mber 25, 2019 7:52 AM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Matt Grise
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Have they ever clarified what kind of “confusion” they are trying to avoid?
Is there a difference in how a fire department deals with a wet system vs a dry
system?
] On
Behalf Of Ron Greenman via Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 5:08 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Mike, that would be a non-functional fire protection device that has the
appearance of functioning
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Mike, that would be a non-functional fire protection device that has the
appearance of functioning as described in 901.4.5 and would be required to be
removed as proscribed therein. This DPV though
ike Hill
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:
> sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Ron
> Greenman via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:54 PM
> *To:* sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> *Cc:* Ron Greenman
> *Sub
Sprinklerforum
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:54 PM
To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
Cc: Ron Greenman
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the IFC)
but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety
ject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Mark, I think that you're referencing 901.4.5 (in the 2012 edition of the IFC)
but that is addressing systems that appear to be life safety or fire protection
systems but don't function as such. A common example is a camera disguised as a
sprinkler
ps via Sprinklerforum
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:33 PM
> To: sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org
> Cc: Mark.Phelps
> Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
>
> There is an obscure section in the fire code that essentially says you’re not
> allowed to have anything
-614-449-2101 Ext. 3367
>
> F-614-449-2007
>
> C-614-348-8206
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Sprinklerforum [
> mailto:sprinklerforum-boun...@lists.firesprinkler.org
> ] *On Behalf Of *Mark.Phelps
> via Sprinklerforum
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
> *To
ay, September 24, 2019 3:15 PM
To:
sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve wit
nklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org<mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>
Cc: Mark.Phelps mailto:mphe...@aerofire.com>>
Subject: Re: [EXTERNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone
would removing the clapper void the listing?
On Sep 24, 2019, at 3:15 PM, Mark.Phelps via Sprinklerforum
wrote:
Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve
with a spool?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum
RNAL] FW: Dry Pipe Valve to Wet
Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
wrote:
From: John Paulsen
Sen
Just curious, but wouldn’t it be about the same to just replace the valve with
a spool?
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 24, 2019, at 12:08 PM, John Paulsen via Sprinklerforum
mailto:sprinklerforum@lists.firesprinkler.org>>
wrote:
From: John Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 10:06 AM
To:
13 matches
Mail list logo
