I like Ken's suggestion he be required to run the two sets and see which is
most demanding. No confusion or debating after that.
Garth
retired fitter
----- Original Message -----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:18 PM
Subject: Re: 1.2 Leg of Remote Area
Jimmy,
Three thoughts.
First, how's he ignoring the requirement that the minimum 1.2 x sqrt of
MRA must be parallel to the branch lines?
Second, how's he ignoring 22.4.4.1.1.3, which allows for such cases?
Third, make him do two calculations, one his way, one the way we're
describing it to you, and see which one is most demanding. All things
being equal, his way won't be.
Then ask him to guarantee in writing, and back it up with a bond, that
there won't ever be a fire in which grows to achieve the worst case flow,
and see what he says.
And hey, maybe he's right and the rest of us have been wrong all these
years. We can always learn something.
PARSLEY CONSULTING
Ken Wagoner, SET
760.745.6181 voice
760.745.0537 fax
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail
www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected]
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[email protected]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
