I’m currently getting my hands dirty using both types of pipe in my home in Oklahoma where my son and daughter live while they attend college. As an engineer and office type guy, I need the hands on experience with this piping.
The PEX is 1” and I’m running it in a loop with a passive purge line to the toilet using ProPEX fittings and Milwaukee expander tool. Due to the internal diameter of the 1” PEX, I’m going to install 1” CPVC for the feed and the riser due to its slightly larger internal diameter. I will say the 1" PEX is harder to work with than 3/4” or 1/2” PEX. The smaller diameter PEX was a breeze compared to the 1”. Once the expansions have been completed, there is no waiting on making the connection to the fitting and you better be quick. If not, it is cut, removed, trimmed, and then try again. I haven’t found a window yet for me to install the CPVC feed and rise and get a plumber to tap into the copper water line. There’s Pros and Cons to the PEX, but I wouldn’t hesitate to use it again. The installation was harder than expected due to insulation and finished construction and would be easier for new construction in stick form. That said, I’ll also run both types of pipe in my home in Texas. If there was any doubt of either type of pipe, it wouldn’t be installed in my home. I’m confident that if the system operates as designed, the PEX or CPVC pipe isn’t going to melt. Tom Wellen - AFSA > On Sep 30, 2016, at 1:54 PM, John Irwin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Ok I kid … > > I didn’t receive quite a few direct emails from sprinkler people listing the > ways though … > > Doesn’t matter. Customer is find with not-Pex. > > Thanks > > John Irwin > Manager – Fire Sprinkler Division > Critical System Solutions, LLC > Cell: 813.618.2781 > Email: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of Steve Leyton > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 2:16 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Pex > > John: > > I’m definitely NOT the arbiter of taste and protocol for the Forum but your > premise is – in my humblest of opinions – flawed and contentious. What’s > the basis for your belief that a combined PEX system is garbage? Keeping in > mind that manufacturers of UL listed PEX are members in good standing of both > AFSA and NFSA and their representatives serve on NFPA technical committees > and the manufacturers/suppliers boards of both trade groups … > > Steve L. > > From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of John > Irwin > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2016 11:07 AM > To: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Pex > > I need to convince a client that a combined pex system is garbage … and I > need to do it quickly. Frankly I won’t use it period but other than “it’s > crap” is there another reason not to use it? > > > John Irwin > Manager – Fire Sprinkler Division > > Critical System Solutions, LLC > 2830 Scherer Drive, Suite 300 > St. Petersburg, FL 33716 > Office: 727.209.5122 > Fax: 727.209.5126 > Cell: 813.618.2781 > Email: [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > <image001.gif> > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
