Re: Another anti-freeze question or teo
I spoke with UL last week regarding another issue. The testing standard for UL is complete and ready for companies to get it and develop their product. A UL rep told me there was only one company that had an interest in the testing standard. I believe it's going to be some time before listed anti-freeze solutions are available. Tom Wellen - AFSA On Sep 18, 2014, at 10:15 PM, Forest Wilson forestwilso...@gmail.com wrote: I think that UL would be the listing lab. On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Todd - Work t...@fpdc.com wrote: Is there any progress on developing a listed anti-freeze solution? Who would be the listing agency? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
13D multiple tank system
When using multiple tanks for a 13D (or 13R) system, is there any special arrangement for the suction piping? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age
Good Article by Tom Wellen in current Sprinkler Age. Tom did the original modeling in 2000, and came up with max gap width 8 (to not need heads above). The recent tests and modeling confirmed that, but showed it was reasonable to extend it to allow 1 gap width per foot of ceiling height, so at 12'-0 ceiling height the gap between clouds could be 12 and not need heads above. There are other rules that apply. I found it disturbing that the TC decided to go conservative after all that and say 8 max gap width PERIOD. That really gives the Architects a lot of leeway in the design phase... (frigging) NOT! Design by Committee. That is something to NITMAM if I ever did see one, and I will if I get a chance. Is there somewhere I can see whom voted for what on this issue, a link or something? I've been stewing over this for a few days now, and it doesn't help to 'talk it out'. Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age (Get Involved)
Brad, you need to 1) start submitting proposals and comments during the NFPA Standards cycle, and/or 2) apply for a seat on one of the Technical Committees. It is an awakening process to see the way a typical committee operates. In my experience there is a handful of opinion leaders on each committee who drive the process forward. It's best to figure out who these individuals are and attempt to understand their motivations. The process is set up to make it difficult to overturn committee actions. This is good or bad depending on your point of view. All this said, it is actually possible to affect a change if you are persistent. The NFPA website has all the proposals and comments for each Standard, along with the committee action. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age Good Article by Tom Wellen in current Sprinkler Age. Tom did the original modeling in 2000, and came up with max gap width 8 (to not need heads above). The recent tests and modeling confirmed that, but showed it was reasonable to extend it to allow 1 gap width per foot of ceiling height, so at 12'-0 ceiling height the gap between clouds could be 12 and not need heads above. There are other rules that apply. I found it disturbing that the TC decided to go conservative after all that and say 8 max gap width PERIOD. That really gives the Architects a lot of leeway in the design phase... (frigging) NOT! Design by Committee. That is something to NITMAM if I ever did see one, and I will if I get a chance. Is there somewhere I can see whom voted for what on this issue, a link or something? I've been stewing over this for a few days now, and it doesn't help to 'talk it out'. Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age (Get Involved)
Thanks Bill. I would like to sit in on TC meetings, in the corner perhaps, napping on and off, and I would feel qualified enough to be the person who went out for coffee and sandwiches in the wee hours of the debate. It takes me too long to figure things out though to catch anything early in the process. This issue is different-- 14 years ago Tom's results were not accepted because there was not enough data, tests, calculations, etc., to back them up. Now his results ARE accepted-- why? Is it because they are backed-up now? No. It is because 1 max gap width per foot of ceiling height has been shown to be conservative in itself, so the only hammer SOMBODY had left was to 'virtually limit the ceiling height'. Ridiculous. Thanks again Mr. Brooks, Brad -Original Message- From: Bill Brooks [mailto:bill.bro...@brooksfpe.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:10 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age (Get Involved) Brad, you need to 1) start submitting proposals and comments during the NFPA Standards cycle, and/or 2) apply for a seat on one of the Technical Committees. It is an awakening process to see the way a typical committee operates. In my experience there is a handful of opinion leaders on each committee who drive the process forward. It's best to figure out who these individuals are and attempt to understand their motivations. The process is set up to make it difficult to overturn committee actions. This is good or bad depending on your point of view. All this said, it is actually possible to affect a change if you are persistent. The NFPA website has all the proposals and comments for each Standard, along with the committee action. Bill Brooks -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 9:39 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Cloud Ceiling Article in Sprinkler Age Good Article by Tom Wellen in current Sprinkler Age. Tom did the original modeling in 2000, and came up with max gap width 8 (to not need heads above). The recent tests and modeling confirmed that, but showed it was reasonable to extend it to allow 1 gap width per foot of ceiling height, so at 12'-0 ceiling height the gap between clouds could be 12 and not need heads above. There are other rules that apply. I found it disturbing that the TC decided to go conservative after all that and say 8 max gap width PERIOD. That really gives the Architects a lot of leeway in the design phase... (frigging) NOT! Design by Committee. That is something to NITMAM if I ever did see one, and I will if I get a chance. Is there somewhere I can see whom voted for what on this issue, a link or something? I've been stewing over this for a few days now, and it doesn't help to 'talk it out'. Brad Casterline, NICET IV Fire Protection Division FSC, Inc. P: 913-722-3473 bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com www.fsc-inc.com Engineering Solutions for the Built Environment ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: 13D multiple tank system
I'm probably stating the obvious: connect tanks at the bottom (parallel or series), each tank to be vented at the top. Ed Kramer Lawrence, KS -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Todd - Work Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 7:56 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: 13D multiple tank system When using multiple tanks for a 13D (or 13R) system, is there any special arrangement for the suction piping? Todd G Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT www.fpdc.com 860-535-2080 (ofc) ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Sprinkler statistics
Franz: The pp. 8 table you graciously referred, indicates these fires were extinguished not controlled. Do the Dutch parse these words per NFPA definitions, or could this difference be a result of translation? In the big scheme, the difference is trifling when comparing losses from sprinklered vs non-sprinklered fires. I am simply curious on your take on this angle. Many firefighters will confirm, at least for commercial and residential fires, one could virtually extinguish with a few buckets of water, any remaining fire not extinguished by a well designed, installed and maintained sprinkler system. Scot Deal Excelsior Risk/Fire Engineering On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Frans Stoop f.st...@fo.nl wrote: This is what I found on the Dutch CIBV site: http://cibv.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Sprinkler_ Statistics_2011-2012a.pdf The table is on page 8. The last column is the most significant, but the figures are about fires controlled by sprinklers in the Netherlands only. Apparently we have 10 million sprinklers installed. Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Frans Stoop ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
No Longitudinal Bracing
So I enter a new underground parking area and look up at the fire sprinkler piping hanging from a concrete deck. As I look I notice there is no bracing other than a 4X at the top of the riser. From the top of the riser it travels out about 4' feet and makes a 90 degree turn and travels about 15'. At that point it makes a 90 degree turn at a T and makes it's longest run of approximately 70'. From there it makes a 90 degree turn for a run of approximately 40'. All the hangers are less than 6 so that explains the no lateral bracing. My question is, what about longitudinal bracing? I looked in 13 chapter 9 and it appears that longitudinal bracing would be required. Am I missing something? I work exclusively with 13D systems, I don't do commercial but I am interested in this situation. Owen Evans First-In Residential Design ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: No Longitudinal Bracing
There isn't an exception for longitudinal bracing. The exception for lateral bracing is where the distance from the point of anchorage (concrete deck, in this case) to the top of pipe is 6 or less. The standard used to say where rods were 6 or less, but now it's the distance from the anchor to top of pipe, which means rods measurably less than 6. The scenario you describe requires at least longitudinal bracing. SML -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:35 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: No Longitudinal Bracing So I enter a new underground parking area and look up at the fire sprinkler piping hanging from a concrete deck. As I look I notice there is no bracing other than a 4X at the top of the riser. From the top of the riser it travels out about 4' feet and makes a 90 degree turn and travels about 15'. At that point it makes a 90 degree turn at a T and makes it's longest run of approximately 70'. From there it makes a 90 degree turn for a run of approximately 40'. All the hangers are less than 6 so that explains the no lateral bracing. My question is, what about longitudinal bracing? I looked in 13 chapter 9 and it appears that longitudinal bracing would be required. Am I missing something? I work exclusively with 13D systems, I don't do commercial but I am interested in this situation. Owen Evans First-In Residential Design ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: No Longitudinal Bracing
If it is in a seismic zone. We do 4 ways at the top of risers only even though Phoenix is not in a seismic zone. Maybe that is what he saw. Ron F -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:43 AM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: No Longitudinal Bracing There isn't an exception for longitudinal bracing. The exception for lateral bracing is where the distance from the point of anchorage (concrete deck, in this case) to the top of pipe is 6 or less. The standard used to say where rods were 6 or less, but now it's the distance from the anchor to top of pipe, which means rods measurably less than 6. The scenario you describe requires at least longitudinal bracing. SML -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Owen Evans Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 10:35 AM To: sprinklerfo...@firesprinkler.org Subject: No Longitudinal Bracing So I enter a new underground parking area and look up at the fire sprinkler piping hanging from a concrete deck. As I look I notice there is no bracing other than a 4X at the top of the riser. From the top of the riser it travels out about 4' feet and makes a 90 degree turn and travels about 15'. At that point it makes a 90 degree turn at a T and makes it's longest run of approximately 70'. From there it makes a 90 degree turn for a run of approximately 40'. All the hangers are less than 6 so that explains the no lateral bracing. My question is, what about longitudinal bracing? I looked in 13 chapter 9 and it appears that longitudinal bracing would be required. Am I missing something? I work exclusively with 13D systems, I don't do commercial but I am interested in this situation. Owen Evans First-In Residential Design ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler .org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Pipe Schedule velocity limitations
* and I will question everything else the specifier has to say!* It is realized this statement was made tongue-in-cheek. Point is though, instead of judging the person, judge the decision or action. To question EVERYthing a person has to say after they make a mistake, is perhaps on par with expecting a politician to continue malfeasance after being caught once, with their hand in the cookie jar. Velocity limitations are still used in oil gas specifications, today. I have yet to hear of a good reason for them. Some claim water hammer, which is a matter with 24-inch diameters, but soft-start pumps can jump that hurdle, and most of the lines are looped which dampens other concerns coming and going. We don't question the motivations of oil and gas corporations, just because they still use velocity limitations. Scot Deal Excelsior Risk/Fire Engineering ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Pipe Schedule velocity limitations
So the next time I see a spec that limits the velocity I'll know that is from the old days- when the pipe size was the same whether the water supply was very poor or very good ;), and I will question everything else the specifier has to say! Brad Casterline AFSA Designer Member *** How you doing Scott! yes tongue tongue-in-cheek because I question everything everybody has to say. If they are quoting code I question the code :) I have no idea whether they will go up or down when they die however. (i hope up) Brad -Original Message- From: å... [mailto:eurekaig...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 12:59 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Pipe Schedule velocity limitations *? and I will question everything else the specifier has to say!* It is realized this statement was made tongue-in-cheek. Point is though, instead of judging the person, judge the decision or action. To question EVERYthing a person has to say after they make a mistake, is perhaps on par with expecting a politician to continue malfeasance after being caught once, with their hand in the cookie jar. Velocity limitations are still used in oil gas specifications, today. I have yet to hear of a good reason for them. Some claim water hammer, which is a matter with 24-inch diameters, but soft-start pumps can jump that hurdle, and most of the lines are looped which dampens other concerns coming and going. We don't question the motivations of oil and gas corporations, just because they still use velocity limitations. ?Scot Deal Excelsior Risk/Fire Engineering? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? -- *Jay Stough* NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Pipe Schedule velocity limitations
I have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect most engineers calling for velocity restrictions are doing it because it was what they were taught and/or it was in their company's specs. WHY it is in the specs is most likely due to plumbing standards being intermingled with sprinkler standards, which makes some sense when you consider all mechanical was lumped together in Div. 15 (until CSI changed their format and put sprinklers into Div. 13, then Div. 21). The plumbing standards want lower velocities to reduce noise as well as to eliminate pitting from high velocity flow. We all know these are bogus reasons for sprinkler systems that almost never flow, and have an even lower chance of flowing at the design flow rates. Has anyone else heard different reasons (regardless validity) for velocity restrictions? Mark A. Sornsin, P.E. | Karges-Faulconbridge, Inc. | Fire Protection Engineer | Fargo, ND | direct: 701.552.9905 | mobile: 701.371.5759 | http://www.kfiengineers.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Pipe Schedule velocity limitations So the next time I see a spec that limits the velocity I'll know that is from the old days- when the pipe size was the same whether the water supply was very poor or very good ;), and I will question everything else the specifier has to say! Brad Casterline AFSA Designer Member *** __ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com __ ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I havent been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
Cliff, I thought about that, however the only place I could find language like that in the '07 was in the section on Large Drop sprinklers, which does not apply to that model. Or maybe it does, it's just that I've been stuck on the '13 edition for so long I'm a bit confused going backwards. Could the V3404 be regarded as a CMSA/Large Drop? The large drop tables I'm looking at in my '07 edition show the CMSA as having specific pressure requirements, while the V3404 clearly notes it can be used for storage in an area/density method. Lots to think about. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 1:02 PM, Cliff Whitfield wrote: Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I haven’t been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
This was bugging me so I had to stop and look it up. NFPA 13 - 2010 8.6.5.2.1.8 The requirements of 8.6.5.2.1.3 shall not apply to sprinkler system piping less than 3 in. in diameter. The commentary goes on to say that sprigs or riser nipples (or offsetting the heads) are required on 3 and larger pipe. This is for SSU heads. Not only Large Drop. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe Cliff, I thought about that, however the only place I could find language like that in the '07 was in the section on Large Drop sprinklers, which does not apply to that model. Or maybe it does, it's just that I've been stuck on the '13 edition for so long I'm a bit confused going backwards. Could the V3404 be regarded as a CMSA/Large Drop? The large drop tables I'm looking at in my '07 edition show the CMSA as having specific pressure requirements, while the V3404 clearly notes it can be used for storage in an area/density method. Lots to think about. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 1:02 PM, Cliff Whitfield wrote: Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I havent been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
Cliff I recall we changed this in the 2013 edition. I do not have in front of me but check that edition as well. Pete Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, FL 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com We’re hiring great people at all of our locations! Please check out our website for the details! From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf of Cliff Whitfield [cl...@fire-design.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe This was bugging me so I had to stop and look it up. NFPA 13 - 2010 8.6.5.2.1.8 The requirements of 8.6.5.2.1.3 shall not apply to sprinkler system piping less than 3 in. in diameter. The commentary goes on to say that sprigs or riser nipples (or offsetting the heads) are required on 3 and larger pipe. This is for SSU heads. Not only Large Drop. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe Cliff, I thought about that, however the only place I could find language like that in the '07 was in the section on Large Drop sprinklers, which does not apply to that model. Or maybe it does, it's just that I've been stuck on the '13 edition for so long I'm a bit confused going backwards. Could the V3404 be regarded as a CMSA/Large Drop? The large drop tables I'm looking at in my '07 edition show the CMSA as having specific pressure requirements, while the V3404 clearly notes it can be used for storage in an area/density method. Lots to think about. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 1:02 PM, Cliff Whitfield wrote: Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I haven’t been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
Pete, I did check it there before I posted. It reads the same. Maybe you guys are changing it in the next edition? Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:35 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe Cliff I recall we changed this in the 2013 edition. I do not have in front of me but check that edition as well. Pete Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, FL 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com Were hiring great people at all of our locations! Please check out our website for the details! From: Sprinklerforum [sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] on behalf of Cliff Whitfield [cl...@fire-design.com] Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 4:32 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe This was bugging me so I had to stop and look it up. NFPA 13 - 2010 8.6.5.2.1.8 The requirements of 8.6.5.2.1.3 shall not apply to sprinkler system piping less than 3 in. in diameter. The commentary goes on to say that sprigs or riser nipples (or offsetting the heads) are required on 3 and larger pipe. This is for SSU heads. Not only Large Drop. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 2:18 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe Cliff, I thought about that, however the only place I could find language like that in the '07 was in the section on Large Drop sprinklers, which does not apply to that model. Or maybe it does, it's just that I've been stuck on the '13 edition for so long I'm a bit confused going backwards. Could the V3404 be regarded as a CMSA/Large Drop? The large drop tables I'm looking at in my '07 edition show the CMSA as having specific pressure requirements, while the V3404 clearly notes it can be used for storage in an area/density method. Lots to think about. *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 1:02 PM, Cliff Whitfield wrote: Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I havent been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl er.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Re: Sprinkler statistics
To Russell and others. I do have a copy of Marryatt's later book and the tabulated results corresponding to Russell's are :- 1 head 64.55 % 2. 15.86 3. 6.13 4. 3.21 5. 2.09 This is up to 1986. It is a very long table recording fire up to 113 heads Fires controlled 99.46 % Australia and New Zealand statistics John Powell NZ Sent from my iPad On 19/09/2014, at 1:19 pm, Frans Stoop f.st...@fo.nl wrote: Russell, Thanks! That's an interesting source of figures indeed. Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Frans Stoop TOS architecture fire protection Netherlands f.st...@tosfire.com Tel. +31-24-324 0112 At 15:35 18-9-2014 +1200, you wrote: When I joined Wormald in New Zealand 50 years ago they used this type of table in the promotion of Fire Sprinkler systems. The figures came from the records that Wormald kept on all sprinkler fires in Australia and New Zealand. I also think that Mather and Platt did a similar record in the UK. In the book Fire - Automatic Sprinklers in Australia and New Zealand 1886 - 1968 by Harry Marryatt there is very good analysis of that time period. It was updated his 1986 edition which I think was called A Century of Fire Sprinklers( I don't have a copy of the later book). The figures in 1968 were; 66.6% 1 head 15.6% 2 heads 5.9%3 heads 3.2% 4 heads 1.6%5 heads So 93% of sprinklered fires were 5 heads or less. There were 5720 recorded fires in this study. Satisfactory operation was 99.76% with 0.24% unsatisfactory incidents (14) Wormald still keep a record of sprinkler saves on our systems, but the NZ and Australian Fire Protection Associations and the NZ Fire Service try to keep a full list, but it lacks the Technical Detail that was recorded for over 100 years in the Wormald record. Trust this is of interest. Russell Gregory Christchurch, New Zealand -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Frans Stoop Sent: Thursday, 18 September 2014 4:53 a.m. To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Sprinkler statistics Gentlemen, Once I saw a sprinkler statistic table saying something like this (I don't remember the exact percentages): Regarding fires that are succesfully controlled by sprinklers 50 % of the fires by 1 sprinkler 66 % of the fires by 1 or 2 sprinklers 75 % of the fires by upto 3 sprinklers 80 % of the fires by upto 4 sprinklers 83 % of the fires by upto 5 sprinklers etcetera... Does anyone recognize this table? If so, any idea where I can find it? I already found some statistics on the NFPA, AFSA, FM, SFPE and CIBV websites, but couldn't find this simple table. Met vriendelijke groet / Best regards, Frans Stoop TOS architecture fire protection Netherlands f.st...@tosfire.com Tel. +31-24-324 0112 ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
I am talking about uprights without sprigs. I don't have NFPA 13 in front of me, but I found under obstructions where you can put sprinklers directly on the pipe up to 2-1/2. This was also found in the section for extended coverage and Large Drop. Also, the V3403 can be used for storage, but it is listed as a standard spray sprinkler. I was going to advise the customer that he should have these changed before signing a lease. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Cliff Whitfield cl...@fire-design.com wrote: Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I haven’t been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- *Jay Stough* NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe
That was my on your first post without looking up the head and just going with your ssu determination. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 19, 2014, at 4:47 PM, Jay Stough jaycs7...@gmail.com wrote: I am talking about uprights without sprigs. I don't have NFPA 13 in front of me, but I found under obstructions where you can put sprinklers directly on the pipe up to 2-1/2. This was also found in the section for extended coverage and Large Drop. Also, the V3403 can be used for storage, but it is listed as a standard spray sprinkler. I was going to advise the customer that he should have these changed before signing a lease. On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 4:02 PM, Cliff Whitfield cl...@fire-design.com wrote: Ken, I assumed Jay was talking about having 3 lines without sprigs to the sprinklers. I haven’t been where I could confirm in the book but I believe if this is what he's talking about, the heads would be required to be on sprigs. Cliff Whitfield, SET President Fire Design, Inc. Ph: 719-488-3479 cl...@fire-design.com www.fire-design.com -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] On Behalf Of Parsley Consulting Sent: Friday, September 19, 2014 1:47 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Sprinklers on 3 Pipe I'm not sure Jay. The tech sheet I looked at just now seems to suggest that in either the upright or pendent V3403 are listed for storage, when using density/area. I looked at Victaulic sheet 40.20. Did you come across something else? *Ken Wagoner, SET *Parsley Consulting*** *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 *Escondido, California 92025 *Phone 760-745-6181* Visit our website http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/ *** On 9/19/2014 11:36 AM, Jay Stough wrote: I have a customer that is moving into a warehouse that was renovated in 2013, using NFPA 13 (2007). They have Victaulic 3403 upright sprinklers directly on 3 pipe. Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure this sprinkler is listed as a standard upright sprinkler and cannot be installed this way. I have checked the spec sheet and appears to be a large orifice standard spray sprinkler. Am I correct or am I missing a listing for this sprinkler? ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org -- *Jay Stough* NICET IV LAYOUT NICET III ITM ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Formality question
Why do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Formality question
Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Formality question
And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Formality question
It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Formality question
Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007. You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process was truly served. I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: Don't like it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process. How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what they say about government, right? People generally get the government they deserve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Formality question It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
RE: Formality question
I meant that first sentence to say phrasing. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Steve Leyton Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:24 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org; sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: RE: Formality question Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007. You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process was truly served. I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: Don't like it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process. How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what they say about government, right? People generally get the government they deserve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Formality question It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Formality question
Very we'll said Steve. Could not agree more. Get involved is the bottom line. It makes you stay current and you see what is the intent of the standard. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:20 AM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007. You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process was truly served. I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: Don't like it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process. How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what they say about government, right? People generally get the government they deserve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Formality question It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Formality question
Well thanks guys. I thought I was down for the count but hell, I might be just getting started. I did get an NFPA 2015 C E (get outta here Chicago in June shut up ) Education Session proposal in under the wire. On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:23 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Very we'll said Steve. Could not agree more. Get involved is the bottom line. It makes you stay current and you see what is the intent of the standard. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:20 AM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007. You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process was truly served. I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: Don't like it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process. How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what they say about government, right? People generally get the government they deserve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Formality question It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Formality question
All I can do now is keep my fingers crossed til about mid Nov to see if it is accepted or not On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:37 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Well thanks guys. I thought I was down for the count but hell, I might be just getting started. I did get an NFPA 2015 C E (get outta here Chicago in June shut up ) Education Session proposal in under the wire. On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:23 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Very we'll said Steve. Could not agree more. Get involved is the bottom line. It makes you stay current and you see what is the intent of the standard. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:20 AM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007. You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process was truly served. I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: Don't like it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process. How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what they say about government, right? People generally get the government they deserve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Formality question It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
Re: Formality question
If I make it, I will be a co-presenter again- but try harder to speak this time. It will be my 2nd convention in my 40 year career, and be the 2nd in a row, and I will be dragging the Presenter to the podium, and in his hands will be HIS original Printouts of The Very First Density/Area Curves and supporting calculations. On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:51 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: All I can do now is keep my fingers crossed til about mid Nov to see if it is accepted or not On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:37 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: Well thanks guys. I thought I was down for the count but hell, I might be just getting started. I did get an NFPA 2015 C E (get outta here Chicago in June shut up ) Education Session proposal in under the wire. On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:23 PM, John Denhardt jdenha...@stricklandfire.com wrote: Very we'll said Steve. Could not agree more. Get involved is the bottom line. It makes you stay current and you see what is the intent of the standard. Sent from my iPhone On Sep 20, 2014, at 12:20 AM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Kidding aside, committee members are most familiar with phasing and contextual issues - for most standards, in any given cycle at least half and sometimes 2/3 of the proposals are what we refer to as editorial or clean-up. NFPA 14 was a formatting mess when I got on and we've completely overhauled it in 4 cycles, intentionally drawing out the reorganization so we could get stuff into the sections where they belonged. This extended to the definitions, chapterization ... the whole standard was considered new in 2007. You have to also remember that most committees include members who serve that committee because they are especially expert and/or interested in that topic. Who better to propose to that standard? There's no conflict of interest in that the proposals and committee actions are available for public review and comment - the process is pretty transparent and as Roland explained, there's a Spanish Inquisition at the end for those who don't think the consensus process was truly served. I have said this hundreds of times over the last few years: Don't like it? Change it! Make a proposal, make a comment, get involved in the process. How many people reading this have been to the annual NFPA Life Safety Conference? How many stayed for the code hearing? You know what they say about government, right? People generally get the government they deserve. -Original Message- From: Sprinklerforum on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Fri 9/19/2014 9:15 PM To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org Subject: Re: Formality question It just seems like a conflict of interest, which is fine for my government, I just wouldn't want it in my 13, 14, 20, or 24 On Sep 19, 2014, at 11:03 PM, Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com wrote: And you forget you are one of the heavy lifters and think you can spot with one hand and drink wid the other? On Sep 19, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Steve Leyton st...@protectiondesign.com wrote: Because most of us drink so much after the meetings we lose track of what's already on the docket. Steve div Original message /divdivFrom: Brad Casterline bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com /divdivDate:09/19/2014 8:35 PM (GMT-08:00) /divdivTo: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org /divdivSubject: Formality question /divdiv /divWhy do Technical Committee Members submit Public Input? Thanks, Brad Casterline ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org ___ Sprinklerforum mailing list Sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
