Jump to content

Gas pipe running behind stove, is that ok?


Adam1991

Featured Posts

Hi all, we’re planning on having our gas pipe installed under the gunnel. Is it safe and compliant to run the pipe behind the stove on its way to the galley?
 

We will have it installed by a professional but need to be sure it is safe to run it this way. 
 

thanks,

Adam 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Tony Brooks said:

Distances please, if only to avoid problems with BSS examiners in the future. There should be an air gap behind whatever surrounds the stove so that would be an ideal place to run the pipe.

That's what I have from new and it's never been queried - even by a 'proper' surveyor. Just follow what the BSS says about distances and separation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have thought distance would be quite sufficient unless your stove is tall and thin.

My gas pipe runs under gunnel, but behind cladding. The top of the stove is probably almost a foot lower.

Only thing the BSS man asked was it a continuous length (No joins) which it was.

 

BTW It is worth making sure your installer does fit with no joins.

Mine runs through bulkheads and into locker all as one piece.

Drilled out fittings where it passed through steel work.

 

John

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Floating Male said:

I would have thought distance would be quite sufficient unless your stove is tall and thin.

My gas pipe runs under gunnel, but behind cladding. The top of the stove is probably almost a foot lower.

Only thing the BSS man asked was it a continuous length (No joins) which it was.

 

BTW It is worth making sure your installer does fit with no joins.

Mine runs through bulkheads and into locker all as one piece.

Drilled out fittings where it passed through steel work.

 

John

 

Whe I fitted mine the BSS said the pipe should be visible for the full length of its run and should be supported through bulheads and airtight through the gas locker and the front bulkhead. That was many years ago and may have been less rigid nowadays..

Does that still apply?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OldGoat said:

Whe I fitted mine the BSS said the pipe should be visible for the full length of its run and should be supported through bulheads and airtight through the gas locker and the front bulkhead. That was many years ago and may have been less rigid nowadays..

Does that still apply?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OldGoat said:

Whe I fitted mine the BSS said the pipe should be visible for the full length of its run and should be supported through bulheads and airtight through the gas locker and the front bulkhead. That was many years ago and may have been less rigid nowadays..

Does that still apply?

 

 

I asked that question to an inspector a few years ago as about 1m of my gas pipe isn't visible. He said that as the majority of the pipe was visible and had no unnecessary joints, then he had no reason to believe that the short length he couldn't access would be any different and he was happy to pass the system on that basis (+ all the other test criteria).

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

My boat recently failed its BSS because the examiner could not see the bulkhead fitting inside the cabin (as its panelled/tiled in behind the stove).

We are now having to basically destroy some of the 21 year old panelling and tiles that are behind the stove to enable a visual inspection of the fitting. 

I am told this is a fairly recent amendment to the BSS and has come in since 2017 when our last examination was carried out.

 

7.8.3R Are all LPG pipe joints accessible for

inspection and of the correct type?

 

Rear of bulkhead fitting through forward cabin bulkhead not

accessible (its behind the tiled stove hearth) - unable to verify

condition of joint

 

 

Is this something that others have experienced ?

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, CV32 said:

My boat recently failed its BSS because the examiner could not see the bulkhead fitting inside the cabin (as its panelled/tiled in behind the stove).

We are now having to basically destroy some of the 21 year old panelling and tiles that are behind the stove to enable a visual inspection of the fitting. 

I am told this is a fairly recent amendment to the BSS and has come in since 2017 when our last examination was carried out.

 

7.8.3R Are all LPG pipe joints accessible for

inspection and of the correct type?

 

Rear of bulkhead fitting through forward cabin bulkhead not

accessible (its behind the tiled stove hearth) - unable to verify

condition of joint

 

 

Is this something that others have experienced ?

 

 

 

 

As far as I know, the ability to visually inspect all joints has always been a requirement. It’s a good idea in the case of bulkhead fittings; they seem more prone to minor leakage than most others. (Unless the original fitter used his head rather than the rule book and drilled through the fitting so that he could pass the pipe through it without a join 🙂)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Iain_S said:

It’s a good idea in the case of bulkhead fittings; they seem more prone to minor leakage than most others. (Unless the original fitter used his head rather than the rule book and drilled through the fitting so that he could pass the pipe through it without a join 🙂)

But if the fitter has drilled through the fitting and used a continuous length of pipe, it will still look exactly the same as the jointed arrangement, so won't be apparent to the BSS inspector, unless the joint is dismantled.

Edited by David Mack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But if the fitter has drilled through the fitting and used a continuous length of pipe, it will still look exactly the same as the jointed arrangement, so won't be apparent to the BSS inspector, unless the joint is dismantled.

 

The BSS tie themselves in knots over gas. To dismantle the joint to see on a liveaboard, the BSS bod needs to be GSR too, in case he disturbs a joint. But if it turns out the tube IS continuous through the bulkhead fitting, he or she didn't need to be GSR after all. But the only way to find out is to do it.

 

Also, unless every inch of gas pipe is visible, how can the BSS bod possibly determine whether there are "unnecessary" joints? Few go as far as demanding every inch of gas pipe is revealed and those that do are, in my opinion, being unreasonable jobsworths. 

 

And to answer the OP, this question crops up constantly on gas training courses and the received wisdom is no, it doesn't matter if a gas pipe passes through a hot area. Not even somewhere really hot, provided it is not hot enough to compromise the integrity of the pipe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CV32 said:

 

I am told this is a fairly recent amendment to the BSS and has come in since 2017 when our last examination was carried out.

 

7.8.3R Are all LPG pipe joints accessible for

inspection and of the correct type?

 

Rear of bulkhead fitting through forward cabin bulkhead not

accessible (its behind the tiled stove hearth) - unable to verify

condition of joint

 

 

Is this something that others have experienced ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whoever told you this is ill-informed.

When information is so readily available I do not know why folks do not do ther own research instead of relying on 'some bloke down the pub'.

 

The clause has been in the 2015, 2013 & 2002 version of the BSS ( I have not gone back any further)

 

Screen shot of the 2002 version -

 

 

 

 

 

Screenshot (576).png

Edited by Alan de Enfield
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s funny how people worry about gas getting hot, as if it might ignite or something. The fact is that gas is not combustible. Well, it is not combustible until you add air (or oxygen, to be precise) anyway. So unless the pipe is going to melt (copper melts at a little over 1000c, which seems quite hot for the inside of a boat) it is a non-issue.

 

I had a similar problem running a high pressure copper oxygen pipe (3000psi) through the engine bay of my glider (not actually an oxymoron) because someone was worried that if the oxygen got hot it might go on fire. Hmmm….

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, nicknorman said:

It’s funny how people worry about gas getting hot, as if it might ignite or something. The fact is that gas is not combustible. Well, it is not combustible until you add air (or oxygen, to be precise) anyway. So unless the pipe is going to melt (copper melts at a little over 1000c, which seems quite hot for the inside of a boat) it is a non-issue.

 

I had a similar problem running a high pressure copper oxygen pipe (3000psi) through the engine bay of my glider (not actually an oxymoron) because someone was worried that if the oxygen got hot it might go on fire. Hmmm….

Intuitively gas burns and can go boom and when it goes boom it's hot, so gas and hot places bad...

Which would have been my thoughts as a none gas bod on the subject, at least until I read this thread, it's a bit like the panicky call I get about big trees, because obviously big trees fall over all the time (they don't), it can be really difficult to make that logical leap though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2021 at 22:24, nicknorman said:

It’s funny how people worry about gas getting hot, as if it might ignite or something. The fact is that gas is not combustible. Well, it is not combustible until you add air (or oxygen, to be precise) anyway. So unless the pipe is going to melt (copper melts at a little over 1000c, which seems quite hot for the inside of a boat) it is a non-issue.

 

 

Indeed, and if you look at the design of extreme weather mountaineering type camping stoves the gas feed pipe from the tank to the burner is often run through the burner itself to pre heat the gas as it travels to the burner head to help with the cold weather performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2021 at 22:37, Alan de Enfield said:

 

 

Whoever told you this is ill-informed.

When information is so readily available I do not know why folks do not do ther own research instead of relying on 'some bloke down the pub'.

 

 

Well, It was the marina who told me this - they had their 'known' examiner do the BSS and they are dealing with the repairs/amendments to get the BSS signed off.

That is why i found this thread and added my question to it - for folks with more experience than myself to comment / offer advice.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding is that it is actually quite difficult to ignite natural/bottled gas. Whereas coal gas could be lit by a glowing wire powered from a 1.5V battery, natural gases need a flame or a high temperature  spark. For the old coal gas, a Bunsen Burner only needed to consist of a tube with a variable opening at the bottom next to the gas jet to control  the amount of air mixed with the gas according to whether a cooler luminous flame or a hotter blue flame  was required. Bunsen Burners for natural gas have to have a short length of larger-diameter tube at the end, spaced apart from the main tube with a small gap, with apertures communicating with the bore of the main  tube. The space between the two tubes supports a small secondary  ring of flame at the base of the main flame that prevents the main flame from lifting off the end of the tube and going out.  When we got converted to natural gas in the 1970's I was given two new bunsen burners, but they didn't take the old ones away. I established that, the old ones indeed did go out on the blue flame settings.  If you look closely at the burners of a gas cooker, you should see that they have a small secondary ring of flame for this reason.  

 

A gas explosion can only take place when the gas/air proportion lies in a particular range.  This range is much smaller for natural gases than for the old coal gas, and you might think this makes it safer. However, given that natural gas contains more energy for the same volume than coal gas,  given an enclosed space where fresh air can only enter at a lower rate than the escape of gas, and the presence of a naked flame, the gas/air proportion of any gas will eventually reach the band, however narrow,  at which an explosion can take place. This is one reason why effective ventilation is necessary. As long as there is enough fresh air supply to keep the gas/air ratio out of the explosive region, a gas leak, for example in a gas bottle locker,  will not result in an explosion.

Edited by Ronaldo47
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2021 at 16:35, CV32 said:

Rear of bulkhead fitting through forward cabin bulkhead not

accessible (its behind the tiled stove hearth) - unable to verify

condition of joint

If the bulkhead fitting was drilled out so that the pipe passes through it uncut, then that wouldn’t be a joint? Mind you, you couldn’t tell that without taking it to bits.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/09/2021 at 20:58, David Mack said:

But if the fitter has drilled through the fitting and used a continuous length of pipe, it will still look exactly the same as the jointed arrangement, so won't be apparent to the BSS inspector, unless the joint is dismantled.

I agree the fitting would still have to be visible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 07/09/2021 at 11:35, CV32 said:

Well, It was the marina who told me this - they had their 'known' examiner do the BSS and they are dealing with the repairs/amendments to get the BSS signed off.

That is why i found this thread and added my question to it - for folks with more experience than myself to comment / offer advice.

 

 

So the marina told you that the amendment to the BSS requirement for joints to be visible was introduced in 2017 -  as I have shown it was included in every issue of the BSS from 2002 onwards - I would be very sceptical about their competence if they bulls**t about something that is so easily proven to be wrong. 

 

I would not let them do any work on my boat - I could be paying £1000's for work not needed, or work that was needed, not being done correctly.

 

Why not ask them to check the old BSS guidance documents (or you show them copies)  and then explain why they think it is a 2017 amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.