever I do will be wrong"

There is probably a club for blokes who get exasperated with their
other half that has it as a motto, if not their should be.

G.Harman