We've had a couple of e-mail exchanges and the gist of the matter is the systems he designed were done back in that era. From what he described as his NEW system, it is basically similar to the 13D/13R type systems we have today. Small piping, few heads calculated and small riser size. He actually performed a hydraulic analysis for the piping network which was gridded. While the norm for the period was pipe schedule tree systems, his system used a lot of 3/4 - 1" copper pipe. Thus his reference to the plumbing installers. Of course this system was in line with any other water system plumbers were installing. He supposedly did some field testing and it met "some" criteria but the big, ugly NFPA/UL/FM Code ogres were there to discredit him and run him out of business no matter where he went.
If it wasn't for the bitterness and psycho-conspiracy babble, some of his information probably was legit. But at that time in history who was sprinkling houses and light hazard occupancies? Probably few. He did not specify what type of heads were used only that they were spaced on 20x20 centers. He also believed that any fire could be extinguished or controlled by only one head with far less water than what the NFPA standards were calling for. The big problem with ant of his information is that it is out of date. 20-30 year old issues are non-issues today. The other issue is that he never considered or appeared to address occupancies beyond residential or what he considered Light or Extra-Light Hazard. It is just hard to read past all the conspiracy jargon and some gross errors. He also never noted any references of where he got his information, and besides that, for a professional paper, needed spell check really bad. Definitely not a guy who could stand to play by the rules, he designed and installed non-code compliant systems in various states. His view was that when he was found installing these state-of-the-art, low cost systems that the Sprinkler Police would seek him out and force him out of business. Actually he probably got caught and his business license revoked so he would just pick up the show and move elsewhere. Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Cahill Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:55 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Wow Well I have the report or to say an article from Hospitals Feb 1, 1977 published by the American Hospital Association - No the date is not a typo. So the date is the first things that jumps out so pricing needs to be dated. It's written by Patton and the Director of the Division of Architectural Services for the State of Kansas. It describes a very large hospital not unlike we'd think today. The article is scarce on detail we could "learn" from. To that end here are some interesting items. I paraphrase "Most industries face double inflation...labor and materials are expected....for the past 10 years new safety regs have been added...So a smoke detector costs more and more of them are required...double inflation." Or perhaps those setting the budget didn't keep up with the times, sound familiar today? I paraphrase again "After being 10 mill over budget on a $50 mill project (in 1977 dollars) the State Arch investigated other facilities for ideas....hired FPE (Patton)...substituted new sprinklers for conventional sprinkler systems...smaller pipe saved money...also provided composite safety plan." I was riding BMX bikes and playing Little League in 1977 anyone have an idea on what new vs. conventional means. EC I don't think existed. I don't think old style vs spray style was the issue. Could mean pipe schedule vs. calcs to trim pipe size? Any ideas? But see below sounds hard to believe the cost of smaller pipe saved that much when at least today labor is the expensive part. Continuing "sprinkler primary safety tool...eliminated excessive fire protection...fire proofing...alarms....others were modified.." "Basement only standard sprinkles in original bid...$403,000, 140,000 sq. ft. (in 1977 dollars)....new sprinklers throughout $431,136, 850,000 sq.ft. (I don't know if that includes the bsmt or not) plus saving on all other fire items....$5 mill total savings to project." Even back then sounds like someone really screwed up in the specifying the first time around. Overall I'd say it's very pro sprinkler, especially for the time. Further considering the time it's perhaps an early example of performance based design, alternate methods which really saved the big portion of the money. Although, I still have doubts about the sprinkler costs above. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 -----Original Message----- From: Chris Cahill [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 1:40 PM To: '[email protected]' Subject: RE: Wow I have one coming as well. Note he said it was DESIGNED for $0.35. I'm sure he meant designed and installed but on face value that's not what was written. Of course it doesn't say what year either. Maybe in 1950's dollars when you really needed 4 heads in a 16'x16'room because the EC technology wasn't around. We'll see. Chris Cahill, P.E. Fire Protection Engineer Sentry Fire Protection, Inc. 763-658-4483 763-658-4921 fax Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mail: P.O. Box 69 Waverly, MN 55390 Location: 4439 Hwy 12 SW Waverly, MN 55390 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
