I wasn't challenging your statement to get you in trouble. I was hoping you had been involved with something and would learnned me.
Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:59 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection I knew I was asking for trouble, even with the semi-quotes 'full scale'. The key is "more satisfying". If I say 20 heads at .2/X sq ft will control a Y size fire..., just flowing 20 heads to verify the calcs, even with-out a fire might be destructive. But if I say it will take (4) 40,000 CFM fans to keep conditions tenable @ 6 feet above the highest level of egress, at least I get to see all the fans 'flowing'. With both the suppression and the tenability, the FULL SCALE destructive tests have already been done. -----Original Message----- From: Cahill, Christopher [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:16 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection "smoke control systems can be tested 'full scale' and not be destructive doing so." How do you do that? If you are not testing with hot or at least a very buoyant 'smoke' plume you probably aren't really testing it. Chris Cahill, PE* Senior Fire Protection Engineer, Aviation & Facilities Group Burns & McDonnell 8201 Norman Center Drive Bloomington, MN 55437 Phone: 952.656.3652 Fax: 952.229.2923 [email protected] www.burnsmcd.com Proud to be one of FORTUNE's 100 Best Companies to Work For *Registered in: MN -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad Casterline Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 9:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection Agree George-- I do not see how it could be otherwise. Expert witnesses for the prosecution and the defense both can "prove" whatever they want to using modeling :(. I use it to get a second opinion of what my gut is telling me, and for something enjoyable and fascinating to do home nights and weekends. I have used FDS far more for designing smoke exhaust and EVAC, than sprinkler models- also fascinating (to me) and more satisfying in that smoke control systems can be tested 'full scale' and not be destructive doing so. -----Original Message----- From: George Church [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, October 15, 2012 7:46 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: 13R balcony protection I suppose it's just since we apply the codes and standards as adopted so most AHJs don't know and don't care if we can model something or draw other conclusions than what they're reading in black and white, day in and day out. George L. Church, Jr., CET Rowe Sprinkler Systems, Inc. PO Box 407, Middleburg, PA 17842 877-324-ROWE 570-837-6335 fax [email protected] _______________________________________________ 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
