At 12:45 PM 10/6/97 -0700, Keith Kaplan wrote:
>Even though I'm on the side that says schedule 40 PVC is good, I'd have
>to recommend against this experiment. Most materials, especially
>plastics, prefer to handle loads that are nicely distributed.
>Pressurized air exerts a bunch of pressure on a pipe, but it's evenly
>spread out. The kind of point loading you'd get from a hammer blow is
>really _not_ what the pipe was designed for. If you do find some safe
>way to try the experiment, please pass along the results.
A hammer blow is exactly the failure mode often spoken of. In a shop
situation where you move things around metal parts could be flying, the
pipe will take a blow. I am curious because I am about to buy a bigger
compressor and want to plumb the shop. I would like to use metal pipe
because it does a better job of condensing water vapor but plastic is much
cheaper.
My brother has used 1 in sched 40 PVC in his shop for well over 10 years
now. So far no problems and his place should be the worst application. It
is in the desert where summer is usually 200+ and it freezes in winter.
One piece of PVC is exposed to sunlight and still holds pressure. We once
tried to throw things at the pipe but neither of us are accurate or brave.
As to the test, it would not be hard to rig up a spring loaded hammer. Use
a hammer blow one time than have a nail another. I was thinking of
mounting the pipe and .22 in a small ditch then fire the .22 with a string.
Simple shade tree engineering often works better than the best multiple
degrees, "lets do a formal test" type.
Don Bowen Senior Software Engineer
Valley Center, CA Virtual Integrators
donb@cts.com Don.bowen@integrators.com
http://www.users.cts.com/crash/d/donb
http://www.integrators.com/bowens
|