Hi Cecil, 
That's a lot of holes!  And lots of good information.   What I was thinking but 
didn't say, was "before sidewall sprinklers were approved for ordinary hazard". 
My recollection is that sidewalls were for quite a long time, only approved for 
light hazard occupancies. 
Mark at Aero

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 10, 2014, at 7:49 PM, "Sprinkler Academy - C Bilbo" 
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark,
> On April 4, 1932, Mr Emil Tyden of Hastings, MI applied for a patent of a dry 
> type pendent sprinkler.  The dry barrel of the sprinkler assembly was 
> attached to a horizontal portion of the assembly that was threaded into a tee 
> with it's outlet turned on it's side rather than pointing towards the floor.  
> The assembly could more accurately be called a 90 degree dry pendent 
> sprinkler.  Mr Tyden was the founder of the Viking Corporation.  The patent 
> was granted on March 28, 1933.  Mr Tyden is credited with the invention of 
> the dry sprinkler.
> In 1934, Ira Knight applied for and received (1936) a patent for the sidewall 
> sprinkler. 
> In 1962, Floyd Lee applied for and received (1964) a patent for a dry adapter 
> (a dry barrel) for connection of sprinklers to pipe.  He demonstrated a 
> vertical sidewall could be atttached and utilized.....
> So would that count as a "Dry Sidewall Sprinkler"??
> And for additional historical perspective:
> In 1938, Mr Arthur C Rowley of the Globe Automatic Sprinkler Co and Mr Willis 
> Hodgman filed patent applications for the straight body Dry Pendent 
> Sprinkler.  In 1939, both patents were issued.  
> The Hodgman model allowed water flow into the barrel when an internal pin or 
> an internal barrel dropped and a clapper was pushed/fell open.  The pin or 
> barrel was held up by the element of the sprinkler.
> The Globe sprinkler had a ball bearing that prevented water flow from 
> entering the body until the element activated and allowed an internal barrel 
> to drop.  When the inner tube dropped, the ball bearing was released and 
> escaped completely from the body as water pushed it out. 
> In 1941, the General Fire Extinguisher Company (which became Grinnell, which 
> became Tyco) applied for and received (1942) a patent for a dry pendent with 
> a spring inside that pushed an internal barrel up into the water-filled pipe. 
>  A hole in the side of the internal barrel near the top allowed water in when 
> pushed up so the hole was in the waterway of the pipe above.
> It should be recognized that the above is my opinion as a member of the NFPA 
> 13 Technical Committee, and has not been processed as a formal interpretation 
> in accordance with the NFPA Regulations Governing Committee Projects and 
> should therefore not be considered, nor relied upon, as the official position 
> of the the NFPA, nor any of their technical committees. 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> Cecil Bilbo 
> Academy of Fire Sprinkler Technology
> Champaign, IL
> 217.607.0325
> www.sprinkleracademy.com
> 
> [email protected]
> 
> 
> 
> OUR STUDENTS SAVE LIVES!!
> 
> 
> 
>> From: [email protected]
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: RE: Fig. A.8.15.7
>> Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2014 22:50:46 +0000
>> 
>> I believe it was added to the standard prior to the advent of the dry 
>> horizontal sidewall. Poke holes in that!  :-)
>> Mark at Aero 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] 
>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ron 
>> Greenman
>> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 3:21 PM
>> To: [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: Fig. A.8.15.7
>> 
>> I presume you guys are talking about that picture with the dry pendants 
>> poking thru the wall to outside at 45 degrees. I've seen many I Seattle and 
>> even changed out a couple that worked successfully. I just went thru the 
>> 1978 standard page by page, only 207 of the little ones, including the 
>> index, and it's not in there.
>> 
>> Ron Greenman
>> ...On the phone
>> 
>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 2:52 PM, Roland Huggins <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> some great answers.  Mine was going to be BECAUSE
>>> 
>>> It seems like once something makes it into a standard, it takes an act of 
>>> congress to get it out (and sine congress isn’t doing much I guess it’ll 
>>> never happen).  It’s never been questioned (that I can remember) in the 18 
>>> yrs that I’ve been on the committee.  It’s mainly there to show it can be 
>>> used in other than the normally acceptable manner.  We did the same with 
>>> sidewall sprinklers under the edge of a overhead door.  That doesn’t answer 
>>> the question why not use a dry side wall?
>>> 
>>> I’ve added it to my list of items for the 2019 cycle.  So don’t hold your 
>>> breath for a quick answer unless you can accept ‘cause.
>>> 
>>> Roland
>>> 
>>> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering
>>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn.       ---      Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives
>>> Dallas, TX
>>> http://www.firesprinkler.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Apr 10, 2014, at 1:37 PM, Steve Leyton <[email protected]> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Anyone out there, committee members or clairvoyants, who can say why 
>>>> this illustration shows a dry-pendent sprinkler in what appears to be a
>>>> non-conforming orientation?     
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> SML
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list
>>>> [email protected]
>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink
>>>> ler.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-firesprinkler.org
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
> 

_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org

Reply via email to