Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PEX Vs RAT

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: PEX Vs RAT

    Originally posted by ToUtahNow View Post
    I believe what NHMaster is saying is because Studor has an "Engineered" drawing of the installation you can do it. I tend to believe a drawing on a web site with no job specific information would be considered an Engineered drawing for that job.

    Mark
    Thanks. Hasn't been allowed here yet.


    J.C.

    Comment


    • Re: PEX Vs RAT

      Originally posted by JCsPlumbing View Post
      Thanks. Hasn't been allowed here yet.


      J.C.
      I just checked the Studor site and it is a little confusing but it says it is limited to the approval of the Administrative Authority.

      http://www.ipscorp.com/pdf/studor/AA...gnCriteria.pdf

      Page 18

      Mark
      "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

      I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

      Comment


      • Re: PEX Vs RAT

        Makes sense to me to never have an AAV on one.


        J.C.

        Comment


        • Re: PEX Vs RAT

          For those that want to know if their state approves the use of an AAV here is the link http://www.ipscorp.com/studor/reference/approvals
          Ron Hasil Lic #058-160417
          Ron's Facebook
          A-Archer Sewer & Plumbing specializing in:
          Tankless Water Heaters | Drain and Sewer Cleaning
          Sump and Ejector Pumps | Backflow RPZ Testing

          Comment


          • Re: PEX Vs RAT

            Thread drift of doom.

            J.C.

            Comment


            • Re: PEX Vs RAT

              Follow along now because we just went over all this at the last re-certification seminar

              The 09 IPC says

              Air admittance valves without an engineered
              design shall not be used to vent
              sumps or tanks of any type.

              Sounds good yes? In fact, probably 90% of plumbers reading that would think that you can't use an AAV on an ejector tank. They would be wrong. The design that you can find on Studor's site has been engineered and approved for all installations.

              I post this because it proves my point that just because something is approved does not mean that is is advisable.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                Follow along now because we just went over all this at the last re-certification seminar

                The 09 IPC says

                Air admittance valves without an engineered
                design shall not be used to vent
                sumps or tanks of any type.

                Sounds good yes? In fact, probably 90% of plumbers reading that would think that you can't use an AAV on an ejector tank. They would be wrong. The design that you can find on Studor's site has been engineered and approved for all installations.

                I post this because it proves my point that just because something is approved does not mean that is is advisable.
                I would be interested to see the stamp on that drawing because they would have to be licensed in every area under IPC Jurisdiction.

                Mark
                "Somewhere a Village is Missing Twelve Idiots!" - Casey Anthony

                I never lost a cent on the jobs I didn't get!

                Comment


                • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                  You can use one here but you also must have a vent to the open air. lol

                  Comment


                  • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                    Originally posted by TheMaster View Post
                    Here a licensed engineer can spec 20 ga traps and the inspector cant do a thing but smile and pass it. Are you sure an engineer cant spec a 20 ga trap and it be legal in your location?
                    Minnesota State Plumbing code requires a p-trap to have a minimum thickness of 17 gauge. No exceptions. If some kind of a plumbing device had an integral p-trap less than 17 gauge that a plumber didn't have to actually install then I imagine that would be an exception.

                    For example, a typical toilet has an integral p-trap which is clearly thicker than 17 gauge, but what if it the entire toilet was constructed of 18 gauge stainless steel? I doubt a plumbing inspector would kick the toilet as long as it met appropriate industry standards. (ASTM, etc.) So perhaps there's a possibility of exception. However, no inspector I know would allow a less than 17 gauge p-trap without good reason.
                    Time flies like an arrow.

                    Fruit flies like a banana.

                    Comment


                    • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                      Originally posted by geno gardner View Post
                      Minnesota State Plumbing code requires a p-trap to have a minimum thickness of 17 gauge. No exceptions. If some kind of a plumbing device had an integral p-trap less than 17 gauge that a plumber didn't have to actually install then I imagine that would be an exception.

                      For example, a typical toilet has an integral p-trap which is clearly thicker than 17 gauge, but what if it the entire toilet was constructed of 18 gauge stainless steel? I doubt a plumbing inspector would kick the toilet as long as it met appropriate industry standards. (ASTM, etc.) So perhaps there's a possibility of exception. However, no inspector I know would allow a less than 17 gauge p-trap without good reason.
                      In some areas an engineer can put his stamp on the plans and the inspector must pass it. The engineer is responsible for any problems resulting from his design for a period of time.

                      The typical toilet is an s-trap.....but I get what your saying.
                      Last edited by TheMaster; 12-22-2010, 08:21 PM.

                      Comment


                      • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                        Originally posted by TheMaster View Post
                        In some areas an engineer can put his stamp on the plans and the inspector must pass it. The engineer is responsible for any problems resulting from his design for a period of time.

                        The typical toilet is an s-trap.....but I get what your saying.
                        D'OH!
                        Time flies like an arrow.

                        Fruit flies like a banana.

                        Comment


                        • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                          traps are 17 gauge, but tailpieces are either 17 or 20 gauge

                          once again a sch 40 abs p trap will outlast a 17 gause p trap 10 to 1. cast brass traps are far and few between and are a pita to snake as they are very tight and hard to pass compared to plastic or 17 gauge.

                          rick.
                          phoebe it is

                          Comment


                          • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                            Originally posted by NHMaster3015 View Post
                            Follow along now because we just went over all this at the last re-certification seminar

                            The 09 IPC says

                            Air admittance valves without an engineered
                            design shall not be used to vent
                            sumps or tanks of any type.

                            Sounds good yes? In fact, probably 90% of plumbers reading that would think that you can't use an AAV on an ejector tank. They would be wrong. The design that you can find on Studor's site has been engineered and approved for all installations.

                            I post this because it proves my point that just because something is approved does not mean that is is advisable.
                            Remember Guys, When the Lil Lady suggests You bring home Your mistress for dinner ,It's nor advised !
                            I can build anything You want , if you draw a picture of it , on the back of a big enough check .

                            Comment


                            • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                              Originally posted by TheMaster View Post
                              The owner said he put out rat bait 2 days before the leak started. When rats eat rat poison they get thirsty and the water activates the poison.

                              That was part of the shower riser. Makes sense huh?
                              Well not quite!
                              The rat poison contains Warfarin or one of its more potent derivatives which thins the rats blood and causes the rat to bleed internally. The blood loss causes thirst.

                              Warfarin is a poison and does not require water to activate.
                              411 Plumb Appliance Stimulus Package

                              Comment


                              • Re: PEX Vs RAT

                                Originally posted by Redwood View Post
                                Well not quite!
                                The rat poison contains Warfarin or one of its more potent derivatives which thins the rats blood and causes the rat to bleed internally. The blood loss causes thirst.

                                Warfarin is a poison and does not require water to activate.
                                Finally a exterminator shows up with the correct answer. Thank you.

                                I decided to check up on what my customer told me vs what the member redwood is saying........looks like water activates a homemade poison.http://www.ahc.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=606
                                Last edited by TheMaster; 12-22-2010, 11:34 PM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X