So no more referring to "calc's", it shall be called the "Hydraulically Calculated Water Demand Flow Rate". We won't "flush the underground pipe" we will perform a "flushing test" on the underground? Why not call it a "debris test" but then I guess we would fail the test if there was no debris. And I'm still trying to figure out to how pump "supplemental water" into a FDC (hehe). In 1970 I was told it was called a "sprinkler head" so I will keep using that term. Let's start a movement to eliminate the use of metaphors in fire protection. Happy Friday, Ron F
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 6:09 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Interstitial Space Sprinklers Thank you Steve. While I sometime disagree with your perspective, on this we both agree, and wholeheartedly! I am regularly irritated by our industry generated "slang" vernacular. "Heads", "sprigs", "drops", "shotgun risers", and "FDC Connections" to name a few, should be systematically expunged from our vocabulary, and I will lay down this challenge to the Professionals, Tradesmen, Scholars, Authorities, and all other participants of this Forum to do this. Mark at Aero ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Leyton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 11:43 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Interstitial Space Sprinklers Memo To: Everyone in our industry who is alive and being held to the Earth's surface by gravity (as personified by Brad) In Re To: "head makers" In reference to the appliances that discharge water in fire suppression systems, let it be known that there is no such thing as a "head" or "head maker" or "sprinkler head" in any context, except when referring to or describing pressure, both positive and negative. The term "sprinkler head" - which is and has been used for the entirety of recorded history as we know it - is not a defined term. As such, there is no such thing as a "sprinkler head" and therefore, no such entity or group of stake-holders as "head makers", lest you be referring to fire pumps, plural/inclusive. We've all done it, said it, used it, myself included but there is no such thing as a sprinkler head. Let's all start referring to them as "sprinklers" or "fire sprinklers" ... SML -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] on behalf of Brad Casterline Sent: Thu 2/27/2014 8:13 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Interstitial Space Sprinklers Since it will come down to leaving the uprights alone or replacing them with a plug, and the latest technological thinking of the head makers is that they should never be re-installed anywhere if they have been tampered with, I would leave them, and CALL them plugs ;) > On Feb 27, 2014, at 9:43 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > > An instance of AHJ "taste"? > >> On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:57 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I will take the contrarian side and say although you all are correct I think >> it applies to under-designed and in this case if the above compliment was >> left it would be over-designed. >> >>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 8:41 PM, "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Richard hit it with, "Any device that has the physical appearance of >>> life safety or fire protection equipment...." This is the key. >>> Unused stuff that isn't life safety in appearance need not be >>> removed if non-functional, but if life safety it has to come out or, >>> as Todd said, needs to be in full compliance, whether required or >>> not. So if it's life safety stuff and not required it can stay or go >>> as long as it works properly, but if out of compliance it must be >>> right or it must go. >>> >>> >>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Todd Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Then you would have to make it right or take it out. If a system is >>>> installed, it has to be per code, whether it is required or not >>>> >>>> Todd G Williams, PE >>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>>> Stonington, CT >>>> 860-535-2080 >>>> www.fpdc.com >>>> >>>> >>>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 4:46 PM, Steven Cook <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Depending on placement of the full height walls, it is possible >>>>> some of >>>> these existing heads could now be positioned as exceeding the >>>> maximum distance from walls..... >>>>> >>>>> Steve >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: [email protected] [mailto: >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Todd - >>>> Work >>>>> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2014 4:44 PM >>>>> To: [email protected] >>>>> Subject: Re: Interstitial Space Sprinklers >>>>> >>>>> However, if the upright sprinklers are still connected and >>>>> operational, >>>> why wold they need to be taken out? If some of the existing heads >>>> are removed and the outlets used as drops (without installing new >>>> uprights), then all of the uprights in that area should be removed. >>>>> >>>>> Todd G Williams, PE >>>>> Fire Protection Design/Consulting >>>>> Stonington, CT >>>>> www.fpdc.com >>>>> 860-535-2080 (ofc) >>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 27, 2014, at 4:35 PM, Richard Lindner >>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Based on prior discussions here, this is a cited reference (IFC >>>>>> 2012 >>>>>> 901.4.5) if applicable. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Any device that has the physical appearance of life safety or >>>>>> fire protection equipment but that does not perform that life >>>>>> safety or fire protection function shall be prohibited" >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 4:23 PM, Steven Cook >>>>>>> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We have a fit-out project of an existing core / shell condition >>>> building. >>>>>>> Beam and girder construction, all noncombustible. Existing >>>>>>> sprinkler coverage is average 10 x 12 spacing for the open space. >>>>>>> Accounting for beam and other MEP obstructions as required, etc. >>>>>>> The contract drawings are depicting new branch line piping >>>>>>> supplying the >>>> sprinklers at the ACT >>>>>>> ceilings. Deck at 15 feet, new ceilings range from 8'6" to 10 feet. >>>> They >>>>>>> currently depict the existing upright heads to remain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I believe the existing heads are 165 F, but need to verify. >>>>>>> It's the ground floor of a multi-story building (so not at an >>>>>>> un-insulated >>>> roof). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Although the heads are not required, is there a requirement to >>>>>>> remove >>>> the >>>>>>> existing upright heads? I thought there was, but didn't locate it. >>>>>>> Pushing to remove them, but want to have back-up when told to "prove" >>>>>>> they need to come out. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Steve Cook >>>>>>> TG Gallagher >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-fires >>>>>>> prink >>>>>>> ler.org >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesp >>>>>> rinkl >>>>>> er.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkler.org >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkler.org _______________________________________________ >>>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firespri >>>> nkler.org >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Greenman >>> Instructor >>> Fire Protection Engineering Technology Bates Technical College >>> 1101 So. Yakima Ave. >>> Tacoma, WA 98405 >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> http://www.bates.ctc.edu/fireprotection/ >>> >>> 253.680.7346 >>> 253.576.9700 (cell) >>> >>> Member: >>> ASEE, SFPE, ASCET, NFPA, AFSA, NFSA, AFAA, NIBS, WSAFM, WFC, WFSC >>> >>> They are happy men whose natures sort with their vocations. -Francis >>> Bacon, essayist, philosopher, and statesman (1561-1626) >>> >>> A problem well stated is a problem half solved. -Charles F. >>> Kettering, inventor and engineer (1876-1958) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Sprinklerforum mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprin >>> kler.org >> _______________________________________________ >> Sprinklerforum mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprink >> ler.org > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkl > er.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
