Roland Perry wrote:

My solution so far has been to install a polypipe from roughly where the
camera is, to outside where the lead pipe starts heading for the street.

Have you already dug down to the lead pipe at this proposed MDPE
junction, got a photo of that bit? are the plumbers fears of it being
squished justified?

On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:44:48 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:

However in the OP's case it sounds as though MDPE to the stopcock would
be the most reliable thing to do.

And some water companies will do it for free and have the moleing kit
to avoid having to dig trenches...

Parenthetically, my old underground plastic pipe was black, I think blue
is relatively recent innovation.

Ours is black, mains water arrived in the early 1980's.

--
Cheers
Dave.

In message l.net, at
09:17:20 on Sun, 3 May 2020, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:44:48 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:

However in the OP's case it sounds as though MDPE to the stopcock would
be the most reliable thing to do.

And some water companies will do it for free and have the moleing kit
to avoid having to dig trenches...

Anglia Water claim you have to get the pipe to the roadside yourself.

Parenthetically, my old underground plastic pipe was black, I think blue
is relatively recent innovation.

Ours is black, mains water arrived in the early 1980's.


--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message l.net, at
09:17:20 on Sun, 3 May 2020, Dave Liquorice
remarked:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2020 10:44:48 +0100, Roger Hayter wrote:

However in the OP's case it sounds as though MDPE to the stopcock would
be the most reliable thing to do.

And some water companies will do it for free and have the moleing kit
to avoid having to dig trenches...

Anglia Water claim you have to get the pipe to the roadside yourself.

That is theoretically true if the stopcock is in the road. When I had a
meter fitted they moved it onto my property so that the meter reader
doesn't have to stand (or kneel) in the road to read the meter.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 22:49:00 on Sat,
2 May 2020, Roger Hayter remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 08:19:24 on Thu, 30 Apr 2020,
Roland Perry remarked:
House has old lead pipe water main. This needs extending (with polypipe)
to new position within kitchen extension.

Plumber says this is difficult if the old pipe isn't circular enough to
attach the connector he has in mind.

Isn't there a connector which could be soldered to the lead pipe side,
somewhat irrespective of its exact profile?

[My preference is to polypipe all the way to the water meter in the
pavement, but that involves digging up (and reinstating) rather a lot of
concrete path. As well as presumably getting the Water Company
involved.]

ps The water company previously tested the potable supply for lead, and
declared it so low it probably wasn't a lead pipe anyway. Ho Hum.

I value all the comments made so far. Here's a photo (now I've started
to take apart the kitchen unit with the old stopcock in it).

http://www.perry.co.uk/images/stopcock.jpg

Points to note:

When buying the house the only visibility of the pipe was above the
unit's chipboard floor, about 1cm, which everyone declared to be black
polypipe (despite my misgivings).

There's a lead-to-copper connector whose body is almost spherical.

Above that is a copper reducer before the stopcock itself.

The floor is concrete and Marley tiles, and the stopcock needs moving
about two feet towards the camera, with the floor in the area below the
stopcock eventually being in the open air and level.

My solution so far has been to install a polypipe from roughly where the
camera is, to outside where the lead pipe starts heading for the street.

Didn't want to be doing any of this, but as the contractors have fled
because of lockdown, I would like to get them up to speed as quickly as
possible when they do eventually return.

How are you planning to bury the MDPE under the floor so that it is at
least 2' deep where it passes through the wall? Doesn't this involve
digging up the kitchen floor?

The groundworks chap has already done that. Of course, it won't *be* a
wall eventually, because it is being demolished to make one large room.
There's already an RSJ fitted above (2 o'clock to 8 o'clock in the photo
if that makes sense). But lockdown happened the day before the stub of
that wall was scheduled to come out. (The main thing it's doing useful
at the moment is keeping the old stopcock upright).

Is there no way you can extend copper in place of the existing stopcock
and box it in?

No, because the old stopcock will be bang in the middle of the floor of
the 'corridor' around the new central island in the kitchen/diner.

The only way to re-use the lead piping internally, would be to dig
around it (rather restricted space and the floor tiles are as tough as
old boots) down sufficiently far to be able to fit a right-angle bend to
the left, and away to where the new sink will be.

If you are going to be digging up the floor and a 2' hole outside

The floor where the sink is being repositioned to has been dug up
already, as has the whole area on the "outside" of the wall (which is
"inside" the new side extension). It was when digging that up that they
discovered the lead water main, which is along the side of the house and
then right angle turn into the old kitchen under the original wall.

I'd strongly recommend replacing the whole of the lead pipe to the
stopcock.

See my original posting. That's plan B, but arranging that during
lockdown is going to be difficult. It also means digging up (and
reinstating) 20m of concrete path (also difficult in lockdown, as well
as a fairly major project.).

When I did mine (only about 7m) I dug a person sized (18' to 2') trench
but with modern equipment they can do it only about 120mm wide, even if
you can't do it with a mole.




In a previous house where I did a very similar project (new
kitchen/diner extension at the rear) they polypiped it off the old lead
main under the floorboards just inside the front door. And very little
drama.

If you're going to have the join outside I'd recommend an (insulated
above) inspection chamber.



If by any chance you've got retricted flow it may help this, as well as
avoid the worry of a buried adaptor with two compression joints.

I'm probably as worried about spending another six weeks with no kitchen
to speak of (we've effectively got a standpipe where the old sink was,
and a 3" hole in the floor as a drain).

It doesn't, BTW, sound as though your plumber knows very much about
plumbing, which is a bit worrying. Make sure he remembers pipe inserts,
the best of us can forget those in the heat of the moment.


--

Roger Hayter

In message , at 11:16:06 on Sun, 3
May 2020, charles remarked:
However in the OP's case it sounds as though MDPE to the stopcock would
be the most reliable thing to do.

And some water companies will do it for free and have the moleing kit
to avoid having to dig trenches...

Anglia Water claim you have to get the pipe to the roadside yourself.

That is theoretically true if the stopcock is in the road. When I had a
meter fitted they moved it onto my property so that the meter reader
doesn't have to stand (or kneel) in the road to read the meter.

My meter is in the pavement, which is neither the road, nor my property.
From talking to meter readers at a previous property they read them with
some kind of contactless technology.
--
Roland Perry

On 30/04/2020 08:19, Roland Perry wrote:
House has old lead pipe water main. This needs extending (with polypipe)
to new position within kitchen extension.

Plumber says this is difficult if the old pipe isn't circular enough to
attach the connector he has in mind.

Isn't there a connector which could be soldered to the lead pipe side,
somewhat irrespective of its exact profile?

[My preference is to polypipe all the way to the water meter in the
pavement, but that involves digging up (and reinstating) rather a lot of
concrete path. As well as presumably getting the Water Company
involved.]

ps The water company previously tested the potable supply for lead, and
declared it so low it probably wasn't a lead pipe anyway. Ho Hum.

When my nest door neighbour built his new house he found that the water
pipe in the street was a combination of lead piping and asbestos pipe.
He wasn't allowed to connect up to the water until the street pipe was
replaced with plastic. They used a mole system to do it.
Funny thing was - when my water meter was fitted (some year prior) no
mention was made of the street pipe.

--
Ask how to email me.

In message , at 11:25:04 on
Sun, 3 May 2020, Roger Hayter remarked:
I'd strongly recommend replacing the whole of the lead pipe to the
stopcock.

See my original posting. That's plan B, but arranging that during
lockdown is going to be difficult. It also means digging up (and
reinstating) 20m of concrete path (also difficult in lockdown, as well
as a fairly major project.).

When I did mine (only about 7m) I dug a person sized (18' to 2') trench
but with modern equipment they can do it only about 120mm wide, even if
you can't do it with a mole.

Which would still require substantial reinstatement in what is the front
path to my house.

In a previous house where I did a very similar project (new
kitchen/diner extension at the rear) they polypiped it off the old lead
main under the floorboards just inside the front door. And very little
drama.

If you're going to have the join outside I'd recommend an (insulated
above) inspection chamber.

Useful, thanks.

If by any chance you've got retricted flow it may help this, as well as
avoid the worry of a buried adaptor with two compression joints.

I'm probably as worried about spending another six weeks with no kitchen
to speak of (we've effectively got a standpipe where the old sink was,
and a 3" hole in the floor as a drain).

It doesn't, BTW, sound as though your plumber knows very much about
plumbing, which is a bit worrying.

The main problem is a plumber who is a subby, who is not available "on
demand" rather typically a week lead time) meanwhile the groundworks
subby was "I've started so I'll finish" on a timescale of days.

And because they are both in theory reporting to (and being paid by) a
now furloughed member of the builder's staff...
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Good for you - but then it wasn't illegal then. I'd not blame Roland's
contractor for declining to go that route.

Before perpetuating the fallacy it would be a good idea to provide
evidence it is illegal.


'They' certainly banned leaded solder for end feed fittings on potable
water pipe.

I'd guess some simply decided it applied to anything and everything.

Like the plumber telling my next door neighbour only an approved fitter
can change her cooker. Even if electric.

--
*Also too, never, ever use repetitive redundancies *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water. I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.

--
*Cleaned by Stevie Wonder, checked by David Blunkett*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:16:06 on Sun, 3
May 2020, charles remarked:
However in the OP's case it sounds as though MDPE to the stopcock would
be the most reliable thing to do.

And some water companies will do it for free and have the moleing kit
to avoid having to dig trenches...

Anglia Water claim you have to get the pipe to the roadside yourself.

That is theoretically true if the stopcock is in the road. When I had a
meter fitted they moved it onto my property so that the meter reader
doesn't have to stand (or kneel) in the road to read the meter.

My meter is in the pavement, which is neither the road, nor my property.
From talking to meter readers at a previous property they read them with
some kind of contactless technology.

The pavement is part of the public highway, even if its not the bit that
cars use.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

In message , at 12:49:48 on Sun, 3
May 2020, charles remarked:

However in the OP's case it sounds as though MDPE to the stopcock would
be the most reliable thing to do.

And some water companies will do it for free and have the moleing kit
to avoid having to dig trenches...

Anglia Water claim you have to get the pipe to the roadside yourself.

That is theoretically true if the stopcock is in the road. When I had a
meter fitted they moved it onto my property so that the meter reader
doesn't have to stand (or kneel) in the road to read the meter.

My meter is in the pavement, which is neither the road, nor my property.
From talking to meter readers at a previous property they read them with
some kind of contactless technology.

The pavement is part of the public highway, even if its not the bit that
cars use.

Yes, I know. But if a meter reader were dallying there (which I don't
think hey do) they are unlikely to be run over by a car.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
11:52:43 on Sun, 3 May 2020, Kellerman
remarked:

hen my nest door neighbour built his new house he found that the water
pipe in the street was a combination of lead piping and asbestos pipe.
He wasn't allowed to connect up to the water until the street pipe was
replaced with plastic. They used a mole system to do it.

If you are doing lots of properties (all needing connecting to a new
street pipe, whether that's water or gas) then a deploying a mole for
the day is cost effective.

For a one-off, I suspect not so much.
--
Roland Perry

On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water. I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job. The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 03/05/2020 13:13:52, Robin wrote:
On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water.Â* I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

You have provided no evidence of that.

The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

You are comparing a but join where solder is built up as a bandage, and
a join where a copper pipe enters a lead pipe for 25-50mm.

They simply do not compare. It suggests you have never connected a
copper pipe to a lead pipe. There is no need for layers to guard against
a leak.

On 03/05/2020 12:32:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Good for you - but then it wasn't illegal then. I'd not blame Roland's
contractor for declining to go that route.

Before perpetuating the fallacy it would be a good idea to provide
evidence it is illegal.


'They' certainly banned leaded solder for end feed fittings on potable
water pipe.

I fully accept that. But that isn't the point claimed by Robin.

I'd guess some simply decided it applied to anything and everything.

Like the plumber telling my next door neighbour only an approved fitter
can change her cooker. Even if electric.

Quite, some here seem to hang everything on the misguided claims from a
professional, even where there is a clear ulterior motive.

Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 13:13:52, Robin wrote:
On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water. I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

You have provided no evidence of that.

The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

You are comparing a but join where solder is built up as a bandage, and
a join where a copper pipe enters a lead pipe for 25-50mm.

They simply do not compare. It suggests you have never connected a
copper pipe to a lead pipe. There is no need for layers to guard against
a leak.

Solder joints have a propensity to separate when any forces are put on
them. Lead pipes, being flexible, are likely to move significantly.
Unless the copper pipe is so wedged that it can't even rock, which would
need more than 50mm, there is a risk of latter leakage if the joint is
subject to vibration or bending. So I think a proper wiped joint is
not just a conceit of traditonal plumbers.
--

Roger Hayter

In message , at 08:18:57 on Sun, 3 May
2020, Andy Burns remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

My solution so far has been to install a polypipe from roughly where
the camera is, to outside where the lead pipe starts heading for the
street.

Have you already dug down to the lead pipe at this proposed MDPE
junction, got a photo of that bit? are the plumbers fears of it being
squished justified?

The groundworks chap did. I'm trying hard not to DIY this, having
commissioned, with a substantial 5-figure sum, a builder to arrange
everything. But the builder has furloughed all his staff[1], and they
didn't have anything I'd recognise as a useful project manager
involved even to begin with.

Which even before the lockdown meant I was having to brief the subbys
because otherwise they didn't know what they were supposed to be doing.

In the mean time, the groundworks chap has filled up the hole with
earth, and the plumber flatly refuses to do any digging.

[1] One of the reasons I chose this builder was because his literature
says all the work is done by full-time employees. But that's a
battle for another day.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 08:18:57 on Sun, 3 May
2020, Andy Burns remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:

My solution so far has been to install a polypipe from roughly where
the camera is, to outside where the lead pipe starts heading for the
street.

Have you already dug down to the lead pipe at this proposed MDPE
junction, got a photo of that bit? are the plumbers fears of it being
squished justified?

The groundworks chap did. I'm trying hard not to DIY this, having
commissioned, with a substantial 5-figure sum, a builder to arrange
everything. But the builder has furloughed all his staff[1], and they
didn't have anything I'd recognise as a useful project manager
involved even to begin with.

Which even before the lockdown meant I was having to brief the subbys
because otherwise they didn't know what they were supposed to be doing.

In the mean time, the groundworks chap has filled up the hole with
earth, and the plumber flatly refuses to do any digging.

[1] One of the reasons I chose this builder was because his literature
says all the work is done by full-time employees. But that's a
battle for another day.

When I had a similar sized project a few years ago, with some extras
included and few unexpected snags, I did the odd bit to help on days the
builders weren't there. And I found them quite happy and it was
probably reflected in the final price, as they could well have charged
me somewhat more. Electrical an plumbing were especially well received
as the subcontractors were well elusive.


--

Roger Hayter

On 03/05/2020 13:35, Fredxx wrote:
On 03/05/2020 13:13:52, Robin wrote:
On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water.Â* I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone
who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection
for a professional job.

You have provided no evidence of that.

The solder had to be built up in layers to give the thick "bandage" to
guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to make it look pretty.

You are comparing a but join where solder is built up as a bandage, and
a join where a copper pipe enters a lead pipe for 25-50mm.

They simply do not compare. It suggests you have never connected a
copper pipe to a lead pipe. There is no need for layers to guard against
a leak.

I have indeed never sweated a copper pipe to a lead pipe - because I
don't have the skill to do the job to a professional standard and there
were modern alternatives available to me. I have seen many such joints
(to iron and brass as well as copper) done by professionals - ancient
and modern - all of which were "wiped" into a thick layer. And even
seen a few done. I was told they leaked if the lead was not built up.
But you may of course be right that it was unnecessary.


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 03/05/2020 13:55:33, Roger Hayter wrote:
Fredxx wrote:

On 03/05/2020 13:13:52, Robin wrote:
On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water. I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

You have provided no evidence of that.

The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

You are comparing a but join where solder is built up as a bandage, and
a join where a copper pipe enters a lead pipe for 25-50mm.

They simply do not compare. It suggests you have never connected a
copper pipe to a lead pipe. There is no need for layers to guard against
a leak.

Solder joints have a propensity to separate when any forces are put on
them. Lead pipes, being flexible, are likely to move significantly.
Unless the copper pipe is so wedged that it can't even rock, which would
need more than 50mm, there is a risk of latter leakage if the joint is
subject to vibration or bending. So I think a proper wiped joint is
not just a conceit of traditonal plumbers.

Soldering is reliant on the surface tension of the filler between the
two metals. I am assuming that the lead is drilled to match the copper
tube. There would be minimal rocking along the length of the join and I
would expect any such proposed solder joint would last longer than one
relying on an O-ring. A Lead-loc will also rock when subject to sideways
force.

In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water. I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

Then you need an inspector who understands basic metallurgy.


The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

Solder in layers isn't going to seal between layers.

Are you confusing it with plumber's metal?

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Solder joints have a propensity to separate when any forces are put on
them. Lead pipes, being flexible, are likely to move significantly.
Unless the copper pipe is so wedged that it can't even rock, which would
need more than 50mm, there is a risk of latter leakage if the joint is
subject to vibration or bending. So I think a proper wiped joint is
not just a conceit of traditonal plumbers.

The one and only I did - long before this group existed - is still leak
free. Getting on for 50 years down the line. And of course it is properly
supported.

--
*Pride is what we have. Vanity is what others have.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 03/05/2020 16:21, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Robin wrote:
On 03/05/2020 12:33, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
I note that reference confirms my supposition that a fresh lead surface
leads to increased lead levels in the water. I note that lead free
solder may be permitted, but I look forwarded to hearing from anyone who
has successfully made a wiped joint with it.

You don't need a pretty wiped joint to join lead to copper. Merely a
decent seal between the two.


Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

Then you need an inspector who understands basic metallurgy.

I was going by old contract specifications (and before that bye-laws).

The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

Solder in layers isn't going to seal between layers.

I was wrong to say it /had/ to be in layers but I have seen it done with
successive pourings. It's all molten so I don't see why it would not seal.

Are you confusing it with plumber's metal?


Plumber's metal is solder.




--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

It's great to have a post about an actual job but I'm amazed how it's become such an extended thread. Is this a sign of lockdown cabin fever?

On 02/05/2020 23:21, Fredxx wrote:

Most of the youtube videos regarding wiping a joint use 60/40 tin/lead
solder. That is pretty close to eutectic.

60/40 tin/lead *is* eutectic, but that is not a typical plumbing solder,
which is closer to 60/40 lead/tin.

I always thought for wiping
you used a 70/30 lead/tin where you had a wide temperature range when
the solder is workable as it cools.

Yup, 60/40 lead/tin (or with small amount (=3%) f antinomy) will cross
the solidus line at about 183 deg C, and the liquidus at 234.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
Robin wrote:
Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

Then you need an inspector who understands basic metallurgy.

I was going by old contract specifications (and before that bye-laws).

The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

Solder in layers isn't going to seal between layers.

I was wrong to say it /had/ to be in layers but I have seen it done with
successive pourings. It's all molten so I don't see why it would not
seal.

Right - meaning you've not actually ever done it yourself?

Are you confusing it with plumber's metal?


Plumber's metal is solder.

It is a type of solder. Hence the different name.

To fix a copper pipe to lead, you'd use soft solder.

The way a lead to lead joint is done requires a technique to provide the
same sort of strength as the original lead. Hence the ugly lump.

Copper to lead is already well supported. So the only thing the solder has
to do is seal the joint.

--
*Just remember...if the world didn't suck, we'd all fall off*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Cynic wrote:

It's great to have a post about an actual job but I'm amazed how it's
become such an extended thread. Is this a sign of lockdown cabin fever?

I think it is more because it raises a lot of interesting issues, and
there is no single good answer. Getting it done and how to do so is
complicated by the lockdown, though.

--

Roger Hayter

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Robin wrote:
Simply running solder into the join would not have passed inspection for
a professional job.

Then you need an inspector who understands basic metallurgy.

I was going by old contract specifications (and before that bye-laws).

The solder had to be built up in layers to give
the thick "bandage" to guard against leaks. The wiping wasn't just to
make it look pretty.

Solder in layers isn't going to seal between layers.

I was wrong to say it /had/ to be in layers but I have seen it done with
successive pourings. It's all molten so I don't see why it would not
seal.

Right - meaning you've not actually ever done it yourself?

Are you confusing it with plumber's metal?


Plumber's metal is solder.

It is a type of solder. Hence the different name.

To fix a copper pipe to lead, you'd use soft solder.

The way a lead to lead joint is done requires a technique to provide the
same sort of strength as the original lead. Hence the ugly lump.

Copper to lead is already well supported. So the only thing the solder has
to do is seal the joint.

Given that lead is easily malleable, the joint is not that well
supported in the presence of knocks,gravity and vibration.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Copper to lead is already well supported. So the only thing the solder
has to do is seal the joint.

Given that lead is easily malleable, the joint is not that well
supported in the presence of knocks,gravity and vibration.

The copper pipe going inside the lead is going to reinforce it at that
point. And why wouldn't you support the copper pipe where it joins the
lead?

--
*Indian Driver - Smoke signals only*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 13:25:57 on Mon, 4 May
2020, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Copper to lead is already well supported. So the only thing the solder
has to do is seal the joint.

Given that lead is easily malleable, the joint is not that well
supported in the presence of knocks,gravity and vibration.

The copper pipe going inside the lead is going to reinforce it at that
point. And why wouldn't you support the copper pipe where it joins the
lead?

Because unless it's in the regs, plumbers simply won't bother.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 13:25:57 on Mon, 4 May
2020, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Copper to lead is already well supported. So the only thing the solder
has to do is seal the joint.

Given that lead is easily malleable, the joint is not that well
supported in the presence of knocks,gravity and vibration.

The copper pipe going inside the lead is going to reinforce it at that
point. And why wouldn't you support the copper pipe where it joins the
lead?

Because unless it's in the regs, plumbers simply won't bother.

True. Hence saying how to DIY it in this group.

--
*(over a sketch of the titanic) "The boat sank - get over it

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

Because unless it's in the regs, plumbers simply won't bother.

True. Hence saying how to DIY it in this group.

I must admit, if my kitchen had been in bits for several weeks, with no
sign of that changing any week soon, I'd be DIYing it, not worrying
about whether I'd already paid a builder to sub it out to a plumber or not.

In message , at 13:03:36 on Tue, 5 May
2020, Andy Burns remarked:
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Roland Perry wrote:

Because unless it's in the regs, plumbers simply won't bother.
True. Hence saying how to DIY it in this group.

I must admit, if my kitchen had been in bits for several weeks, with no
sign of that changing any week soon, I'd be DIYing it, not worrying
about whether I'd already paid a builder to sub it out to a plumber or
not.

Which I have been doing (perhaps FTE two days a week - but that's my
rate of working, not a subby with a van load of power tools I don't
have).

But some of it will eventually need signing off by building control (and
I don't claim to be an expert in what foibles they have this week) and
whether or not any discount can be had from the builder as result of all
this stuff I've been doing for him, is still to be discovered.

Perhaps I should just invoice him for £300/day plus materials, like the
other subbys?
--
Roland Perry