I will try to type ledgeably using numbers that will leave no doubt.
Before a proposed change proving equivalency can be considered,
equivalent has to be established. I had almost lost hope thinking
proving eqivalency meant first meeting a 3X safety factor, and it
still might-- i still have a bit of vaugeness pinning this thing down.
Thanks Roland, Brad
Quoting Roland Huggins <rhugg...@firesprinkler.org>:
on-line submittal go to:
http://www.nfpa.org/AboutTheCodes/AboutTheCodes.asp?docnum=13&tab=nextedition&cookie_test=1
Quite easy but there are some wrinkles depending on what you're
changing. Any one that runs into any of them feel free to call me
at (214) 349-5965 X 121
Roland
On Mar 29, 2013, at 1:02 PM, "Brad Casterline"
<bcasterl...@fsc-inc.com> wrote:
Where do I find the paperwork to do this Roland?
Would this be where I could propose a quantifying for the definition, for
Low anyway?
I worked it from a different angle, said forget Europe, and discovered, as
usual, 13 RULES BABY!
Based on .1/1500 for 30 minutes with heat release rate per unit area of ~750
kW/m2, the fuel load is ~5 lbs/ft2, which is correct! And the only safety
factor is the inherent one I mentioned earlier.
So don't anybody be thinking about cutting any corners...
Brad Casterline, S.E.T. :)
The cut-off date is May 31 so those of you that have sections that are
irritating, submit a PI.
Roland
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
_______________________________________________
Sprinklerforum mailing list
Sprinklerforum@firesprinkler.org
http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
