I read recent discussion on AHJ psychology,
or "how to approach the AHJ when you have an opinion to cultivate..."
I hope to be proved wrong on this one, please, I want to
be wrong...so I don´t have to carry on with the teaching baton.
So I can go back to the drawing
board without second thoughts, but right now, something
doesn´t smell right. Could be me, but here is the
way I see it to be.
waterflow information was asked for:
because it was going to be the difference between
having a pump or not, I asked for and got
a flow test from two different locations.
This request was prompted by water department suggestions,
suggestions that pointed out so elegantly,
there were quite different sized mains in their city.
To the West was the Best, and to the East lay the least.
So, I ask for the East
and the West flow test.
No guess as to that we will use their best.
and in a day or two
I get my juice.
nothing is confused.
the East test is at 50 ft above sea level and the underground is 4 inch.
the West test is at 25 ft above sea level and the underground is 8 inch.
Pstatic (psig) Presid (psig) Flow (gpm)
East 43 35 450
West 68 60 560
NOTHING is confused,
is to use a venacular...
because a few days later
we get yet
another letter
from the water
engineer that says
"the waterflow info comes from the same city system.
the only difference in pressure was due to static elevation."
The IMPLICATION being there was no need for flow test separation.
I can´t believe what I am seeing after I have done read'n.
I can´t even believe I'm asking this question.
but I have to mention, before I begin an attempt in
"cultivatin' some education" in the department
of water. I want to make sure my ears are
not wet before I sit down offer some conciliation.
to me, it is a no brainer (a thing that comes
naturally). I need both tests because
both residual pressures and flows are just this
hidden until the flows shows--just how much gets up and goes.
Sure, the static pressures are the same
(after adjusting for elevation gain),
but stating that the static P
is enough to define the
flow test ...is akin to stating
that temperature rise in the
flames is game on
to defining fire size
without mention of
Qdot, fire area or chemistry, baby.
So, may I tell the water department
that we are giving them a second guess--
and that he did NOT miss his
city time and money
by giving us
two flow tests?
And yes, test West gives us just
enough press at flow
to miss having to go
with all that pump mess.
The fact that other people are arguing for a pump, regardless,
of the city pressure is another measure of the caliber of
designers we have here. Unlucky for me, they are deciding the
plumbing on this building in closed door meetings.
so I get to topple their apple cart, and start them down
the path to hydraulic nirvana.
I prefer simpler starts on a project like theirs;
prefer no apple carts, prefer fewer mechanical parts.
Seems as if I am going to have to sharpen my hoes,
because who knows how many more times
i am going to have to go
back for mine,
and beat back the weeds on these
corn (agriculturally not ethnically) rows.
if i sound cocky, i am not.
it is just that I have got
ground down, slowly.
scot deal
excelsior fire engineering
_______________________________________________
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)
