Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Air\s+line\s+piping\:\s+Part\s+Deux\.\.\.er\.\.\.Trois\s*$/>

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Air\s+line\s+piping\:\s+Part\s+Deux\.\.\.er\.\.\.Trois\s*$/: 22 ]

Total 22 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: paul.mele@usermail.com; Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:54:23 -0700 (MST); on a related note, I recall a mention in the prior thread re: piping adding to volume of stored air in tank... I did a diddy with EXCELL...think i got it right..came up with Pipe ID Vol / 100 ft ft /; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00009.html (9,105 bytes)
2. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: Chris Kantarjiev <cak@dimebank.com>; Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:47:30 -0800 (PST); You could get a used automotive a/c condensor and plumb it in. Or get an extra 50' section of hose between the compressor and hard line. Either way, but the drier after...; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00011.html (7,771 bytes)
3. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "John T. Blair" <jblair1948@cox.net>; Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 14:47:57 -0500; Not too sure how you set got your figures, but I think they are a little off. I just went out and measured a Gal. can of lacquer thinner. The can measures: Inches Ft Hight - 9.5 .79666 Width - 7 .583; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00012.html (9,704 bytes)
4. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "ejrussell@mebtel.net" <ejrussell@mebtel.net>; Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:31:23 -0500; I don't know if your ciphering is correct or not (makes my head hurt to just look at all them numbers...) but one big advantage of making your main air lines with large diameter pipe is to prevent re; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00013.html (8,322 bytes)
5. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "David Scheidt" <dmscheidt@gmail.com>; Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:54:43 -0500; A gallon is 0.134 cubic feet. Assuming the rest of the math is right, that's 0.0406 gal/ft, or 24.6/ gallon. If you go to 2" pipe, you get a gallon every 6 feet. A shop I used to work in had a loop a; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00016.html (10,464 bytes)
6. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: paul.mele@usermail.com; Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 15:39:00 -0700 (MST); Hi David thanks for checking over my work...was too late in the day! I divided instead of multiplied in converting cu ft to gals... I took the lazy way and looked up 7.48 gals/ cu ft, or 0.13 cu ft/; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00021.html (11,781 bytes)
7. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: scott.hall@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 03:45:03 +0000; okay, here's an interesting (okay, to me), if only semi-related question: I'd like to run the air lines through the walls (the studs) and just have the outlets/drains poke out through the wall itself; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00028.html (8,961 bytes)
8. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: pethier@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 04:49:04 +0000; It's not. It's closer to .134 One gallon is about 7.48 cubic feet. -- Phil Ethier West Side Saint Paul Minnesota USA 1962 Triumph TR4 CT2846L, 1992 Saturn SL2, 1993 Suburban, 1994 Miata C package pet; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00029.html (7,979 bytes)
9. RE: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "Marknsuz" <marknsuz@pacbell.net>; Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 22:58:27 -0800; the glutton for like the gives me the drop loop over I personally hate punching more holes in studs than are absolutely required. What about running a main line up in the ceiling, come through the t; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00030.html (8,340 bytes)
10. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: nick brearley <nick@landform.co.uk>; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 09:46:12 +0000; It depends. According to Pocket Ref 1 US Dry gallon is 0.15556 cu ft, 1 US Liquid gallon is 0.13368 cu ft. Perhaps the gallon/cu ft figures should be transposed? Nick Brearley Wont muddy the waters a; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00031.html (8,124 bytes)
11. RE: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: scott.hall@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 11:21:47 +0000; that'd be pretty cool too. in fact, I kinda like that better, and it'd really be the same thing, you're just moving the supply loop above the wall instead of through it. I'd still wanna have the drop; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00033.html (8,443 bytes)
12. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "Arvid Jedlicka" <arvidj@visi.com>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 10:07:02 -0600; What I did was put the 3/4 inch main loop on top of the rafters about a foot and a half in from the side walls. Then the 1/2 inch drop goes up from the main loop, over the foot and a half, and then d; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00034.html (11,356 bytes)
13. RE: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:55:22 -0800; A pair of 45s would solve the problem. With the leg through the drywall sloping down at 45 degrees, any condensate will run down to the drain rather than possibly puddling in the wall. And nothing s; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00035.html (9,203 bytes)
14. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: pethier@comcast.net; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:56:51 +0000; OOPS. One cubic foot is about 7.48 gallons. I really must slow down... I don't know anyone who uses US Dry gallons for anything. Yeah, I fixed that typo above. Thanks for catching it. It's all Thoma; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00036.html (10,042 bytes)
15. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "Karl Vacek" <kvacek@ameritech.net>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 14:42:13 -0600; Read "Civilization One" by Christopher Knight and Allan Butler and then let's talk about the foolishness of the US and Imperial measurement systems. And Jefferson's involvement. And the relationship; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00038.html (8,992 bytes)
16. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: ScottyGrover@aol.com; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:17:58 EST; OOPS. One cubic foot is about 7.48 gallons. I really must slow down... I don't know anyone who uses US Dry gallons for anything. Yeah, I fixed that typo above. Thanks for catching it. It's all Thomas; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00040.html (9,657 bytes)
17. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: Peter Murray <pete@partnercomm.com>; Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:46:20 -0500; [snip] You do mean a meter, not a yard, right? :) Nothing keeping you from using metric in your day-to-day, though you may get some funny looks now and then... -Peter; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00041.html (9,029 bytes)
18. RE: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: "Randall" <tr3driver@ca.rr.com>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:00:58 -0800; Couldn't we not, and just say we did ? To me, it's all just nonsense ... the universe is NOT Euclidean and therefore any system of measurement in a straight line can only be an approximation to the; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00042.html (9,665 bytes)
19. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: ScottyGrover@aol.com; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:14:40 EST; don't You do mean a meter, not a yard, right? :) Right; sorry for the forgetfulness, but it's been a long time since I worked in a science lab where everything is metric; the conversions aren't secon; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00044.html (8,596 bytes)
20. Re: Air line piping: Part Deux...er...Trois (score: 1): Author: Karl Vacek <kvacek@ameritech.net>; Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:52:34 -0800 (PST); I agree completely, Randall. My point was just that the bullpoop that we've all been taught about the origins and relationships of both systems is just plain wrong. The feet-yards-gallons-pounds syst; /html/shop-talk/2007-01/msg00045.html (10,108 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1] [2]