the market. There are probably more that I cannot remember.
Mike Brown
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 5:34 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Mike,
My
Chris,
The simple reason is that the test for K25s was run at 50 psi because
the manufacturer wanted a success and there was no previous data. The
test could be re-run at a lower pressure anytime somebody wants to to
risk the money it would cost.
K25 applications are based on individual
is a guess.
Thanks again for your insight.
George Church
Rowe Sprinkler
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe Hankins
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 12:18 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Snip
I was reading from the cut sheet, technically FM criteria. NFPA according
to the cut sheet there is no protection scheme for the K25. Even in the
table you reference there is no ESFR 25 for this.
As far as flows 25's = 178gpm, 17's = 99.4pgm and 14's 99 gpm. So I can go
along with the
Cahill [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
I was reading from the cut sheet, technically FM criteria. NFPA according
to the cut sheet there is no protection scheme for the K25. Even in the
table you
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 1:50 PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: Re: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
The main point James has made for class I-IV, is that the lower end of the
curve, may actually work most of the time, but as soon as you try to rise up
the curve the greater the risk
Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Thom-
If you're a contractor- and I know you don't just play one on TV :)-
You're a risk-taker. In this litigious society, you can be held liable for
meeting the adopted standard, but not applying a newer code. Or, for that
matter, the reverse. So even
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Thom-
If you're a contractor- and I know you don't just play one on TV :)-
You're a risk-taker. In this litigious society, you can be held liable for
meeting the adopted standard, but not applying a newer code. Or, for that
matter
PM
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Subject: RE: ESFR Pressure Anomaly
Before you get too excited about the engineering process and testing I offer
the following:
In the early 70's, GEM (Not called Tyco then) had a HSW that covered 16 x 28
ft. It was UL Listed until they figured out
