The water might be smart but is it UL Listed? LOL Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 28, 2016, at 6:57 PM, rongreenman . <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rules is rules because they be rules. We calc discharge in rectangles, and > not consistent rectangles. Sprinklers typically spray in circles. To listen > to people you'd think a standard spray knew what dimension rectangle the > designer chose, sprays at that pattern precisely to each corner as long as > the distance along the pipe and perpendicular to the pipe does not exceed > 7'6" from the sprinkler and then abruptly drops straight down, and on the > way, figures out how to place exactly the desired density, not more nor > less, in each square foot of the described rectangle. Smartest damned water > on earth. > > >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:41 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Ron, >> >> Thank you for the input. That's one of the things that drives me crazy. >> I'm a numbers person and like to know the supporting information. My jaw >> hit the floor when I found out the 3x rule was made up because it had to be >> something...and the 4x rule for EC heads was chosen because it is larger >> than 3. Come on guys! >> >> Brad, >> >> For your puzzle, I think it rhymes with Whoosh >> >> Thanks, >> Sean VG >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Brad >> Casterline >> Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2016 3:37 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: NFPA 13 (2013) 8.6.4.1.2(5) - why the 3ft minimum? >> >> How about stems at 7-10 Ron? >> >> p.s. I'm working on an X-word puzzle... 6 letters starts with d ends with >> e... a little help? >> p.s.s. you were right a couple years ago when you told me if I'm looking >> for a little love I might be looking in the wrong place. >> I wish I was Larry, or Steve L right about now. >>> On Apr 28, 2016 5:14 PM, "rongreenman ." <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I hate to state the obvious, nor sound like a d....e, but it's because >>> it os the rule. It's the same if I have a duct that is 48" wide I need >>> to place sprinklers under the duct but i can have multiple ducts 47" >>> wide with a gap 1" wide between them, and I can have then all across >>> the room and don't have to sprinkler under them. So at some point you >>> have to look at common practice and you'd never see my scenario. What >>> about yours? Do you regularly run into 2' 11" and 3' 1" stems? >>> >>> On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:02 PM, Larry Keeping <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It may be of help if you reference the 2016 edition of NFPA 13. >>>> >>>> There, in Section 8.6.4.1.2(5) the 3 ft limit has been deleted. >>>> >>>> The Committee Statement for that revision was that concrete tees are >>>> capable of withstanding the heat long enough for sprinklers to >>>> activate even when the tees are closer than 3 feet on centers. >>>> >>>> Larry Keeping >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Sprinklerforum [mailto: >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of >>>> [email protected] >>>> Sent: April-28-16 5:35 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: NFPA 13 (2013) 8.6.4.1.2(5) - why the 3ft minimum? >>>> >>>> Forum, >>>> >>>> We have concrete tee construction. Bottom of stems measured from >>>> the ceiling is 26" down. Centerline of stems are spaced apart in an >>>> every other fashion of 7', 2'8", 7', 2'8", etc. Ideally we would >>>> like to use NFPA 13 (2013) 8.6.4.1.2(5) to protect the area so we >>>> don't have to add additional sprinklers/piping. However it states >>>> this is only applicable for 3ft to 7.5ft stem spacing. Can someone >>>> tell me the purpose behind >>> the >>>> 3ft minimum threshold? Even though we have some 2'8" sections, do >>>> you believe the intent of this code was for my situation? Or do you >>>> believe the intent is for concrete tee construction where every stem >>>> is 3ft or less? I can see people interpreting this passage either >>>> way as all stems are spaced away from another stem more than 3ft, >>>> yet all stems are spaced away from another stem less than 3ft. >>>> >>>> To me, it seems ridiculous that I can have stems with any depth >>>> (let's >>> say >>>> 10ft) and spaced 3'1" apart and the deflector can be located 1" >>>> below >>> the >>>> bottom of the stem (10'1") and branchlines can be spaced 15ft apart. >>>> Yet if the same depth stems are spaced 2'11" apart the deflector >>>> can't be >>> lower >>>> than 22" below the ceiling and because they are now obstructed, they >>>> have to be in every pocket. >>>> >>>> I appreciate anyone's opinion on my situation and/or >>>> knowledge/history of this codes development. >>>> >>>> Note: As I allude to, I know there are other ways to design this >>>> system utilizing 22" and beam rule. I am more looking for the >>>> "Why's" or the >>> "You >>>> missed this blurb" that agrees with your stance . >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Sean VG >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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-firesprinkl >>> er.org >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Ron Greenman >>> >>> 4110 Olson Dr., NW >>> Gig Harbor, WA 98335 >>> >>> [email protected] >>> >>> 253.576.9700 >>> >>> 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-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 > > > > -- > Ron Greenman > > 4110 Olson Dr., NW > Gig Harbor, WA 98335 > > [email protected] > > 253.576.9700 > > 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-firesprinkler.org _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://lists.firesprinkler.org/listinfo.cgi/sprinklerforum-firesprinkler.org
