Sorry to be so late getting back to this but I just wanted to confirm that
the MIC itself is not a reason for a RPZ, but if you treat the MIC
chemically, you must then have an RPZ since you introduced something other
than water into the system.
Thom McMahon
Firetech, Inc.
2560 Copper Ridge Dr
Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136
Tel: 970-879-7952
Fax: 970-879-7926
----- Original Message -----
From: "Todd Williams - work" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 10:06 AM
Subject: Re: RPZ Backflow w/ MIC System
John,
You'll have to check with the specific manufacturers as far as pressure
loss through an RPZ, but a good rule of thumb is that the loss through an
RPZ is about twice that of a double check. I haven't heard about requiring
an RPZ where MIC is present, but it brings up a good point, although it's
not introducing a new chemical into the system.
At 11:59 AM 4/24/2007, you wrote:
Are RPZ type backflows required when using a MIC system? What's the
pressure drop of a RPZ compared to a double check?
John Kaminski
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
Todd G. Williams, PE
Fire Protection Design/Consulting
Stonington, Connecticut
860-535-2080
www.fpdc.com
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
