Well, it's more the way empirical testing, hydraulics and modeling, along with a multitude of other sins like backflow devices, water rates...but those are for a different tirade, are applied (or mis-applied if you will) that baffles me. First we accept hydraulic calculations on the system, a closed system that we can accurately "model" the operation of if we accept certain givens having to do condition of that system at some unknown future date, but then want a flow test of the closed system that is the municipal supply and has a number of people whose job is to keep it functional. Or we accept the model of the supply and accept the calculations for a methyl-ethyl death chemical plant but want an expensive "bucket" test on a single family residence as well as calcs (and as an aside the "witness/authority" usually wants that empirical test to hit the precise point on the acceptable curve regardless of the conditions at the time of test that have supposedly been compensated for by the required "cushion"). I watched an enviro-nazi once make a pressure wash guy block off scuppers in some curbing along a seawall so his water didn't run-off into the Sound. What it did instead was run along the curbing until the curbing (installed to keep cars from running off into the Sound) ended, then ran-off into the Sound. This was because the municipal supply had potentially too much copper for a mollusk that lived in the Sound at a location about fifty miles away, and nothing to do with the prodigious amounts of goose crap (the reason for the washing), accumulated filth coming off the building, nor the oil on the parking lot that the water crossed to get to the seawall. At the same time I was catching inspector test water and main drain water (that would naturally dump into a gravel sump within a grassy area) in a buffalo, not because of the copper, but because it was sprinkler water from a wet pipe not protected by a backflow device. My mind works logically and sometimes that logic is flawed, but I can find little to none when there is no consistency of application, each similar application is based on completely different concepts, and those different concepts seemingly don't apply to like conditions. And please don't get the idea I'm anti-environment. In a book: "The Nine Nations of North America...written in 1981 by Joel Garreau. ... argues that North America can be divided into nine regions, or "nations", which have distinctive economic and cultural features." (Wikipedia). I have lived my entire life on the West Coast north of Santa Barbara, a region Garreau named Ecotopia. I have always been hugging trees.
On Mon, Sep 7, 2009 at 8:20 AM, Ed Cyr<[email protected]> wrote: > Actual flow tests are the only way to get reliable data. > We are faced with water rationing, polluting of streams by storm drain > runoff, etc. > Modeling is becoming more prevalent. > I agree it is crap and cannot be deemed reliable. > > Ed > Alpha Fire > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, September 06, 2009 8:24 PM > Subject: Re: NFPA 25 Proposed Routine Water Supply Testing > > >> Never deal woth modeling. Actual flow tests only. Most of thje modeling I >> see is crap. >> >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> >> Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2009 02:52:13 >> To: <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: NFPA 25 Proposed Routine Water Supply Testing >> >> >> >> Once a test like a flow test is commenced I'm used to the requirement to >> continue flowing water until water is material free. On the typical casual >> basis this is water into a styrofoam cup, until a couple grabbed samples >> in a row show no material. Have your reading glasses on. Otherwise another >> water system user may be negatively impacted, ie. have product ruined. >> >> A flow test uses an amazing amount of water. 50K gallons would not be >> exceptional. >> >> Has anyone asked who is going to pay for the water? It's not free. >> >> I'm used to seeing modeling results for design. Is anyone still doing the >> pitot routine? >> >> Yours, >> >> Bruce Verhei >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "David de Vries" <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2009 9:06:48 PM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific >> Subject: NFPA 25 Proposed Routine Water Supply Testing >> >> There is a proposal in NFPA 25 to require water supply testing for >> sprinkler systems every 5 years. No trigger, like new, high-demand >> construction in the area or deterioration in the main drain test >> results -- just every 5 years run the test. This passed the committee on a >> vote of 24 to 5. >> >> Anybody out there doing water supply testing for existing systems when >> there is no indication of a deteriorated supply? Any owners asking for it? >> >> Sorry for the late heads-up. Comments on this, and all the rest of the 205 >> proposals, are due to NFPA by 5:00 p.m. EDT Friday. I will be up early to >> prep some comments myself. >> >> Dave >> >> David A. de Vries, P.E., CSP >> Firetech Engineering Incorporated >> >> >> >> --- >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.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 >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.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 >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.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 > [email protected] > http://fireball.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) > -- Ron Greenman Instructor Fire Protection Engineering Bates Technical College Tacoma, WA Member: SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
