My response was simply aimed at the fact that a SR head won't give much Life Safety to the poor SOB in the hotel room but a QR will.
If our aim is to save lives and property from fire, QR was the only answer. We have the tools, let's use them whenever we can to this aim. George Church Rowe Sprinkler -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rod Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 11:25 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers Well that is interesting Todd. There is some ambiguity here for sure. I guess at the end of the day what I am looking at with this issue is that although the word "only" doesn't appear it is only the standard response head that is addressed with those two exceptions and in many cases with our standards they can't rule out every scenario but rather spell out how to perform and then give exceptions to those rules. This addresses Ed's comments on the fast response also. True that it doesn't say that you can't but I would submit that it doesn't say that you can and I believe that the intent is to NOT mix heads with the same thermal sensitivity within the same compartment. Interesting that I looked at 101 and the same wording is there; except that it refers to the same smoke compartment. This would be even more restricting in life safety applications where a smoke compartment would likely entail many rooms rather than just this one room that we are talking about. Interesting thread for sure. Rod DiBona Rapid Fire _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
