Rodney, I've watched this discussion with some interest, as the systems I've worked on, designed, and yes, tested over the course of my career haven't had the problems you're discussing. I've gone back over some of your comments, and I'd like to ask you to clarify a couple of things for me.
Your comments: "Please discuss the idiotic approach of installing Inspector's Test Connections at the sprinkler riser (~12 in. downstream of the flow switch). This has been considered "acceptable" by NFPA 13 since 2002 and is quickly becoming standard practice in the great state of Georgia." "I simply disagree with the relatively recent change in NFPA 13 which allows this approach. I strongly believe the practice of installing the Inspector's Test Connection a few feet downstream of the water flow switch should be considered unacceptable." My thought: I'm not sure what changed in the '02 edition of NFPA-13 from previous editions on this topic. The earliest edition I still have in my office is the '94 handbook edition, and when you compare the two editions they're identical, save for the relocation of the information from chapter 4 to chapter 8. Additionally, in my '02 edition there's no change mark noted by anything that has to deal with test connections. So I'm curious, what is it that changed in the '02 that kicked off the problems you're seeing? Your comment: "The fact that someone or some group convinced the NFPA committee to change the standard and the fact that the approach saves time and money during installation does not make it a good engineering design!" My thought: Again, what changed? I've looked back through the last six editions of the ROP and ROC and haven't found what you're referring to. Also, I'd have to suggest that the process of getting something changed in an NFPA document isn't as simple as your comment suggests. Maybe you're 100% right, and you certainly have the zeal of a convert in stating your case. I don't know whether you are or not. I do know that I don't see the problems you discuss here in California, Nevada, and Utah where my firm does design work. Maybe I've been lucky, and the installing contractors have bled off all the air prior to placing the system in service and during periodic maintenance of the systems that's been done repeatedly through the years. Maybe. I do know that if you feel this strongly about this topic, and you think it's as serious an issue as you describe then I think you have a responsibility to make a proposal to change whatever you feel is in the standard that causes the problem you're seeing. Telling us how you feel, and what you've experienced is a good way to bring the topic out in the open for discussion, but if you're sure of the magnitude of this problem I think the best course of action is to make a proposal for a change to NFPA-13. Hey, if it's a potentially harmful an issue as you describe, make a proposal that a TIA be issued. I know several members of the committee on installation criteria, and I'm sure they'd give such a proposal a fair review. Just my thoughts. -- PARSLEY CONSULTING Ken Wagoner, SET 760.745.6181 voice 760.745.0537 fax [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> e-mail www.ParsleyConsulting.com <http://www.ParsleyConsulting.com> website _______________________________________________ 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)
