I'm not "pushing" for anything. This is probably the third? topic on air lines that I've ever commented on here. Over years - ETA 7yrs. Yet somehow you choose to mischaracterize my behaviour. I'm not the person insisting on only one point of view. I'm not even saying PVC is the best material or the only material to be used.
Everyone is born ignorant of the facts, and we learn them at some point. I can see someone (ignorant of the facts) thinking that PVC is safe from your charts. You have posted charts and burst ratings multiple times. Anyone can search "PVC" with "rayra" as the member and bring up results showing that you have continuously pushed the viewpoint that PVC is ok and post multiple times the pressure rating chart but neglect to post that the manufacture doesn't recommend compressed gasses. You even post a picture of the PVC pipe in your last post with the pressure rating neglecting the fact that the manufacture doesn't recommend for use with compressed gases
Air lines pages 2 and 3
The above link shows this and also has multiple links on page 3 from manufactures and osha showing that it is not safe. You have had the resources to educate yourself and yet you still came on here and pushed it on this thread. IT IS NOT A SAFE OPTION.
One point of view? I will accept copper, steel, pex, rapid air, and air brake type lines. I think some of those materials are better than others due to longevity but they are all SAFE.
And frankly 'appeal to authority' - especially OSHA, given its fresh abuse re COVID - is one of the weakest methods in Rhetoric. THE weakest form of argument is to call for someone to get banned / silenced. And you've gone and done both.
This is hilarious. While I have qualms about the use of OSHA in todays political climate, that is not a discussion for here. The hilarious part is that the weakest methods is to associate one stance/point/policy with something completely unrelated like you are trying to.
OSHA has existed across multiple administrations and even if you ignore their advice they have simply documented multiple injuries due to PVC airlines since 1988 time frame, maybe even before. To ignore the facts that they have collected in the past because of current issues is mind boggling.
The old adage of its not freedom of speech to yell fire in a crowded theater applies here. When you advocate for PVC after being shown the facts of why not to, you are willfully pushing an ignorant false hood that can end in someone's injury. I rarely support censorship but in this case I do as you show no willingness to stop spreading falsehoods that can/will get someone hurt. I don't see how anyone else cant come to the conclusion that you have continually "pushed" pvc as a safe option in light of the facts.
Your statement re water vs air is deliberately misleading as it infers there is not a continued pressure source re water.
I'm observing the rated / stated mechanics of the material.
You still don't understand fluid dynamics and compressed gases vs uncompressible liquids. Water has zero pressure when it leaves the pipe, just some momentum due to its weight, and the water behind it has only 40 psi, not 125-150 psi of air and expanding multiple times its volume as its leaving
My compressor tops at 200psi. The emergency blowoff trips sooner. 150? 160?
3/4" sched40 is rated at
1/2" sched40 is rated at 600psi
So I'm operating at half or 1/3 the rated pressures of the PVC. Why is that an issue.
I'm also pressurizing my system only for the period of time I'm actively using it. So frankly industrial or commercial incidents and OSHA have very little relation to my residential working environment.
For flow / fluid dynamics, anything much larger than the QD orifice size gives little benefit. Your tank size is more important, in that regard. So it is readily possible to use the smaller piping with the higher burst rating to assuage any system pressure concerns.
This is false as well, pipe has friction losses, from both the walls, the fittings, and the restrictions. Its easy to see in long hoses.
Here is a calculator from gates to show this, although I highly doubt you will look at it or you will try to associate gates to some bogus issue.
Gates hose calculator
Measuring the set of stedlin fittings that I received the other day they are .208" id thru the ******. By your assumption a .250" id hose will give me all the flow i ever need. By the above calculator, at 100 psi and 10cfm I would have a pressure loss of 41.5 PSI at 100 feet. Only 5 PSI loss with a .375 hose and 1 psi loss with a .500" hose The issue is worse as you go up in cfm. At 20 cfm the .250 hose is unusable, and the .375" has a 20 psi loss and the .500 hose has a 4.3 psi loss. Yet the ****** of .208" diameter can support over 20 cfm as its only a short length.
Angle fittings and tees can add even more losses especially in small diameters.
Earlier it is stated that air and water are different, as if air is somehow worse. Water is incompressible, less forgiving than an air system, so it is odd to me to see you invert that in your argument.
And frankly I'm not interested in, swayed by, or concerned about happenings in commercial shops. Their use cases are far removed from my own. And I understand the difference between Possible and Probable. And I am also not a 'safety uber alles' sort of person. Mike Rowe's 'Safety Third' is more my motto.
How in the world is commercial shops removed from your own. The material is the same, the application is the same, and the compressed medium is the same. Maybe it wont happen as fast the number of cycles per day, but it will fail due to work hardening over time, uv exposure, and ozone exposure. You just don't know when. I guess ignorance is bliss.
And Mike Rowes comment on safety thirds was in no way applicable here. Compressed air has inherent risk no matter what you do. If you truly used safety first you wouldn't do anything with any risk including drive a car. He isn't advocating to use substandard materials that are know to be unsafe, even by the manufacture of said materials, for the application to save a few bucks. He has always stressed high quality work by the trades, not substandard hack work.