Nope, no opinions on my end Ron. Butt ( ;) ) I finally did get some closure on a dang flushing connection for CPVC.
I've still got mine too, but according to FB I might have lost my doctor, if I had one. On Sep 2, 2016 10:25 AM, "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> wrote: > "*The problem being that someone changed something in the code and they > "seemingly unintentionally" changed the definition (in loose terms) of a > wet system:* > from: a riser > to: a riser, and each floor with a floor controller. " > > Never happened. Look at the definition of riser in 13. It still just says > "The VERTICAL" supply piping in a sprinkler system." (13:13-3.5.9) If you > look up the definition of sprinkler system in 13 you'll find floor control > valves still don't define a system. > > *The actual problem being that someone that someone at NFSA interpreted > something to mean something when a zillion other references throughout the > book dispute that interpretation.* This thread seems to have become > FaceBookish wherein someone says a thing and because that someone is > perceived as an authority the comment the equivalent of a Supreme Court > decision. No matter how many bloggers keep telling me Obama is coming to > take my pistol I still seem to have it. Maybe he hasn't gotten to the NW > yet. > > And Brad. If you've never read 25, but only 13A, do you even get an > opinion? I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Mechanics and it didn't say a > damned thing about repairing motorcycles. > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 6:01 AM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Thanks Joe, I appreciate you sharing your experience with NFPA 25. >> >> I've got my hands full trying to apply 13 right! >> >> Good luck- hopefully you will continue to get feedback from the heavy >> lifters. >> >> >> >> here is what I was looking for: >> >> >> >> "You do not do it for cpvc." >> >> >> >> Thanks again, >> >> >> >> Brad >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From:* Sprinklerforum [mailto:sprinklerforum-bounces >> @lists.firesprinkler.org] *On Behalf Of *Jody Massey >> *Sent:* Friday, September 02, 2016 7:24 AM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: 5 year fire sprinkler Obstruction Assessment - What items >> in asystem define it as a separate wet pipe system? >> >> >> >> Brad, >> >> What I am now very clear on - is that I have stumbled into a hornets nest >> - with no hard answer. >> >> >> >> *The problem being that someone changed something in the code and they >> "seemingly unintentionally" changed the definition (in loose terms) of a >> wet system:* >> >> from: a riser >> >> to: a riser, and each floor with a floor controller. >> >> >> >> Just because there is a "seemingly unintentionally" change, does that >> mean we change how we do business - whatever the concequence? >> >> >> >> *This only effects every 5 year inspection for every large building in >> the USA. No big deal. * >> >> >> >> *Implication for obstruction assessment:* >> >> X- story building with a three wet risers >> >> 1st scenario: look at 2 sprinkler heads >> >> 2nd scenarion: look at 3 sprinkler heads every 2 floors >> >> >> >> I am seeing people across the country "skipping" this part of the 5 year >> - and the AHJ not catching it - because it is costing in the neighborhood >> of $18k for a 5 year inspection because of misunderstanding. >> >> >> >> I do not have a problem with people spending money to keep the building >> safe, but there is another side to the coin. >> >> >> >> The commitee on the code (or wheover it is) debates each time on how >> often to open the system and look because when you do that, you introduce >> air. They are really worried about this and are trying to minimize this - >> because it can do more harm than good. >> >> >> >> If we look at a lot more heads just to meet the letter of the new >> "seemingly unintentional consequence of a code change" we: >> >> 1. get a better sample >> 2. charge the building alot more money >> 3. put the building at more risk >> 4. probably go against the intention of the people who write the code >> >> I dunno what to do... (insert head scratch here) >> >> >> >> >> >> And Brad - I am not a scholar on this stuff so I am probably wrong - but >> it is my understanding that you do this for all systems - not just wet. You >> look at *every* non-wet system plus *every other* wet system. The >> reasoning seems to be that dry systems will have a little water in there >> and lots of air which is a higher risk for growth. You do not do it for >> cpvc. It just states you are looking for "The presence of sufficient >> foreign organic or inorganic material", if you find enough material, then >> you have a field day looking all over the building because you have entered >> the NFPA 25 14.3 zone. >> >> >> >> *- Joe* >> >> ᐧ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum- >> firesprinkler.org >> >> > > > -- > Ron Greenman > > 4110 Olson Dr., NW > Gig Harbor, WA 98335 > > [email protected] > > 253.576.9700 > > The Universe is monstrously indifferent to the presence of man. -Werner > Herzog, screenwriter, film director, author, actor and opera > director (1942-) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
