3 ms·

But it's equivalent (in terms of capacity and robustness) to all other half inch pipes, the first of which had a half inch diameter. Or something like that - th

But it's equivalent (in terms of capacity and robustness) to all other half inch pipes, the first of which had a half inch diameter. Or something like that - the Wikipedia page is complicated. In some ways that's more useful. If you're designing a gas pipe for a house you probably care more about "how much gas can I get through this pipe" and "what is the failure rate" than "will I be able to fit it through a 0.83 inch hole". It's annoying that "half inch" etc were the terms co-opted here instead of, say, "a level 4 pipe". But there is some reason for it.

bluGill 9y ago
No it isn't equivalent to all other pipes in terms of capacity and robustness. It is equivalent to the COMMON pipe today, but you still have to watch because some applications use the same thread/outside diameter but the walls are thicker. Also there are still some old pipes out there that really do have the 1/2 inch inside diameter, they are equivalent in terms of robustness, but obviously not capacity. Of course I'm being pedantic - in reality you will probably never encounter the exceptions.
- dmurray 9y ago
  Is it correct to say it's equivalent or better than the "standard" half inch pipe in all three of: inside diameter (larger is better), outside diameter (smaller is better) and robustness? With the "standard" half inch pipe actually being an old type that is now obsolete?
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Being pedantic again, there are cases where more inside diameter is not better. Some chemicals are unstable and dangerous when concentrated into too much volume: by increasing the inside diameter you make them more likely to explode. (acetylene - C2H2 - is the only one I can think of where this could matter). On the same lines, if the pipe is subject to heat/flame there is another case where modern metals might be worse by allowing thinner walls. Again, this is only pedantic. In the unlikely event that the above matters you need a professional engineer (a legal term) to specify the exact properties of the pipe.

bluGill 9y ago

No it isn't equivalent to all other pipes in terms of capacity and robustness. It is equivalent to the COMMON pipe today, but you still have to watch because some applications use the same thread/outside diameter but the walls are thicker. Also there are still some old pipes out there that really do have the 1/2 inch inside diameter, they are equivalent in terms of robustness, but obviously not capacity. Of course I'm being pedantic - in reality you will probably never encounter the exceptions.

dmurray 9y ago
Is it correct to say it's equivalent or better than the "standard" half inch pipe in all three of: inside diameter (larger is better), outside diameter (smaller is better) and robustness? With the "standard" half inch pipe actually being an old type that is now obsolete?
- bluGill 9y ago
  Being pedantic again, there are cases where more inside diameter is not better. Some chemicals are unstable and dangerous when concentrated into too much volume: by increasing the inside diameter you make them more likely to explode. (acetylene - C2H2 - is the only one I can think of where this could matter). On the same lines, if the pipe is subject to heat/flame there is another case where modern metals might be worse by allowing thinner walls. Again, this is only pedantic. In the unlikely event that the above matters you need a professional engineer (a legal term) to specify the exact properties of the pipe.