On 4/14/2012 3:56 PM, email@example.com wrote:
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.
Wow shall we say hard water? :~) I will admit that my valves took 3~5
years before the build up eroded and freed them.
On 4/13/2012 1:20 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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
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
On 4/13/12 2:20 PM, email@example.com 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. Same idiot never takes the cover off
her A/C either, so I have no idea how often if ever she lets the furnace
The system will be down for 10 days for preventive maintenance.
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
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
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.
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.
On 4/12/2012 12:32 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
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
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
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.
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
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;).
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.
On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 13:49:20 -0700 (PDT), Father Haskell
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
Better to use overkill on one than use 2 too small fasteners.
Better yet, overkill on more than one.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.