re: pipe insulation help

From: <John>
Date: Mon Jan 06 2003 - 17:44:00 EST

Hi Guy's,

Need help with a product..My background: I own an Oilfield Supply store which sells PVF products to that end I wanted to be able to "value add" by offering pipe insulation half shells. In my search I get to talking with a local manufacturer whom has a new design, patent pending...interlocking [tongue & groove] x 5 ft long. Now my question would be: 1. would this type of half shell be of an advantage to the insulator or should I just stick with the square cut variety? This manufacturer has offered an exclusive distribution of this product but I wouldn't mind hearing some opinions from other's.

The Technical details are as follows:

Polyurethane Foam Half Shell Insulation
Size: 1" to 16"
3 lbs minimum density polyurethane
Thickness available: 1", 1.5", 2", 3"
Length: 5 ft
Optional: Fire Retardant Polyurethane as "standard"

Then he goes on to say:

   a.. Closer OD tolerances results in less material waste during installation    b.. Improved joint area integrity eliminates ingress of foreign matter and moisture

   c.. Ease of installation - center guided system tongue & groove    d.. Improves heat retention and lowers operating costs for insulated pipeline systems

   e.. High temperature insulating range to 160 degree C    f.. Minimum compressive strength 40 psi

Can someone describe the advantages and dis advantages of using this type of half shell over a straight cut AND overall opinion? Or perhaps the polyurethane is different than standard products? SOS need 411 on this..


>Is that the only source?
>I particularly like the one about his IQ.
   The site lists a number of other newpaper articles on the topic. There's    also a very good site on a guy who called up Rush Limbaugh when he was    waving the bloody shirt and pointed out (before Limbaugh's handlers cut    him off) that Limbaugh got a doctor to write him a note that he couldn't    be drafted because he had a boil on his ass. At the time of the call    Limbaugh was raking John Kerry (who won the Silver Star) over the coals    <>

   OK--no more politics. From me, anyway. Tweaking Bush is like shooting a    sitting bird, anyway, and it's way too off-topic and tends to inflame    passions. Here's a better question, anyway. Does anyone on the list have    any hard information that CAD and FEA actually makes projects better? I    know the claims--mostly from software vendors--and I've seen all the    gee-whiz articles in Mechanical Engineering. Neither is proof and    probably isn't even true. Neater drawings and cool-looking solid models    don't count either because flashier documents don't mean much.

   I'm thinking about improved products produced at lower cost at least, but    I think the proof lies in the quantum leap--stuff that could never have    been built otherwise either because of money saved or design barriers    broken. I'll trust everyone not to bring up money saved by firing    experienced engineers and replacing them with outsourced CAD monkeys.

   I posed this question on a FEA list once, and there was a lot of words    exchanged about how FEA can solve bigger more complicated problems but    almost nothing specific about better designs that resulted. I'm inclined    to doubt that there's been much product improvement with CAD or FEA. We    can make more mistakes faster with a far greater impact, but are we doing    things better and smarter?

   Christopher Wright P.E.    |"They couldn't hit an elephant at        | this distance"   (last words of Gen.
   ___________________________| John Sedgwick, Spotsylvania 1864)
         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

   Discussion List sponsor: Texas Flange - a good source for information on industrial flanges, all they ask is for referrals for designs they help with.


   Discussion List sponsor: The fluid flow calculations website - - LMNO Engineering,

   Research, and Software, Ltd.


   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] Received on Mon Jan 06 17:44:00 2003

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 09 2010 - 00:20:40 EST