|
|
Mikeathome
New Member
Posts:20
 |
| 18 Jan 2011 09:05 AM |
|
Posted By Gerald Van Decker on 17 Jan 2011 11:54 PM
Hello Everyone,
We have no record of calls from Mike and no email about the situation. Instead we have this posting, which also quote other websites that direct the reader to our competitors and the incorrect claims on their websites about the copper we use and our approvals. And yes, as someone else mentioned it is odd that the issue claimed is that the the inspector has is with the header, one very unique component on our units.
Please contact us/me
Mike, I have just sent you a separate email with my full contact info. Please send me your full info including phone number and email address. Also please send me your inspector's full info. I have communicated with inspectors about drain water heat recovery for about 10 years now. It is our FULL RESPONSIBILITY to work with a local inspector on your behalf. We have always done this the few times that it is needed and will continue to do so. I am not saying this because you have posted this but rather it how we would treat any customer. If I do not receive this information from you then I will have to assume that this complaint is a fabrication.
B75 vs B88
Joel's email stated that the header is B75 compliant. It is actually both B88 and B75 because it is manufactured with one of the alloys that is allowed for both plus it is made in the exact same way as all other B75 and B88 tube. However, it is not a Type L or Type K....it is much thicker at 1/4". We require this thickenss for the proper braizing joining joint with the coils. For the record, the header stock is made in London, Ontario at Great Lakes Copper (formerly Wolverine Tube Canada)....one of the largest and long standing copper tube mills in North America. All of the copper tub and components that we use has always been made in North America. We have never imported one bit of copper (to my knowledge) for outside. Most of our copper comes from the US.
UL Listing and the Power-Pipe
The Power-Pipe is a UL listed heat exchanger, not just a bunch of parts; while the standards that it are listed against are not specifically for Drain Water Heat Recovery it is more than sufficient for the needs according to reviews by several standards experts. Our UL listing is very detailed requiring 4 unannounced visits and inspection of our production facility per year. The copper quality, type and thicknesses are checked as well as our quality control measures and records. We have always done it this way because we want to have a high quality product.
In closing, the Power-Pipe is an excellent energy saving devise and it the top product in the class of drain water heat recovery systems. We have been in business for a long time; I founded the company in July 2000. Our products serve thousands upon thousands of residential and multi-residential units as well as commercial and industrial applications. We stand behind our product and support our customers. Sears Canada and HomeDepot.ca both sell the Power-Pipe as well as many dealers and distributors in North America.
We look forward to further interest in the Power-Pipe and serving our customers. If anyone has any further questions I would invite you to contact us; you will see how responsive we are. I personally get involved with higher level needs such as communicating with inspectors or special design considerations.
Sincerely,
-Gerald Van Decker
Gerald Van Decker, M.A.Sc., P.Eng.
President and CEO
RenewABILITY Energy Inc.
60 Baffin Place, Unit #2
Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA
N2V 1Z7
Tel: (519)885-0283
Fax: (519)885-4475
Part 2 for the record. |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 18 Jan 2011 11:52 AM |
|
Posted By jbaron on 17 Jan 2011 08:16 PM
To this consumer (me) it sounds like "Renewable Energy Inc." has made a claim that their product is "better than the applicable standard" but has not backed it up with simply getting the product approved to that correct standard. I do not think that what Dana says is relevant at all, and I'm frankly surprised that he has brought this up. It is not the iinspector's job to research patents and the legal system and do internet research - it is the inspector's job to ensure that the house is to code - whatever that is - for not only the present owner, but future owners as well. Period. All houses should be built to code - period - and alterations should be explained.
It is (again, to this consumer) unfortunate that Mike has purchased and installed an apparently non-approved product, and worse, has probably made alterations to his plumbing system to accomodate said product. This is a big deal, and frankly, I'd be furious. In fact, I also looked at installing a Renewable Energy product, but did not. In hindsight, I'm only 75% sure that I would have passed, but the concessions I would have had to make to install the product would have been, if not major in scope, at least significant in order to accomodate my (also not approved) grey water plumbing.
Jeff
How is it not relevant? We agree- it's neither the homeowners' nor the inspectors job to judge the material certifications, and if there's any legal/code applicabilty question about the suitability of a particular construction, or who owns the intellectual property of a design, it needs to be sorted out by the relevant legal entities, which is entirely my point. Some of Renwability's competitors seem to be implying on their websites or public forums that use of a B75 sub-assembly is a health or safety threat, where it clearly is not. This appears to be a smoke screen. If it's simply a matter of not being able to legally mark B75 material as B88-compliant due to fact that it is made of a heavier material than is covered by B88, it's pretty silly stuff. But WE (or the local inspectors) shouldn't be charged with making that call- it's Renewability's responsibilty. Posting the assertion here is one thing, (it is a public statement, at least) but it behooves them to take it a step further. There's a lot of backbiting both publicly and in non-public conversation between GFXtechnology, Ecoinovations, et al concerning all sorts of labeling & patent issues. I choose to stay out of it- there are legal entities charged with making those calls. But I'm amazed at the level to which some companies will take it. I've yet to be favorably impressed with ANY of these vendors, but I'll accept (for now) Natural Resources Canada's 3rd party performance numbers of various models (despite backbiter private & public protestations by other vendors that someone had to have had a thumb on the scale during testing.) |
|
|
|
|
jbaron
Basic Member
Posts:122
|
| 18 Jan 2011 12:05 PM |
|
Dana,
What I found strange was the statement that one ASTM classification is better than another, and that the lack of a "marking stripe" shouldn't be seen as disqualifying. As a homeowner, I don't have the slightest idea as to standards, and I can't say that I'd be excited to go digging. If I had purchased a Powerpipe, I would have expected the company to ensure that it's product was legal to install, including the marking. Thems the rules.
I had my own personal run in with a code compliant item - my handrails. I saw some nice, wooden handrails online in a variety of styles. Since I had a carpenter on my job, I asked him to duplicate the style that I liked, down to the exact dimension - you know, keep it local, yada yada. So, spent a couple of G's on some nice handrails, only to find out that they were too wide. The inspector even pulled out his code book and showed me the rule.
So, how on Earth can I, as a homeowner/builder, be expected to know what's to code and what's not in every minute detail? I learned about heating, I learned about concrete, and I learned abotu insulation, but I forgot to read the chapter on handrails, and I certainly didn't read the chapter on plumbing. I relied on the fact that what looked like a fairly reputable place sold a particular model of railing, and I got burned. Whose to blame here?
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
jbaron
Basic Member
Posts:122
|
| 18 Jan 2011 12:15 PM |
|
Sorry Dana -
Never mind.
Jeff |
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 18 Jan 2011 01:50 PM |
|
I know... I know...
The issue over ASTM B 75 vs. B 88 marking & labeling seems totally driven by the disinformation/innuendo of their competitors (which is the only way I can imagine that the MI inspector came up with it. I've never seen a code inspector dig that deeply in to sub-component test ratings.) Canada is a first-world country with excellent building codes, and this product line is being marketed (even installed) nationwide by the likes of Sears and Home Depot without code-inspection problems, and is subsidized by many local utilities & provinces. They're on the approved list for subsidy in a number of states and localities in the US too. Having that level of distribution & support in Canada simply has to be seen as a threat to their competitors, a likely motivator for at least some of the web-chatter flak.
When installing a drain water heat recovery unit in my own home the inspector's primary demand was that if I was going to touch the drain, I had to trade-in my circa 1923 toilet for a noo-improoved low flush model. Seemed odd, but at the same time I was still working on getting the vent location of my heating system qualified, and he was on the edge of classifying a concrete eave-splash pad next to the driveway as a walkway unless I did some jackhammering & digging, reconfiguring how the exterior basement stairwell worked (it's upper landing was arguably continuous with the splash pad). I didn't even argue the potty-point, being bit behind the 8-ball having already decommissioned the old boiler. He seemed comfortable accepting of the labeling & construction of the beast though. (It was one of theirs, purchased through EFI, who distributes a few PowerPipe models in the US, and had a size/price/delivery schedule that met my immediate need.) |
|
|
|
|
HerryJohnson
New Member
Posts:6
|
| 20 Jan 2011 07:08 AM |
|
Nice post in fact i was really browsing to find that kind of post because tomorrow i have give presentation on this topic so i can say that your post help me a lot.
|
|
| <a href="http://www.buyliquidroof.com">Liquid Roof</a> |
|
|
Mikeathome
New Member
Posts:20
|
| 27 Jan 2011 03:39 PM |
|
UPDATE!!  My inspector came back to me after I gave him the information provided by Renewability and Powerpipe posted on this forum. He put it to me bluntly, good thing you pulled it out because it does not conform to the building code. Very interesting to say the least.... SEE THE POWERPIPE UL LABEL I TOOK OFF MY UNIT (proof that I purchased one and for those who think this is some sort of conspiracy) When you first look at this Powerpipe label off the unit I purchased, my inspector got the impression that my Powerpipe conformed to the plumbing code because of the UL stamp and what is written on the label. The inspector told me that if you know the ASTM B88 certification standard you will know that the header does not conform to this standard because the standard is a dimensional everyday plumbing copper. Obviously the header does not conform to either of these standards/ dimensions and therefore raised the flag. My Powerpipe label omits the ASTM 75 copper certified header as per Gerald Van Decker's has posted in this forum, but does outline the following...... - ASTM B88 Type L copper - ASTM 306 - UL APPROVED FOR POTABLE WATERaccording to my inspector, Based on the UL listing for Renewability, this unit has not and is not approved by UL for potable water.  The UL listing for Miscellaneous heating and heating cooling appliance accessories 11BY does not make my Powerpipe UL certified for potable water. Thanks to all Mike  |
|
|
|
|
Mikeathome
New Member
Posts:20
|
| 27 Jan 2011 03:40 PM |
|
double posted, sorry...
|
|
|
|
|
galnar
New Member
Posts:83
|
| 28 Jan 2011 04:42 PM |
|
Mike, just wondering - Did you provide your full contact info as Gerald requested and/or did Gerald reach out to your inspector directly as he indicated in his post? It seems like he's willing to be an advocate on your behalf to straighten this out. |
|
|
|
|
Mikeathome
New Member
Posts:20
|
| 28 Jan 2011 06:16 PM |
|
galnar,
No need, I already pulled it out after the inspectors findings and the CEO of Powerpipes posting......besides the offer for help was a PR move on the side of Gerald. You may have missed the part where I was accused by Gerald of lying about calling and also accused of breaking a copyright law, oh and that I am part of a conspiracy to bring the company down. Just like the race card, you cannot say anything negative about the Powerpipe and then everyone shouts that your a product racist or competitor. Ya I have seen gfxtechnology's website and it gives me the creeps.
Lie about your product and then piss people off by making false claims and people will post the truth about the product.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 28 Jan 2011 08:25 PM |
|
No need, I already pulled it out after the inspectors findings Seems like it would have been easier to see if Gerald's offer to mediate with the inspector would yield fruit. Lie about your product and then piss people off by making false claims and people will post the truth about the product.
I'm concerned about what you are saying because I have three of the units specified in my new build. Are you saying that inspectors in all the other jurisdictions where they have been installed haven't done their job properly or is there something special about Ontario and (MI, was it?) that excludes this product? |
|
|
|
|
Mikeathome
New Member
Posts:20
|
| 28 Jan 2011 08:44 PM |
|
My inspector said it needs to be NSF61 certified if it deviates from anything outside of ASTM B88 and Powerpipe needs to fix the UL claim on their label so it states the TRUTH. The label should also include the ASTM 75 for the header instead of playing guessing games. It would then be up to the inspector to decide if he wants to accept it under his special powers. As it is now, NO it does not conform here. |
|
|
|
|
ICFHybrid
Veteran Member
Posts:3039
|
| 28 Jan 2011 10:49 PM |
|
As it is now, NO it does not conform here. That's what I asked about. 1) Why not let the company and the inspector hash it out and see if something comes of it? 2) Why is your inspector any different from all the other jurisdictions? |
|
|
|
|
Mikeathome
New Member
Posts:20
|
| 29 Jan 2011 12:52 AM |
|
Answer
1) Returned the unit and don't care for a company trying to pass off BS onto the customer.
2) Good question and perhaps this posting will enlighten some inspectors who simply look at a bullsh!t UL label.
Question to you;
1) Would you support a product that lies to consumers about its safety (UL label) and omits important information on its label for the inspector re:ASTM 75 (not accepted in some jurisdictions under the building code) and then the CEO of the company tries to do some bullsh!t PR by accusing you of lying about trying to contact them and breaking the law by posting a picture of the product on the net?
I am finished here.
I think I made it pretty clear, the unit has been removed and returned because the manufacture is deceitful and lies to the public about its certification.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
Matt G
New Member
Posts:93
|
| 29 Jan 2011 10:24 AM |
|
Mike:
Several months ago my HVAC subcontractor installed specialized dryer vents on 11 of the town house units I'm building. It was my idea.  Inspector said no - not code compliant - and they had to come out. It happens.... |
|
|
|
|
dualpurpose
New Member
Posts:9
|
| 16 Mar 2011 01:44 AM |
|
thanks mike for sharing this experience My inspectors always check the stamps and UL and astm numbers
I am looking for systems to install since we can receive rebates on these and they look to have reasonable payback.
I beleive that gerald has done more damage to his company with his post then anything his competitor could have, I expect suppliers to be helpful on blogs nothing else
I often want to use inovative products but often find that many of these small companies do not have the time or resources to jump thru the proper hurdles and as a professional who has to jump thru all the regulator hurdles i expect my suppliers to
Scott
Dual Purpose Constuction
|
|
|
|
|
Dana1
Senior Member
Posts:6991
|
| 16 Mar 2011 05:56 PM |
|
Yabbut, you should read some of the utter crap some of his competitors sling on blogs & web forums, Scott! (You don't have to dig far to be knee-deep in it.)
For some reason this is small but street-fighting industry, as far as their public personae go. According to one vendor the rest of the field are ALL guilty of patent violation & theft of intellectual property, and if you import any of them into the US you are complicit in the crime.
I gave up trying to figure out the merits of the parochial infighting was about, settled on NRCAN test data as a basis. (Some vendors have posted implications that NRCAN's numbers are fudged too, but nobody's willing to put their money where their web-mouth is.) Renewability's goods have decent performance numbers, and decent price/performance compared to some others, and are on several states' rebate qualifier list. Rather than simply ruling them out over what is fundamentally a labeling issue, see if it's on your local authorities' rebate list, and run it by the local inspector before buying. If yours is the Dual Purpose Construction in West Linn, note that many of Renwability's PowerPipe models qualify for OR-DOE incentives (they dominate the list, in fact):
http://egov.oregon.gov/ENERGY/CONS/RES/tax/apphtrec.shtmlt
...and still others have complained that they've received unfair treatment by the state of Oregon too, citing some other (not substantiated in a legal-finding) performance data discrepancies.
Believe them all or believe none of them, NRCAN stands by the test data, and Renewabilty has two nation-wide distribution & installation chains (Sears & Lowes) handling them in Canada. Whatever the labeling minutae may be, were they truly problematic in terms of code-intentions or in violation of patent theft, I'm doubtful they would have passed the vetting process of those distributors, and I'll believe NRCAN's third-party testers before the rantings of the miffed competitors. All of that dirty laundry had been aired prior to distributors picking up the product line, and I'm doubtful that Renewability has either the resources or guile to have paid them all off or to have hoodwinked them. (They seem guileless enough in their postings here, eh? ;-) )
They're ALL small companies at the moment- don't expect too much from the competition either. I expect Renewability will eventually get their labeling ducks sufficiently aligned. |
|
|
|
|
junkhound
New Member
Posts:44
|
| 20 Mar 2011 11:00 PM |
|
Ah, most of thread another great reason for DIY fabrication, esp for such simple heat exchangers most anyone with a torch and drill press and pipe cutter can fabricate for 15% the price of the commercial items.....
and for waiting till the BI has done his thing and moved on to install an experimental device in the privacy of your own home.... |
|
|
|
|
FBBP
Veteran Member
Posts:1215
|
| 21 Mar 2011 11:28 PM |
|
Posted By junkhound on 20 Mar 2011 11:00 PM
Ah, most of thread another great reason for DIY fabrication, esp for such simple heat exchangers most anyone with a torch and drill press and pipe cutter can fabricate for 15% the price of the commercial items.....
and for waiting till the BI has done his thing and moved on to install an experimental device in the privacy of your own home....
Sorry but I simply can not agree. We are talking about combining sewage and potable water that may be connect to a municipal water supply. Can anyone say Walkerton??
Normally I would not worry so much about inspections etc. After all every man is king of his own castle! In this case, not so much. |
|
|
|
|
LarryT
New Member
Posts:84
|
| 23 Mar 2011 10:19 PM |
|
Potable water and sewage.? Really?
How so? You have two barriers, that of the main drain pipe and that of the potable water pipe. No way you can breach bothatthesamw time. Worst that can happen is leak through onethatwill then be visible somewhere, but no contamination of one fluid to the other. |
|
|
|
|