Hawk Premium Member join:2003-08-25 |
to BillRoland
Re: [Plumbing] Detonating Toiletssaid by BillRoland:They sent a repair kit, which is just a couple of metal straps to prevent what you see in the picture there when the seam blows out, and an inline pressure regulator to lower the pressure. I was sitting here getting some paper work done and thinking about something BillRoland said. If the manufactures engineered resolve to this issue is a "repair kit" with metal straps and PR valve to basically contain the composite pressure vessel from a rapid expansion blowing out the virtuous china outer tank, wouldn't the potential rupture still exist to some extent? If so, an unmonitored structure would still be in danger of flooding would it not? The virtuous china tank may still be intact however water leaking from a ruptured composite vessel would only contain so much and overflow off the top at full regulated volume (whatever that might be) and still be an issue? There isn't an overflow from the tank to the bowl as in a conventional closet, at least that I've identified. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my original example/post, the manufacture will provide the entire tank system (virtuous china, pressure vessel and integral components) since the china was destroyed by the ruptured vessel. My concern is the other 25 closet tanks in the buildings that we're going to inventory next week. If they're on the recall list, the potential of property damage if and after the "repair kit(s)" are installed and the virtuous china reused, the issue is still present. The original defective pressure vessel is still in place. If a redesigned pressure vessel is offered (instead of a repair kit), it isn't so much of an issue. There are periods where the structure may be unoccupied for 24 - 72 hours. These buildings contain a lot of high end & expensive ...stuff... and damages would be costly to say the least. Both my client and the building occupants know me and trust my judgment and suggestions. I wouldn't want to leave them with the potential of disaster or without any intelligent options on the table. Probably why I'm overthinking this peticular job. I have somewhat of a game plan for a meeting next week with the responsible parties but always open to suggestions from this community. A couple of notes on my list consist of reconfiguring for & "Flush-o-Meters" and/or the installation of a "Water Off", "Water Cop" or similar commercial device at the service(s). With the consideration of any HVAC requirements, the simple termination of service by a switch when unoccupied might offer the greatest "piece of mind" aspect. Thanks for any help and constructive criticism. Edit: Or more of an observation. If you'll notice the tank rupture in pics 3 and 4, that gap is roughly 7/8" to an 1" wide uniformly across the back of the pressure vessel. What's remarkable is it's in a relaxed state in the picture. No measurable forces from any direction. It took me a hell of a lot of force to push it back down to where it was originally bound together. Almost impossible. Albeit, I don't know what I'm talking about but one might assume there must have been a great amount of stress in that area to cause it to split. Humm ... / scratches head |
|
|
|
said by Hawk:said by BillRoland:They sent a repair kit, which is just a couple of metal straps to prevent what you see in the picture there when the seam blows out, and an inline pressure regulator to lower the pressure. I was sitting here getting some paper work done and thinking about something BillRoland said. If the manufactures engineered resolve to this issue is a "repair kit" with metal straps and PR valve to basically contain the composite pressure vessel from a rapid expansion blowing out the virtuous china outer tank, wouldn't the potential rupture still exist to some extent? If so, an unmonitored structure would still be in danger of flooding would it not? The virtuous china tank may still be intact however water leaking from a ruptured composite vessel would only contain so much and overflow off the top at full regulated volume (whatever that might be) and still be an issue? There isn't an overflow from the tank to the bowl as in a conventional closet, at least that I've identified. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In my original example/post, the manufacture will provide the entire tank system (virtuous china, pressure vessel and integral components) since the china was destroyed by the ruptured vessel. My concern is the other 25 closet tanks in the buildings that we're going to inventory next week. If they're on the recall list, the potential of property damage if and after the "repair kit(s)" are installed and the virtuous china reused, the issue is still present. The original defective pressure vessel is still in place. If a redesigned pressure vessel is offered (instead of a repair kit), it isn't so much of an issue. There are periods where the structure may be unoccupied for 24 - 72 hours. These buildings contain a lot of high end & expensive ...stuff... and damages would be costly to say the least. Both my client and the building occupants know me and trust my judgment and suggestions. I wouldn't want to leave them with the potential of disaster or without any intelligent options on the table. Probably why I'm overthinking this peticular job. I have somewhat of a game plan for a meeting next week with the responsible parties but always open to suggestions from this community. A couple of notes on my list consist of reconfiguring for & "Flush-o-Meters" and/or the installation of a "Water Off", "Water Cop" or similar commercial device at the service(s). With the consideration of any HVAC requirements, the simple termination of service by a switch when unoccupied might offer the greatest "piece of mind" aspect. Thanks for any help and constructive criticism. Edit: Or more of an observation. If you'll notice the tank rupture in pics 3 and 4, that gap is roughly 7/8" to an 1" wide uniformly across the back of the pressure vessel. What's remarkable is it's in a relaxed state in the picture. No measurable forces from any direction. It took me a hell of a lot of force to push it back down to where it was originally bound together. Almost impossible. Albeit, I don't know what I'm talking about but one might assume there must have been a great amount of stress in that area to cause it to split. Humm ... / scratches head you can't have peace of mind with just property damage considered!. what if someone is using the bowl, and it ruptures!. you have 25 of them... |
|
mackey Premium Member join:2007-08-20 |
mackey
Premium Member
2014-Mar-16 4:21 am
said by iknow_t:you can't have peace of mind with just property damage considered!. what if someone is using the bowl, and it ruptures!. you have 25 of them... With the "repair" kits they're issuing you no longer need to worry about the porcelain breaking and thus there should be no risk of injury. Sure it might scare someone, but no sharp projectiles should be launched. /M |
|
garys_2k Premium Member join:2004-05-07 Farmington, MI |
to Hawk
said by Hawk:If the manufactures engineered resolve to this issue is a "repair kit" with metal straps and PR valve to basically contain the composite pressure vessel from a rapid expansion blowing out the virtuous china outer tank, wouldn't the potential rupture still exist to some extent? Possibly. I don't know the details of how the repair straps are supposed to be installed, but I'd *ass*ume that, if they were installed properly, they'd carry most of the stress from the pressure tank. That would reduce the stress carried by the tank itself, greatly reducing a chance for rupture. |
|
IowaCowboyLost in the Supermarket Premium Member join:2010-10-16 Springfield, MA ·Comcast XFINITY
|
I wouldn't trust any repair kit from a recall, I'd demand a complete replacement product.
Back in the 1980's, my aunt's car was recalled because it could slip out of gear and the most the automaker was required to do was issue warning stickers for the dashboard that warned the driver it could slip out of gear. They weren't required to physically fix the issue.
We had one of those "As Seen on TV" Handy Switches so grandma could control her lamp from the bed, and that was recalled because of a fire hazard. The fix was a cover that went over the electrical part of the unit that I wouldn't trust at all. I took it out of service and didn't bother with the fix, that thing was written off and went on the curb on trash day. These so-called "recall fixes" aren't fixes, they are just to placate regulators and the public into thinking they care about fixing defective and unsafe products. The only way to really fix an unsafe product is to take back the defective product and replace it with one that has been re-engineered and manufactured properly. There is even a children's product manufacturer that is fighting claims that their product is unsafe (I read the Consumerist), these companies push their products with no regard to safety and all they care about is the $$$. In today's business world, it's profits first and people last.
Sadly one of the biggest items that is the subject of recalls is children's products and unfortunately it occurs after a kid is killed as a result. |
|
|
to Hawk
The Flushometer does have an overflow outlet at the bottom of the device, but I'm not sure its large enough to drain off full flow from a complete failure.
The straps won't prevent the device from failing, but it will prevent the explosive decompression that blows out the china. I think the inline pressure regulator is designed to lower the pressure inside the vessel and thus, help prevent the failure. |
|
Hawk Premium Member join:2003-08-25 |
Hawk
Premium Member
2014-Mar-16 5:37 pm
» www.flushmate.com/recall/video/Thanks for clarifying the overflow Bill. And I agree, after watching this simple installation video, I'm not really convinced the issue as a whole has been resolved post repair kit installation. From a standpoint of safety and personal bodily injury, perhaps? But there still exists an integral component with the potential to fail causing water damage. Leaving it at that and walking away almost feels negligent on my part. And after reading this article Flushmate III Recall Lawsuites which supports the thought, I'm wondering if installing the kit would actually be a disservice. The video and link are probably dated and who knows if the manufactures procedure has changed or not. Guess contacting Sloan in the morning would be the next logical step before any recommendations to the client. |
|
garys_2k Premium Member join:2004-05-07 Farmington, MI |
to IowaCowboy
said by IowaCowboy:I wouldn't trust any repair kit from a recall, I'd demand a complete replacement product. And your demand may be satisfied, or maybe not. But plenty of fixes do fix the fundamental issue and this one certainly is capable of doing that. |
|
|
|
to Hawk
Contacting Sloan would be a good idea I think. In my case, when I discovered a pinhole leak in the pressure vessel, they just overnighted me a whole new one. The only thing they wanted in return were pictures of where the leak was so they could show it to their R&D people. |
|
|
to Hawk
said by Hawk:»www.flushmate.com/recall/video/
Thanks for clarifying the overflow Bill. And I agree, after watching this simple installation video, I'm not really convinced the issue as a whole has been resolved post repair kit installation. From a standpoint of safety and personal bodily injury, perhaps? But there still exists an integral component with the potential to fail causing water damage. Leaving it at that and walking away almost feels negligent on my part. And after reading this article Flushmate III Recall Lawsuites which supports the thought, I'm wondering if installing the kit would actually be a disservice.
The video and link are probably dated and who knows if the manufactures procedure has changed or not. Guess contacting Sloan in the morning would be the next logical step before any recommendations to the client. they should have made it out of stainless steel, but, with the repair kit installed, there may be a timed shutoff valve that automatically shuts off the water if it runs too long, that would do the trick. also, issuing hearing protectors to the toilet visitors so they don't go deaf when the unit safely explodes seems a good idea. |
|