Should equal the "unenforceable language" flow. Like an "adequate" water supply. Or until recently, "reliable" power supply.
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 [email protected] Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 1:34 PM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: Standpipe FDC Inlets I will need some guidance on how to calculate the "supplemental" flow not full flow through an FDC. Ron Fletcher Aero Automatic Phoenix, AZ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Huggins Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2012 8:17 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Standpipe FDC Inlets It isn't appropriate for 13 to change? Just because it is the same piece of equipment doesn't mean that they have the same objectives or levels of criticality. Try submitting a proposal next cycle showing the friction loss and try to change it. WHat is the loss at 250 gpm and 500 gpm? Roland On Feb 2, 2012, at 5:30 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Maybe because the 14 committee knows there is no way to "supplement" > the water supply. If the pressure and flow at the FDC is great enough > to open the check valve it will close the riser check. While I don't > agree with the 250 gpm for each inlet, 500 is more reasonable. 13 > should drop "supplemental" altogether or replace it with something > more realistic. > > > Ron Fletcher > Aero Automatic _______________________________________________ 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
