I must read something different into the comment. I see it as, what ends up in the book doesn’t always reflect what the committee intended. Either lost in translation or poor choice of wording.
I have been doing this for over 30 years and I know there are times when I need to read the text 10 times before I think I understand what it is trying to tell me. This is why I think there are sections in the books that get rewritten every other cycle. What may be common knowledge or common sense in the committee (because the members have been in the industry for many years) isn’t knowledge, or implied insight, that every designer reading the book possess. That’s my take anyway. Have a great weekend everyone. Mike Hill From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pete Schwab Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 1:44 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System I have to agree with Steve on this one. The NFPA process is open to anyone. It is quite easy to submit proposed changes. Unfortunately the Input stage for the 2019 edition has just closed. Peter Schwab VP of Purchasing and Engineering technologies Wayne Automatic Fire Sprinklers Inc. 222 Capitol Court Ocoee, Fl 34761 Mobile: (407) 468-8248 Direct: (407) 877-5570 Fax: (407) 656-8026 www.waynefire.com <http://www.waynefire.com/> I sleep in a sprinklered home, do you? From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Leyton Sent: Friday, February 10, 2017 12:14 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System Busted. Scot, you’ve finally cracked the code. Pulled back the curtain. Turns out you’re not paranoid - yes, the technical committees have been prosecuting a subversive agenda to adulterate the standards with all manner of obfuscations. There’s actually a double secret sub-committee under the standards council that maintains a document called “The Manual of Blur.” Here’s what I recommend “we” do: If “we” feel that there are deficiencies that should be resolved, or clarifications that are required of a nebulous prescription, then “we” should write a proposal and send it to the committee in question. As a longtime committee member, I can say with certainty that most of us have been looking at the same text for years, so another pair of eyes and fresh perspective are always welcome. Sniping about secret agendas is … silly at best. Be the change you want in the world. From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of å... .... Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2017 3:56 PM To: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Committee Intention and Reducing Sprinklers' Pressure in a Combined Standpipe/Sprinkler System We can hope for a theoretical world in which the 'secret' or 'implied' or 'intention' of the Committee needs to be divined, but few designers whom NFPA is reaching out to in the hinterlands, grew up in the culture of 'United States common practice'. They design on what they have, mostly static text.
_______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
