Jim, Goes back to my original question of how come we need to do this now when before all we needed to do was a little geometry to demonstrate size in gallons, do nothing extraordinary in the system was less than 500 gallons, put on a QOD if above 750 and show 60 seconds or less or put on a QOD if between 500 and 750 gallons? Done! Take it to the bank! Of course the AHJ wanted to see 60 seconds for everything, and from the time the IT was opened until water arrived, because he did all the testing that showed that the 13 provision wasn't adequate. And then 13 must have required this expensive program due to all the system failures that occurred because water delivery was too slow. I must have missed all the data generated because I don't p[ay very close attention to the industry. I'l now remove my tongue from my cheek and ask the penultimate question regarding water delivery: What data supports 60 seconds as the standard to which all dry sprinkler systems, regardless of hazard, must comply? Faster is better but what is too long and wouldn't that be determined by the hazard scenario? Dry pipe protecting racks in a dairy products cooler, protecting a parking garage, protecting a tire storage distribution center, protecting plastic pallet storage: all the same? I do know many decisions are made by fiat and many by money but many are just too annoying to let go and this is one. The water guys at Tyco have to be drooling over windfall current evacuation disasters have brought to the alarm guys with all the new mass notification requirements and especially the requirements for intelligibility that can only be measured by the proprietary intelligibility meter. Want to see some massive changes look at the new and improved 15 chapter longer NFPA 72 with several of those chapters reserved for the stuff not even thought of yet. I'm all in favor of making money but one does need to be able to sleep.
On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Jim Johnston<[email protected]> wrote: > Ron, > > I haven't been following this too close (been actually doing some work) the > software is meant to calc the water delivery time not necessarily the volume > as I think you are thinking although it needs this? From what I understand > Tyco did a great job at "selling" this to the 13 committee. From an > engineers standpoint I think it's great if you can calc the delivery time, > also from an engineers point I want to actually see the time it takes and > not trust a program. I don't know how any AHJ would accept the time from a > program and not actually see it for his or her sake. > > Jim Johnston, P.E. > Fire Protection Engineer > Inland Fire Protection, Inc > 1100 Ahtanum Road > Yakima, WA 98903 > Phone 509-248-4471 > Fax 509-248-1180 > [email protected] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Ron Greenman [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:38 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Slow responding dry pipe valves-FDT > > Could be, and I guess I can goof, but the formula for measuring the > volume of a cylinder has been around for a long time and as far as I > can tell works pretty well. I also know that without being able to > estimate a result I wouldn't know that I err far more often punching > buttons on a calculator than I do writing equations on a white board > or piece of paper. Who knows how many mistakes I make entering > multiple data points into a complex program where I'm unable to even > guess at what a likely result should look like? I have to be missing > something here. I know all the committee guys are too honest to put > something in a code that can only be accomplished with some expensive > proprietary do-dad. > > On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Todd Williams<[email protected]> wrote: >> Could it have something to do with the fact that the multi-thousand >> dollar program is UL listed and your smelly feet aren't? >> >> >> At 07:19 PM 6/17/2009, you wrote: >>>As I read this it seems to say that the same rules apply as before but >>>to prove the system size I have to use an approved computer program. >>>Now I'm no math whiz but I can calculate the capacity of a bunch of >>>tubes (pie is square times length equals cubic X, convert X cubes to >>>cubic feet, convert the smelly feet to gallons, add up all the >>>different sized tubes and....). Time consuming but why do I need a >>>multi-thousand dollar program for a task that I can do with paper and >>>pencil? >>> >>>On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Roland >>>Huggins<[email protected]> wrote: >>> > nothing changed (except for dwelling units). The 500 gal w/o QOD or >>> > 750 gal limits still apply. The timed approach is just for exceeding >>> > them. As for dwelling units, it is not 15 sec regardless of size. >>> > >>> > Roland >>> > >>> > On Jun 17, 2009, at 3:44 PM, Ron Greenman wrote: >>> > >>> >> So what drove the change from the old way of working trip times (under >>> >> 500 gal. all was good, 500-750 gals. and either 60 seconds or QOD, >>> >> over 750 gals. QOD and all is good)? was it due to systems failing due >>> >> to too long trip times or was it a way to sell an expensive computer >>> >> program? If due to failures did it happen in a cross section of >>> >> buildings or in certain types of buildings and if the latter is it >>> >> necessary to treat all systems equally? Certainly requirements to trip >>> >> test everything to 60 seconds in years past was based on local >>> >> requirements arrived at collectively by AHJs because they wanted it >>> >> and it was complied with enough to become the usual thing to do until >>> >> it became codified--first locally and then in 13. Where's the data >>> >> that supported this costly change at point in this migration from what >>> >> 13 said to what it says now? Enquiring minds want to know. >>> >> >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > 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) >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>>-- >>>Ron Greenman >>>at home.... >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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) >> >> 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) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > at home.... > _______________________________________________ > 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) > -- Ron Greenman at home.... _______________________________________________ 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)
