Got a triple sink to change waste on (taking waste disposer out).
Had a look about & can't immediately see on sf or ts a "triple" trap set -which leads of to believe there is probly a more usual way of doing it using other components?

Tia

Jim K

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:17:23 -0700, Jim K wrote:

Got a triple sink to change waste on (taking waste disposer out).
Had a look about & can't immediately see on sf or ts a "triple" trap set
-which leads of to believe there is probly a more usual way of doing it
using other components?

The obvious answer is two double traps daisy-chained.

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:25:49 AM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:17:23 -0700, Jim K wrote:



Got a triple sink to change waste on (taking waste disposer out).

Had a look about & can't immediately see on sf or ts a "triple" trap set

-which leads of to believe there is probly a more usual way of doing it

using other components?



The obvious answer is two double traps daisy-chained.

er.. can you elaborate?

ta
Jim K

On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:25:49 AM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:17:23 -0700, Jim K wrote:

Got a triple sink to change waste on (taking waste disposer out).

The obvious answer is two double traps daisy-chained.

No. Join the pipes then into one trap


NT

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:14:49 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 9:25:49 AM UTC+1, Adrian wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:17:23 -0700, Jim K wrote:



Got a triple sink to change waste on (taking waste disposer out).



The obvious answer is two double traps daisy-chained.



No. Join the pipes then into one trap

Had another look and currently there are 3 traps! one for each big bowl and a 3rd where the disposer outputs.

Simplest thing will be to replace disposer with a basket strainer waste, and connect that to existing trap (disposer)..

So I reckon I need an adaptor to get from threaded bit on sink waste to a longish flexi waste pipe, that in turn to connect to existing trap.

What's the thread on the output of a standard sink waste??

TIA

Jim K

On Thursday, September 12, 2013 10:53:32 AM UTC+1, Jim K wrote:

So I reckon I need an adaptor to get from threaded bit on sink waste to a longish flexi waste pipe, that in turn to connect to existing trap.

What's the thread on the output of a standard sink waste??

ISTR it being 32mm on a triple sink. Also not sure why youre using flexi.


NT

Kitchen sink?

Flexi to get from new strainer waste to existing trap? KISS ;-)

Jim K

On Wednesday, September 11, 2013 11:14:49 PM UTC+1, wrote:

No. Join the pipes then into one trap

Wrong. A trap on each bowl. And with good reasons.

I wonder whether NT is deliberately posting misinformation in his posts.

I can't believe anyone really is as stupid as he appears to be.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 01:17:23 -0700 (PDT), Jim K wrote:

Got a triple sink to change waste on (taking waste disposer out).
Had a look about & can't immediately see on sf or ts a "triple" trap set -which leads of to believe there is probly a more usual way of doing it using other components?

Tia

Jim K

If there's space (length mainly) I'd run the 3 outlets along a single pipe
with a HepVo trap on the end. I don't see the need for 3 traps as isolating
the sinks from each other on the outlets is pointless when they're open to
each other at the top.

Same with multple urinals - have one trap at the end of the row.
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

Oh yes agreed, one trap should be plenty, hepvo or ordinary.

I spose should have said I'd looked for "triple waste" kits but found zip easily available.

McAlpine do a 3 sink kit on their web but not found it locally so far.

Cheers

Jim K

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, wrote:

Judging by the pong that wifts from my sink waste from the near horizontal

difficult to clean pipe between the bowls I'd go for a trap on each sink as

long as there is room for them.



How can the near hoizontal pipe be cleaned and de-whiffed without dismantling

( and the resultant drain water into th bucket being re-inserted into the

(unconnected) waste)?

We have a winner.

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On 10 Sep,

PeterC wrote:



If there's space (length mainly) I'd run the 3 outlets along a single pipe

with a HepVo trap on the end. I don't see the need for 3 traps as isolating

the sinks from each other on the outlets is pointless when they're open to

each other at the top.



Same with multple urinals - have one trap at the end of the row.



Judging by the pong that wifts from my sink waste from the near horizontal

difficult to clean pipe between the bowls I'd go for a trap on each sink as

long as there is room for them.



How can the near hoizontal pipe be cleaned and de-whiffed without dismantling

( and the resultant drain water into th bucket being re-inserted into the

(unconnected) waste)?

We have a winner.

Take note, NT.
Mr M has done it, or some one has done it for him.
He has real world experience and knows the disadvantages of the one-trap (see what I did there) solution.

You have no practical experience and recommended one trap.

The MacAlpine one trap assembley has one advantage; it is CHEAP!

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:53:42 PM UTC+1, Onetap wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, wrote:

On 10 Sep,



PeterC wrote:







If there's space (length mainly) I'd run the 3 outlets along a single pipe



with a HepVo trap on the end. I don't see the need for 3 traps as isolating



the sinks from each other on the outlets is pointless when they're open to



each other at the top.







Same with multple urinals - have one trap at the end of the row.







Judging by the pong that wifts from my sink waste from the near horizontal



difficult to clean pipe between the bowls I'd go for a trap on each sink as



long as there is room for them.







How can the near hoizontal pipe be cleaned and de-whiffed without dismantling



( and the resultant drain water into th bucket being re-inserted into the



(unconnected) waste)?



We have a winner.



Take note, NT.

Mr M has done it, or some one has done it for him.

He has real world experience and knows the disadvantages of the one-trap (see what I did there) solution.



You have no practical experience and recommended one trap.



The MacAlpine one trap assembley has one advantage; it is CHEAP!


well my my aren't we blessed!!

one armchair expert who contributes theoretical "imaginative" advice, &
another armchair expert who claims to know things but won't reveal his "hard earned" "secrets"...

ROTFLMAO
;)))))

Jim K

On Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:59:55 AM UTC+1, Jim K wrote:


well my my aren't we blessed!!



one armchair expert who contributes theoretical "imaginative" advice, &

another armchair expert who claims to know things but won't reveal his "hard earned" "secrets"...


And, of course, the gormless, incompetent, ingrate **** who can't figure out his simple problem for himself.

The "hard earned" secret never was a secret, anyone with half a clue could figure it out.

I'd just held back, temporarily, on stating advantage of the 3-trap arrangement to see if NT could work it out.

He couldn't; someone else posted the reason above.

You had your answer in my first post; 'Thank you' would be the response suggested by common sense and common courtesy. You have neither.


ROTFLMAO

;)))))

Jim K


******.

On Sunday, 15 September 2013 12:29:50 UTC+1, Onetap wrote:
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 9:59:55 AM UTC+1, Jim K wrote:
well my my aren't we blessed!!

one armchair expert who contributes theoretical "imaginative" advice, &
another armchair expert who claims to know things but won't reveal his "hard earned" "secrets"...

And, of course, the gormless, incompetent, ingrate **** who can't figure out his simple problem for himself.

The "hard earned" secret never was a secret, anyone with half a clue could figure it out.

I'd just held back, temporarily, on stating advantage of the 3-trap arrangement to see if NT could work it out.

He couldn't; someone else posted the reason above.

You had your answer in my first post; 'Thank you' would be the response suggested by common sense and common courtesy. You have neither.

ROTFLMAO



;)))))



Jim K

******.

oh kettles & pots!

ever the consummate profeshunal eh Tapped-One ;))

plumbers - honestly who'd want to be one? ;)))

Jim K

On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:53:42 PM UTC+1, Onetap wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:24:18 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On 10 Sep,
PeterC wrote:

If there's space (length mainly) I'd run the 3 outlets along a single pipe
with a HepVo trap on the end. I don't see the need for 3 traps as isolating
the sinks from each other on the outlets is pointless when they're open to
each other at the top.
Same with multple urinals - have one trap at the end of the row.
Judging by the pong that wifts from my sink waste from the near horizontal
difficult to clean pipe between the bowls I'd go for a trap on each sink as
long as there is room for them.
How can the near hoizontal pipe be cleaned and de-whiffed without dismantling
( and the resultant drain water into th bucket being re-inserted into the
(unconnected) waste)?
We have a winner.
Take note, NT.
Mr M has done it, or some one has done it for him.
He has real world experience and knows the disadvantages of the one-trap (see what I did there) solution.

There are 2 downsides, not one. The other is that emptying a deluge of water from one bowl can wash crap into the other bowl. However both are pretty trivial, assuming one cleans one's sink regularly.


You have no practical experience and recommended one trap.

fwiw on this I do, its how I know the downsides. Never bother with facts eh.


NT

The MacAlpine one trap assembley has one advantage; it is CHEAP!

On Monday, September 16, 2013 9:06:13 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:53:42 PM UTC+1, Onetap wrote:

He has real world experience and knows the disadvantages of the one-trap (see what I did there) solution.



There are 2 downsides, not one. The other is that emptying a deluge of water from one bowl can wash crap into the other bowl. However both are pretty trivial, assuming one cleans one's sink regularly.

Wrong.

That would happen with either arrangement, if there was a restriction in the outlet. The trap is not a check valve.



You have no practical experience and recommended one trap.



fwiw on this I do, its how I know the downsides. Never bother with facts eh.

You've just added to the mound of evidence of your lack of hands-on experience and your widerenging ignorance.

You really should pack it in and seek psychiatric help, Nigel.

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 7:36:30 AM UTC+1, Onetap wrote:
On Monday, September 16, 2013 9:06:13 PM UTC+1, wrote:
On Saturday, September 14, 2013 10:53:42 PM UTC+1, Onetap wrote:

He has real world experience and knows the disadvantages of the one-trap (see what I did there) solution.

There are 2 downsides, not one. The other is that emptying a deluge of water from one bowl can wash crap into the other bowl. However both are pretty trivial, assuming one cleans one's sink regularly.

Wrong.
That would happen with either arrangement, if there was a restriction in the outlet. The trap is not a check valve.

With 3 traps there are 2 traps between any pair of bowls. That's significant resistance.

With 1 trap the 2 bowls are simply plumbed directly to each other, no extra resistance between them.

In electronic terms:

----R1---+---R2-----
|
R3
|

versus
--------+---------
|
R3
|

where R1&2 = trap resistance, R3 = waste pipe resistance
Anyone that understands the basics of impedance can see which is more prone to one bowl filling the other.


You have no practical experience and recommended one trap.

fwiw on this I do, its how I know the downsides. Never bother with facts eh.

You've just added to the mound of evidence of your lack of hands-on experience and your widerenging ignorance.
You really should pack it in and seek psychiatric help, Nigel.

Grow up. Youre not 13 any more.


NT