<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Yes, a well known/documented
relationship.<br>
...Well, that inverse relationship can't be extended indefinitely
(else let's go to 1/2" pipe!).<br>
<br>
When the diameter gets smaller than the solids being transported
it stops up (barring sufficient pressure to transform & move
the solids). So the question is how far can we extend that
inverse relationship before it becomes non-linear and we have to
get the snake out. Perhaps those A.S. experts had some feeling
for where extending that inverse relationship begins to fail
reflecting reality. Obviously a function of the size of the
solids being transported, but they'd likely also have a good
feeling for that size too. Perhaps they knew from experience that
testing a 2" line would show it too frequently stops up instead of
transporting the solids. <br>
My tendency is to #1: trust the experts, and #2: be conservative
because I don't want to be using my snake. For me, being
conservative here certainly includes using a pipe notably larger
in diameter than the exit aperture of the fixture.<br>
<br>
Joe<br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/24/2016 4:51 PM, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAE5fceDeNxHmqq=zNDgb_WE5aNR-a+Pb5mecNhsWfiTY=2-r1A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Except that carriage distance is inversely related
to pipe diameter at low flow rates. That's the whole point. <br>
Under the conditions I'm interested in, a larger pipe works
against the goal we're discussing here, which is why the 0.8gpf
toilets mated with a 4" pipe performed so disastrously. My
question to the designers of that study and to anyone here is
why they didn't consider testing with a 2" line?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:47 PM, Joe
Killian <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kaa-ajk@sonic.net" target="_blank">kaa-ajk@sonic.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Reuben,<br>
The American standard Cadet 3 toilet (a popular and very
good unit) has for it's exit aperture:<br>
"Fully-glazed 2-1/8" trapway with 2" ball pass"<br>
If there's a stoppage anywhere, you'd want it to be AT the
toilet, not somewhere down the pipe. So a pipe
substantially larger than the fixture's exit aperture would
be advisable.<br>
<br>
With a macerater, a 2" pipe is acceptable, afaik. ...If
you wanted to trade that complication for the smaller pipe.<br>
Joe<span class=""><br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/24/2016 3:29 PM, Reuben Deumling wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I have long wondered whether or when anyone would dare
diverge from the 3" standard drainline diameter as we
get toilets that use less and less water per flush.<br>
Interpolating from this chart: <a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.mpwmd.net/rules/Apr2008/pdfs/RegII/rule24_table1.pdf"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mpwmd.net/rules/Apr2008/pdfs/RegII/rule24_table1.pdf">http://www.mpwmd.net/rules/Apr2008/pdfs/RegII/rule24_table1.pdf</a></a><br>
I see that in terms of fixture units, a 0.8gpf toilet is
now at 1, which puts it comfortably within the same
class as sinks, which as we know do not require anywhere
near a 3" drainline. So..... does anyone on this list
know if there is any movement toward allowing a 2"
drainline for a 0.8gpf toilet? Or whether there's been
any testing of this configuration?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</span>
_______________________________________________<br>
Greenbuilding mailing list<br>
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org"
target="_blank">Greenbuilding@bioenergylists.org</a><br>
<br>
to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>