No blood drawn, no money lost, no problem
At 06:29 AM 12/14/2011, you wrote: >Sorry, I meant Tom > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dewayne Martinez >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 5:23 AM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > >Todd, >Any way to run a new system next to the old before you take it out of service? > That way there would only be minimal disruption when you change over. >Keep it dry in the attic with a exposed or soffit concealed wet pipe system >below? > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Duross >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:31 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > >Attic is about a 12/12 pitch, a good 10' to the ridge. Very vented attic, the >wind whips through. I'm thinking of filling it with glycol and hydro the >pipe, I worry about any residual water freezing if I use it. The tree feed >main starts 4" and scales down to 2" and it's all screwed pipe. The season >and current occupancy is what worries me. I showed up two winters ago when >some water up there froze and it burst and it was 2 in the morning, snowing >(it's right on the water, surrounded by lobstermen) and these poor clients >were in vans in the parking lot to keep warm. > >They have an Architect they use and I had her forward my report and email to >him. He called and said I could sprinkler it per 13D as R4 under certain >amendments in MA's section 310 with 5 or fewer licensed under a MA agency. >I think Chris is right about applying current codes to older buildings, >something just didn't seem right. The building is owned by the state, >licensed and leased to them as operators. > >I do need to do an internal inspection and I'm afraid I'm going to find rotten >pipe everywhere. I worry about the clients as they're multi-handicapped >adults, some were dropped off there as infants. I can't disrupt their lives. >I'm thinking that maybe I might propose a temporary wet system to protect the >living area while we probably replace the entire attic system. Just so I >don't have to make them have to move. >I have a younger brother like these people so it rings a certain tender >importance to me, not that it wouldn't either way. > >I plan to offer some plans to them, and they will have to go to the state. >I've written back to the Architect and want to include him too. I also want >to sit with the chief, he was there 2 winters ago, and a nice guy. I have to >do some Code research. I also have that tick tock of an air compressor >running, 24 hrs. and hoping the phone doesn't ring.. > >Thanks for all the education forumites. Any and all ideas very welcomed. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of George Church >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 6:52 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: RE: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > >Can you make it in a non-freeze, nonflammable medium to replace AF? >Find the leaks, fix em, leave it in there. > >George L. Church, Jr., CET >Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. >PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 >877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax >[email protected] > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Charles Thurston >Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2011 12:56 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Changing Code Standards in an Existing Bldg. "Opinion" > >Hello > >Hmm Off to invent fluorescent, colored, peppermint scented, smoke to get >listed as a leak detection method for Dry Systems. > >Tuesday, December 13, 2011, 12:46:15 PM, you wrote: > >> I seem to recall in a previous thread not too long ago that someone >> suggested some sort of fluorescent dye that could be injected into the >> system and then be seen with a blacklight. An attic might be a good >> space to use this sort of approach to help trace leaks. > > >-- >Best regards, > Charles mailto:[email protected] > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is > for the sole purpose of the intended recipients and may contain confidential > and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original > message. > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum >_______________________________________________ >Sprinklerforum mailing list >[email protected] >http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum Todd G. Williams, PE Fire Protection Design/Consulting Stonington, CT 860.535.2080 www.fpdc.com _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
