I had a architect ask me about using this in a combustible church
attic. I was skeptical and did a little investigating. The tests that
produced the results had a minimum film thickness in order to work
properly. How do you verify the minimum thickness in a field
application? My guess is that the tests shown (by UL Canada only)
were not done on assembled structures, but on individual pieces of
material that were coated under near ideal conditions. What would
happen in a structure coated after assembly? Why is there no UL
-United States or FM tests? Too many questions for me; I'd walk away.
(So did the architect referenced above)
Todd
At 04:15 PM 1/10/2007, you wrote:
Has anyone seen this product?
It touts that it replaces sprinklers in combustible concealed spaces,
under NFPA-13.
If you have seen it, pros and cons?
http://www.eaglecoatings.net/content/safecoatlatex.htm
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc.
2006 Inductee into "The Players Hall of Fame"
at The Great Games of Business
Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers, Inc. "Best Places to Work"
Rated #1 in 2006
Large Business Category
by Orlando Business Journal
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
