To restate John's comment a little more bluntly, the requirement to adjust the K-factor for antifreeze solutions was deleted the following edition because it created an insignificant difference considering the approximate nature of our overall methodology and especially the assigned average value for the K-factor. In other words, it was a dumb thing to do in the first place. If any one is interested in the details, I provided an extensive explanation along with the proposal so check the old ROP/ROC.
Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives Dallas, TX http://www.firesprinkler.org On Jun 11, 2013, at 12:56 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Matt and Ron. I appreciate ALL feedback. > I like posting numbers because there is no opinion, personal feelings, > hearsay, etc. I know a ton about D-W and H-W, and I do not need to repeat > the Velocity of Efflux experiments of the early 1600's to know I am correct > about K-Factors. Would it be too much to ask of you to simply work a few of > the numbers that back up the concepts I post, BEFORE I get your Criticisms > and Opinions? Either that or YOU show ME how it is done- adjusting K-Factors > I mean, from NFPA 13 referenced earlier? _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
