Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 27 to 31 of 31
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    23

    Smile

    Sadlier. After some long consideration and a bit of research, I can see your point. The two re-connecting Y's would have been best I suppose. I can only imagine that the guy was limited on space, and materials; as well as time. Who knows what time it was when it was installed, or what the circumstances were involving the time spent. Perhaps the installers back was to the wall. (We all know that never happens.) Had the collars been properly installed, and all tolerances complied with, and the vent through in one single length section; Sure it is possible, but is it really ethical. It has been many years since I've been in Residential work. I know it is a common practice now to place economizers in central plant flue stacks for pre heating make up water for boiler feedwater systems, as well as other means of hot flue gas heat recovery for commercial or industrial purposes. I suppose I would have had to ask myself, "Would I install it this way in my mothers house?" (I said "Mother", not "mother in law"). Thank you for giving me pause for thought.

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,311
    With all that was said, I personally wouldn't do it unless it was a last resort; It just doesn't look professional enough for my tastes. I would push for a condensing furnace first such as had been done in this case. But if I did have to do it (again), I would have bigger worries on my mind rather than liability - such as if I should go to the closer or the healthier place for lunch... will the paycheck bounce... is there enough air in my tire... etc.

  3. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    1,311
    Originally posted by tempro
    Go ahead and do it that way it's ok be me just as soon as you sign on your companys' letterhead that it will last forever without any incident or risk of failure at any time. I have found few technicians, Engineers, Plant managers, or Service managers willing to do that. That they will accept all liability for the equipment, the complete connected loads, and any and all temperature and humidity sensitive valuables which the equipment will be managing, and of course the occupants of the space.
    Last forever? Are we installing HVAC equipment or diamonds? Anybody who would be silly enough to make a provision that any of their equipment will "last forever without... risk of failure" will immediately open themselves up to a lawsuit on the basis that there is no piece of equipment and no material that we use in our industry that will last forever. They would merely have to point out that the contractor installed the wrong type of equipment (ie something that will not last forever) and make them remove and install something more durable - and much, much, much more costly. All it would take is to prove that metal rusts out, plastic deteriorates, bearings wear out, etc., prove the contractual agreement, and then get a judgment that would put the contractor out of business. They wouldn't even have to wait until there is a problem with the equipment since a physicist can prove that the equipment is doomed for eventual failure. Ok, perhaps there are more kinds of people that would make such a claim - those that intend to take the money and run.

    Few people will accept all liability for the equipment for a reason you previously stated: Lawyers. If a contractor states that he is accepting all liability, and then someone is hurt on the equipment (whether accidentally or intentionally), guess who has already accepted all liability? The contractor. That would be a really big burden off of the owner! A person making a contract should minimize the use of boundless words such as "complete" and "forever" when making contracts since it will be construed in a court of law at exactly that.

    As a side note, I find it humorous at how the politicians do their best at making laws and still don't get their points worded correctly. For example, a bill that is currently being pushed through our state deals with changing the wording of the laws regarding driving automobiles. It appears that the current law is worded in such a way that the automobile, not the driver, is breaking the law when doing certain acts. But now how is an officer supposed to ticket an automobile? If he does, is the automobile supposed to show up in court? Technically the officer couldn't ticket the person because there was no law against a person doing the certain acts, just the automobiles couldn't do them. Hm-m-m-m.

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Indianapolis, IN.
    Posts
    23

    Wink

    Goes back to the whole commom sense and birth right thing. No. you're right, forever is unreasonable and completely unrealistic. I once long ago had that whole "If you sign off on this then you may do the part of the proceedure that you wish." It had to do with a piece of equipment which had a 24/7/365 use. It was for indemnified art. It was a sort of catch 22 issue. (no immediate control replacement). "When in doubt, Jump it out." I look forward to hearing more from you in the future Sadlier. Thanks for the dialog. Tempro...

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    atlanta,ga
    Posts
    24
    I gess it is suppose to make it more efficient reub would be so proud

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event