I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough
stuff as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." I need to
cobble together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack.
I've got a box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a
screw if you know the load?
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>
>
>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>for wind storm resistance.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:jQECRbY1neYJ:www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2001/ramme01c.pdf+strength+of+wood+screws&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg9pEGju8WWsoPMVhRJ7L6JXoMuY3Kta6Omuhk3_dLT8vwSpZDpZAYFDsOrDtK0APpyKAaiMD7y-8onCM3KNjHT0Npl0YM7IVAIYQDSTvqiM8g_6Z_NMZQihRnuvfP8UVUD8_W6&sig=AHIEtbTTUsxKpgBdQ-sY69aEy4gb6jrsjw
gives more information on screw strength and calculations. It is a
LONG URL and may not work for you, but you can find it by googling as
well. Google "wood mechanical fasteners".
On Friday, April 6, 2012 12:05:36 PM UTC-4, Gramp's shop wrote:
> I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough
> stuff as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." I need to
> cobble together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack.
> I've got a box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
>
> Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a
> screw if you know the load?
Those will do. If you are concerned, smear a little construction adhesive in there too. Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
RP
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>
>
>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>for wind storm resistance.
Look up "fasten master" structural screws. They are approved for a LOT
of general construction use - and their "timberlok" screw can be used
in place of hurricane straps to fasten trusses to double top sills -
as an example - replacing the tiedown strap and 12 nails with ONE
fastener.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 18:37:51 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>
>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>
>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>
>Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
>requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
>size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
>
Using the right number and pattern of screws will achieve the same
thing. You need a larger screw to give the same strength, generally
speaking, because the root diameter if the screw is significantly less
than the nominal diameter, and the strength of the screw (yield) is
lowered by the stress rizers formed by the malformation of the metal
at the thread root. Screws COULD be made that were almost as strong as
the equivalent sized nail, but they would be way to expensive to be
practical. An "old school" wood screw is stronger than today's
"construction screw" or "deck screw" or, particularly, the "drywall
screw".
The holding ability of a screw excedes that of a nail in most cases -
but with a "deck screw" or "drywall screw" it also often excedes the
yield strength of the screw itself. An "ardox" nail is a compromize -
it's holding ability approaches that of a screw - with the overall
strength of a nail, but without the removeability of a screw. A guy
who used to work in construction with my dad used to drive screws with
a hammer - he said the funny head and other features of the screw were
just to make them easier to remove;).
>> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
>> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
>> I use screws for all that now.
"Gramp's shop" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough stuff
> as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." I need to cobble
> together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack. I've got a
> box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
>
> Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a screw
> if you know the load?
I never thought about it. Just that so many screws today are absolute crap.
If you shear off a screw while driving it into the wood, it is a bad sign.
And it depends where you buy them too. I have had terrible luck with deck
screws and lag screws from the local home depot. But the local ace hardware
store gave me screws that were higher in quality, stronger and a few cents
cheaper too.
If I got any kind of basic repair outside or in the garage these days, I
just use their deck screws. It ain't art or furniture. But it is strong.
They don't shear off and they don't rust outside.
The old standby rule about strength for fasteners is to estimate how many
will do the job. Then put twice as many in there. I have always been
accused of using too many screws anyway.
Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>
>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>
>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>
>Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
>requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
>size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
Particularly in earthquake country where shear walls are commonly required
by the building codes. The nailing patterns are very specific.
scott
On Apr 6, 12:05=A0pm, Gramp's shop <[email protected]> wrote:
> I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough
> stuff as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." =A0I need to
> cobble together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack.
> I've got a box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
>
> Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a
> screw if you know the load?
When in doubt, put in another screw for redundancy. If
they're going to fail, in all likelihood, they're going to fail
one screw at a time.
On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>
>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>
> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
> I use screws for all that now.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> writes:
>> On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>>
>>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>>
>>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>>
>> Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
>> requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
>> size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
>
> Particularly in earthquake country where shear walls are commonly required
> by the building codes. The nailing patterns are very specific.
We have a separate shear wall inspection in the locale where I generally
build, and you are correct, the nailing pattern for that inspection, as
well as full height structural sheathing on single story, and required
overlap of structural sheathing between floors, is very specific.
--
www.ewoodshop.com
And put on earth quake straps on the foundation and sil board.
That will work in other cases of strong wind. A force trying to
flatten a house.
Another thing we did in earth quake country was to put in shear walls.
Often the outer boards are 1x tongue and grove but they silip and slide
in wind. On the inside put sheet ply It doesn't have to be all walls,
but some of the side on all sides. Keep that side from laying over.
Martin
On 4/11/2012 7:15 PM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>
>
> Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
> for wind storm resistance.
[email protected] writes:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:05:15 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>>Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>>The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>>straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>>But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>>
>>On 4/11/2012 7:37 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>>>
>>>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>>>
>>> Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
>>> requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
>>> size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
>>>> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
>>>> I use screws for all that now.
>>>
>>>
>A straight nail driven into end grain has about the same holding power
>(in tension) as yesterday's chewing gum.
When it is nailed from the top plate or sill into stud endgrain, it suffices since
the roof holds them together - the nail is to keep the stud aligned, any forces
will be perpendicular to the nail.
On 4/11/2012 9:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> TimberLok screws can be used in place of
>> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
>> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
>> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
>> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
>
> You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
> checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
> specifications for the particular structure.
>
> Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in that
> regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.
>
I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but
structural reliability.
On 4/13/2012 2:18 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
> I have never had problems with pipes freezing in our house, apparently
> my neighbour has, although I have seen her walking around *in* her house
> with her winter coat on for hours.
Hummmm ... does your wife know you're watching, and "for hours"? <g,d,&r>
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>
>>> +1
>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>
>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>
>I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>of copper how copper is typically installed.
>
>In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>pipes seem to be the first to burst.
Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
either.
>
>PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>year warranty.
>Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>
I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 12:56:16 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 4/12/12 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>
>>> +1
>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>
>
>Except that a good General Contractor isn't an idiot and keeps track of
>the prevailing labor rates and costs of materials and know what a job
>should cost. Free market would drive that other plumber out of business
>real quick when the $1400 guy starts getting all the work. Hence, his
>other old school buddy down on the local code board.
>
>
>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>
>Boooo! Bad answer, you sound like an old guy. :-)
>There are lazy, sloppy plumbers who do shoddy work with whatever
>material they are working with. I've seen some ugly ass copper piping
>with big balls of solder stuck all over the joints and all kinds of
>extraneous elbows and crap with bad decisions in where to run the lines
>where the lines are in the way of everything that comes later, pipes too
>close to the outside of studs and plates. And I've seen great copper
>jobs.... the kind that belongs in instruction books.
>
>In my experience, the guys who care about their work, care about it when
>they did copper and they care about it after moving to Pex. Why run Pex
>in straight run with 90 degree bends if you don't have to? If it's not
>in the way and it makes sense, why do it it based on the same physical
>restrictions as copper? If it's neater to do it that way and works out
>better, then do it. But don't do it just because "that's the way we did
>copper."
>
>I've seen some beautiful Pex runs from manifolds and nothing was messy
>and you could trace every line. It's the plumber, not the plumbing.
Let's just put it this way. It's easier to make a messy looking
leakproof job in Pex than it is in copper. And it's a lot easier to
make a neat looking job with copper - particularly if you know what
you are doing with the copper. It was a lot easier with pB solder too.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
Is there any need to drain PEX? (Despite it's resistance to freezing)
On 4/13/2012 7:48 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>
> Is there any need to drain PEX? (Despite it's resistance to freezing)
If you drain it you don't have to wait as long for the ice to melt
before you can use the outside hose bib again.
On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>>
>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>
>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>
>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>
> Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
> one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
> either.
>>
>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>> year warranty.
>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>
>
> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
But should you develop a leak at any fixture or pipe leading to that
fixture can you isolate that feed and leave every thing else on?
On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
Frost proof hose bibs are code requirements in most jurisdiction these
days, even on the Gulf Coast, and for a good reason.
Contrary to what you may think, a standard hose bib is more likely to be
the cause of frozen pipes in this area (Gulf Coast) and in relative
moderate freezing temperatures (+/- 20 to 32 C), than a pipe in an attic
(which rarely freeze here except when the temperatures stay in the low
to mid teens (C) for more than 24 hours), and the house is unheated or
unoccupied.
With most attic pipes between joists, and below the required R-30
insulation , the ambient temperature from the rooms below will generally
protect attic pipes for most of our coldest winters
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/13/2012 7:48 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>
> Is there any need to drain PEX? (Despite it's resistance to freezing)
The difference between copper, and other rigid piping/cpcv, and PEX is
in the amount of expansion and contraction it will allow with thermal
changes.
PEX has a much higher expansion coefficient and is thus more resistant
to bursting when frozen, although that is not an infinite ability ...
particularly with regard to the fitting points and connections.
Although there is much more room for error with regard to draining, the
weakest points would be at fittings and connections, which basically
means prudence dictates treating it as if it would be advisable to drain
if the thermal conditions indicate.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/13/12 2:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>>
>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>
>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>
>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>
> Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
> one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
> either.
>>
>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>> year warranty.
>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>
>
> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
>
I have never had problems with pipes freezing in our house, apparently
my neighbour has, although I have seen her walking around *in* her house
with her winter coat on for hours. Same idiot never takes the cover off
her A/C either, so I have no idea how often if ever she lets the furnace
run.
*shakes head*
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
On 4/13/12 5:26 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 2:18 PM, FrozenNorth wrote:
>
>
>> I have never had problems with pipes freezing in our house, apparently
>> my neighbour has, although I have seen her walking around *in* her house
>> with her winter coat on for hours.
>
> Hummmm ... does your wife know you're watching, and "for hours"? <g,d,&r>
>
>
Just a casual walk through the kitchen, neighbour is a teacher, she
marks papers in her kitchen, under a 25W light bulb (or there about,
really dim light), my wife is much better looking. :-)
--
Froz...
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On 12 Apr 2012 01:17:25 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
> >[email protected] writes:
> >>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:05:15 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
> >>>Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
> >>>The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
> >>>straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
> >>>But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
> >>>
> >>>On 4/11/2012 7:37 PM, Swingman wrote:
> >>>> On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
> >>>>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
> >>>> requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
> >>>> size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
> >>>>> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
> >>>>> I use screws for all that now.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>A straight nail driven into end grain has about the same holding power
> >>(in tension) as yesterday's chewing gum.
> >
> >When it is nailed from the top plate or sill into stud endgrain, it suffices since
> >the roof holds them together - the nail is to keep the stud aligned, any forces
> >will be perpendicular to the nail.
> Untill you get wind lift. Or siesmic activity. Which is why
> toe-nailing USED to be pretty well a requirement in the days of plain
> nails. Ardox nails help. TimberLok screws can be used in place of
> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
For certain values of "code". Building codes in the US are not
standardized. There is a model code but no requirement that it be used
by any given locality.
> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
for wind storm resistance.
On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>TimberLok screws can be used in place of
> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
specifications for the particular structure.
Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in that
regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
-MIKE- wrote:
>
> I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze
> burst. I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and
> valves.
Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their value,
but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
Richard <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 9:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> TimberLok screws can be used in place of
>>> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
>>> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
>>> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
>>> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
>>
>> You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
>> checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
>> specifications for the particular structure.
>>
>> Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in that
>> regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.
>>
>
>
> I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but
> structural reliability.
WTF does "approval by political elect" have to do with building codes and
structural requirements set forth by an engineer?
--
www.ewoodshop.com
Leon wrote:
> Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
> else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
That is so funny. For those of us in the frost belt, we cannot conceive of
a house without a basement - or at least a crawl space (a cheap alternative
that raises at least one eyebrow...) under a home. Hell - it ain't a home
without a basement. Where the hell do you guys do your reloading? Can't
put an ammo bench out in the garage - it gets all dirty'd up from painting
cars! Where do you put the pool table? The wife's sewing room? Ya just
can't really have a home without a basement. Even in Texas!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/13/2012 3:18 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
>>> else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
>>
>> That is so funny. For those of us in the frost belt, we cannot
>> conceive of
>> a house without a basement - or at least a crawl space (a cheap
>> alternative
>> that raises at least one eyebrow...) under a home. Hell - it ain't a home
>> without a basement. Where the hell do you guys do your reloading? Can't
>> put an ammo bench out in the garage - it gets all dirty'd up from
>> painting
>> cars! Where do you put the pool table? The wife's sewing room? Ya just
>> can't really have a home without a basement. Even in Texas!
>
> I'll give you a dime for every basement in the Texas if you'll give me a
> penny for everyone in the "frost belt".
>
> They're not unheard of, but rarer than unicorn poop on a roof.
>
> Occasionally someone (usually from the NE) with more money than sense,
> will get a code variance at huge cost and risk and actually build one
> ... in the trade we call them what they will soon be ... "indoor
> swimming pools".
>
We call those "root cellars", not basements.
On 4/13/2012 1:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> Water pipes in the ATTIC?? Now that's a bass ackwards way of doing
> things - at least it would be up here. Water pipes in the attic WOULD
> be likely to freeze. We don't heat our attics - at least not
> intentionally.
It's standard procedure in almost all single story structures in the
Southern and Western states of the US, particularly in what is known as
"Hot Humid Climates", typically areas like the Gulf Coast where
basements are mostly out of the question due water tables, and 99.9% of
residential foundations are slab on grade.
That said, unvented attics, where all plumbing and HVAC duct work are
within the thermal envelope, is gaining some traction, although
relatively expensive and does have it's own drawbacks.
Besides, how else would plumbers, sheetrockers and painter's make it
through a harsh winter without some burst pipe work?? ;)
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/13/2012 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
>> else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
>
> That is so funny. For those of us in the frost belt, we cannot conceive of
> a house without a basement - or at least a crawl space (a cheap alternative
> that raises at least one eyebrow...) under a home. Hell - it ain't a home
> without a basement. Where the hell do you guys do your reloading? Can't
> put an ammo bench out in the garage - it gets all dirty'd up from painting
> cars! Where do you put the pool table? The wife's sewing room? Ya just
> can't really have a home without a basement. Even in Texas!
>
We reload on the front porch right next to the washing machine. ;~)
On 4/13/2012 1:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:58:04 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>>
>>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>>
>>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>>
>>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>>> year warranty.
>>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous winter
>>> I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the manifold
>>> and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had running
>>> water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>
>> Leon, Bubba ... you mean you haven't yet figured out that we live in a
>> shallow thinking culture that prizes "looks" over increased
>> functionality and efficiency ... in a farking dark ATTIC?
>
> Water pipes in the ATTIC?? Now that's a bass ackwards way of doing
> things - at least it would be up here. Water pipes in the attic WOULD
> be likely to freeze. We don't heat our attics - at least not
> intentionally.
>>
Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
PEX would burst at those high temperatures with any pressure on it.
Soft plastic with boiling steam inside it? This is how solar hot water
systems work and if the fluids are not kept flowing the steam
explosions can be quite dramatic.
-------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Correct. Maybe it's a regional thing, but in the NE, we don't run
water
lines into the attic. The attic is supposed to be very cold in the
winter
and very hot in the summer. We keep our water lines located in the
more
comfortable areas of the house.
-------------
[email protected] wrote:
> Water pipes in the ATTIC?? Now that's a bass ackwards way of doing
> things - at least it would be up here. Water pipes in the attic WOULD
> be likely to freeze. We don't heat our attics - at least not
> intentionally.
On 4/13/2012 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>
>> Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
>> else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
>
> That is so funny. For those of us in the frost belt, we cannot conceive of
> a house without a basement - or at least a crawl space (a cheap alternative
> that raises at least one eyebrow...) under a home. Hell - it ain't a home
> without a basement. Where the hell do you guys do your reloading? Can't
> put an ammo bench out in the garage - it gets all dirty'd up from painting
> cars! Where do you put the pool table? The wife's sewing room? Ya just
> can't really have a home without a basement. Even in Texas!
I'll give you a dime for every basement in the Texas if you'll give me a
penny for everyone in the "frost belt".
They're not unheard of, but rarer than unicorn poop on a roof.
Occasionally someone (usually from the NE) with more money than sense,
will get a code variance at huge cost and risk and actually build one
... in the trade we call them what they will soon be ... "indoor
swimming pools".
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Swingman wrote:
>
> That said, unvented attics, where all plumbing and HVAC duct work are
> within the thermal envelope, is gaining some traction, although
> relatively expensive and does have it's own drawbacks.
>
Much different than up here - though it may make sense in that climate.
> Besides, how else would plumbers, sheetrockers and painter's make it
> through a harsh winter without some burst pipe work?? ;)
Don't your plumbers make enough money during the prime season to take the
winters off?...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Water pipes in the ATTIC?? Now that's a bass ackwards way of doing
> things - at least it would be up here. Water pipes in the attic WOULD
> be likely to freeze. We don't heat our attics - at least not
> intentionally.
Correct. Maybe it's a regional thing, but in the NE, we don't run water
lines into the attic. The attic is supposed to be very cold in the winter
and very hot in the summer. We keep our water lines located in the more
comfortable areas of the house.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/13/2012 2:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Swingman wrote:
>
>>
>> That said, unvented attics, where all plumbing and HVAC duct work are
>> within the thermal envelope, is gaining some traction, although
>> relatively expensive and does have it's own drawbacks.
>>
>
> Much different than up here - though it may make sense in that climate.
>
>
>> Besides, how else would plumbers, sheetrockers and painter's make it
>> through a harsh winter without some burst pipe work?? ;)
>
> Don't your plumbers make enough money during the prime season to take the
> winters off?...
Only the "snowbirds", AKA "Winter Texans", many who are/were union
trades people, who come down here in the winter (to rest? ... while they
collected unemployment when it is too cold to work up North).
In case you think I'm joking ... I'm not.
Although it is not as prevalent as it used to be (maybe they finally
gave up and stayed, or the over the border competition got too tough, or
they don't habla espanol enough, who knows?).
I used to hire them during the winter down here (and yes, while they
were still drawing unemployment)... and, for the most part, much better
carpenters, framers and trades than the run of the mill is down here today.
Those were the good ol days, eh?
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/12/12 9:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze burst.
>> I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and valves.
>>
>> While remodeling the bathrooms, I planned to keep a working vanity sink
>> while it's all going on. Those gator valves and a rubber P-trap
>> connected with a hose clamp allow me to move the vanity in and out in
>> about 3 minutes. I leave the P-trap connected to the wall waste and it
>> maintains the trap water to keep out the stink.
> I sure hope you get rid of the rubber trap when you do the final
> install.
Is there a reason for this, other than looks?
I was planning on replacing it, but honestly, I can't think of easier
access for clean-out.
> I use sharkbites on copper in locations where soldering
> would be difficult/dangerous/impossible or where I can see having to
> disconnect them sometime in the possibly forseable future. I wouldn't
> use them as standard practice in place of a soldered joint on copper,
> or a clamped joint on PEX.
Again, why? Do they have a track record of leaking?
I haven't been using sharkbites for standard, permanent connections,
simply because crimps are so cheap and easy. But the sharkbite valves
are only about 20% more than regular valves and are high quality ball
valves.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:58:04 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>
>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>
>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>
>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>> year warranty.
>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous winter
>> I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the manifold
>> and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had running
>> water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>
>Leon, Bubba ... you mean you haven't yet figured out that we live in a
>shallow thinking culture that prizes "looks" over increased
>functionality and efficiency ... in a farking dark ATTIC?
Water pipes in the ATTIC?? Now that's a bass ackwards way of doing
things - at least it would be up here. Water pipes in the attic WOULD
be likely to freeze. We don't heat our attics - at least not
intentionally.
>
>AAMOF, unless someone spends a lot of their warm fuzzy navel gazing time
>in the attic, who gives a flying fuck what a PEX homerun installation
>looks like as long as it's effective, equally functional, less
>expensive, and with more options for the convenience of zone plumbing,
>at less cost?
>
>That said, I've yet to see one of my plumbing contractors do the kind of
>work with PEX I have seen decried here ... quality supervision and
>_ethical contractors_ must obviously be in damned short supply
>elsewhere, eh?
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:31:42 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 4/12/12 2:12 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>
>> That's my biggest complaint with PEX - which admitedly, has nothing to do
>> with the product, but has everything to do with the installation. Installed
>> professionaly, it can look and perform as well as copper or CPVC, but it
>> seems the stuff is just plopped in place and it looks like hell.
>>
>
>I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze burst.
>I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and valves.
>
>While remodeling the bathrooms, I planned to keep a working vanity sink
>while it's all going on. Those gator valves and a rubber P-trap
>connected with a hose clamp allow me to move the vanity in and out in
>about 3 minutes. I leave the P-trap connected to the wall waste and it
>maintains the trap water to keep out the stink.
I sure hope you get rid of the rubber trap when you do the final
install. I use sharkbites on copper in locations where soldering
would be difficult/dangerous/impossible or where I can see having to
disconnect them sometime in the possibly forseable future. I wouldn't
use them as standard practice in place of a soldered joint on copper,
or a clamped joint on PEX.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:21:53 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/12/2012 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> No, but it means it can be SPEC'd. If the engineer signs off on the
>> design using a "code compliant" Timberlok in place of say, aStrongTie
>> and 12 nails, it is going to be pretty difficult for an inspector to
>> fail the structure on the basis of their correctly applied use.
>
>> And it IS acceptable for an engineer to spec "or equivalent" in the
>> design, particularly if he provides the specification the device must
>> meet -such as pull-out strength and shear strength.
>
>Absolutely no argument that anything can be spec'ed ... (and this has
>gotten off the intended beaten path and onto a rabbit trail).
>
>However, and in MY experience, an engineer or architect will rarely
>attempt to specify (as with the aforementioned use of PEX) something
>that is specifically disallowed in the jurisdiction's building code
>(even if by default, as when specifically stating where they (screws in
>this case) _can_ be used ... as with ledger boards, decks, etc) if a
>solution that is unquestionably, and specifically in compliance, is
>indeed available.
>
>And for good reason ... it _always_ costs (me, mostly) time, money and,
>most importantly, GOOD WILL, for any of the parties involved being
>forced to take issue with an inspector ... and any architect or engineer
>who puts me in that position without good reason stands a good chance of
>not being on the next job. :)
>
>That said, back to the main issue:
>
>No disrespect intended at all, I was simply taking exception to what
>appears to be an qualified statement that since a screw type fastener is
>deemed to be "fully code compliant", to infer that it may be used,
>without regard, as an optional replacement, is both arguably incorrect,
>and misleading to the intended audience.
>
>I maintain, once again, that the ONLY reasonable action is to check both
>your local building code, and engineer approved structural plan, BEFORE
>using _any_ fastener in structural members just about anywhere in North
>America.
Correct - you give the spec sheet of the product you would like to use
to the inspector and tell him you want to use these - does he have any
problems allowing them.
It's a nobrainer to use ONE device that installs in a minute or two
and costs a buck instead of a complex strap arrangement that takes 5
minutes or more to install, in 13 pieces, and costs two bucks, if you
can get the inspector's permission. The inspector may want to see a
sample of an installation that he can whack at with a crow-bar or
hammer to satisfy HIMSELF that it is an acceptable solution.
Had a friend designed a very thermally efficient house, using modular
insulated panels, built on-site, instead of a traditional studded
wall. The inspector said "prove to me this panel is as strong as or
stronger than the traditional wall and I'll allow it".
When he drove his 3/4 ton 4X4 up a ramp consisting of a wall panel,
the inspector was duly impressed and gave him the go-ahead.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>many in jurisdictions across the US.
Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
the art.
Have you heard about this Karl?
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/may/03/wonder-wire-puts-up-no-resistance
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:42:08 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>They were difficult to turn after 5~10 years but
>about 8 years ago we installed a water softener and the next time I
>turned off any of the supply valves any where in the house they turned
>like they were brand new. This did not happen immediately but
>eventually all of the ones that I worked on operated freely.
Hard water causes all sorts of problems. Early on, I'd have figured
your wife would have had trouble with dishes and clothes washing and
gotten you to do something about it.
Of course, those things may well be part of your duties and you just
put off the hard/soft water fix for a number of years. :)
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:42:08 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 8:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:53:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>>>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>>>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>>>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>>>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>>>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>>>>>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>>>>>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>>>>>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>>>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>>>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>>>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>>>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>>>>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>>>>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>>>
>>>> Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
>>>> one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>>>>> year warranty.
>>>>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>>>>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>>>>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>>>>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
>>>> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
>>>
>>>
>>> But should you develop a leak at any fixture or pipe leading to that
>>> fixture can you isolate that feed and leave every thing else on?
>> I can isolate my hot, hard cold, and soft cold water separately en
>> mass, and I can shut off any outlet separately to replace or service
>> the faucet or valve. All service valves have been replaced with ball
>> valves, so I don't run into seized shutoff valves.
>>
>> So I guess the short answer is yes.
>
>
> I asked , can you isolate a fixture should that fixture "or the pipe
>leading to that fixture", develop a leak. Most any one can do what you
>just described. I can turn off the water at the fixture or the manifold
>to isolate that entire run. I basically have a supply manifold with 28
>separate valves and a valve at the end of each of those runs.
28? What do you have, a bloody motel???? There is a total of 16 water
outlets in my whole house. If I shut off the soft water I affect 5 of
them. If I shut off the hot water I affect 5. If I shut off all soft
water I affect 8. I can live with any one of those situations untill
I can repair whatever has gone wrong, assuming it is more than just
repairing a faucet, which I can isolate totally.
>
>BTY simply using a water softener helps greatly in preventing a valve
>from seizing.
I use a water softener, but I don't soften drinking water, toylet
flush, or outside faucet.
>
>But my new home PEX plumbing came with all ball valves.
>In my older home the valve that I shut off the most were the water
>closet/toilet valves. They were difficult to turn after 5~10 years but
>about 8 years ago we installed a water softener and the next time I
>turned off any of the supply valves any where in the house they turned
>like they were brand new. This did not happen immediately but
>eventually all of the ones that I worked on operated freely.
Once a valve is seized by the hard water up here, NOTHING is going to
get it moving again - and even soft water shutoff valves can (and do)
go wonky after a while - unless they are ball valves.
>
>
>
>
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
> >> >expensive and I don't trust them.
> >> >
> >> >The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
> >> >houses, all done by amateur labour.
> >> >
> >>
> >> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
> >> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
> >> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
> >> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
> >
> >The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
> >as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
> >
> >> >-----------
> >> >"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
> >> >value,
> >> >but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
> are yours different from what I see around here?
My rings are heavy copper with a black oxide coating. If the rings you
see are bright and shiny then they're stainless steel.
On 4/13/2012 7:12 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>> as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>
> Don't know about mouse pee, but I've been thinking that the relatively
> soft outer shell of PEX would be more apt to be chewed on than copper
> pipe.
As it turns out, rodent damage is one of the few drawbacks of using PEX.
Maximum effective pest control is an _absolute requirement_ for anyone
contemplating using the product.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/14/2012 3:56 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:42:08 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2012 8:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:53:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>>>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>>>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>>>>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>>>>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>>>>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>>>>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>>>>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>>>>>>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>>>>>>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>>>>>>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>>>>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>>>>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>>>>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>>>>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>>>>>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>>>>>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>>>>
>>>>> Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
>>>>> one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
>>>>> either.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>>>>>> year warranty.
>>>>>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>>>>>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>>>>>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>>>>>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
>>>>> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But should you develop a leak at any fixture or pipe leading to that
>>>> fixture can you isolate that feed and leave every thing else on?
>>> I can isolate my hot, hard cold, and soft cold water separately en
>>> mass, and I can shut off any outlet separately to replace or service
>>> the faucet or valve. All service valves have been replaced with ball
>>> valves, so I don't run into seized shutoff valves.
>>>
>>> So I guess the short answer is yes.
>>
>>
>> I asked , can you isolate a fixture should that fixture "or the pipe
>> leading to that fixture", develop a leak. Most any one can do what you
>> just described. I can turn off the water at the fixture or the manifold
>> to isolate that entire run. I basically have a supply manifold with 28
>> separate valves and a valve at the end of each of those runs.
>
> 28? What do you have, a bloody motel???? There is a total of 16 water
> outlets in my whole house. If I shut off the soft water I affect 5 of
> them. If I shut off the hot water I affect 5. If I shut off all soft
> water I affect 8. I can live with any one of those situations untill
> I can repair whatever has gone wrong, assuming it is more than just
> repairing a faucet, which I can isolate totally.
LOL, no hotel.
I have 4 in the kitchen, 2-Sink, 1-DW, 1- Frig
3 for exterior hose bibs
10, 5 for each of the 2 guest baths
2 for the laundry
9 for the master bath
Then there is the additional ball valve at the end of each or those runs
except for the tub, shower, and outside hose bibs.
My water softener filters all water or not except for 1 extra hose bib
before the softener which I never use.
>>
>> BTY simply using a water softener helps greatly in preventing a valve
>>from seizing.
>
> I use a water softener, but I don't soften drinking water, toylet
> flush, or outside faucet.
>>
>> But my new home PEX plumbing came with all ball valves.
>> In my older home the valve that I shut off the most were the water
>> closet/toilet valves. They were difficult to turn after 5~10 years but
>> about 8 years ago we installed a water softener and the next time I
>> turned off any of the supply valves any where in the house they turned
>> like they were brand new. This did not happen immediately but
>> eventually all of the ones that I worked on operated freely.
>
> Once a valve is seized by the hard water up here, NOTHING is going to
> get it moving again - and even soft water shutoff valves can (and do)
> go wonky after a while - unless they are ball valves.
>>
Wow shall we say hard water? :~) I will admit that my valves took 3~5
years before the build up eroded and freed them.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> [email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings.
>>>> Too expensive and I don't trust them.
>>>>
>>>> The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in
>>>> four houses, all done by amateur labour.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
>>> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
>>> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
>>> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>>
>> The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse
>> pee as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>>
>>>> -----------
>>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>> Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize
>>>> their value,
>>>> but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
> are yours different from what I see around here?
Not sure Clare. I just bought what Home Depot had (Sharkbite). They did go
together just as advertised, and they are indeed leak proof, so no complaint
on that end. But - they don't make a rigid run. The line in and the line
out have quite a bit of play in them so the entire run is somewhat floppy.
Probably will never leak, but it will always be floppy unless you put in
some additional hangers. For a quick fix - I use them. For something more
permanant - I sweat a joint.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
Don't know about mouse pee, but I've been thinking that the relatively
soft outer shell of PEX would be more apt to be chewed on than copper
pipe.
On 4/13/12 7:12 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>> as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>
> Don't know about mouse pee, but I've been thinking that the relatively
> soft outer shell of PEX would be more apt to be chewed on than copper
> pipe.
And if you have any oak in the house, you're screwed. :-)
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/13/2012 2:42 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> I just bought what Home Depot had (Sharkbite). They did go
> together just as advertised, and they are indeed leak proof, so no complaint
> on that end. But - they don't make a rigid run. The line in and the line
> out have quite a bit of play in them so the entire run is somewhat floppy.
> Probably will never leak, but it will always be floppy unless you put in
> some additional hangers. For a quick fix - I use them. For something more
> permanant - I sweat a joint.
What do you guys think about this apparatus:
http://www.garrettwade.com/copper-pipe-soldering-tool/p/04D01.02/
I'm reasonably adept at sweating joints, but there have been some times when
this thing would have come in handy, assuming it works as advertised.
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 4/13/12 1:18 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
> are yours different from what I see around here?
>
All copper.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:55:49 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 1:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Around here the plumbing is in the BASEMENT. I know much of the USA
>> hasn't got a clue what a basement is. Crawl-space or cellar, perhaps -
>> but not an actual useable basement.
>
>And why do you suppose that is?
Mostly because half the US is built on land that you could not get a
building permit for in Canada???
Why anyone would want to build in New Orleans totally escapes me.
And half of Florida you'd be better off with a houseboat.
"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
On 4/13/2012 7:12 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>> as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>
> Don't know about mouse pee, but I've been thinking that the relatively
> soft outer shell of PEX would be more apt to be chewed on than copper
> pipe.
As it turns out, rodent damage is one of the few drawbacks of using PEX.
Maximum effective pest control is an _absolute requirement_ for anyone
contemplating using the product.
=======================================================================
I have never had a problem with rodents around here. My five member feline
hit squad makes sure of that.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
>> >expensive and I don't trust them.
>> >
>> >The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
>> >houses, all done by amateur labour.
>> >
>>
>> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
>> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
>> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
>> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>
>The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>
>> >-----------
>> >"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
>> >value,
>> >but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
are yours different from what I see around here?
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:44:11 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
>Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>day's labor, then have to go find another client?
I'm thinking there might be less labour for plumbers on the home owner
side of the issue. I'd expect home owners doing a pex install for
themselves where they might run to a plumber to have a copper water
pipe soldered.
I mean, how difficult is it to install pex? Don't bend it too much and
crimp a collar onto a line. Can't get too much simpler than that.
[email protected] wrote:
>
> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
That's my biggest complaint with PEX - which admitedly, has nothing to do
with the product, but has everything to do with the installation. Installed
professionaly, it can look and perform as well as copper or CPVC, but it
seems the stuff is just plopped in place and it looks like hell.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>
>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>> the art.
>>>
>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>
>>
>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>
>+1
Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
expensive and I don't trust them.
The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
houses, all done by amateur labour.
-----------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
value,
but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
On 4/12/2012 12:32 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> No, but it means it can be SPEC'd. If the engineer signs off on the
> design using a "code compliant" Timberlok in place of say, aStrongTie
> and 12 nails, it is going to be pretty difficult for an inspector to
> fail the structure on the basis of their correctly applied use.
> And it IS acceptable for an engineer to spec "or equivalent" in the
> design, particularly if he provides the specification the device must
> meet -such as pull-out strength and shear strength.
Absolutely no argument that anything can be spec'ed ... (and this has
gotten off the intended beaten path and onto a rabbit trail).
However, and in MY experience, an engineer or architect will rarely
attempt to specify (as with the aforementioned use of PEX) something
that is specifically disallowed in the jurisdiction's building code
(even if by default, as when specifically stating where they (screws in
this case) _can_ be used ... as with ledger boards, decks, etc) if a
solution that is unquestionably, and specifically in compliance, is
indeed available.
And for good reason ... it _always_ costs (me, mostly) time, money and,
most importantly, GOOD WILL, for any of the parties involved being
forced to take issue with an inspector ... and any architect or engineer
who puts me in that position without good reason stands a good chance of
not being on the next job. :)
That said, back to the main issue:
No disrespect intended at all, I was simply taking exception to what
appears to be an qualified statement that since a screw type fastener is
deemed to be "fully code compliant", to infer that it may be used,
without regard, as an optional replacement, is both arguably incorrect,
and misleading to the intended audience.
I maintain, once again, that the ONLY reasonable action is to check both
your local building code, and engineer approved structural plan, BEFORE
using _any_ fastener in structural members just about anywhere in North
America.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/13/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>
> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>
> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>
> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
> year warranty.
> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous winter
> I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the manifold
> and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had running
> water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
Leon, Bubba ... you mean you haven't yet figured out that we live in a
shallow thinking culture that prizes "looks" over increased
functionality and efficiency ... in a farking dark ATTIC?
AAMOF, unless someone spends a lot of their warm fuzzy navel gazing time
in the attic, who gives a flying fuck what a PEX homerun installation
looks like as long as it's effective, equally functional, less
expensive, and with more options for the convenience of zone plumbing,
at less cost?
That said, I've yet to see one of my plumbing contractors do the kind of
work with PEX I have seen decried here ... quality supervision and
_ethical contractors_ must obviously be in damned short supply
elsewhere, eh?
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/11/2012 10:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
> Richard<[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 9:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>
>>>> TimberLok screws can be used in place of
>>>> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
>>>> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
>>>> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
>>>> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
>>>
>>> You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
>>> checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
>>> specifications for the particular structure.
>>>
>>> Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in that
>>> regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but
>> structural reliability.
>
> WTF does "approval by political elect" have to do with building codes and
> structural requirements set forth by an engineer?
>
Clare's a pretty decent engineer.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:53:30 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>>>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>>>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>>>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>>>
>>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>>
>>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>>
>>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>
>> Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
>> one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
>> either.
>>>
>>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>>> year warranty.
>>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>>
>>
>> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
>> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
>
>
>But should you develop a leak at any fixture or pipe leading to that
>fixture can you isolate that feed and leave every thing else on?
I can isolate my hot, hard cold, and soft cold water separately en
mass, and I can shut off any outlet separately to replace or service
the faucet or valve. All service valves have been replaced with ball
valves, so I don't run into seized shutoff valves.
So I guess the short answer is yes.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
>expensive and I don't trust them.
>
>The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
>houses, all done by amateur labour.
>
As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>
>-----------
>"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
>value,
>but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>
>
>
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 16:35:40 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yeah, yeah "the right amount of heat"... blah, blah except none of
>your ilk that have made this admission of ignorance have managed to
>create many complete houses full of non-leak joints, reliably, with
>it, so the world gave up waiting and went to PEX installations after
>putting out dozens of attempts to resolve the lack of flow problems.
>
>Maybe better insults would make your story more credible?
>
No, you just need CHINESE lead free solder.
Swingman wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 1:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> Around here the plumbing is in the BASEMENT. I know much of the USA
>> hasn't got a clue what a basement is. Crawl-space or cellar, perhaps
>> - but not an actual useable basement.
>
> And why do you suppose that is?
<Sigh...> Because our work is daunting, and laid out before us, to educate
the rest of the country. If you other guys would just pay attention to what
we are trying to tell you...
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Around here the plumbing is in the BASEMENT. I know much of the USA
> hasn't got a clue what a basement is. Crawl-space or cellar, perhaps -
> but not an actual useable basement.
>
>
Bah! Crawl spaces are for cheapskates and know-nothings! Just get on your
back one time in one of those, trying to install a wire run, and you'll
quickly learn to hate those damned things!
Besides - you can have sex in a basement. Try that in a crawl space and all
you end up with is flooring nails poking you in the damned ass!
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:25:54 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 7:58 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/13/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>>
>>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>>
>>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>>
>>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>>> year warranty.
>>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous winter
>>> I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the manifold
>>> and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had running
>>> water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>
>> Leon, Bubba ... you mean you haven't yet figured out that we live in a
>> shallow thinking culture that prizes "looks" over increased
>> functionality and efficiency ... in a farking dark ATTIC?
>
>Hell I was thinking inside closed WALLS.
>
>>
>> AAMOF, unless someone spends a lot of their warm fuzzy navel gazing time
>> in the attic, who gives a flying fuck what a PEX homerun installation
>> looks like as long as it's effective, equally functional, less
>> expensive, and with more options for the convenience of zone plumbing,
>> at less cost?
>
Around here the plumbing is in the BASEMENT. I know much of the USA
hasn't got a clue what a basement is. Crawl-space or cellar, perhaps -
but not an actual useable basement.
>For some one that does not like to look at a PEX installation there must
>be some kind of filtering eye wear to cancel out the presence and
>appearance of the wiring!
>
>>
>> That said, I've yet to see one of my plumbing contractors do the kind of
>> work with PEX I have seen decried here ... quality supervision and
>> _ethical contractors_ must obviously be in damned short supply
>> elsewhere, eh?
>
>Yeah, I was really kinda impressed seeing the red and blue, sorry, PEX
>pipes running every where.
>
On 4/13/2012 1:26 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
> Around here the plumbing is in the BASEMENT. I know much of the USA
> hasn't got a clue what a basement is. Crawl-space or cellar, perhaps -
> but not an actual useable basement.
And why do you suppose that is?
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/13/2012 8:21 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:53:30 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:22:27 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>>>>>> the art.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>>>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>>>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>>>>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>>>>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>>>>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>>>>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>>>>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
>>>>> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
>>>>> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
>>>>> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>>>>>
>>>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>>>
>>>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>>>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>>>
>>>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>>>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>>
>>> Up here we occaisionally do NOT get harsh winters, and I've never had
>>> one of my copper pipes burst - but then I don't allow them to freeze
>>> either.
>>>>
>>>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>>>> year warranty.
>>>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
>>>> winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
>>>> manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
>>>> running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I can do that in my copper plumbed house too, with no manifold.
>>> However, I've chosen to use hydrants instead (frost-proof hose bibs)
>>
>>
>> But should you develop a leak at any fixture or pipe leading to that
>> fixture can you isolate that feed and leave every thing else on?
> I can isolate my hot, hard cold, and soft cold water separately en
> mass, and I can shut off any outlet separately to replace or service
> the faucet or valve. All service valves have been replaced with ball
> valves, so I don't run into seized shutoff valves.
>
> So I guess the short answer is yes.
I asked , can you isolate a fixture should that fixture "or the pipe
leading to that fixture", develop a leak. Most any one can do what you
just described. I can turn off the water at the fixture or the manifold
to isolate that entire run. I basically have a supply manifold with 28
separate valves and a valve at the end of each of those runs.
BTY simply using a water softener helps greatly in preventing a valve
from seizing.
But my new home PEX plumbing came with all ball valves.
In my older home the valve that I shut off the most were the water
closet/toilet valves. They were difficult to turn after 5~10 years but
about 8 years ago we installed a water softener and the next time I
turned off any of the supply valves any where in the house they turned
like they were brand new. This did not happen immediately but
eventually all of the ones that I worked on operated freely.
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
> >expensive and I don't trust them.
> >
> >The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
> >houses, all done by amateur labour.
> >
>
> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
> >-----------
> >"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
> >value,
> >but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
> >
> >
> >
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:33:56 -0500, -MIKE- <[email protected]>
wrote:
>On 4/12/12 9:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>> I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze burst.
>>> I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and valves.
>>>
>>> While remodeling the bathrooms, I planned to keep a working vanity sink
>>> while it's all going on. Those gator valves and a rubber P-trap
>>> connected with a hose clamp allow me to move the vanity in and out in
>>> about 3 minutes. I leave the P-trap connected to the wall waste and it
>>> maintains the trap water to keep out the stink.
>> I sure hope you get rid of the rubber trap when you do the final
>> install.
>
>Is there a reason for this, other than looks?
>I was planning on replacing it, but honestly, I can't think of easier
>access for clean-out.
>
There are good traps that are as easy to clean out, and won't
deteriorate into mush in 5 years. I used one ONCE. Never again. The
interior went first - everything stuck to it, so the drain was ALWAYS
slow. I put in a self clearing trap. It has a "vane" for lack of a
better description that you turn with a knob and the trap is cleared
of whatever has deposited in it. Made of clear Lexan, if I remember
correctly.
>
>> I use sharkbites on copper in locations where soldering
>> would be difficult/dangerous/impossible or where I can see having to
>> disconnect them sometime in the possibly forseable future. I wouldn't
>> use them as standard practice in place of a soldered joint on copper,
>> or a clamped joint on PEX.
>
>Again, why? Do they have a track record of leaking?
Not that I'm aware of, or I wouldn't use them at all, particularly in
difficult applications. I just find them expensive, clunky, and
complex for normal use. Heck, I can solder, so why would I use them
for normal joints????
>I haven't been using sharkbites for standard, permanent connections,
>simply because crimps are so cheap and easy. But the sharkbite valves
>are only about 20% more than regular valves and are high quality ball
>valves.
Perhaps in PEX I might use them - if I were to use PEX.
On 4/13/12 1:17 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 23:33:56 -0500, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/12 9:19 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze burst.
>>>> I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and valves.
>>>>
>>>> While remodeling the bathrooms, I planned to keep a working vanity sink
>>>> while it's all going on. Those gator valves and a rubber P-trap
>>>> connected with a hose clamp allow me to move the vanity in and out in
>>>> about 3 minutes. I leave the P-trap connected to the wall waste and it
>>>> maintains the trap water to keep out the stink.
>>> I sure hope you get rid of the rubber trap when you do the final
>>> install.
>>
>> Is there a reason for this, other than looks?
>> I was planning on replacing it, but honestly, I can't think of easier
>> access for clean-out.
>>
> There are good traps that are as easy to clean out, and won't
> deteriorate into mush in 5 years. I used one ONCE. Never again. The
> interior went first - everything stuck to it, so the drain was ALWAYS
> slow. I put in a self clearing trap. It has a "vane" for lack of a
> better description that you turn with a knob and the trap is cleared
> of whatever has deposited in it. Made of clear Lexan, if I remember
> correctly.
>>
I've seen the lexan one. As for your experience with the rubber trap...
I suspect someone may have used liquid plumber in it, which was probably
what gummed it up.
>>> I use sharkbites on copper in locations where soldering
>>> would be difficult/dangerous/impossible or where I can see having to
>>> disconnect them sometime in the possibly forseable future. I wouldn't
>>> use them as standard practice in place of a soldered joint on copper,
>>> or a clamped joint on PEX.
>>
>> Again, why? Do they have a track record of leaking?
>
> Not that I'm aware of, or I wouldn't use them at all, particularly in
> difficult applications. I just find them expensive, clunky, and
> complex for normal use. Heck, I can solder, so why would I use them
> for normal joints????
Because they are a lot easier and from what I've seen, higher quality.
BTW, they aren't as expensive around here. They regular valves, when
cheaper, are only 20% or less cheaper than the gator valves.
>> I haven't been using sharkbites for standard, permanent connections,
>> simply because crimps are so cheap and easy. But the sharkbite valves
>> are only about 20% more than regular valves and are high quality ball
>> valves.
> Perhaps in PEX I might use them - if I were to use PEX.
Hey, don't look now, but I think there are some kids on your lawn! :-p
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/12/2012 12:54 AM, Richard wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 10:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> Richard<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On 4/11/2012 9:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> TimberLok screws can be used in place of
>>>>> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
>>>>> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
>>>>> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
>>>>> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
>>>>
>>>> You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
>>>> checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
>>>> specifications for the particular structure.
>>>>
>>>> Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in
>>>> that
>>>> regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but
>>> structural reliability.
>>
>> WTF does "approval by political elect" have to do with building codes and
>> structural requirements set forth by an engineer?
>>
>
> Clare's a pretty decent engineer.
Then he should know better than to make a blanket statement indicating
that a fastener/method claiming to be "fully code compliant" with a
model building code is not necessarily accepted by any jurisdiction
using that model building code as a basis for building standards.
Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
many in jurisdictions across the US.
When an engineer calls for a specific fastener, joist hanger, strapping
method, etc, in an approved structural/framing plan, he does so in
compliance with the specifics of the local code in the jurisdiction in
which the structure is built. Any deviation from the engineer's specific
fastener, joist hanger, strapping method by someone implementing the
plan risks obtaining both engineering approval of the "as built"
structure, and failure of any inspection under that jurisdition's code.
In short, just because something is claiming to be "fully code
compliant", does not mean that it can be used.
Once again, check your local building code, and your engineer approved
structural plan, BEFORE using any fastener in structural members.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:54:02 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 1:22 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Water pipes in the ATTIC?? Now that's a bass ackwards way of doing
>> things - at least it would be up here. Water pipes in the attic WOULD
>> be likely to freeze. We don't heat our attics - at least not
>> intentionally.
>
>It's standard procedure in almost all single story structures in the
>Southern and Western states of the US, particularly in what is known as
>"Hot Humid Climates", typically areas like the Gulf Coast where
>basements are mostly out of the question due water tables, and 99.9% of
>residential foundations are slab on grade.
>
>That said, unvented attics, where all plumbing and HVAC duct work are
>within the thermal envelope, is gaining some traction, although
>relatively expensive and does have it's own drawbacks.
>
>Besides, how else would plumbers, sheetrockers and painter's make it
>through a harsh winter without some burst pipe work?? ;)
They manage quite well up here. Construction slows down, but
certainly does not stop during the winter. Some of the real wusses
head south for winter holidays.
On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>
>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>> the art.
>>
>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>
>
> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
+1
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
Lead free solder doesn't flow anyway. It doesn't matter what you heat.
---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
It does look like a nifty tool. I wouldn't buy one for the amount of
sweating I do, but it does look cool. As for what to heat - In my
opinon it
doesn't matter - the heat will transfer to both parts.
------------
[email protected] wrote:
> Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
> remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
> fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
>
> I wonder why???
> Because it WORKS.
You obviously haven't soldered with it or you wouldn't think flux
substitutes for real solder you trolling flux-sucker.
PEX wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for lead-free sludge.
---------
"Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
That's what flux is for, ya top-posting flux-knuckle.
----------
On 4/17/2012 7:44 AM, m II wrote:
> Lead free solder doesn't flow anyway. It doesn't matter what you
> heat.
>
> ---------------
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> It does look like a nifty tool. I wouldn't buy one for the amount of
> sweating I do, but it does look cool. As for what to heat - In my
> opinon it
> doesn't matter - the heat will transfer to both parts.
>
> ------------
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
>> remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
>> fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
>>
>> I wonder why???
>> Because it WORKS.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:57:53 -0500, Steve Turner
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 2:42 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> I just bought what Home Depot had (Sharkbite). They did go
>> together just as advertised, and they are indeed leak proof, so no complaint
>> on that end. But - they don't make a rigid run. The line in and the line
>> out have quite a bit of play in them so the entire run is somewhat floppy.
>> Probably will never leak, but it will always be floppy unless you put in
>> some additional hangers. For a quick fix - I use them. For something more
>> permanant - I sweat a joint.
>
>What do you guys think about this apparatus:
>
>http://www.garrettwade.com/copper-pipe-soldering-tool/p/04D01.02/
>
>I'm reasonably adept at sweating joints, but there have been some times when
>this thing would have come in handy, assuming it works as advertised.
Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
I wonder why???
Because it WORKS.
[email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:57:53 -0500, Steve Turner
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2012 2:42 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> I just bought what Home Depot had (Sharkbite). They did go
>>> together just as advertised, and they are indeed leak proof, so no
>>> complaint on that end. But - they don't make a rigid run. The
>>> line in and the line out have quite a bit of play in them so the
>>> entire run is somewhat floppy. Probably will never leak, but it
>>> will always be floppy unless you put in some additional hangers.
>>> For a quick fix - I use them. For something more permanant - I
>>> sweat a joint.
>>
>> What do you guys think about this apparatus:
>>
>> http://www.garrettwade.com/copper-pipe-soldering-tool/p/04D01.02/
>>
>> I'm reasonably adept at sweating joints, but there have been some
>> times when this thing would have come in handy, assuming it works as
>> advertised.
>
> Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
> remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
> fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
>
> I wonder why???
> Because it WORKS.
It does look like a nifty tool. I wouldn't buy one for the amount of
sweating I do, but it does look cool. As for what to heat - In my opinon it
doesn't matter - the heat will transfer to both parts.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/17/2012 7:44 AM, m II wrote:
> Lead free solder doesn't flow anyway. It doesn't matter what you heat.
>
> ---------------
> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> It does look like a nifty tool. I wouldn't buy one for the amount of
> sweating I do, but it does look cool. As for what to heat - In my opinon it
> doesn't matter - the heat will transfer to both parts.
>
> ------------
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
>> remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
>> fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
>>
>> I wonder why???
>> Because it WORKS.
That's what flux is for, ya top-posting flux-knuckle.
--
Free bad advice available here.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 4/17/2012 8:16 AM, m II wrote:
> You obviously haven't soldered with it or you wouldn't think flux substitutes
> for real solder you trolling flux-sucker.
>
> PEX wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for lead-free sludge.
>
> ---------
> "Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> That's what flux is for, ya top-posting flux-knuckle.
>
> ----------
> On 4/17/2012 7:44 AM, m II wrote:
>> Lead free solder doesn't flow anyway. It doesn't matter what you heat.
>>
>> ---------------
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> It does look like a nifty tool. I wouldn't buy one for the amount of
>> sweating I do, but it does look cool. As for what to heat - In my opinon it
>> doesn't matter - the heat will transfer to both parts.
>>
>> ------------
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
>>> remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
>>> fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
>>>
>>> I wonder why???
>>> Because it WORKS.
Yes I HAVE, many times. It DOES flow, with the proper flux and the right
amount of heat. Granted, lead-based solder is much easier to use (for less
capable morons such as yourself), but I'm certainly not going to use it on MY
copper pipes through which my drinking water passes. Sounds like you have no
about qualms doing so, which could explain a lot about your behavior.
--
Any given amount of traffic flow, no matter how
sparse, will expand to fill all available lanes.
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/
On 4/17/12 3:35 PM, m II wrote:
> Yeah, yeah "the right amount of heat"... blah, blah except none of your
> ilk that have made this admission of ignorance have managed to create
> many complete houses full of non-leak joints, reliably, with it, so the
> world gave up waiting and went to PEX installations after putting out
> dozens of attempts to resolve the lack of flow problems.
>
> Maybe better insults would make your story more credible?
>
"Better to remain silent and considered a fool than to open ones mouth
and remove all doubt."
You should heed those words.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
Yeah, yeah "the right amount of heat"... blah, blah except none of
your ilk that have made this admission of ignorance have managed to
create many complete houses full of non-leak joints, reliably, with
it, so the world gave up waiting and went to PEX installations after
putting out dozens of attempts to resolve the lack of flow problems.
Maybe better insults would make your story more credible?
------------
"Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Yes I HAVE, many times. It DOES flow, with the proper flux and the
right
amount of heat. Granted, lead-based solder is much easier to use (for
less
capable morons such as yourself), but I'm certainly not going to use it
on MY
copper pipes through which my drinking water passes. Sounds like you
have no
about qualms doing so, which could explain a lot about your behavior.
-----------------
On 4/17/2012 8:16 AM, m II wrote:
> You obviously haven't soldered with it or you wouldn't think flux
> substitutes
> for real solder you trolling flux-sucker.
>
> PEX wouldn't be so popular if it wasn't for lead-free sludge.
>
> ---------
> "Steve Turner" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> That's what flux is for, ya top-posting flux-knuckle.
>
> ----------
> On 4/17/2012 7:44 AM, m II wrote:
>> Lead free solder doesn't flow anyway. It doesn't matter what you
>> heat.
>>
>> ---------------
>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> It does look like a nifty tool. I wouldn't buy one for the amount of
>> sweating I do, but it does look cool. As for what to heat - In my
>> opinon it
>> doesn't matter - the heat will transfer to both parts.
>>
>> ------------
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Looks like a real handy tool - and just as a matter of interest -
>>> remember that thread a few months ago about heating the pipe or the
>>> fitting??? Notice the tool clamps to the PIPE, NOT the fitting???
>>>
>>> I wonder why???
>>> Because it WORKS.
On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>
> Has there been noticeable resistance to it?...
Yeah, I think Chicago still requires flex conduit instead. :)
--
On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>
>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>> the art.
>
> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>
Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
day's labor, then have to go find another client?
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
The pinch rings I use are Stainless Steel... not plated. They are
strong and do not rust.
------------
"-MIKE-" wrote in message news:[email protected]...
The cinch-clamps are steel and generally used in trailers and
double-wide
type prefab homes. That's not what I use and I've been told to stay
away
from them by the plumbing supply places.
Crimp rings are sold copper and will last as long as anything else, for
all practical purposes. Pex crimp rings allow for rotation of the
tubing
around the fitting but will not leak.
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:25:25 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >[email protected] says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >[email protected] says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
> >> >> >expensive and I don't trust them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
> >> >> >houses, all done by amateur labour.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
> >> >> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
> >> >> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
> >> >> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
> >> >
> >> >The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
> >> >as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
> >> >
> >> >> >-----------
> >> >> >"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
> >> >> >value,
> >> >> >but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
> >> are yours different from what I see around here?
> >
> >My rings are heavy copper with a black oxide coating. If the rings you
> >see are bright and shiny then they're stainless steel.
> >
> That's all I've ever seen up here.The shiny silver coloured ones.
Might be that the approvals are different in Canada. Here both are
available, as well as Shark Bites.
[email protected] wrote:
> Were you talking about sharkbites or PEX clamps??
Sorry - I was talking about Sharkbite - not PEX.
--
-Mike-
[email protected]
On 4/13/12 8:29 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:42:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings.
>>>>>> Too expensive and I don't trust them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in
>>>>>> four houses, all done by amateur labour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
>>>>> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
>>>>> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
>>>>> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>>>>
>>>> The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse
>>>> pee as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>>>>
>>>>>> -----------
>>>>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize
>>>>>> their value,
>>>>>> but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
>>> are yours different from what I see around here?
>>
>> Not sure Clare. I just bought what Home Depot had (Sharkbite). They did go
>> together just as advertised, and they are indeed leak proof, so no complaint
>> on that end. But - they don't make a rigid run. The line in and the line
>> out have quite a bit of play in them so the entire run is somewhat floppy.
>> Probably will never leak, but it will always be floppy unless you put in
>> some additional hangers. For a quick fix - I use them. For something more
>> permanant - I sweat a joint.
> Were you talking about sharkbites or PEX clamps??
> The sharkbites are generally BRASS, not copper - and the pex clamps
> appear to be either steel or aluminum. I'm thinking steel, but I've
> never checked - and never actually installed one. PEX clamps, if loose
> enough to allow any movement on the fitting WILL leak. If not today,
> real soon.
http://www.watts.com/pages/learnAbout/cinchclamp.asp?catId=70
The cinch-clamps are steel and generally used in trailers and double-wide
type prefab homes. That's not what I use and I've been told to stay away
from them by the plumbing supply places.
Crimp rings are sold copper and will last as long as anything else, for
all practical purposes. Pex crimp rings allow for rotation of the tubing
around the fitting but will not leak.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:42:27 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] wrote:
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings.
>>>>> Too expensive and I don't trust them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in
>>>>> four houses, all done by amateur labour.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
>>>> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
>>>> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
>>>> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>>>
>>> The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse
>>> pee as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>>>
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> "Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]...
>>>>> Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize
>>>>> their value,
>>>>> but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
>> are yours different from what I see around here?
>
>Not sure Clare. I just bought what Home Depot had (Sharkbite). They did go
>together just as advertised, and they are indeed leak proof, so no complaint
>on that end. But - they don't make a rigid run. The line in and the line
>out have quite a bit of play in them so the entire run is somewhat floppy.
>Probably will never leak, but it will always be floppy unless you put in
>some additional hangers. For a quick fix - I use them. For something more
>permanant - I sweat a joint.
Were you talking about sharkbites or PEX clamps??
The sharkbites are generally BRASS, not copper - and the pex clamps
appear to be either steel or aluminum. I'm thinking steel, but I've
never checked - and never actually installed one. PEX clamps, if loose
enough to allow any movement on the fitting WILL leak. If not today,
real soon.
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 19:25:25 -0400, "J. Clarke"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] says...
>>
>> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <[email protected]>,
>> >[email protected] says...
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
>> >> >expensive and I don't trust them.
>> >> >
>> >> >The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
>> >> >houses, all done by amateur labour.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
>> >> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
>> >> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
>> >> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>> >
>> >The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>> >as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>> >
>> >> >-----------
>> >> >"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
>> >> >value,
>> >> >but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
>> are yours different from what I see around here?
>
>My rings are heavy copper with a black oxide coating. If the rings you
>see are bright and shiny then they're stainless steel.
>
That's all I've ever seen up here.The shiny silver coloured ones.
On 4/12/12 11:23 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:44:11 -0500, -MIKE-<[email protected]>
>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>
> I'm thinking there might be less labour for plumbers on the home owner
> side of the issue. I'd expect home owners doing a pex install for
> themselves where they might run to a plumber to have a copper water
> pipe soldered.
>
> I mean, how difficult is it to install pex? Don't bend it too much and
> crimp a collar onto a line. Can't get too much simpler than that.
I recently installed a bunch for my bathroom remodel and I'm still
scratching my head thinking, "It can't be this easy, there has to be
more to it than this."
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/12/12 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>
>> +1
> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>
Except that a good General Contractor isn't an idiot and keeps track of
the prevailing labor rates and costs of materials and know what a job
should cost. Free market would drive that other plumber out of business
real quick when the $1400 guy starts getting all the work. Hence, his
other old school buddy down on the local code board.
> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
Boooo! Bad answer, you sound like an old guy. :-)
There are lazy, sloppy plumbers who do shoddy work with whatever
material they are working with. I've seen some ugly ass copper piping
with big balls of solder stuck all over the joints and all kinds of
extraneous elbows and crap with bad decisions in where to run the lines
where the lines are in the way of everything that comes later, pipes too
close to the outside of studs and plates. And I've seen great copper
jobs.... the kind that belongs in instruction books.
In my experience, the guys who care about their work, care about it when
they did copper and they care about it after moving to Pex. Why run Pex
in straight run with 90 degree bends if you don't have to? If it's not
in the way and it makes sense, why do it it based on the same physical
restrictions as copper? If it's neater to do it that way and works out
better, then do it. But don't do it just because "that's the way we did
copper."
I've seen some beautiful Pex runs from manifolds and nothing was messy
and you could trace every line. It's the plumber, not the plumbing.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
On 4/12/12 2:12 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>>
>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>
> That's my biggest complaint with PEX - which admitedly, has nothing to do
> with the product, but has everything to do with the installation. Installed
> professionaly, it can look and perform as well as copper or CPVC, but it
> seems the stuff is just plopped in place and it looks like hell.
>
I would rank it higher given the claims to be impervious to freeze burst.
I'm also in love with these gator/shark/etc. connectors and valves.
While remodeling the bathrooms, I planned to keep a working vanity sink
while it's all going on. Those gator valves and a rubber P-trap
connected with a hose clamp allow me to move the vanity in and out in
about 3 minutes. I leave the P-trap connected to the wall waste and it
maintains the trap water to keep out the stink.
--
-MIKE-
"Playing is not something I do at night, it's my function in life"
--Elvin Jones (1927-2004)
--
http://mikedrums.com
[email protected]
---remove "DOT" ^^^^ to reply
But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
******************************************************
I agree to a point. When pex is run in the most direct line, the shortest
distance from the water heater to the fixture, it gets the hot water there
faster. It may not look as good, but I'll take that 25% faster hot water
over looks, any day.
-- Jim in NC
On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 09:50:37 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/12/2012 9:44 AM, -MIKE- wrote:
>>> On 4/12/12 9:35 AM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>>>>>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>>>>>
>>>>> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
>>>>> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
>>>>> the art.
>>>>
>>>> Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
>>>> as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
>>>> standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Tru dat. Most resistance to new, better technology comes from old school
>>> technophobes often entrenched in a corrupt system protecting their
>>> fellow old schoolers and the technology they profit the most from. If
>>> you can sit on a house for 3 days, sweating copper and charging like
>>> it's rocket surgery, why would you switch to Pex and only get a 1/2
>>> day's labor, then have to go find another client?
>>
>> +1
> Makes a lot of sense when you quote the job on a contract basis
> instead of time and materials. Contractor is used to, say, $3500 to
> plumb the house in copper, so he's REAL happy to pay $2500 to have it
> done in PEX - while $1400 would still be making the plumber money.
>
> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
of copper how copper is typically installed.
In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
pipes seem to be the first to burst.
PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
year warranty.
Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous
winter I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the
manifold and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had
running water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/12/2012 12:54 AM, Richard wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 10:20 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>> Richard<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2012 9:00 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>>> On 4/11/2012 8:33 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> TimberLok screws can be used in place of
>>>>>> hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
>>>>>> and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
>>>>>> don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
>>>>>> (they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
>>>>>
>>>>> You simply cannot make a blanket statement like the above without
>>>>> checking your local building code, as well as the Engineering
>>>>> specifications for the particular structure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Without question, you will most assuredly find that your options in
>>>>> that
>>>>> regard are severely limited when it comes to structural members.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't think he was addressing "approval by political elect", but
>>>> structural reliability.
>>>
>>> WTF does "approval by political elect" have to do with building codes and
>>> structural requirements set forth by an engineer?
>>>
>>
>> Clare's a pretty decent engineer.
>
>Then he should know better than to make a blanket statement indicating
>that a fastener/method claiming to be "fully code compliant" with a
>model building code is not necessarily accepted by any jurisdiction
>using that model building code as a basis for building standards.
>
>Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>many in jurisdictions across the US.
>
>When an engineer calls for a specific fastener, joist hanger, strapping
>method, etc, in an approved structural/framing plan, he does so in
>compliance with the specifics of the local code in the jurisdiction in
>which the structure is built. Any deviation from the engineer's specific
>fastener, joist hanger, strapping method by someone implementing the
>plan risks obtaining both engineering approval of the "as built"
>structure, and failure of any inspection under that jurisdition's code.
>
>In short, just because something is claiming to be "fully code
>compliant", does not mean that it can be used.
No, but it means it can be SPEC'd. If the engineer signs off on the
design using a "code compliant" Timberlok in place of say, aStrongTie
and 12 nails, it is going to be pretty difficult for an inspector to
fail the structure on the basis of their correctly applied use.
And it IS acceptable for an engineer to spec "or equivalent" in the
design, particularly if he provides the specification the device must
meet -such as pull-out strength and shear strength.
>
>Once again, check your local building code, and your engineer approved
>structural plan, BEFORE using any fastener in structural members.
On 4/13/2012 7:58 AM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/13/2012 7:22 AM, Leon wrote:
>> On 4/12/2012 12:40 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>> But in MY opinion, a house plumbed with copper just looks so much
>>> NEATER, and more professional than the "spiderwebs" of PEX that I see
>>> in a lot of new houses. Nothing requires PEX to be run in straight
>>> lines with neat 90 degree bends - so the "cheap" plumber just runs the
>>> crap in the shortest, easiest route, looks be damned.
>>
>> I prefer the advantages of how PEX is usually installed over the looks
>> of copper how copper is typically installed.
>>
>> In south Texas we ocassionally get a harsh winter. Pipes freeze, copper
>> pipes seem to be the first to burst.
>>
>> PEX expands and is less likely to break and in my case comes with a 10
>> year warranty.
>> Additionally PEX is normally run through a mainfold. The previous winter
>> I was able to shut off water to the out side hose bibs from the manifold
>> and open the bibs to drain the water before the freeze. I had running
>> water for all of the i other nterior faucets.
>
> Leon, Bubba ... you mean you haven't yet figured out that we live in a
> shallow thinking culture that prizes "looks" over increased
> functionality and efficiency ... in a farking dark ATTIC?
Hell I was thinking inside closed WALLS.
>
> AAMOF, unless someone spends a lot of their warm fuzzy navel gazing time
> in the attic, who gives a flying fuck what a PEX homerun installation
> looks like as long as it's effective, equally functional, less
> expensive, and with more options for the convenience of zone plumbing,
> at less cost?
For some one that does not like to look at a PEX installation there must
be some kind of filtering eye wear to cancel out the presence and
appearance of the wiring!
>
> That said, I've yet to see one of my plumbing contractors do the kind of
> work with PEX I have seen decried here ... quality supervision and
> _ethical contractors_ must obviously be in damned short supply
> elsewhere, eh?
Yeah, I was really kinda impressed seeing the red and blue, sorry, PEX
pipes running every where.
On 4/12/2012 8:20 AM, Dave wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 08:05:03 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Pex is "fully code compliant", just try using it in building a house
>> many in jurisdictions across the US.
>
> Has there been noticeable resistance to it? To me anyway, it looks
> like the ultimate plumbing product. At least for the current state of
> the art.
Absolutely in some areas, to the point that it can not be used. Although
as soon as some of these old farts on jurisdiction's zoning and building
standards boards retire, that should be subject to change.
> Have you heard about this Karl?
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2001/may/03/wonder-wire-puts-up-no-resistance
Pretty cool ... heretofore most of that stuff is/was done at
temperatures not found outside a laboratory, but I expect it won't be
long before it becomes a reality in the real world.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:18:09 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 07:33:16 -0400, "J. Clarke"
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>[email protected] says...
>>>
>>> On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 21:57:59 -0400, "m II" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Did my house in PEX but I will never use those sharkbite fittings. Too
>>> >expensive and I don't trust them.
>>> >
>>> >The pinch ring fittings work fabulous and never seen one leak in four
>>> >houses, all done by amateur labour.
>>> >
>>>
>>> As long as you use good pinch rings and the proper tool. My one
>>> reservation with the rings is how long will they last, and what
>>> happens if one corrodes in the wall? (say a mouse pisses on it, or
>>> some other chemical reaction weakens the clamp material)
>>
>>The rings are copper, they should be at least as resistant to mouse pee
>>as copper pipe, and there's a lot less area exposed to mouse pee.
>>
>>> >-----------
>>> >"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
>>> >news:[email protected]...
>>> >Ugh! I just can't warm to those. I've used them and I realize their
>>> >value,
>>> >but I just cannot get over the movement of the joint with them.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>
>I thought the clips were aluminum or steel. Are they tinned copper, or
>are yours different from what I see around here?
There are two types of "permanent" PEX fasteners.
The one preferred for house plumbing is a copper ring that requires a
fairly expensive tool to compress the ring smoothly around the pipe.
The other, apparently preferred for lawn sprinkler systems, uses a
stainless ring with an "ear" which is squeezed by a less expensive
crimping tool - it leaves the crimped "ear" sticking out from the
ring.
(Perhaps the copper ring is the preferred technique, but won't stand
up to burial, so the stainless crimp is accepted for that - just my
guess...)
--
Peter Bennett, VE7CEI
peterbb (at) telus.net
GPS and NMEA info: http://vancouver-webpages.com/peter
Vancouver Power Squadron: http://vancouver.powersquadron.ca
On 4/13/2012 8:34 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:18:10 -0500, Swingman<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On 4/13/2012 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
>>>> else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
>>>
>>> That is so funny. For those of us in the frost belt, we cannot conceive of
>>> a house without a basement - or at least a crawl space (a cheap alternative
>>> that raises at least one eyebrow...) under a home. Hell - it ain't a home
>>> without a basement. Where the hell do you guys do your reloading? Can't
>>> put an ammo bench out in the garage - it gets all dirty'd up from painting
>>> cars! Where do you put the pool table? The wife's sewing room? Ya just
>>> can't really have a home without a basement. Even in Texas!
>>
>> I'll give you a dime for every basement in the Texas if you'll give me a
>> penny for everyone in the "frost belt".
>>
>> They're not unheard of, but rarer than unicorn poop on a roof.
>>
>> Occasionally someone (usually from the NE) with more money than sense,
>> will get a code variance at huge cost and risk and actually build one
>> ... in the trade we call them what they will soon be ... "indoor
>> swimming pools".
> Unless the builder's name is Noah.
> What New Orleans needs is a statute requiring ferrocrete (hull)
> basements in ALL new construction homes. Then next time the flood
> barriers are breached they'll all turn into yachts or houseboats.
The French Quarter, where the original New Orleans was built, has
survived 300 years quite nicely. Apparently there weren't as many fools
in the early 1700's to sell swamp land to ... besides, it's about 300
miles from Texas.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On 4/14/2012 3:57 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:49:21 -0400, Dave<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:42:08 -0500, Leon<lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>> They were difficult to turn after 5~10 years but
>>> about 8 years ago we installed a water softener and the next time I
>>> turned off any of the supply valves any where in the house they turned
>>> like they were brand new. This did not happen immediately but
>>> eventually all of the ones that I worked on operated freely.
>>
>> Hard water causes all sorts of problems. Early on, I'd have figured
>> your wife would have had trouble with dishes and clothes washing and
>> gotten you to do something about it.
>>
>> Of course, those things may well be part of your duties and you just
>> put off the hard/soft water fix for a number of years. :)
> Some places the water is naturally soft - and others the hard water
> is hard but not agressive. Then there's the water I grew up with -
> hard as a stone and as agressive as battery acid.
Yeah, I grew up in Corpus Christi, TX the drinking water was river water
and very soft. In Houston most is from the ground and pretty hard.
I had that KW water eat a few of my copper pipes after 20 years.
----------
wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Some places the water is naturally soft - and others the hard water
is hard but not agressive. Then there's the water I grew up with -
hard as a stone and as agressive as battery acid.
Stainless steel pinch ring for in-house plumbing.Very reliable and once
pinched and removed the PEX is very difficult to remove from the
fitting anyway, without splitting with a blade.
They are just different manufacturer's systems.
-------------
"Peter Bennett" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
There are two types of "permanent" PEX fasteners.
The one preferred for house plumbing is a copper ring that requires a
fairly expensive tool to compress the ring smoothly around the pipe.
The other, apparently preferred for lawn sprinkler systems, uses a
stainless ring with an "ear" which is squeezed by a less expensive
crimping tool - it leaves the crimped "ear" sticking out from the
ring.
(Perhaps the copper ring is the preferred technique, but won't stand
up to burial, so the stainless crimp is accepted for that - just my
guess...)
On Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:18:10 -0500, Swingman <[email protected]> wrote:
>On 4/13/2012 2:53 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>
>>> Yeah, considering relatively no one has a basement in the south, where
>>> else would you run the plumbing? ;~)
>>
>> That is so funny. For those of us in the frost belt, we cannot conceive of
>> a house without a basement - or at least a crawl space (a cheap alternative
>> that raises at least one eyebrow...) under a home. Hell - it ain't a home
>> without a basement. Where the hell do you guys do your reloading? Can't
>> put an ammo bench out in the garage - it gets all dirty'd up from painting
>> cars! Where do you put the pool table? The wife's sewing room? Ya just
>> can't really have a home without a basement. Even in Texas!
>
>I'll give you a dime for every basement in the Texas if you'll give me a
>penny for everyone in the "frost belt".
>
>They're not unheard of, but rarer than unicorn poop on a roof.
>
>Occasionally someone (usually from the NE) with more money than sense,
>will get a code variance at huge cost and risk and actually build one
>... in the trade we call them what they will soon be ... "indoor
>swimming pools".
Unless the builder's name is Noah.
What New Orleans needs is a statute requiring ferrocrete (hull)
basements in ALL new construction homes. Then next time the flood
barriers are breached they'll all turn into yachts or houseboats.
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 09:49:21 -0400, Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 07:42:08 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>They were difficult to turn after 5~10 years but
>>about 8 years ago we installed a water softener and the next time I
>>turned off any of the supply valves any where in the house they turned
>>like they were brand new. This did not happen immediately but
>>eventually all of the ones that I worked on operated freely.
>
>Hard water causes all sorts of problems. Early on, I'd have figured
>your wife would have had trouble with dishes and clothes washing and
>gotten you to do something about it.
>
>Of course, those things may well be part of your duties and you just
>put off the hard/soft water fix for a number of years. :)
Some places the water is naturally soft - and others the hard water
is hard but not agressive. Then there's the water I grew up with -
hard as a stone and as agressive as battery acid.
On 4/6/2012 11:05 AM, Gramp's shop wrote:
> I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough
> stuff as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." I need to
> cobble together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack.
> I've got a box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
>
> Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a
> screw if you know the load?
My favorite screw for that application is a "Spax":
http://www.mcfeelys.com/spax-screws
I prefer them for attaching cabinets to walls these days because of the
superior shear strength.
That said, most engineers will tell you that for many
construction/structural projects nails will provide more shear strength
than screws, so it really depends upon the application.
--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Apr 6, 12:05Â pm, Gramp's shop <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough
>> stuff as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." Â I need to
>> cobble together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack.
>> I've got a box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
>>
>> Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a
>> screw if you know the load?
>
>When in doubt, put in another screw for redundancy. If
>they're going to fail, in all likelihood, they're going to fail
>one screw at a time.
Unless even 2 is not strong enough, where both can, and often do,
fail virtually at the same time. Ore one will fail, without being
noticed, and a significant time later the second fails
catastrophically.
Better to use overkill on one than use 2 too small fasteners.
Better yet, overkill on more than one.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:05:15 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
wrote:
>Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>
>On 4/11/2012 7:37 PM, Swingman wrote:
>> On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>>
>>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>>
>>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>>
>> Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
>> requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
>> size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
>>
>>
>>> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
>>> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
>>> I use screws for all that now.
>>
>>
A straight nail driven into end grain has about the same holding power
(in tension) as yesterday's chewing gum.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>
>
>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>for wind storm resistance.
www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf2001/ramme01c.pdf will give you the PDF
on wood: mechanical fasteners.
www.awc.org/pdf/ndscom97.pdf will find you my first reference to "Part
XI: Wood Screws" in secion XI. All you ever wanted to know about wood
screws (particularly in construction) from the American Forest and
Paper Association.
On 12 Apr 2012 01:17:25 GMT, [email protected] (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:05:15 -0400, tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>>>Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>>>The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>>>straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>>>But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>>>
>>>On 4/11/2012 7:37 PM, Swingman wrote:
>>>> On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>>>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>>>>
>>>>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>>>>
>>>> Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
>>>> requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
>>>> size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
>>>>> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
>>>>> I use screws for all that now.
>>>>
>>>>
>>A straight nail driven into end grain has about the same holding power
>>(in tension) as yesterday's chewing gum.
>
>When it is nailed from the top plate or sill into stud endgrain, it suffices since
>the roof holds them together - the nail is to keep the stud aligned, any forces
>will be perpendicular to the nail.
Untill you get wind lift. Or siesmic activity. Which is why
toe-nailing USED to be pretty well a requirement in the days of plain
nails. Ardox nails help. TimberLok screws can be used in place of
hurricane straps to connect trusses to sills. Fully code compliant,
and you won't mistake them for a common screw or lag bolt - and you
don't need to remove them or X-Ray to know how long the timberlok is
(they are clearly marked on their black hex heads)
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:26:02 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:36:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:57:15 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>>>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>>>>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>>>>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>>>>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>>>>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>>>>for wind storm resistance.
>>>
>>>If you google "strength of wood screws" you will find
>>>www.awc.org/pdf/.../Part11WoodScrewspp133to139.pdf.
>>
>>Um, remove the ... and give us the actual URL, please. Parsing error!
>>Silly wabbit.
>That's why I said google it and the hacked up URL was just to identify
>the post, Dumb bunny ;)
_Not_ dumb, sir. Pureasslazy.
--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
I use screws for all that now.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw
Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
On 4/11/2012 7:37 PM, Swingman wrote:
> On 4/11/2012 6:33 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:26:06 -0700, RP wrote:
>>
>>> Up here in the Northeast, if we are framing a house, we cannot use
>>> screws. Must use nails or you will not pass the framing inspection.
>>
>> That seems a little strange - what's the rational given, if any?
>
> Nails generally have a greater shear strength than screws, thus the
> requirement in some areas are very specific as to the nails used, their
> size, makeup, and nailing patterns.
>
>
>> I learned the hard way that any carpentry (as opposed to ww) work I do,
>> someday I, or someone who comes after, will have to take it apart again.
>> I use screws for all that now.
>
>
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 21:36:27 -0700, Larry Jaques
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:57:15 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>>>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>>>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>>>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>>>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>>>
>>>
>>>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>>>for wind storm resistance.
>>
>>If you google "strength of wood screws" you will find
>>www.awc.org/pdf/.../Part11WoodScrewspp133to139.pdf.
>
>Um, remove the ... and give us the actual URL, please. Parsing error!
>Silly wabbit.
That's why I said google it and the hacked up URL was just to identify
the post, Dumb bunny ;)
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:
>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>
>
>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>for wind storm resistance.
If you google "strength of wood screws" you will find
www.awc.org/pdf/.../Part11WoodScrewspp133to139.pdf.
Download the PDF and read it. You will find out all you ever wanted to
know about wood screws, their strength and application. (and likely
even MORE than you wanted to know). A good read.
On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:57:15 -0400, [email protected] wrote:
>On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:15:26 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>wrote:
>
>>On 4/11/2012 7:05 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
>>> Used to be that framing had to be toe nailed...
>>> Now I see nails used from top and bottom sil to studs. Not as strong.
>>> The toe nailing really locks it in from both sides.
>>> straight nailing will not withstand storm forces as much.
>>> But then again, most roofs will easily lift before the framing gives.
>>
>>
>>Typically hurricane straps add tremendous strength if you are building
>>for wind storm resistance.
>
>If you google "strength of wood screws" you will find
>www.awc.org/pdf/.../Part11WoodScrewspp133to139.pdf.
Um, remove the ... and give us the actual URL, please. Parsing error!
Silly wabbit.
--
Happiness is not a station you arrive at, but a manner of traveling.
-- Margaret Lee Runbeck
On 4/6/2012 11:05 AM, Gramp's shop wrote:
> I've always taken a serendipity view of screw gauge when doing rough
> stuff as in "hey, I'd better use a bigger screw for this." I need to
> cobble together some two bys for a frame for a basement storage rack.
> I've got a box of number 9 2 1/2 inchers that ought to do the trick.
>
> Question: Is there a formula for determining the minimum gauge for a
> screw if you know the load?
What you also need to ask is if there is a way to determine the quality
of the screw you are using. I know of #6 screws that are stronger than
#10's.
All things be in equal, McFeeleys.com has the specifically information
that you are asking and IIRC their catalog has a chart of this also.