Thread: Vent connector identification

Can anyone identify the brand / model of this vent connector?

Sorry about it being in the wrong forum section

Similar Threads:

• gas connector recall
• Single wall pipe to b-vent vent question
• Plastic power vent to metal vent at brick chimney
• Flex gas connector through cabinet wall
• New Aluminum connector

Don't see that it matters much regarding who may have manufactured the multiply offset vent connector(s) its just scrap now, all must be torn out and replaced, and reconfigured; hopefully this time by a professional.

The connector, and creatively deadly venting is toast (as is the communciatons/control wiring). The Tape "done dooed it in" after the nonsense installation.


I don't think the waste hauler cares which brand names or labels are in the now garbage, just who is paying him to haul it away.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Don't see that it matters much regarding who may have manufactured the multiply offset vent connector(s) its just scrap now, all must be torn out and replaced, and reconfigured; hopefully this time by a professional.

The connector, and creatively deadly venting is toast (as is the communciatons/control wiring). The Tape "done dooed it in" after the nonsense installation.


I don't think the waste hauler cares which brand names or labels are in the now garbage, just who is paying him to haul it away.

This is exactly what I was trying to avoid. I wanted identification so I could actually look up the manufacturer's installation instructions instead of having someone saying it's wrong without expanding as to why it's wrong (except for the taped joints). This was in a 3 year old townhome and was apparently put in, tape and all, by the builder and passed by the local building official.

Ken,
It looks like single wall vent components into a b-vent tee. The sticker on the bottom of the tee cap may identify the b-vent manufacturer. The manufacturers instructions on these products usually refer you to NFPA54 (NE and NY) or whatever the rest of the country uses for vent tables. The single wall no-crimp could be Gray Metal I don't know where they are from. Im not sure if that is any help.

Jack

I went to the Hart& Cooley web site and downloaded the attached. Except for the tape and odd back-n-forth path, Hart & Cooley show similiar use of fitting to what you found. The pipe going through your ceiling looks single wall - is it?

This is a multiple appliance venting configuration, the two appliances are connected together to type B vent that is up sized one size larger than the largest down draft diverter. Support would be nice at the tee cap base. The 2- appliances are connected with single wall piping and should have at least 3 screws and vertical support. I don't care for tape myself, but this is a legal system as shown. American Metal Products has web site with installation info:

Originally Posted by Don Horn

The pipe going through your ceiling looks single wall - is it?

Nope, double wall.

The problem I'm having is that the Minnesota gas code requires the water heater to enter the shared vent at a 45 degree angle. So I'm not sure if this connector meets this requirement.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

The problem I'm having is that the Minnesota gas code requires the water heater to enter the shared vent at a 45 degree angle. So I'm not sure if this connector meets this requirement.

If that's the case simply remove the "B" vent tee fitting & replace it with a Wye, short piece then another Wye picking up the water heater, use another 45 to horizontal to the furnace.

Originally Posted by Tom Thompson

If that's the case simply remove the "B" vent tee fitting & replace it with a Wye, short piece then another Wye picking up the water heater, use another 45 to horizontal to the furnace.

I know how to make it correct, the way I normally see them. What I don't know is if this would meet the 45 degree requirement. I didn't see any manufacturer's information (probably covered by the metal tape) and I've never seen a galvanized fitting like this. Honestly I can't even tell for sure if this fitting is a single or double wall.

I don't see that in the MN Codes you mentioned, is it somewhere in Chapter 1309 of the Minnesota Rules? Perhaps in the Plumbing Chapter area...? I believe you are referring to an individual draft hood appliance's vent connector when making a singular connection to a shared vertical common vent, that isn't the case here.

In this type of application, using a common connection via fitting or manifold, but the installation here is wrong. The fitting/manifold appears to have been installed backwards .





The fitting or manifold outlet must be equal to the common vent it must also be installed in the proper orientation, direction, and sized correctly, that includes the proper rise/slope for the horizontal connector portion, proper support, and maintaining proper clearances.

Fittings further affect the effective length and ratio for connectors (there is a maximum limitation).

The connectors, fittings & manifolds must be ready accessible for viewing, inspection, etc.

B-vent systems have listed stops, collars, supports etc. and clearances required when penetrating ceilings and floor/ceiling assemblies, clearances maintained from communication, control, electrical cables, etc.

Vent connectors, fittings, manifolds, must be properly supported and at the proper minimum slope. Vent connectors are limited as to maximum length.


MN further rewrites certain sections, for example using what is otherwise in the IFGC an alternative method, is the required for min & max sizing of the common vent - equal to the size required for the first plus 50 percent of the second minimum,

And rewrites the IFGC for max to be limited to four times (not seven times) for the smaller appliance.

Link to unammended 2006 IFGC: Chapter 5 - Chimneys and Vents

Link to Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1346, Minnesota Mechanical and Fuel Gas Codes: http://www.doli.state.mn.us/ccld/PDF/SBC/1346.pdf


They've substantially ammended Sections 503 & 504 of the IFGC.


503.6.9.1 Category I appliances.


The sizing of natural draft venting systems serving one or more listed appliances equipped with a draft hood or appliances listed for use with Type B gas vent, installed in a single story of a building, shall be in accordance with one of the following methods.

1. The provisions of Section 504.

2. For sizing an individual gas vent for a single draft-hood-equipped appliance, the effetive area of the vent connector and the gas vent shall not be less than the area of the appliance draft hood outlet, nor greater than four times the draft hood outlet area.

3. For sizing a gas vent connected to two appliances with draft hoods, the effective area of the vent shall be not less than the area of the larger draft hood outlet plus 50 percent of the area of the smaller draft hood outlet, nor greater than four times the smaller draft hood outlet area.

4. Approved engineering practices.

Subp. 7. Section 504.7.8. IFGC Section 503.7.8 is amended to read as follows:

503.7.8 Size of single-wall metal pipe.


A venting system constructed of single-wall metal pipe shall be sized in accordance with one of the following methods and the equipment manufacturer's instructions:

1. For a draft hood-equipped appliance, in accordance with IFGC Section 504.

2. For a venting system for a single appliance with a draft hood, the areas of the connector and the pipe each shall be not less than the area of the appliance flue collar or draft hood outlet, whichever is smaller. The vent area shall not be greater than four times the draft hood outlet area.

3. Other approved engineering methods.

Subp. 8. (repealed, 34 SR 537)

503.10.4 Two or more appliances connected to a single vent.

Where two or more vent connectors enter a common gas vent, chimney flue, or single-wall metal pipe, the smaller connector shall enter at the highest level consistent with the available headroom or clearance to combustible material. Vent connectors serving Category I appliances shall not be connected to any portion of a mechanical draft system operating under positive static pressure, such as those serving Category III or IV appliances

503.10.6 Flow resistance.

A vent connector shall be installed so as to avoid turns or other construction features that create excessive resistance to flow of vent gases

Subp. 9 Section 503.10.7. IFGC Section 503.10.7 is amended to read as follows:


503.10.7 Joints.


Joints between sections of connector piping and connections to flue collars and hood outlets shall be fastened by one of the following methods:

1. Three sheet metal screws equally spaced in accessible locations on the circumference of the vent.

2. Vent connectors of listed vent material assembled and connected to flue collars or draft hood outlets in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions.

3. Other approved means.

503.10.8 Slope.

A vent connector shall be installed without dips or sags and shall slope upward toward the vent or chimney at least ¼ inch per foot (21 mm/m).

Exception: Vent connectors attached to a mechanical draft system installed in accordance with the manufacturers’ instructions.

503.10.12 Inspection.

The entire length of a vent connector shall be provided with ready access for inspection, cleaning, and replacement.

1346.5504 SECTION 504 (IFGC) SIZING OF CATEGORY 1 APPLIANCE VENTING SYSTEMS.

Subp. 2 Section 504.2.8 IFGC Section 504.2.8 is amended to read as follows:


504.2.8 Vent area and diameter.

Where the vertical vent has a larger diameter than the vent connector, the vertical vent diameter shall be used to determine the minimum vent capacity, and the connector diameter shall be used to determine the maximum vent capacity. The flow area of the vertical vent shall not exceed four times the flow area of the listed appliance categorized vent area, flue collar area, or draft hood outlet area unless designated in accordance with approved engineering methods.

504.3.2 Connector length limit.

The vent connector shall be routed to the vent utilizing the shortest possible route. Except as provided in Section 504.3.3, the maximum vent connector horizontal length shall be 1½ feet for each inch (18 mm per mm) of connector diameter as shown in Table 504.3.2.

504.3.4 Vent connector manifold.

Where the vent connectors are combined prior to entering the vertical portion of the common vent to form a common vent manifold, the size of the common vent manifold and the common vent shall be determined by applying a 10-percent reduction (0.90 ´ maximum common vent capacity) to the common vent capacity part of the common vent tables. The length of the common vent connector manifold (Lm) shall not exceed 1½ feet for each inch (18 mm per mm) of common vent connector manifold diameter (D) (see Figure B-11).

504.3.8 Common vent minimum size.

The cross-sectional area of the common vent shall be equal to or greater than the cross-sectional area of the largest connector

504.3.9 Common vent fittings.

At the point where tee or wye fittings connect to a common vent, the opening size of the fitting shall be equal to the size of the common vent. Such fittings shall not be prohibited from having reduced- size openings at the point of connection of appliance vent connectors.

Subp. 3. Section 504.3.17. IFGC Section 504.3.17 is amended to read as follows:

504.3.17 Vertical vent maximum size.

Where two or more appliances are connected to a vertical vent or chimney, the flow area of the largest section of vertical vent or chimney shall not exceed four times the smallest listed appliance categorized vent areas, flue collar area, or draft hood outlet area unless designed in accordance with approved engineering methods.

504.3.21 Connector maximum and minimum size. Vent connectors shall not be increased in size more than two sizes greater than the listed appliance categorized vent diameter, flue collar diameter, or draft hood outlet diameter. Vent connectors for draft hood-equipped appliances shall not be smaller than the draft hood outlet diameter. Where a vent connector size(s) determined from the tables for a fan-assisted appliance(s) is smaller than the flue collar diameter, the use of the smaller size(s) shall be permitted provided that the installation complies with all of the following conditions:

1. Vent connectors for fan-assisted appliance flue collars 12 inches (305 mm) in diameter or smaller are not reduced by more than one table size [e.g., 12 inches to 10 inches (305 mm to 254 mm) is a one-size reduction] and those larger than 12 inches (305 mm) in diameter are not reduced more than two table sizes [e.g., 24 inches to 20 inches (610 mm to 508 mm) is a two-size reduction].

2. The fan-assisted appliance(s) is common vented with a draft-hood-equipped appliances(s).

3. The vent connector has a smooth interior wall

504.3.22 Component commingling.

All combinations of pipe sizes, single-wall and double-wall metal pipe shall be allowed within any connector run(s) or within the common vent, provided that all of the appropriate tables permit all of the desired sizes and types of pipe, as if they were used for the entire length of the subject connector or vent. Where single-wall and Type B double-wall metal pipes are used for vent connectors within the same venting system, the common vent must be sized using Table 504.3(2) or 504.3(4), as appropriate.


Splat!

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

In this type of application, using a common connection via fitting or manifold, but the installation here is wrong. The fitting/manifold appears to have been installed backwards .

Please explain how it's backwards. The picture doesn't show it clearly but the output on the left is identical to the input on the right. The angle you see on the right side of the vertical connection is identical to the angle on the left side of the vertical connection.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Please explain how it's backwards. The picture doesn't show it clearly but the output on the left is identical to the input on the right. The angle you see on the right side of the vertical connection is identical to the angle on the left side of the vertical connection.

No, it is not in regards to LATERAL VENT CONNECTOR diameter, capacity, and LENGTH/DISTANCE regards Lateral connections, and especially NOT in relationship to the lower furnace connector inlet. The picture CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THIS.

The "vent connector" fitting you are asking for "identification" of is
a Vent Connector Manifold.

Again, see 504.3.4. See Appendix B, Figure B-11 in the IFGC. See also 502.3.

The Diameter is to continue laterally to the Common Vent. If diameter increased diameters are required they take place BEFORE the Vent Connector Manifold and its lateral connection.

If increases are required for the individual vent connectors, they are to take place at the draft hood or outlet of the appliance (503.10.3.5 Size increase. Where the size of a vent connector is increased to overcome installation limitations and obtain connector capacity equal to the equipment input, the size increase shall be made at the equipment draft hood outlet.) If a size increase is required for the common vent connector manifold (especially since the capacities are reduced 10 and 20 percent)the capacity/sizing increase takes place before the manifold.

All of Minnesota has a local 99-percent winter design temperature BELOW
5°F (-15°C), according to the chart in appendix B its in the 4 degrees F to minus 10 degrees F zone), therefore the Exception to IFGC 504.10.2.2 would not apply to Minnesota installations. Mention as appears to be an installation in an unfinished space, and being Minnesota, likely in an unfinished UNCONDITIONED basement space, and the Vent Connector Manifold (assuming it is a listed Vent Connector Manifold, which I doubt) has an extension on the water heater connector's side at FULL SIZE of the manifold itself, which further offsets the furnace connector, which is wrong.
Length, lateral ONLY between manifold and common (vertical) vent of which there is none.

Hence, the Vent Connector Manifold and Lateral (assuming it is a listed VENT CONNECTOR MANIFOLD, which I doubt) therefore, is installed backwards.

Despite your claim that the ends are equadistant and the exterior profile and volume are equal both sides of the opening, I don't see that to be the case. The "rings" are not equally distant from the lower opening. The distance between the WH connector to the manifold is not in line with the manifold fitting itself, and the distance between the common vent and the center line of the furnace vent connector is far closer than that and the WH connector "end" of the manifold. - backwards.

The Common vertical b-vent should not have a T with a cap, it should have an offset to lateral to the vent connector manifold.

This set up will most likely spill into the room from the furnace via the WH draft hood, defeat most safetys in the furnace regarding poor draft, have horrible condensation problems erroding the vent, failure to prime, and subject to backdrafts and other problems in MN winters.

HG, Please stop responding to my posts. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

This is a similar component, a Simpson Wide Mouth Boot Tee.


The Simpson unit is stainless steel, but the one I saw is galvanized. The inlets and outlets are the same size.

In the picture I provided the water heater utilizes the lower connection, the furnace utilizes the connection on the right. This was a three year old, slab on grade townhome. As we can clearly see in the picture the walls are finished and it is in a conditioned space. The low voltage wiring seen in the picture is about a foot behind the pipe, up against the wall.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

HG, Please stop responding to my posts. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.

This is a similar component, a Simpson Wide Mouth Boot Tee.


The Simpson unit is stainless steel, but the one I saw is galvanized. The inlets and outlets are the same size.

In the picture I provided the water heater utilizes the lower connection, the furnace utilizes the connection on the right. This was a three year old, slab on grade townhome. As we can clearly see in the picture the walls are finished and it is in a conditioned space. The low voltage wiring seen in the picture is about a foot behind the pipe, up against the wall.

I see nothing wrong with the installation, but would of connected one of the appliances to the common vent, where it was capped.

Ken,
In Minnesota are fire stops required when b-vent penetrates a ceiling? I am just curious I am not trying to re-ignite a flurry of e-mails from people with too much time on their hands. I have never used a tee like that, If I was the inspector (gas not home) I would have had them bring 1 appliance vent into the bottom of the b-vent tee and the other appliance into the lateral of the b-vent tee. Assuming everything is sized properly has clearances combustion air etc etc. I enjoy these posts both to learn new things and get pictures of some scary things you see out there.

Thanks

I hate to sound ignorant, but could someone explane to me why and where one would use a non directional vent like that instead of a directional vent?
Where would it ever be better than a directional vent?

Thanks

You are asking here because there is something about the installation that just doesn't look right to you and you want to verify your concerns before making a call. Is that fairly close to correct? Over time one should develop insight that can exhibits itself as a little nagging feeling that something isn't right but you can't say for certain. Pay attention to that. Defer to assessment by a competent mechanical contractor and corrections as required. Better safe than sorry. It's not the name of the equipment it's how it's put together.

Originally Posted by Jack Murdock

Ken,
In Minnesota are fire stops required when b-vent penetrates a ceiling?
Thanks

Yes. But the requirement must be fairly recent as I only see it in homes less than a couple years old.

Originally Posted by Stuart Brooks

You are asking here because there is something about the installation that just doesn't look right to you and you want to verify your concerns before making a call. Is that fairly close to correct? Over time one should develop insight that can exhibits itself as a little nagging feeling that something isn't right but you can't say for certain. Pay attention to that. Defer to assessment by a competent mechanical contractor and corrections as required. Better safe than sorry. It's not the name of the equipment it's how it's put together.

I called it out the day I did the inspection, "Not a typical installation, taped joints, etc". I'm asking for the name of the manufacturer so I can educate myself as to its correct installation / use. To me that section of vent looks more like a piece of forced air duct-work than a gas appliance vent.

You'll never see me post something here and ask if it's correct. Half of the answers would be wrong.

First of all, I expected as much from YOU.

I see a MetalFab Boot Tee.

Its pre-2010 so likely silicone gask, CG (Corr-Guard), its a boot tee not a Simpson wide mouth boot tee, its backwards, and in the wrong orientation. BTW, FYI, even a Simpson SW Widemouth Boot Tee is directional.

As far as a PN it would depend on the measurements. Rheem specs for their indoor tankless WHs and had MF - CG make them, i.e. 3/5 boot tee
MF3CGBT = RTG20151V. Rheem nix's manifolding or sharing vent with a boiler or a heater/furnace.

Corr guard series updated boot tees now available open mkt in 3"-6" with SS o/s and different gasket seal. See (#)CGBT, (#)CGVBT, (#)CGSW

Clearances are significantly increased when used lateral/horizontal this one is backwards making it worse.

You've got bastardized low profile reducers, Male/Female adapters, from another mfg & series (think "tabs" and leaking connections, hence the tape) and the boot tee has been set up wrong for horizontal manifolding.

Your vertical vent tee is capped, by default will collect condensate, and has no drain.

MN has required LISTED gas venting (b-vent, special, all-fuel, etc.) be installed within mfg instructions, listing and per codes for long time. The missing/lacking firestops, supports, offset supports are significant defects, mixing mfg materials with un classified, unlisted use of fittings not transition sittings back and forth, same issue esp. in & out of boot tee in horizontal position. Laterals & manifolds require minimum slope and support, offsets require support. Questionable as nearly enclosed, alcove like and proximity, as it is pictured, likely requirement for sheilding.

The entire picture stinks of unqualified, unlicensed BS & DIY, not unlike the OP.

Originally Posted by Rick Cantrell

I hate to sound ignorant, but could someone explane to me why and where one would use a non directional vent like that instead of a directional vent?
Where would it ever be better than a directional vent?

Thanks

Listed vent tees and boot tees (and even Simpson's wide mouth boot tee) ARE DIRECTIONAL. They have two inlets and ONE OUTLET not outlets. They never "outlet" at the snout.

But I see a Boot Tee, and not a Simpson mfg one, horizontal, and in an incorrect position and orientation for same.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The "vent connector" fitting you are asking for "identification" of is
a Vent Connector Manifold.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

I see a MetalFab Boot Tee.

Exactly why I don't put much faith in the posters here. Especially the ones with no verifiable experience who hide their true identities.

It is unfortunate that you do not perceive the distinctions of function in a common vent connector or more precisely a vent connector manifold (lateral).

You titled your topic "vent connector idenification". Irrespective of manufacturer and part number, what is most important is the applied function - the clearances and requirements are distinctly different when utilized as a manifold common vent connector (lateral) as opposed to a fitting in a (vertical) common vent. Apparently that has escaped you.

Armed with that information you might have devined where to look in the codes, appliance manufacturer's instructions, and Standards, and the basics of what might be wrong.

Size increases/volume from the singular appliances' connection overall to and through the centerline and beyond to the common vent,

BEFORE and AT THE CENTERLINE WHERE THE VENT GAS STREAMS COME TOGETHER. This is most important. As in many "things" its a matter of location, location, location, both of where those size increases take place and the distance from centerline, and the capacity being limited to be effective in venting. Especially since MN goes to great lengths to avoid the known venting & condensation issues, etc. in your climatic region.

Sizing is most important, "more volume" or larger diameter is NOT always better, which is of course why MN has ammended the IFGC to be further limiting as they have to better fit the characteristics of the region.

Again, HG, you make no sense whatsoever. My original post:

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Can anyone identify the brand / model of this vent connector?

Sorry about it being in the wrong forum section

Since MN code allows installations of "approved engineered designs" or "per manufacturers instructions" I need to know the manufacturer. Obviously this fitting does not appear to be installed correctly per code. However, without knowing the manufacturer there is no way to determine if it is installed per manufacturer's instructions.

So, unless you know who the manufacturer is, there really is no reason to you to post in this thread.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Again, HG, you make no sense whatsoever. My original post:



Since MN code allows installations of "approved engineered designs" or "per manufacturers instructions" I need to know the manufacturer. Obviously this fitting does not appear to be installed correctly per code. However, without knowing the manufacturer there is no way to determine if it is installed per manufacturer's instructions.

So, unless you know who the manufacturer is, there really is no reason to you to post in this thread.

Did a little checking, can't find T fitting like this in single wall for gas venting. Most, if not all fittings (except single wall piping) are stamped with mfg. information on them. I believe mfg. identification applies to all codes. This may be a shop made fitting or even HVAC fitting. (won't meet code) Come to think of it, I've never seen a gas vent tee inverted like this, always vertical, Wye should of been used and available. The installer may of thought it was the same as DWV installations.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

The problem I'm having is that the Minnesota gas code requires the water heater to enter the shared vent at a 45 degree angle. So I'm not sure if this connector meets this requirement.

Nope, that's not true. The Water heater's vent connector does not connect to a vertical common vent, it is to a manifold. The MN code allows this IF..., just not as done here, as "you say".

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

I know how to make it correct, the way I normally see them. What I don't know is if this would meet the 45 degree requirement. I didn't see any manufacturer's information (probably covered by the metal tape) and I've never seen a galvanized fitting like this. Honestly I can't even tell for sure if this fitting is a single or double wall.

No, obviously you don't. More than one type of vent.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

In the picture I provided the water heater utilizes the lower connection, the furnace utilizes the connection on the right. This was a three year old, slab on grade townhome. As we can clearly see in the picture the walls are finished and it is in a conditioned space. The low voltage wiring seen in the picture is about a foot behind the pipe, up against the wall.

"Show" us "the money" shot - post a long shot proving the latest assertion - and stop playing games - specify the water heater tankless, storage type, fan-assisted or draft-hood or otherwise and the furnace, modulated or otherwise, fan-assisted or otherwise.

The venting & ceiling are not properly "finished", and no you don't get it.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Since MN code allows installations of "approved engineered designs" or "per manufacturers instructions" I need to know the manufacturer. Obviously this fitting does not appear to be installed correctly per code. However, without knowing the manufacturer there is no way to determine if it is installed per manufacturer's instructions.

So, unless you know who the manufacturer is, there really is no reason to you to post in this thread.

No, MN code doesn't say "approved engineered designs" relative to water heater or furnace venting. It does make reference to "approved engineering practices", "other approved engineering methods" and "other approved means " depending upon the subsection, which still requires abiding by the "shall" statements including the MN special restrictions, and when applying listed system components, in accordance with their listing (as a system). Are you now tyring to infer there is a boiler present?!?

Nope, don't need to know the mfg of the fitting, which has been inappropriately applied in how it is installed as a manifold, to know as described and pictured it is wrong. To apply correctly is the information for the appliances (both). MN code already provided as ammended by MN already pointed out where this installation does not meet listing standards, approved engineering methods (standards) or the MN table limitations or MN code restrictions.

Code provides for approved engineering methods, as per MN tables and MN code restrictions. Can't insert a lower temperature and higher volume application intermediate.

Now you claim WH is intermediate (closer to the common vent) you'll note already at least two offsets to the connector before the manifold.

Nice "leap" in logic presuming everthing as pictured including tape has to be as originally installed, was "engineered" and "approved" at time of construction inspection because now it is a "townhome on slab" and just "three years old'.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Nope, that's not true. The Water heater's vent connector does not connect to a vertical common vent, it is to a manifold. The MN code allows this IF..., just not as done here, as "you say".

As I say? What part of "I called it out the day I did the inspection" did you not understand?

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

"Show" us "the money" shot - post a long shot proving the latest assertion - and stop playing games - specify the water heater tankless, storage type, fan-assisted or draft-hood or otherwise and the furnace, modulated or otherwise, fan-assisted or otherwise.

I don't have a "money shot". I took one picture for the report to indicate what the HVAC technician needed to evaluate. The water heater was a standard 50 gallon gas water heater with a draft hood. If you had any clue as to how a home inspection is conducted you'd understand I can't just go back to the home and take more pictures...it's not my house.

The venting & ceiling are not properly "finished", and no you don't get it.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

No, MN code doesn't say "approved engineered designs" relative to water heater or furnace venting. It does make reference to "approved engineering practices", "other approved engineering methods" and "other approved means " depending upon the subsection, which still requires abiding by the "shall" statements including the MN special restrictions, and when applying listed system components, in accordance with their listing (as a system). Are you now tyring to infer there is a boiler present?!?

Sorry but I didn't look up the specific wording of the code. I paraphrased. I didn't have the time to do it, since I'm actually doing inspections. Something you have no experience with.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Nope, don't need to know the mfg of the fitting, which has been inappropriately applied in how it is installed as a manifold, to know as described and pictured it is wrong. To apply correctly is the information for the appliances (both). MN code already provided as ammended by MN already pointed out where this installation does not meet listing standards, approved engineering methods (standards) or the MN table limitations or MN code restrictions.

If the manufacturer isn't known then how in the world would anyone know if this is not allowed by the manufacturer's installation instructions. Again, you make no sense whatsoever.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

Now you claim WH is intermediate (closer to the common vent) you'll note already at least two offsets to the connector before the manifold.

Nice "leap" in logic presuming everthing as pictured including tape has to be as originally installed, was "engineered" and "approved" at time of construction inspection because now it is a "townhome on slab" and just "three years old'.

Yes, I "claim" the water heater is closer to the common vent because it is. But, that really doesn't make any difference because I never asked if it was correct or not. I asked for the manufacturer of the connector. It's not too much of a leap in logic. The home was three years old. The water heater was three years old. The furnace was three years old. The unit could not be occupied without a Certificate of Occupancy, which it had. Which also means the original construction was approved. But I've seen many things approved that weren't correct.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

As I say? What part of "I called it out the day I did the inspection" did you not understand?.. Snipped ...

Ken, apparently no one knows the specific manufacturer. So give it a rest. If you must, look up what you can from manufactures that publish info or go to a HVAC supply house and ask there. Extrapolate the information you can get. It would certainly be helpful for your blood pressure. And, now H.G. is all stirred up. My goodness he could end up having a stroke too.

Peace and tranquility to all

Originally Posted by Stuart Brooks

Ken, apparently no one knows the specific manufacturer. So give it a rest. If you must, look up what you can from manufactures that publish info or go to a HVAC supply house and ask there. Extrapolate the information you can get. It would certainly be helpful for your blood pressure. And, now H.G. is all stirred up. My goodness he could end up having a stroke too.

Peace and tranquility to all

I agree with you Stuart. But it's really sad that someone can't post something on here asking for more information only to get second guessed by an arm chair inspector. It's pretty obvious that HG has already had a few strokes.

You titled this post "Vent connector identification".You still don't get it.The fitting you are asking for identification is not installed as a vent connector it is installed as a manifold.There is nothing in the MN codes which requires water heaters, draft hood equipped or not having their vent connection to a manifold being 45 degrees.The fitting and manifolding is backwards.Already identified the tee on the common vent, the reducers, and the boot tee.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

You titled this post "Vent connector identification".You still don't get it.The fitting you are asking for identification is not installed as a vent connector it is installed as a manifold.

Just because it's installed as a manifold doesn't mean it's no longer a vent connector...what it was originally designed for.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

There is nothing in the MN codes which requires water heaters, draft hood equipped or not having their vent connection to a manifold being 45 degrees.

Code has nothing to do with the original question as to whom the manufacturer was. You've brought up code, several times in a thread which has really nothing to do with code. I never asked what the code was...it doesn't matter. But if you really have nothing else to do with your time go take a look at the 2006 version since that's what we go by.

Originally Posted by H.G. Watson, Sr.

The fitting and manifolding is backwards.Already identified the tee on the common vent, the reducers, and the boot tee.

You cannot tell if the fitting is backwards without first knowing the manufacturer's specs. You can't know the manufacturing specs without knowing the manufacturer. You have no experience inspecting homes let alone know anything about gas appliance venting. You're guessing. Just like how you were guessing when you incorrectly named two different manufacturers. Heck, you didn't even know it was referred to as a boot tee until I posted an image from a different manufacturer. I don't inspect by guessing.

Originally Posted by Ken Rowe

Just because it's installed as a manifold doesn't mean it's no longer a vent connector...what it was originally designed for.


Code has nothing to do with the original question as to whom the manufacturer was. You've brought up code, several times in a thread which has really nothing to do with code. I never asked what the code was...it doesn't matter. But if you really have nothing else to do with your time go take a look at the 2006 version since that's what we go by.

You cannot tell if the fitting is backwards without first knowing the manufacturer's specs. You can't know the manufacturing specs without knowing the manufacturer. You have no experience inspecting homes let alone know anything about gas appliance venting. You're guessing. Just like how you were guessing when you incorrectly named two different manufacturers. Heck, you didn't even know it was referred to as a boot tee until I posted an image from a different manufacturer. I don't inspect by guessing.

It is abundantly obvious why no one else addresses your questions, and why you were so summarily and abruptly separated from your last employ; shortly after bragging here how great you had it working for the best company making so much money, pulling huge fee splits, getting all your CE, insurance, tools, equipment, vehicle paid and pulling splits off of the employees; and further carrying on that any independant was a fool to be self employed.

A common vertical vent vs. Lateral manifolding - i.e. APPLICATION.

First you posted and you can't change the title of the post thread now that its been repeated with every response, "vent connector identification". That would be the multiple offsets in your photo.

It became quickly obvious you were clueless about manifolding, it continues to be obvious you remain so.

It was YOU who made reference to MN codes and claimed all water heaters required 45 degree offset connections. (This is of course untrue when manifolded) and stated THAT was your concern.

Of course I know which edition the MN Code is based upon, I told YOU, and provided a link to the 2006 unammended edition of the IFGC, as well as a link to the MN Code's ammendments, then proceeded to quote the MN Code (as ammended) to you. This of course escaped you, because you are summarily clueless and bull-headed, and make claims about the MN codes that are untrue.

I know what a tee is, I know what a boot tee is, I am familiar with Simpson wide mouth boot tees, both are special gas vents, one is SW, temperature ratings change significantly with orientation and sizing.

Yes tees, boot tees, etc. listed vent tees are directional. Perhaps if you bothered you'd learn there are ways to tell from a picture even which end is the outlet - but then again you claimed there were multiple outlets for a simpson wide mouth boot tee too.

No, I don't have to know who manufactured it to know the venting system is set up wrong or why (and not for the reasons you stated).

You shouldn't either, but then again you are the same ass who couldn't grasp fixture clearance requirements for toilets; so it shouldn't surprise anyone that you couldn't begin to understand the effect fittings have on venting, when you can't grasp what a manifold is - what function it performs, or which end(s) are in and which end is out on a fitting.

Who I worked for, what I was paid, why I left, code, and toilet requirements have nothing to do with the manufacturer of this friggen piece of tin. This is exactly why I asked you not to post in my threads months ago. You have no clue whatsoever as to what you're talking about. You cut and paste from code books without a concept of how the codes are implemented in the real world. You turn a simple question into personal attacks for no other reason except you're bored.

Now if anyone can ID this fitting, pm me. I'll no longer be checking this thread.