Is this "forward flow test" now part of the required code? I was just on a job the other day. New Construction. I noticed that all the systems had a setup with (2) 2 1/2" hose valves after the backflow and alarm valve, in addition to the 2" main drain. I take it that these 2 1/2's are for this test? In a message dated 7/29/2013 3:57:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes:
That isn't what the intent of the code is as stated.....just flow at system demand. I can only speak for us, but we do a LOT of risers with only a 250 gpm or so demand...sometimes even less. A 4" drain is well over what we need to open it up enough for system demand. I would bet a 2" drain gets really close. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:52 PM, David Autry <[email protected]> wrote: > Wouldn't it be easier, if you have a 4" backflow preventer you run 4" out > the wall, 3" BFP, 3" out the wall, etc... > That should open her up all the way. > > > David Autry > > Meininger Fire Protection Inc. > 2521 W L St. Suite No.4 > Lincoln, Ne 68522 > Voice (402) 466-2616 > Fax (402) 466-2617 > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg > McGahan > Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 2:35 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow Test > > What would be simple and helpful would be a table similar to the one used > for sizing fire pump Suction/Discharge/Relief Valve Piping etc. > > Since you are not measuring pressure, you could say 2" up to X gallons, > 2.5" for Y etc.... > > A 2-1/2" Main drain is much easier and cheaper than some of the > arrangments left / required on backflow preventers. > > Greg > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:46 PM, Ron Greenman > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Better but it is still interpretable as requiring a measured flow be > > established (if using the main drain location then the BOR design data). > > Then you'd need a port that flowed that much, main drain or otherwise, > > and then measure your annual test against anticipated flow to make > > sure you are meeting or exceeding the required flow. Or am I missing > > something? I'm pretty certain that newer fire service rated backflows > > don't fail any more often than normal FS checks, and that that type of > > failure is either catastrophic (doesn't open or barely opens) wouldn't > > a simple main drain test with decent flow demonstrate that the valve > > is working? just a Forum question as this is a done deal and I wasn't > > invited to join the exclusive > > 25 club. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:11 AM, Roland Huggins > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > the next edition has been cleaned-up on this issue. > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > 25-271 > > Log > > > #CP15 Final Action: Accept > > > (13.6.2.1, 13.6.2.2 (New)) > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Submitter: > > > Technical Committee on Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of > > Water-Based > > > Systems, > > > > > > Recommendation: Revise 13.6.2.1 to read as follows: > > > 13.6.2.1 All backflow preventers installed in fire protection system > > > piping shall be exercised annually by conducting a forward flow test > > > at a minimum flow rate of the system design. > > > Add new 13.6.2.2 and renumber subsequent sections accordingly: > > > 13.6.2.2 Where hydrants or inside hose stations are located > > > downstream of the backflow preventer, the forward flow test shall > > > include hose stream demand. Substantiation: This change was needed > > > to better reflect that the backflow preventer is not a precise test > > > whereby the flow through it must be measured but effort to exercise > > > the device at flows as near as > > possible > > > to the system demand. > > > Committee Meeting Action: Accept > > > Number Eligible to Vote: 33 > > > Ballot Results: Affirmative: 32 Negative: 1 Explanation of Negative: > > > > > > RAY, R.: This proposal should have been accepted in principle: the > > wording > > > "at a minimum flow rate" is confusing and should be reworded. > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > > 25-272 > > Log > > > #121 Final Action: Accept > > > > > > (13.6.2.1.1) > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________ > > Submitter: > > > Roland J. Huggins, American Fire Sprinkler Association, Inc. > > > Recommendation: Delete the following text: > > > > > > 13.6.2.1.1 For backflow preventers sized 2 in. (50 mm) and under, > > > the forward flow test shall be acceptable to conduct without > > > measuring flow, where the test outlet is of a size to flow the system > demand. > > > Substantiation: This section implies that a measured flow is > > > required for Backflow preventers (BFP) larger than 2 in when nothing > > > in 13.6.2.1 > > states > > > such a requirement. There are other means to identify that the > > > system demand is flowing through the BFP as discussed in A.13.6.2.1 > > > It also > > needs > > > to be kept in mind that we are simply exercising the BFP to ensure > > > it > > will > > > fully open at approximately the system demand. A high degree of > > > accuracy regarding the volume of water is not warranted. > > > Additionally, BFP's are subjected to an annual internal inspection > > > as part of the cross > > connection > > > protection program. Committee Meeting Action: Accept Number Eligible > > > to Vote: 33 Ballot Results: Affirmative: 33 > > > > > > > > > > > > Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering > > > > > > American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves > Lives > > > Dallas, TX > > > http://www.firesprinkler.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Dwight Havens <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Then they ought to say that in the code language. > > > > > > > > Dwight > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: John Denhardt <[email protected]> > > > > To: "[email protected]" < > > > [email protected]> > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 3:07 PM > > > > Subject: RE: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > > > > Test > > > > > > > > > > > > While I do disagree to some extent of what the NFPA 25 committee > > > > has > > > done, Roland statement is correct. I have had numerous discussions > > > with NFPA 25 committee members where they have stated the intent was > > > to > > exercise > > > the device at near system demand. The key word to me was "Exercise". > > > > > > > > John > > > > > > > > John August Denhardt, P.E., FSFPE > > > > Strickland Fire Protection Incorporated > > > > 5113 Berwyn Road > > > > College Park, Maryland 20740 > > > > Office Telephone Number: 301-474-1136 Mobile Telephone Number: > > > > 301-343-1457 FIRE SPRINKLERS SAVE LIVES - Can you live without > > > > them? > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [email protected] [mailto: > > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Forest > > Wilson > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2013 2:42 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward Flow > > > > Test > > > > > > > > Here is an email on this topic that Roland addressed in the past: > > > > > > > > Im not going to say it was one of those casual assumptions that > > > > all systems are calculated nor that all risers have placards. The > > > > main thing to keep in mind that the intent is simply to fully > > > > EXERCISE the BFP at what os expected to be the system demand. If > > > > no data available, a discussion with the AHJ is warranted. As for > > > > benchmarks, only the flow is pertinent and pressure is irrelevant. > > > > > > > > Roland > > > > > > > > On Dec 22, 2009, at 2:44 PM, Matthew J. Willis wrote: > > > > > > > >>> > > > >>> On a more important matter: If a system was retrofitted with a > > > >>> backflow, > > > >> and > > > >>> there is no hydraulic calc plaque attached to the riser, and > > > >>> NFPA requires forward flow testing of backflows, how can you > > > >>> conduct the test without a benchmark to test against? > > > >>> > > > >>> What is the recommended practice in this scenario? > > > >>> Forest Wilson > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > > > On Jul 25, 2013, at 12:16 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Then subjective good flow demonstrates a working valve? If so all > > > >> the numbers bantered around are pretty meaningless. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 8:07 AM, Forest Wilson > > > >> <[email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> No. > > > >>> The intent is not to pitot the output but to exercise the valve. > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> Sent from my iPhone > > > >>> > > > >>> On Jul 25, 2013, at 10:56 AM, Ron Greenman > > > >>> <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Forest. What were you flowing to discover these failures? Main > > > >>>> drain > > > or > > > >>>> some special test header? Would a sign with the data requested > > > >>>> by > > the > > > >>>> customer that started this thread have had any utility in > > > >>>> helping > > you > > > >>>> discover the problem? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Then back to that perennial question of what's a "full flow " > > > >>>> test > > and > > > >>> how > > > >>>> do you do one? I think Roland said the intent was to flow an > > > equivalent > > > >>> to > > > >>>> the design discharge criteria. How do you do this? Do we run a > > > >>>> pitot somewhere on the system? Do we catch and measure > > > >>>> discharge? If so, > > > from > > > >>>> where? How do we arrange the test port(s)? Do we flow the > > > >>>> design > > area > > > or > > > >>>> simulate it elsewhere? Do we need results of at least or better > > > >>>> flow > > > or > > > >>>> right on the money flow? If not either of those how do we judge? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Doesn't the hydraulic data plate note the required psi per the > > > >>>> calcs > > > at > > > >>> the > > > >>>> BOR and the static? Isn't the difference the residual drop at > > > >>>> that > > > point > > > >>>> relative to the design area? Wouldn't a main drain with good > > > >>>> flow > > at a > > > >>> psi > > > >>>> around the BOR rating, and returning to close to the noted > > > >>>> static > > when > > > >>>> terminated suggest a fully open valve, or an adequately open > > > >>>> valve > > if > > > the > > > >>>> UG is oversized? In the latter case the partially open valve is > > > >>> equivalent > > > >>>> to fully open for the system I just described. Am I missing > > something > > > >>> here? > > > >>>> An erroneous a priori? My understanding of hydraulics wrong? > > > >>>> Main > > > drains > > > >>>> are too small to simulate the result of all design area heads > > flowing > > > as > > > >>>> the water passes through the BOR? > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Forest Wilson < > > [email protected] > > > >>>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> I still have the check valve from a Ames that failed to open. > > > >>>>> It was jammed shut, discovered when I was called out because > > > >>>>> they > > > >>> couldn't > > > >>>>> do the fire pump test. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> In another case, I tested a backflow and it failed (on a Best > > > >>>>> Buy > > > >>> store). > > > >>>>> I opened the valve up and the check was damaged, would only > > > >>>>> open a > > > >>> third. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Sent from my iPhone > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 8:53 PM, Ron Greenman > > > >>>>> <[email protected]> > > > >>> wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>>> Worked well for plumbing and process piping applications as > > > >>>>>> they > > are > > > >>>>>> constantly being exercised. > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:12 PM, Dwight Havens < > > > [email protected] > > > >>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> I do remember the ones with the rods in the center of the > > > >>>>>>> valve > > > being > > > >>>>>>> particularly poor. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Dwight > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>>> To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 11:25 PM > > > >>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward > > > >>>>>>> Flow > > > Test > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> By the mid-nineties you have the early Ames models purpose > > > >>>>>>> built > > > for > > > >>>>>>> sprinklers readily available, but many units being installed > > > >>>>>>> are > > > still > > > >>>>> not > > > >>>>>>> listed for fire service as many jurisdictions don't consider > > > >>>>>>> the > > > fire > > > >>>>> line > > > >>>>>>> a fire line until after the backflow, and a n on-listed > > > >>>>>>> device is > > > >>>>> cheaper > > > >>>>>>> than a listed one. Plus many go back to the seventies and > > > >>>>>>> many > > used > > > >>>>> weights > > > >>>>>>> instead of springs and complicated lever systems for joining > > > >>>>>>> the > > > >>>>> clappers > > > >>>>>>> and weights. Wish I could post a picture. > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 7:33 PM, Dwight Havens < > > > [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Give me a time frame. My best recollection is the mid '90's. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Dwight > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>> From: Ron Greenman <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>> To: [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2013 9:12 PM > > > >>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward > > > >>>>>>>> Flow > > > Test > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Were these the plumbing type before fire service listed > > > >>>>>>>> devices > > > >>>>> existed. > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 4:32 PM, Dwight Havens < > > > >>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Yes, yes, and yes. The original proposal was based on > > > >>>>>>>>> observed > > > >>>>>>> failures > > > >>>>>>>>> of BFPAs to operate properly during main drain testing. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Glendale, AZ public library specifically comes to mind. > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Dwight > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> ________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>> From: Todd Williams <[email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>>> To: "[email protected]" < > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected]> > > > >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, July 22, 2013 9:32 PM > > > >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: SIGN for Backflow Prevention Assembly Forward > > > >>>>>>>>> Flow > > > Test > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Has there ever been an instance of system failure due to > > > >>>>>>>>> the > > > >>> backflow > > > >>>>>>> not > > > >>>>>>>>> properly opening? How about detection of a BFP problem > > > >>>>>>>>> during a > > > full > > > >>>>>>> flow > > > >>>>>>>>> test. How about something subsequent to the initial > acceptance? > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> Todd G Williams, PE > > > >>>>>>>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT > > > >>>>>>>>> 860-535-2080 > > > >>>>>>>>> www.fpdc.com > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>>> Ron Greenman > > > >>>>>>>> Instructor > > > >>>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical > > > >>>>>>>> College > > > >>>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > >>>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> 253.680.7346 > > > >>>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> Member: > > > >>>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, > > > >>>>>>>> WFC, > > WFSC > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > > > -Francis > > > >>>>>>> Bacon, > > > >>>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>>> Ron Greenman > > > >>>>>>> Instructor > > > >>>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical > > > >>>>>>> College > > > >>>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > >>>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> 253.680.7346 > > > >>>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> Member: > > > >>>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, > > > >>>>>>> WFSC > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > > > -Francis > > > >>>>> Bacon, > > > >>>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> -- > > > >>>>>> Ron Greenman > > > >>>>>> Instructor > > > >>>>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical > > > >>>>>> College > > > >>>>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > >>>>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> 253.680.7346 > > > >>>>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> Member: > > > >>>>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, > > > >>>>>> WFSC > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > > -Francis > > > >>>>> Bacon, > > > >>>>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>>> [email protected] > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> -- > > > >>>> Ron Greenman > > > >>>> Instructor > > > >>>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College > > > >>>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > >>>> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > >>>> > > > >>>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 253.680.7346 > > > >>>> 253.576.9700 (cell) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Member: > > > >>>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, > > > >>>> WFSC > > > >>>> > > > >>>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > > > >>>> -Francis > > > >>> Bacon, > > > >>>> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > >>>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>>> [email protected] > > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >>> [email protected] > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Ron Greenman > > > >> Instructor > > > >> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College > > > >> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > > >> Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > >> > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > > > >> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > > >> > > > >> 253.680.7346 > > > >> 253.576.9700 (cell) > > > >> > > > >> Member: > > > >> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > > >> > > > >> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. > > > >> -Francis > > > Bacon, > > > >> essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Ron Greenman > > Instructor > > Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College > > 1101 So. Yakima Ave. > > Tacoma, WA 98405 > > > > [email protected] > > > > http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ > > > > 253.680.7346 > > 253.576.9700 (cell) > > > > Member: > > ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC > > > > They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis > > Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) > > _______________________________________________ > > Sprinklerforum mailing list > > [email protected] > > > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > > er.org > > > > > > -- > Greg McGahan > Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> > 1160 McKenzie Road > Cantonment, FL 32533 > 850-937-1850 > fax 850-937-1852 > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.o > rg > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org > -- Greg McGahan Living Water Fire Protection, LLC <http://www.livingwaterfp.com> 1160 McKenzie Road Cantonment, FL 32533 850-937-1850 fax 850-937-1852 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
