Thom, Yes. And we might have always had MIC but a less virulent strain whose effects were not so severe and that we mistook for oxidation. Any number of things can cause the problem that we'll never answer fully by guessing on the Forum but if the materials we used to use to build with met the performance standard and provided a long life that we've become used to, and that the newer products meet the same standard but we're unhappy about their durability, then perhaps we need to change the standards so that the materials we are producing meet our expectations. This is why the Fed still specifies schedule 40 for branch lines and schedule 10 for mains. They're looking for longevity rather than minimum. Just try to be competitive this way on the bid before design projects that most of you are involved with.
On 1/26/08, Thom McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > One major reason is that we have water systems that receive far more > "Treatment" than in the OLD days. What's the effect of Fluoride? or how > about the Chlorine they add, or any of the other chemical soup we call > Potable Water. And if your dealing with Non-potable water there could be > anything in there. Industrial waste to sewage. Remember "Dilution is the > Solution" is still the major practice in this country and the world. We > don't remove harmful things from our waters, we just thin them down enough > that it won't kill you. (Right Away) I'm willing to bet that while there > were some very bad water source's early in this century, that today > pollution is far more wide spread. And lets not forget our little genie in > the bottle nuclear waster. > Hard to nail down a source when there are so many possibilities. > > Thom McMahon > Firetech, Inc. > 2560 Copper Ridge Dr > Steamboat Springs, CO 80488-2136 > Tel: 970-879-7952 > Fax: 970-879-7926 > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "art" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 10:26 AM > Subject: RE: Fire sprinkler question > > > > Ron, If this is true then why are we seeing so many systems develop holes > > in > > wet pipe schd 10 systems in 10 years and 8-10 years for dry systems with > > rust thru. The old schd 40 systems lasted for 60-80 years with no problems > > dry system less of course. Is MIC that new that it did not exist in the > > 1915-1950 era? > > > > Art @ATCO > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ron > > Greenman > > Sent: Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:07 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Fire sprinkler question > > > > Tom, > > > > Metallurgy hasn't gone downhill. In fact. like almost all > > technologies, the improvements have been exponential in this century, > > that again in the last sixty years of the Twentieth, and again in the > > preceding one hundred. Remember that in the centuries before the > > Industrial Revolution mankind, whether clannish/tribal or politically > > organized, was essentially living in a sticks and stones technology. I > > would venture that the quality of materials hasn't fallen but rather > > that the control of the manufacturing process has improved so much > > that guesswork is gone and it's unnecessary to over-build as much as > > it used to be to meet minimum levels of quality control. The shift > > from pipe schedules to hydraulics is a perfect example. Confidence in > > the numbers allows us to design closer to the edge. Confidence in the > > manufacturing process allows the manufacturers to meet ASTM minimums > > with lighter and lighter walled products. If we find that these > > products fail too soon it's the standard that requires adjustment; The > > manufacturing process in this case has philosophically approached near > > perfection--as close to minimum standard as possible while maintaining > > quality control per that standard thus minimizing per unit costs. And > > before someone jumps on the emerging nation, sub-standard product > > bandwagon, that is a geo-political issue and not a > > science/manufacturing technology one.I have the technology to produce > > a mild steel product that meets the ASTM minimum to a +/- 0.05% > > tolerance and then exceed the standard for galvanizing by being able > > to imbed/fuse if you will the zinc/tin into several microns of the > > finished product rather than coat the product like paint (Idod's > > stuff--and if you haven't already check out their process, > > fascinating), either by hot dipping (thick & way expensive) or > > electroplating, then I can lower material costs and hence my Earth > > footprint while producing a superior product. If I can do that then > > anyone can because the technology exists. If on the other hand my > > infrastructure is too fragile, if patents intervene, etc. I can still > > use old technologies and rely on larger tolerances to maintain quality > > control. I could go on with this rant but I'll spare you all. > > > > On 1/26/08, Tom Duross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I've tested a few pumps drawing river water in CT and RI as well as MA > >> and > >> found they have domestic in them off the street by way of a manual fill > > and > >> only see river water when the pump runs. Is this like that? Plus, you > >> don't see as good a metal product in the past 20+ years as you see in > > older > >> systems, not just pipe but pumps as well. Metallurgy has gone downhill, > >> domestic forges closed, quality of ore not what it used to be. > >> > >> Tom > >> Go Pats > >> > >> > >> As another example, I am working on a mill conversion and the > >> building and sprinkler system are from 1904. When we changed the 3/4" > >> pipe, the internal looked like new pipe. This had been a wet system, > >> but was fed by river water. Go figure. > >> > >> > >> > >> At 07:41 PM 1/25/2008, you wrote: > >> >I agree Tom. Here is what I plan to respond unless I hear words of > >> >wisdom from you guys. > >> > > >> > > >> > One must accept the fact that there are variables which affect > >> > the life of a sprinkler system. They include: > >> > > >> > Proper original design and installation > >> > Proper inspection and testing > >> > Whether they are wet, dry, preaction or antifreeze > >> > Environmental conditions, like salt air, high humidity, corrosive > >> > atmosphere. > >> > Presence of microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) > >> > Type of pipe, Schedule 40, thinner wall pipe, galvanized pipe, > >> > plastic > >> pipe > >> > Corrosive nature of the water > >> > Earthquake > >> > > >> > A new or existing wet pipe system which has been tested free of > >> > the conditions leading to MIC, and is properly maintained, can > >> > pretty much be expected to last for the life of the > >> > building. Examples of this are the sprinkler systems at The > >> > Presidio and Fort Mason in San Francisco. I know the system at the > >> > Headquarters Building at Upper Fort Mason is in the neighborhood of > >> > 70 years old. I took apart portions of another 70 year-old > >> > sprinkler system in San Francisco, during a building > >> > demolition. The exterior and interior of the pipe was like brand new. > >> > > >> > Dry pipe systems do not have such a good history, mostly because > >> > of internal corrosion. I know of no statistics, but would expect > >> > at 30 to 40 years. > >> > > >> > Antifreeze systems will not get proper maintenance, so it is > >> > anybody's guess. > >> > > > > > > > -- > > Ron Greenman > > at home.... > > _______________________________________________ > > 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) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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)
