Perhaps, but you are only throwing 8' to the side, but 20 ft out. Sent from my iPhone
On Dec 10, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> wrote: > Wouldn't the throw at right angles to the nozzle be the harder thing > to produce than throw inline to the orifice? If so then wouldn't the > width be the more critical issue? Of course I'm now being Aristotelian > using my fine logical interpretations and common sense to surmise a > result from inadequate data. my son is in first year calculus and > first year physics at the moment and it's great at sixty to have this > kid reminding me that common sense rarely applies in science, > particularly when you're working with a known three of eighty-five > data points. > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Todd - FPDC <[email protected]> wrote: >> True. However, xcov sidewalls are listed with very specific flow and >> pressure per coverage. As are residential sidewalls. All have fixed >> 16 >> ft spray widths. In the exception I am citing, a pressure deduction >> is >> allowed for a decrease in width alone. To me this seems inconsistant >> and may actually produce an undesired result. It would make more >> sense >> to figure the area based on the actual throw x 16ft. If the testing >> proves me wrong, I'd like to see it. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On Dec 10, 2009, at 1:40 PM, Ron Greenman <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Todd, >>> >>> I think you're making the mistake of trying to apply thought to this >>> process wherein you're not sure of what the testing criteria is. For >>> my students I always draw out the test scenario for a residential >>> head >>> then ask them what happens if the third head operates. Good or bad? >>> There always confused when I tell them the head fails the test >>> particularly when I say not opening for the first two would also >>> be a >>> failure. They have problems with understanding that head fusing >>> has to >>> do with heat transfer rates in mass rather than ceiling temperature. >>> They have trouble getting that concept that a model may or may not >>> model the actual event but only be a device to predict acceptable >>> results. And of course the all time biggie is that sprinklers aren't >>> even designed to suppress, and that when they do it's a bonus, and >>> of >>> course the corollary that it's a success if the building (under >>> 13D or >>> 13R) burns to the ground as long as the occupants are outside >>> watching >>> it. At some point I have to accept that someone tasked with >>> developing >>> testing protocols has done so and that test somehow reflects >>> performance vis-a-vis a set of rules and if I follow the rules, all >>> other things being equal, I will obtain results equal to or better >>> than the performance desired. The minute I start to logic this stuff >>> out without knowledge of the criteria the performance requirement >>> was >>> subject to I'm start the long, slippery slope inducted Aristotelian >>> explanations of phenomena. >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 9:38 AM, Todd - FPDC <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I get all that. But I assume most of the pressure in a sidewall is >>>> for >>>> throw and not width, how can we justify a significant decrease in >>>> pressure based on a decrease in width alone? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Dec 10, 2009, at 12:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> What Roland has stated in both posts is correct.Most,if not >>>>> all,residential sprinklers are listed for 13,13d,and 13r in >>>>> residential applications.The minimum flow rates indicared in the >>>>> data is that which is required to generate flow and pressure to >>>>> achieve the spray pattern indicared.You still must discharge the >>>>> minimum flow rate (.05 or .10) while at the same time the minimum >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >> >> For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] >> >> To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- >> [email protected] >> (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) >> > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > Instructor > Fire Protection Engineering > Bates Technical College > Tacoma, WA > > Member: > SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA AFAA, WSAFM > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > For Technical Assistance, send an email to: [email protected] > > To Unsubscribe, send an email to:Sprinklerforum- > [email protected] > (Put the word unsubscribe in the subject field) _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.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)
