Ah, but you're a PE and thus entitled to an opinion. We mere ETs can only stay within the confines of the defined, applicable cookbook and not stray from adopted ingredient list nor baking time and temperature.
I agree with you, in case that wasn't clear. glc -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd Williams Sent: Monday, December 01, 2008 1:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: variable public water supply, THE SEGUE >"...... So while running a test with the pumps >OFF or not allowing them to be included in a calc. may be a conservative way >to do your flow test, it may not be in the best interest of the property >owner or client. (Bigger pipe sizes, larger orifices and serious overflow if >and when you do get discharge." I always understood that it is our responsibility to provide a system that protects a property from catastrophic fire damage. And that the "best interest of the property owner or client" is for us to meet that goal. If it results in bigger pipe sizes, larger orifices and serious overflow, then so be it. We should not go overboard, but should take varying circumstances into account that may be outside of the strict NFPA box. Just my opinion....... Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, Connecticut www.fpdc.com 860.535.2080 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list http://lists.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field)
