I would offer Craig, in demonstrations I have conducted, and others I have seen, the sprinkler went off Well before the detector.
Matt -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers George, what in the difference between an SR and QR makes you say that the SR won't provide much "Life Safety"? How much difference in response time can you measure between the two? Quite honestly the smoke detector in the room will be the thing that saves the life of the occupant more so than the sprinkler head. If it's a 155 or even a 135 degree head, by the time the sprinkler activates, the occupant is already cooked. The sprinkler is more to control the spread of fire and allow evacuation of adjacent areas before the fire can spread and block exits. But granted, if the QR will give a few more seconds for evacuation then I'd certainly prefer to use them. But if the code allows SR and the owner is worried about $$$$$ you might be in for a hard sale. Those who write the checks are more concerned about what's the minimum than what gives the best protection. (For those sensitive individuals, Sorry for be so graphic) Craig L. Prahl, CET Fire Protection Group Mechanical Department CH2MHILL Lockwood Greene 1500 International Drive PO Box 491, Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 Direct - 864.599.4102 Fax - 864.599.8439 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lg.com -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Church Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:05 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: both QR & SR sprinklers 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
