Thanks to all for the various responses - and I'm enjoying the permutations
this thread is taking, as most ones which go beyond a single response
eventually seem to do, as well.
However, I wanted to explore this response a bit:
"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:kXYec.669$uF3.447@lakeread04...
148 is recommended for grey water and as a bilge hose but it will not
stand up to odor permiation in toilet applications. 144 is somewhat
better but not much. 101 is the standard black water hose and Sealand's
Odorsafe is the best.
I see from their website that they now have an improved version (in 2004)
(abbreviated hereafter as SLOS+). I presume that means I'll need to be
careful where I buy it, as old stock might be present. I don't know if the
newer stuff has a price premium, either - but it seems the concensus is that
SLOS would last the lifetime of the boat, so perhaps it's of no event?
You don't need a whole lot. I talked to Ed McKunen, president of
Sealand (and not my favorite person) about it. We recommend making your
longer runs in Schedule 40 PVC with short lengths of Odorsafe to absorb
vibration and movement.
I'd be interested to know what it was you talked about, and why the
personality clash. As to the longer runs, I'm all for the S40PVC - but
wonder if I can use the normal elbows and 45s to accomplish the transitions
which would be present in my rerunning the lines.
For example, the current installation of the aft head is a curved section
from the down-facing outlet of the Raritan PHII joker housing, reaching,
eventually, the aft engine room bulkhead for a fairly long run to the vented
loop before going (back, from the loop) down to a Y. I could see installing
a 3-piece, two-L (preferably long radius, I assume) PVC section, with the
small sections of SLOS+, to do the same job. If so, would it be appropriate
to support the horizontal (under the aft head sole) run, or would the
bulkhead alone, or, even, perhaps, just the two double-clamped (making 4
clamps in a relatively short pipe!) SLOS+ sections suffice? And, for that
matter, would it be better *not* to secure them, but to allow the SLOS+
sections to act as buffers?
All the other installations would likely be permutations of the same, so
they're not worth discussion here. However, not having done any such
installations, I wonder if the SLOS+ slips on the outside of S40PVC, or if
some sort of transition is needed? In particular, even if it did, the walls
are smooth - would I need some sort of barbing?
From a neat-nik and practicality perspective, I really like the concept of
S40PVC. I was all set to buy a roll of SLOS+, but if I can make it work,
I'd certainly prefer this on many levels.
Thanks again to all for all the input.
L8R
Skip and Lydia
PS I'm some time away from it, but logs of the delivery/shakedown adventures
will be forthcoming when I have dug out from under all that's here after 3
weeks away and recovered from the surgery of yesterday...
--
Morgan 461 #2
SV Flying Pig
http://tinyurl.com/384p2
--
"And then again, when you sit at the helm of your little ship on a
clear night, and gaze at the countless stars overhead, and realize
that you are quite alone on a great, wide sea, it is apt to occur to
you that in the general scheme of things you are merely an
insignificant speck on the surface of the ocean; and are not nearly
so important or as self-sufficient as you thought you were. Which is
an exceedingly wholesome thought, and one that may effect a
permanent change in your deportment that will be greatly appreciated
by your friends." - James S. Pitkin