I mean, for crying out loud, look what he changed the thread name to Steve! BTW, while I got you, 14 is standpipes right? Your specialty, and open for public opinion? 65 at the top was just right for the old 2.5 inch but 100 is inadequate for the modern, smaller packs-- any comments on that conundrum?
> On Sep 15, 2014, at 8:32 PM, Brad Casterline <[email protected]> wrote: > > He was probably a Spark Vendor in a previous life-- hyper sensitive to > electron flow meeting H2O flow > >> On Sep 15, 2014, at 4:18 PM, "Steve Leyton" <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> I'll probably get yelled at for being off topic, but Andy Rooney never said, >> "Have you ever wondered why ...?" Andy Rooney would say, "Why is it that >> ...?" As in, "Why is it that Roland Huggins shorts out every time someone >> dredges up an old thread that he thought was dead and buried?" >> >> You're welcome America, >> Charles Osgood >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Damien Shannon >> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2014 1:57 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Water Velocity >> >> So purely along the lines of Andy Rooney's 'have you ever wondered why' :) >> ... FM Datasheet 2-0, while not limiting the allowable velocity, does >> require that when velocity exceed 30ft/sec, that the calculation be >> performed via the Darcy-Weisbach Method rather than the Hazen-Williams. >> Entertainment value only, but would seem that the variance between results >> in Hazen-Williams versus Darcy-Weisbach become more apparent with higher >> velocities. >> The 30ft/sec limitation (for application of Hazen-Williams calculations) in >> FM 2-0 is strangely close to the 10m/sec (32.8ft/sec) limitation in EN >> 12845 Rules for Automatic Sprinkler Installations (previously BS 5306). >> >> >> >> >> On 15 September 2014 21:23, Parsley Consulting <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Roland, >>> A mutual friend of ours who works up in Quincy described for me a >>> question he once had with a caller who wanted to know in which edition >>> of >>> -13 the 32 ft/sec requirement had been removed, and why. >>> This friend searched through the library there back to the first >>> sprinkler standard from 1896, and found that it had NEVER been part of >>> -13. The individual he was dealing with accused him of being an >>> imbecile and a deceitful one to boot, and promptly hung up. >>> Joe Hankins told me the same story. >>> *Ken Wagoner, SET >>> *Parsley Consulting*** >>> *350 West 9th Avenue, Suite 206 >>> *Escondido, California 92025 >>> *****Phone 760-745-6181* >>> Visit our website <http://www.parsleyconsulting.com/> *** On 9/15/2014 >>> 1:01 PM, Roland Huggins wrote: >>> >>>> Next time you even start to think of any basis for imposing a >>>> velocity of >>>> 32 ft/s, take a hammer and smash a finger. Hopefully the pain will >>>> divert you from wasting your time especially if you’re assuming you >>>> are dealing with facts. I’ve heard numerous conclusion as to why the >>>> mystical 32 ft/s existed. Only one has any chance of being valid. >>>> Joe Hankins told me long ago that FM initially imposed a velocity >>>> restriction after hydraulic calc’s entered the scene and folks >>>> started designing gridded storage systems with >>>> 1 inch BLs. For ever other basis, I can hear Andy Rooney saying - >>>> Have you ever wondered why …... >>>> >>>> Roland >>>> >>>> >>>> Roland Huggins, PE - VP Engineering >>>> American Fire Sprinkler Assn. --- Fire Sprinklers Saves Lives >>>> Dallas, TX >>>> http://www.firesprinkler.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sep 12, 2014, at 5:51 AM, Brad Casterline >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Damien, will you mail me those snaps too please? I have heard the >>>> pipe >>>>> schedules were derived by increasing the size when the velocity >>>>> reached about 32 ft/sec. Figuring out approximate flow per head and >>>>> average densities, etc, will give me something to do as I sit at the >>>>> kitchen table and drink beer tonight. Thanks. >>>>> >>>>> Good luck Jeremy! >>>>> >>>>> Brad >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> >> *Damien Shannon* >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
