Good to remind all of this. I was not part of the development but did
review it around that time. I found it to be rather good. The math was
sound for the time. What I mean is this was before the 0.05 and the modern
crop of res heads so I can't swear the GPM and pressures are the same.
Why
I reviewed this about ten years ago and I found the concept to be good
but there were many anomalies in the execution that put me off. I
don't recall what the exact issues were but the taste they left in my
mouth drove me back to 13D exclusively. On the other hand the rule of
thumb or schedule
We had this very discussion at work yesterday. If Washington State were
actually successful in adopting the IRC as it reads I personally don't
believe there are enough sprinkler companies to do the work as conventional
(bid, design, permit, then install and test). We discussed how electricians
Or sadly, one of their children.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Jim Johnston
j...@inlandfireprotection.com wrote:
We had this very discussion at work yesterday. If Washington State were
actually successful in adopting the IRC as it reads I personally don't
believe there are enough sprinkler
All:
Was this guide written to before or after the 13-D committee added the min
gpm/sf requirement?
Yours,
Bruce Verhei
- Original Message -
From: Ron Greenman rongreen...@gmail.com
To: sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 3:49:02 PM GMT -08:00
As far as I know this was written before there were any residential
heads except Omegas and the calcs are based on the 0.04 density.
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:04 PM, bver...@comcast.net wrote:
All:
Was this guide written to before or after the 13-D committee added the min
gpm/sf
