Munchkin Exhaust PVC problem - please help

Kniggit

Does the 4" have any fittings? If the answer is no and you can see through them then I would just slide the 3" thought them and cut holes for the couplings as necessary. Would be my choice.
On a side note, I would never use piping installed by others if I could not inspect it before it was covered, to be sure the joints were glued properly. This installer is really still in for a great big liability if the plumber didn't use the correct fittings or pitch and the boiler fails.

Good Luck
K

Jack_36

Cellular Core PVC problem

With all the liability crap aside, I need a honest, strait and common sense answer.

We are installing a 199m munchkin boiler in our new home. The heating contractor who was friends with the plumber, told the plumber to install 4" pvc while he was doing the DWV. The plumber installed cellular core PVC instead of ASTM D-1785 or D-1784 that the manufacture recommends. I was told that cellular core PVC in a fire hazzard on the exhaust.
The problem is that we finished our basement with the rest of the house. Kalboard (plaster)on the basment cielings and the PVC exhaust run goes though three walls before terminating outside. The heating contractor found this mistake two days ago and said we must rip down the basement cieling and replace the PVC with the correct ASTM grade. He also mentioned that the cellular core PVC we have may never cause a problem but he does not want to be liable for a fire.
I understand this.
However, the connection from the boiler to where the 4" Cellular core pvc starts is over 14 feet. The heating contractor said he will run the correct grade 3" PVC from the boiler 14 feet to where it transitions to the 4" PVC. (Note: this being either the existing cellular core or new (correct ) PVC.

Lets say he runs the new three inch PVC to the existing 4"cellular core PVC.

Will the gas cool down enough before it hits the cellular PVC 14' away? Is not recommending the use of cellular core PVC in the systems exhuast just Muchkin doig the normal corprate CYA, and the problem will probably never surface in reality. Or-- Do I have to rip out my cielings and redo everything?

Please throw me a bone here!!

Thanks Jack

lchmb

If

Simply put if it were my home it would be removed and the proper PVC installed Period!! Would you use break's for your car that, while not listed for your vehicle "may" work? And while your up there redoing the piping, I would strongly suggest you leave an access point in case there are any issue's down the road. IMHO..Merry Christmas...

Darin Cook_6

Call HTP !!

Get the real answers from the manufacturer.







TSGT Darin Cook
Air Expeditionary Forces
Iraq

Perry_3

Precursor to the bones could be Carbon Monoxide

If the PVC does not stand up - and starts leaking (well before it may catch on fire) - then you will have Carbon Monoxied (CO) leaking into your house.

Please review all the postings that talk about CO in their title.

Might I suggest the best XMass gift you can give yourself and your family is to do it right. Alternately immagine yourself trying to explain to yourself, your freinds, and your remaining family in the future how you knew that the vent was substandard and could have problems as you bury a loved one... that your ceiling was more important.

Truth be told though... As an engineer I don't like PVC as a vent system at all. While the Mfr claims its OK - no standards board or safety rating agency one has certified it as such. The debate can be found by searching - but it seems that you are aware of it by your post.

In the end - the real reason you hire a heating contractor is to ensure that you have a safe installation. The contractor is absolutely correct in his worry about liability - but not just from a fire.

So do you want your family to be safe - or do you want an unsafe system. Othewise you could indeed have bones "tossed" your way. Who's and when tied with an "if" are the unknown.

Also, please ensure that the contractor test the new installation with a digital combustion analyzer to ensure that it is working right after installation.

Perry

S Ebels

A few short answers

Change it. period

There are no manufacturers that allow the use of Cell core PVC for venting their appliances. Solid PVC is the only thing recommended.

Fire is not the concern, it's eventual flue gas leakage and the resulting CO poisoning of you and your family.

Your ceiling is not worth it pal.

Cosmo_3

Wrong place

I think that you will not find a single contractor here that will agree with you. It is simply not our call, we will all refer you to the manufacturer.

In reading posts hear on the Wall you may find us talking about experiments we do in our own houses. We do this in full knowledge that we carry our family's safety in our hands, and we use our best judgement in deciding what is or is not safe to try.

Whoever you get to install your boiler is responsible for the safety of your family, and he will not be around everyday to monitor the safe operation of the boiler and chimney system. I would stay clear of ANY heating contractor that would agree to complete the installation of the boiler using materials that are not endorsed by the boiler manufacturer.

Look at it another way, lets say something does happen and someone needs to be held responsible. Wouldn't you rather have the Manufacturer of the product back up the product, rather than coming to see the installation and subsequently voiding your warranty?

hmmmmm, no brainer I would think.

Has your heating contractor explored the possibility of using the 4" cellular core as a chase and simply running the 3" solid core through it? Will have to check the venting instructions to see if you can get away with it.


Cosmo

lee_7

don't worry about ceiling. heating contractor should be responsible for all costs related to the correction of their mistake and to put property back to current condition. If they won't cover replacement/repair costs, do not pass go, but go directly to lawyer's office as this person is NOT a PROFESSIONAL AND SHOULD NOT BE IN BUSINESS.

ALH_4

celcore

Celcore is unacceptable for venting.

mark_56

This kind of irks me. But I guess you're right- What's the point of hiring a "heating contractor" when a plumber is just going to botch it up anyway. There are plenty of plumbers who also "do heating", usually for less.

rich pickering

What irks me is the assumption that plumbers are not heating contractors.

Up here, in Canada, it is mainly plumbers that are the heating guys. As of Jan 1, only certified, stamped plastic will be allowed for venting. Right now, only IPEX has pvc that is certified and stamped.

Guy_6

Cell core

I don't think that fire is the issue as much as the deterioration of the pipe itself. Any heat degradation of the pipe within a ceiling space would allow the exhaust gases to vent within the building-unseen. Not good. It is not worth risking a life to save the cost or aggravation of the correct repair.

Mitch_4

Rich..that date has been moved back

to July 1

Just a heads up

rich pickering

Thanks. I think SaskEnergy is still looking at Jan 1st. Maybe I'll rattle some chains next week.

Mitch_4

HRAI newsletter

My newsletter indicates that Ont, BC, Alberta, Manitoba, Que and N.B are all delaying

Mitch_4

like the AERO candy bar commercial

Just let the bubbles melt...

Chris_82

I'm no big fan of Munchkins BUT

You can't mix and match sizes, regardless of which pvc you use. The greater distance you can travel with the vent AT 4" is when the total length is totally made up of 4" NOT 10 feet of 3" and then a certian distance of 4" It's either one or the other! worth restating...all 3" or 4", no mixing period!

Dave Best

In a low temp system like infloor radiant the exhaust gases are cooled so much that the exhaust temperture is hardly warm enough to call warm. Might as well call it cool. Without a fan pushung it out, the "hot" air in the vent is'nt even hot enough to rish straight up vertically out the vent. It couldn't burn a cotton ball. It's a liabilty thing. Most likely... you would never have a problem. Changing the first fifteen feet to solid coar would certainly help. Off the record, leave it in. On the record, take it out. Ask everyone else what their off the record opinion is. Also ask them how much expierance they have with munchkin boilers and high efficiency equipment.

Chris_82

Who uses foam core for vents, in the cold the stuff snaps if you look at it???? Ever drop a peice of foam core on a cold day? Reason number 20 to fix this now! We are also installing CO alarms as part of our installs. Regardless, because the plumbing inspectors are making it a defacto req., regardless of any code.

Leo G_99

bit off topic

but what about the acidic waste products. I seem to be seeing more of these mod/cons draining their condensate straight into the floor drain. Up here in Vancouver, the majority of underground waste piping is ABS cellcore. Just wonder how long before A LOT of basement floors are getting jackhammered?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Leo G

Glenn Elwell

Cell-core

Jack,
In order to pass the AGA test, the boiler is run without safety devices and the flue has to stand up to the resulting flue gas temperature. PVC has a heat distortion temperature of 160 F at 264psi and a resistance to heat at continuous drainage rating of 140 F (Nibco plastic piping handbook. If you are using the Munchkin for domestic hot water (highest operating temperature) buy a 'snap disc'thermostat (Grainger model 2E253 - opens at 200F closes automatically at 160F) and wire it into your domestic call circuit. If no domestic, use a 2E251 (opens at 180F and closes at 140F)and wire it into the heat call circuit. Rest easy. There are hundreds of installations with cellcore - not right, but reality.

joel_19

venting

I would simply take the vent out, you don't have to rip down the whole cieling just the section where the vent pipe is located. FYI we won't install ANY horozontal vent material above a finished cieling we want to be able to inspect it every year. If an H.O. wants to cover it they are given a registered letter that says that we do not approve it and we will refuse to work on the equipment in the future. doesn't matter if it is PVC or metal. there is always the potential for failure and what you can't see CAN hurt you.

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Rich Kontny_3

Assumptions

Rich,

I find that plumbers tend to be better wet heat mechanics if they pursue this as part of there business.Plumbers tend to understand water flow better than converts from the scorched air industry.The control and electrical needs of hydronic systems tend to be the weakest part of plumber/wet heat contractors yet many have mastered this also.

There are of course those who are very good from various backgrounds. Assumptions are just that (one who assumes risks making an **** out of u and me.)

As far as the cell foam pipe it should be changed at the exspense of those who assumed it was ok. Including the ceiling replacement costs.

Would like to wish all of you a "Happy and Peaceful New Year" Thanks for the info shared and this great exchange of knowledge!

Have Great New Year!

Rich Kontny

Chris_82

Dear off topic...

Most of the manuals recommend running the condensate through a lime or marble chip "filter," This "acid" COH or one of its variants is a relatively weak acid and is found in large amounts in nature. It is one of the reasons stone in any form degrades in industrial areas. Acid rain? Etc...Generally just running it down the drain doesn’t cause problems, for anyone, including the environment, and any PVC can stand up to it for years, as long as HEAT is not involved. I think foam core by the way is another example of how as an industry we have failed. The increased ozone and fossil fuel's consumed cause considerably more damage and are a real problem that is going unaddressed in this country, AND this goes for the Mod/cons as well, they are not immune from their contribution to the greenhouse effect! Don’t be sucked into the hype that they are a solution to a growing problem. We are the only country that refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, we are the worlds largest producer of CO2 because of our dependence upon fossil fuels, and consequently the largest producer of airborne acids, which are the same acids in condensate, only in the drain they are not a problem, in the air however they will eventually kill us all, and this is NOT an understatement. The manufacturers generally take the political green approach, as they do with energy conservation in general because it drives their sales through the roof. Especially in times of high fuel costs. Unfortunately they have rushed products into the market place, with their lawyer’s assistance that do not live up to the demands of the application!

[Deleted User]

Condensate acidity...

Chris, I will let you explain to the numerous customers I have who had early condensors installed in their homes (HydroPulse, Glow Core etc..) why it is that their drains have no bottom, and why we have to break up their concrete floors to replace their drains...

You are mistaken my friend. We have measured the acidity of condensate at around 4.5, strong enough to eat concrete, cast iron and steel.

One of the codes, the Intergalactic, if I'm not mistaken REQUIRES the neutralization of condensate PRIOR TO dumping it into a sewer, private or public.

ME

Perry_3

Chris:

> Most of the manuals recommend running the

> condensate through a lime or marble chip

> "filter," This "acid" COH or one of its variants

> is a relatively weak acid and is found in large

> amounts in nature. It is one of the reasons stone

> in any form degrades in industrial areas. Acid

> rain? Etc...Generally just running it down the

> drain doesn’t cause problems, for anyone,

> including the environment, and any PVC can stand

> up to it for years, as long as HEAT is not

> involved. I think foam core by the way is another

> example of how as an industry we have failed. The

> increased ozone and fossil fuel's consumed cause

> considerably more damage and are a real problem

> that is going unaddressed in this country, AND

> this goes for the Mod/cons as well, they are not

> immune from their contribution to the greenhouse

> effect! Don’t be sucked into the hype that they

> are a solution to a growing problem. We are the

> only country that refused to sign the Kyoto

> Protocol, we are the worlds largest producer of

> CO2 because of our dependence upon fossil fuels,

> and consequently the largest producer of airborne

> acids, which are the same acids in condensate,

> only in the drain they are not a problem, in the

> air however they will eventually kill us all, and

> this is NOT an understatement. The manufacturers

> generally take the political green approach, as

> they do with energy conservation in general

> because it drives their sales through the roof.

> Especially in times of high fuel costs.

> Unfortunately they have rushed products into the

> market place, with their lawyer’s assistance that

> do not live up to the demands of the application!

Perry_3

Chris:

I think you are misunderstood about the Kayoto Protocol.

It was never designed to actaully limit the amount of polution to the atmosphere. It was only intended to limit the most industrialized countries polution.

Thus, countries like China who are signatories had absolutely nothing to loose by signing it. As an "undeveloped" country they had no restrictions imposed on them by the Kayota Protocol. Thus, they were free under it to build all kinds of factories, power plants, and other things with absolutely no polution controls whatsoever. The result is that in a few years (I belive now estimated to be less than 5 years) that China will become the worlds largest emmitter of CO2, and other polutants, in the world. Koyoto will never require them to reduce their polution - or to ever control it; and they intend to keep builing plants to employ there people. Same is true of many other countries in the world (like over 3/4 of the countries in the world). These countries had nothing to loose and a lot to gain by signing Kayoto.

One of the results is that a company which want to upgrade their plant to modern production equipment - will almost always build it outside of the US and other Koyoto controlled countries. You can easily double or tripple the cost of certain plants by installing the polution control equipment required in the US and the other controlled countries (this is more than a CO2 issue). It is hard to compete when a you add millions to the cost of a plant from building it one place to another. In many cases shipping may ofset wages - but if the plant has to have polution control (and safety measures) here - and nothing there - it has a big effect.

What Kayot0 really was - was a massive manufacturing shift of heavily poluting industries from the select "industrilized" countries - to the non industrialed (and totally non controlled) countries.

Kayoto has not reduced greenhouse gases in the world - it only moved where they were being generated.

Several years ago many people who were actually interested in reducing the world wide level of polutants admited that Kayota was non-effective and a failure (with or without the US). Of course - people who do not look at facts (such as how acidic boiler condensate really is) - or how much polution is being generated in the world and where - keep harping on Kayota.

So here is the big question: How many countries in the world are willing to sign a treaty that reduces their ability to attract new industry (instead of a treaty that only limits other countries); and forces them to impose restrictions on their exsisting industry. That's the one I want to see everyone sign. I'll bet there will be lots of holdouts (like most of the world).

As far as how much a mod/con affects the world. A properely installed one affects it less than any other option for heating due to their very high efficiency. You are free of course to live without heat. Just don't ask others to.

Here is one for you to answere: In about the last 30 years the energy used by industry in the US to manufacture goods has dropped dramitically (15% - 20% is a typical range reported). Manufacturers have adopted energy efficient strataqies becasue it is cost effective to do so.

In the same approximate 30 year period home electrical use has gone up about 25%. This dispite the imposition of energy efficiency standards and people buying much more energy efficient appliances and light bulbs.

Why are all the people - who tend to "complain" about energy use and cost increasing their use of energy even though all major appliances are much more energy efficient? You cannot say - looking at the facts of industrial energy use - that the Manufacturers have not done there part. They have.

Perry

Bob Sweet

Well said Perry!!



To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

G-rott

Kyoto...**** Stepping up on my soapbox

Quote:
>"increased ozone and fossil fuel's consumed cause

> considerably more damage and are a real problem

> that is going unaddressed in this country, AND

> this goes for the Mod/cons as well, they are not

> immune from their contribution to the greenhouse

> effect! Don’t be sucked into the hype that they

> are a solution to a growing problem. We are the

> only country that refused to sign the Kyoto

> Protocol, we are the worlds largest producer of

> CO2 because of our dependence upon fossil fuels,

> and consequently the largest producer of airborne

> acids, which are the same acids in condensate,

> only in the drain they are not a problem, in the

> air however they will eventually kill us all, and

> this is NOT an understatement."

No this is an over simplified fear mongering statement, on a heating forum.
WHY? Plastic Pipe? Mod/Cons? What?


Kyoto would have sent our economy into a tailspin.

Should we do somthing to limit our greenhous gas production...YES

Should we reduce our energy usage per person... YES

Should we become energy independant... YES

Should we sign a treaty then break it because we could in no way comply with it... NO

Should we pay others who do...NO

Stepping down, flame suit on.

Garett

ps Perry is much more eloquent(sp) than I, well said Perry.

Chris_82

Sorry Perry,...

Perry, I get most of my environmental information from Professor Thomas L. McKnight, who recently passed away, at the University of CA at LA. He was also a contributor to the drafting to the United Nations Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming and the Greenhouse effect. Other information comes from the Dept. of Energy web sites, past college courses, and speaking with representatives from other countries and reading the local and national papers every other day…

“It was never designed to actaully limit the amount of polution to the atmosphere. It was only intended to limit the most industrialized countries polution.”


Perry I’m sorry but you are so far off regarding the subject of air pollution that your response isn’t even laudable as Bush propaganda. The protocol was designed to limit air pollution period. You are correct that the USA didn’t sign for economic reasons though, that’s because the USA would suffer the largest economic impact simply because we are the world’s largest air polluter. We would have the largest bill. China ranks second, Russia, Japan, Germany, and India follow respectively. These countries share in a very large bill as well! Comparing the economics of varying countries and suggesting that air pollution issues can be avoided can be much akin to comparing apples and coconuts, they are not comparable. Most industry relocates because of labor costs, and as you remember in India as an example they have very strict air pollution regulations that are strictly enforced. India was the only country and still is to have murder warrants out for the executives of union carbide for their anti-air pollution and poor safety record of chemical plants, worldwide. In deference to your misinformation…the vast majority of signers of the Kyoto Protocol Nations have lobbied vigorous protests at the United States and China for their alleged attitude of industrialized countries that now that they have created this problem and wish the rest of the developing countries to forgo the benefits of industrialization in order to protect the atmosphere. Developing countries pay dearly to implement their air pollution controls, developing countries for the most part have stepped up to the plate in accordance with the United Nations recommendations, we can’t say as much. Sanctions are a very powerful force and as I have noticed you have the pulpit on this issue only as you are standing behind the largest standing army in the world. But that’s ok because using your logic when Japan and China’s air pollution settles on the west coast, we will simply nuke them. Or starve them into submission. Unfortunately for your argument, China is a world economic force and does pay attention to its world markets, China has a very aggressive air pollution program as most of China’s pollution settles in China, being a collectivist country they have pretty strong rules and regulations in place and they are at least addressing alternative energy on a large scale and also addressing their air pollution contribution, more than I can say for us. The current administration has consistently relaxed air pollution limits and cut alternative energy spending.

What does this have to do with cheap boilers? The marketing departments of most of the fossil fuel consumers, that’s us buddy…jump on the band wagon of “you get what you pay for,” “high tech equals high cost,” and “these aren’t your fathers’ boilers.” Your right they are not they are cheaper because the media and individuals with vested interest in the fuel industry are here to sell, not to make a better piece of equipment. It has been known that saving energy in our way of life and construction, as ME points out is much more of a construction issue than (arguably) a function of boiler design, all though I suspect you won’t find much support for this well documented and researched issue from someone who sells heating equipment. Better and longer lasting equipment is a possibility and not a reality because the manufacturers don’t have any, ANY, financial motivation to make a quality product. The sooner you realize this and stop squabbling about this nebulous and ill defined concept of 99 percent efficiency, the sooner we as a nation and responsible individuals will be on the right track.

S Ebels

Chris

I had to smile to myself when I read this in your post...............especially the last sentence.

"It has been known that saving energy in our way of life and construction, as ME points out is much more of a construction issue than (arguably) a function of boiler design, all though I suspect you won't find much support for this well documented and researched issue from someone who sells heating equipment. Better and longer lasting equipment is a possibility and not a reality because the manufacturers don't have any, ANY, financial motivation to make a quality product."

While it is true that building construction has a larger bearing on impact to the environment, only a small percentage of us here will ever be able to avail ourselves of the advantages offered by a newly built home. Of those that are able, few will spend the $$ to have it built with efficiency in mind instead of the whirlpool bathtub and granite counters, but that's a whole 'nuther topic. That being the case, we are left with what choices we can make to reduce our "energy footprint" working with the house we currently have. Therein lies the case for efficient and minimally polluting heating equipment. I'd wager that I could walk into over half the homes of people reading this post and, if they were willing to spend the dough, reduce their energy use by a minimum of 30%. Multiply that by about 20,000,000 homes across the USA. That my friend, would represent a substantial drop in KWH's and BTU's don't you think? So before you relegate heating equipment to the "back row seats" let's be realistic about the impact the HVAC industry can have on energy use here.

I wish you could have been in attendance at the 25th anniversary celebration that Viessmann put on in Waterloo, Ont. this past summer. The keynote speaker was Dr David Suzuki, a noted scientist, researcher and vocal proponent of limiting man's impact on the earth. He and Dr Viessmann (the company owner) took questions from the floor for about a half an hour at the end of Suzuki's presntation. It was plain as the nose on your face that those two people share a common goal of sustainable, clean, responsible use of our natural resources. THAT, is a company that cares about it's impact and the impact of it's products on our environment and NO, this isn't a shameless plug for Viessmann. Merely pointing out wher the "bar" should be set.

The issue I am taking umbrage with is the false economy of making equipment that pollutes more than it should, and is not cost effective over it's abbreviated life. Suzuki talked about life cycle costs and how that is the true yardstick of economy. A cheap product that in reality costs nearly the same to make, buy, install and dispose of as a higher quality, longer lasting and less polluting product is in fact a false economy. He railed against the nature of our disposable, throwaway society and he's right. Product cost should be measured from "cradle to grave" including environmental impact, and only then can you correctly discern which product is the "cheapest".


The sad thing is that most consumers see little other than the initial cost in front of them. There are no immediate financial incentives to invest in a longer lasting, less polluting and more efficient product and that's a shame. If you want to gripe about something, start there. Kyoto is dead but with enough pressure in the right places maybe we have a chance to get some meaningful energy conservation laws passed in the next couple years. Write, e-mail and call your congressman/woman and tell them how important this is to you. I wrote my US senator a rather lengthy diatribe regarding this very thing and what do you know!!!!!I have a reply from her on my e-mail as we speak.

To sum this little rant up let me say the following;

You are preaching to the choir when it comes to conservation because most of us believe that's about the only thing we can do short term to really make a difference.

There IS a HVAC company that bases their product on a little different criteria than most but the large majority of consumers won't elect to pay the "energy tariff" associated with their products.

Nothing will change until it is forced to either by government intervention or energy prices so staggering that they will make it imperative for people to select only the best possible equipment and methods. Until then, I'll just keep trying to change my very small corner of the world one house at a time.

You and I are closer together than you think, just coming at the problem from different angles.

Chris_82

Hi Mark,...

Yes, most intergalactic codes require that steam condensate be treated before it is introduced into any waste piping system.

The dire consequences of mod/con condensate reaching homeowners systems have largely been ignored by the vast majority of installers and manufacturers of these "water heaters."

I want to thank you for pointing out yet another problem with mod/con installs and another hidden cost to consumers and our customers about the dangers that these new boilers present to everyone. Perhaps calling this concrete eating, plastic melting, steel dissolving, and iron disintegrating substance that all mod/cons produce a "special waste" which most codes require a special and costly acid neutralizing independent system, another hidden danger that has gone unaddressed and its associated costs-- another reason-- to not install these dangerous pipe eating boilers.

Perhaps you can share some pictures of damaged piping to illustrate this serious problem?

jp_2

pretty funn y chris,

seems you are trying to say that mod/cons mysteriously produce this acidic product where any other gas appliance doesn't?

but since you read the newspaper and beleive everything you read in the paper, i see where you are coming from.

ps is al gore your hero?

Chris_82

lic.

I think another point regarding heating specialists versus plumbers is that in the States plumbers have licenses. They have a vested responsibility to do the right thing, they especially in the case of union plumbers have frequently 5 years of an education and apprentice program where the health and safety of the nation are a motto and are taken seriously! And this is before they are let loose on the streets or allowed to work on their own. Not to start a flame war but heating contractors, and there are many reputable and conscientious ones out there, do not have any vested interest in anything other than moving as quickly as they can to the next job. You do in fact get what you pay for and woe to anyone who has as a minimum a "gas Permit" and they make comparisons to and with licensed plumbers. I have seen every picture of a job well done as an example, but I have yet to see ONE backflow device piped with a drain...to a drain, this has led to a mentality if these devices are dripping there must be something wrong with them... I have yet to see one picture of a "condensate filter" on a mod/con installation as another example. I'm not saying these are not examples of excellent workmanship that those individuals take pride in showing, as they all should take pride in showing, but the devil is frequently in the details... Good observation Mark A.

Chris_82

Confusing...

Responding to a private post, yes the transition to 4" is after the required 15' of three inch, I was responding to an observation of a picture where there were multiple transitions from 3" to 4" and back again, albiet confusing the Munchkin manual details this in detail, obvioulsy and grudgingly if that individual had folowed the recommondations they may have had less problems, it is still unresolved however if that individual has any licences or experience at all in which case my original point still stands.

To answere the question already posted about using the exsisting chimmny as a liner, yes you can, in the case of the munchkin, and depending upon the number of fittings you can rise to a maximum of 125' (developed) from the heater in 4" SOLID pvc.

My concern with this post and with someone who has already answered the "liner" question is with a generilized response of using 2" pvc, the majority of mod/cons use other sizes, and to answere a venting question without regard to a particular model and specific application may give the wrong and a very dangerous impression regarding the proper sizing of exhaust venting...

Chris_82

Tomota juice

Vinegar, Lemon juice, and the rain in Washington, D.C. are all more acidic that what comes out of most mod/cons...sounds like we might have some sort of serious problem here?

[Deleted User]

What ever....

ME

Techman

Acid?

Some nice post's!!!!Chris,let's go shotglass for shotglass You first! Vinegar,lemon juice,condensate!

Kevin G_2

Change the cell core to PVC the liability and the fact that someone's life is not worth the cost of the lawsuit. The factory says NO FOAM core on the exhaust for a reason and the result could possible be loss of life. That should be the only response to this question.

Change the pipe to PVC as stated in the Installation manual.

Kevin G

Perry_3

Amazing... But, a few things you might want to know.

Chris:

If you want to limit the affect of mankind on this world - and best preserve it for our children. Then we are in agreement with each other on that goal.

I very much belive in pollution control, appropriate cleanups, and even sustainable industry, food production, and lifestyles.

Concerning Kyoto: I will agree that it started out with good intentions to be a comprehensive pollution control program. It had been in the works for years. I am honored to even communicate with someone who directly knows one of the people behind that effort.

However, like many good efforts the politicians get ahold of it, modify it to do something different, and then claim that they supported the issue because they enacted it. It happens all the time - and the politicians get away with it because many people are distracted by the name - and not the substance of what they did.

I can name a many such issues - but will use only one as an example. Campaign finance reform. I believe that it has passed in the US 3 or 4 times... but somehow the measures don't seem to accomplish much; but, the next bill will do the trick… I am sure you have seen the same thing on other issues.

In the case of what became the Kyoto accords. It was originally intended to apply to all countries in the world - with a several step process. It was patterned after the very successful CFC (Freon) control treaty. All nations in the world would have to limit greenhouse gases. Yes the industrial nations would have to reduce; but the rest would have restrictions on what they would have to do to expand industry to reduce the effects by use of at least modest pollution control equipment for new faculties (initially) and then more advanced equipment later.

However, before the Kyoto meeting was ever called it was known that applying standards to all the countries was a "non starter." It would not be ratified by the vast majority of the countries in the world.

What most of the countries of the world were in fact interested in was expanding their economies with industrial development - and a form of the proposed treaty was seen as a way to do that (and this was reported in the news at the time - but most people were distracted by the now fake "promise" of a global environmental treaty).

So the Kyoto treaty, requiring reductions and controls, only applies polution control restrictions to a limited number of countries:

Australia,
Austria,
Belgium,
Bulgaria,
Canada,
Croatia,
Czech Republic,
Denmark,
Estonia,
European Community,
Finland,
France,
Germany,
Greece,
Hungary,
Iceland,
Ireland,
Italy,
Japan,
Latvia,
Liechtenstein,
Lithuania,
Luxembourg,
Monaco,
Netherlands,
New Zealand,
Norway,
Poland,
Portugal,
Romania,
Russian Federation,
Slovakia,
Slovenia,
Spain,
Sweden,
Switzerland,
Ukraine,
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
United States of America

Admittedly, most the countries on this list did in fact produce a high level of pollutants. On the other hand so did other countries such as China and India - yet they were excluded from the list because they would never even sign the thing up front; much less ratify it.


I am not sure if you have read the treaty (I have). I direct you to Article 10 which prevents "all parties" from "introducing any new commitments for parties not included" on the above list; and "taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their
specific national and regional development priorities"... shall...: "Formulate, where relevant and to the extent possible, cost-effective national and, where appropriate, regional programs to improve the quality of local emission factors..." and if you read the rest of it.. and to essentially freely exchange information on climate change and cooperate with each other. (I have slightly reorganized the portions of the sentences and deleted fill portions to convey their meaning).

Now that is a powerful pollution control set of conditions applied to all the other countries in the world by Kyoto in the world when it comes to pollution control. So if it is not cost effective based on their development priorities all they have to do is share information and talk to each other; and no one can propose any more rules for them.

This allows the counties to pursue economic development and build factories and power plants to do things that will be harder to do in the industrial countries that have the restrictions.

Again, this was known and discussed up front, even before Kyoto - but the popular press did not focus on it for reasons of their own.

Over 3/4 of the nations of the world had nothing to loose and everything to gain by ratifying Kyoto because it requires no real commitment on their part. So the fact that those countries ratified it does not mean much. But it is a great political story. See " We are concerned about the environment - we are in compliance with Kyoto."

For those who are focused on ideas and not how effective the treaty is - it also makes a great story (and especially the fact that the US did not ratify it: How could we - aren't we worried about the environment).

The facts are that Kyoto has not reduced one bit the total world greenhouse gas emissions; and it won’t – ever. The non controlled countries are expanding industry and other forms of pollutants much faster than the controlled countries can cut them (even if they are in compliance with Kyoto).

So, while a lot of people are claiming how successful the treaty is - it is a dismal failure, and will continue to be so assuming that you are really interested in reducing greenhouse gases in the world.

On the other hand; it is a great success if your goal is to allow most of the countries of the world to build whatever manufacturing process they want and only use pollution control techniques “if” it is reasonable based on that nations economic, or other, interest. The fact that the US did not ratify it also makes a great case for ‘Shaming” the US too which is almost always an extremely politically popular item for many people.

Of course, the fact that the treaty really would not limit greenhouse gases was known up front by many (and others assumed that the developing countries would somehow use pollution control technology). But it sure makes a great political story of how we accomplished something - but actually did not much of anything.

I also note that the US Senate resolution that passed 95 to 0 specifically rejects the treaty until it applies to all countries, or (with a conditional) if it significantly negatively affects the US economy (in comparison to the rest of the world). So many people harp on the fact that the rejection was for economic reasons. Somehow most people who cite this miss the fact that the real rejection was because Kyoto did not apply restrictions to all countries some how. If it did then the US would not face undue economic hardship. That is how you get real worldwide pollution control of the greenhouse gas emissions.

The US did adopt the CFC (Freon) treaty and accept the economic impact because all other countries would eventually have to phase out almost all Freon use (there are exceptions for specific uses that are very small quantities). The large industrial countries took the hardest hit the fastest, and the 3rd world countries could maintain and use Freon a lot longer (note my memory is suggesting that it may have been a 3 tiered system of phase-out).

So that is the real story. I suggest that you read the actual treaty (and not just the newspapers). I suggest you research the history of the development of the treaty. Of course one of the problems is that there is so much false information on the internet – and it can be very hard to figure out the truth. In my case – I followed the development of the international pollution control treaties – and followed the discussions and issues that lead to the Kyoto treaty – so I can work from memory on what happened. Now years later I recognize that it was a standard political practice to claim you were doing something to appease the masses while in actuality doing something completely different.

As far as your many other statements and issues. I assure you that you do not understand how I think, my goals, or my principles.

I will also assure you that I really am interested in reducing mankind’s effects on the planet. One of the reasons I installed a new high efficiency boiler that is built to last (and trust me - it was not the cheapest one available - not by a long shot). I am very aware of the cost of our short life throw away items and the cost of manufacturing a replacement item.

Also, keep in mind that some of us judge what something is by what it actually does and how effective it actually is; and not just what people claim it does. Kyoto is a political sham. But like many real issues facing the people of this world – there are too many shills out there on too many issues. Please don’t join them. We need more people that look at the facts behind all the screaming.


Perry

Chris_82

“If you want to limit the affect of mankind on this world - and best preserve it for our children. Then we are in agreement with each other on that goal.”

We are in agreement, and sorry about any intentional pushing on my part, it was designed to get a response.

We are going to have to agree to disagree about the economics involved and the United States, I converse sporadically with some developing countries, (we built their embassies,) and they never let an opportunity pass to tell me how the USA...now that they have (us) created a problem, burden their countries with air pollution sanctions, just when their economies need cheep fuel. It’s more than irony; it’s a major third world problem.

Please also understand the varying impact and lobbing that goes on behind the scenes as far as Freon and coal, they are on a magnitude of a million comparing the clout they can bring to bear upon our elected officials. But I suspect you are aware of this and also feel a sense of frustration with the direction that energy conservation has turned too…