Date:         Fri, 23 Sep 2005 10:03:56 -0700
Reply-To:     John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: - 83.5-85 Vanagon Stainless Coolant Pipes!
In-Reply-To:  <80.309f64af.30652349@aol.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 9/23/05, THX0001@aol.com <THX0001@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 9/23/05 1:54:06 AM, jbange@GMAIL.COM writes:
>
> << The schedule 5S (.065) you use is the thinnest available in that
> diameter,
> and 304L is absolutely the most common grade used for stainless steel
> tubing.
> >>
>
> Schedule (weight) is a pipe classification which cannot be applied to
> tubing.


You're right. I kept calling it "tubing" when I meant "pipe".

If you're talking about tubing, then you are wrong because 1 1/2" SS tubing
> is
> also commonly available in .035 and .049 wall thickness. Who knows how the
> Germans size things?


The smallest thickness of metric PIPE I can find is 1.6mm, which is .065". I
am hindered by only being able to search in english. Indeed, tubing is
available thinner. The point I was so poorly trying to make though was one
of the material's suitability. Even assuming Ron's German pipes are
"probably vacuum cleaner nozzle wall thickness", as he said to me via pmail
last time this came up, I find irritating his baseless intimation that
anything not made to his semi-randomly selected standards by his own hand is
not up to the task. If he has reason to believe Ron's offering is not
adequate, I want to hear the REASON. This time he pmailed me a long cut 'n
paste on the various grades of stainless steel, with a couple paragraphs at
the start expressing his displeasure with Mr Salmon for "implicating that he
is the only game on the block". Odd, because the post for the Bus Depot
product BOTH times came as a reply to his own sock puppet shill, so it's at
MOST a "me too". It just irks me that he presumes the Bus Depot offering is
substandard and spreads FUD based on... well... based on nothing
substantive.