"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

HeyBub wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers


Sounds like my former town in Illinois.
I have seen sprinklers by the furnace
and water heaters in some houses. Maybe
it was only attached townhouses,
but I really don't remember. When we
were building the church in the mid 80s,
the town wanted the entire building
sprinkled. The builder/architect didn't
want
sprinklers and sited a loophole in the
code that said the building could be
divided into various parts separated by
firewalls. I think the architect just
didn't know how to put in the sprinklers
and properly hide all the plumbing.
There were only 2 sprinklers in the
boiler room. Otherwise the building was
separated into 5 fire zones. The were
fire detectors connected to the fire
department in each zone. BTW, he also
sited statistics at the time where
there were almost no church fires on
record and the ones sited were always
when the building was not occupied.
Since then I've seen many church fires
on the news, mostly in the middle of the
night, though. I think the sprinklers
would have been an improvement over the
system that was installed. But
this was a commercial building. Homes
are another thing.

On Sep 18, 7:04*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

On Sep 18, 10:00*am, Eric in North TX wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:04*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

Cost? How about the cost of all the systems that are going to be
installed compared to the number of lives they MIGHT save?
According to the article, 3000 people die each year in fires. I'm
sure some reasonable estimate can be made of how many of them would
actually be saved if there were sprinklers. Certainly it's not
anywhere near the total 3000. Is a sprinkler gonna save someone
smoking in bed by going off from the heat before they are already
dead? I think not.

Now compare how much money would be spent and I'd venture there are
plenty of other things the money could be spent on, like healthcare
for the poor, which would save an order of magnitude more lives. As
the opponents point out, smoke detectors are very effective. I'd
like to see statistics on how many of those 3000 deaths had working
smoke detectors.

Lots of theoretical ideas turn out to be nowhere near what they were
supposed to be. One prime example is anti-lock brakes. They were
supposed to drastically reduce traffic fatalities and serious wrecks,
but curiously in practice they have done little if anything.

Eric in North TX wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:04 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt
building codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and
townhome starting in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

I'm of the opinion there are better solutions:

1. If a city can mandate smoke alarms (at, say, $5.00 each), it could easily
mandate fire extinguishers for the same amount. This is a big difference
from $1,500.00 to install sprinklers.
2. If response time from the fire department is an issue, beef up the fire
department! In my city, our fire department virtually guarantees the first
piece of equipment will be on-scene within four minutes of the alarm.*
3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering
discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a
big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers.

-------
* Last year the power went out in my home. After putzing around for about
ten minutes, I stepped outside from boredom. Jay-suss! There were FORTY-TWO
fire department vehicles on my block! (I've got pictures) Seems there was a
spreading kitchen fire in the apartment house across the street.

The fire department had ripped down and uprooted the iron-picket fence
between the apartment units and the street, had run hoses off to the
horizon, and swarmed over the whole shebang like vultures on a dead zebra.
There were ladder trucks, ordinary pumper trucks, a truck with ladders that
could reach the thirty-seventh floor of this two-story aparment house, a
water-spray truck with a boom like a cherry-picker, supervisor vans,
ambulances, a cascade unit, special operation's vans, and a HUGE, black,
bus-looking vehicle labeled "City of Houston Mobile Command Center" that
looked like the thing that carries seniors to the local Indian reservation
for a day of gambling.

I recognized one of the station numbers on a pumper. It was from the station
near the Texas Medical Center, some eight miles away.

In addition to the 42 fire trucks in front of my house, a couple of
neighbors reported that several pumpers were stationed up to six blocks away
with hoses connected to fireplugs ready to race to the scene with more
water.

There were police cars without number to direct the traffic. News vans. A
helicopter. A power company truck (he was the one that cut power to the
block). Everything but a steam-powered calliope playing the Star Spangled
Banner. I half-expected a hurdy-gurdy man with a monkey and a tin cup.

Lordy!

On the plus-plus side, I now know what to do if I get lonely.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering
discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a
big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers.


They do. At least in IN you get 20% off your homeowners insurance.
The same as for having an alarm. I would amortize it within 10 years,
using your $1500 scenario.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt
building codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and
townhome starting in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

I'm of the opinion there are better solutions:

1. If a city can mandate smoke alarms (at, say, $5.00 each), it could
easily mandate fire extinguishers for the same amount. This is a big
difference from $1,500.00 to install sprinklers.
2. If response time from the fire department is an issue, beef up the fire
department! In my city, our fire department virtually guarantees the first
piece of equipment will be on-scene within four minutes of the alarm.*
3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be offering
discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people couldn't offer a
big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers.

-------
* Last year the power went out in my home. After putzing around for about
ten minutes, I stepped outside from boredom. Jay-suss! There were
FORTY-TWO fire department vehicles on my block! (I've got pictures) Seems
there was a spreading kitchen fire in the apartment house across the
street.

The fire department had ripped down and uprooted the iron-picket fence
between the apartment units and the street, had run hoses off to the
horizon, and swarmed over the whole shebang like vultures on a dead zebra.
There were ladder trucks, ordinary pumper trucks, a truck with ladders
that could reach the thirty-seventh floor of this two-story aparment
house, a water-spray truck with a boom like a cherry-picker, supervisor
vans, ambulances, a cascade unit, special operation's vans, and a HUGE,
black, bus-looking vehicle labeled "City of Houston Mobile Command Center"
that looked like the thing that carries seniors to the local Indian
reservation for a day of gambling.

I recognized one of the station numbers on a pumper. It was from the
station near the Texas Medical Center, some eight miles away.

In addition to the 42 fire trucks in front of my house, a couple of
neighbors reported that several pumpers were stationed up to six blocks
away with hoses connected to fireplugs ready to race to the scene with
more water.

There were police cars without number to direct the traffic. News vans. A
helicopter. A power company truck (he was the one that cut power to the
block). Everything but a steam-powered calliope playing the Star Spangled
Banner. I half-expected a hurdy-gurdy man with a monkey and a tin cup.

Lordy!

On the plus-plus side, I now know what to do if I get lonely.


*In NJ the fire extinguisher manufacturers lobbied for mandatory fire
extinguishers in every home. So now we are required to have a visible fire
extinguisher in or close to our kitchens. When we sell our homes we have to
pay for a smoke alarm and fire extinguisher inspection by the town before we
can close. I talked to several fire inspectors about this and they all said
that they were against this law. Their thinking is that they want people to
get out of the house if there is a fire; not stick around and try to put it
out.

There are many towns here that have all volunteer fire departments. The
response time can be as long as 20 minutes. Sprinklers are not a bad idea
in a situation like that. I personally feel that the fire rating for walls
and ceilings should be increased in certain areas of the house such as the
kitchen and garage.

Meanwhile, Barney Frank and Newt Gingrich having an argyment
over whether it's "sprikler" or "sprinkler". Barney Frank is
quoting Ted Kennedy, on the correct pronunciation.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to
adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and
townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

Your ignorance is astounding. Please let me attempt to
replace ignorance with facts.

1) Generally, sprinklers reduce water and fire damage. Non
sprinklered areas, the fire gets a much better "hold". Also,
fire departments have been known to do water damage.
2) Each individual head has a low melting point metal, or
some other way of activating. The only way to wash the TV is
if the sprinkler head gets hot enough for the fusible metal
to melt.

Like the auto shutoff feature. Good idea.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Eric in North TX" wrote in message
...
On Sep 18, 7:04 am, "HeyBub" wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether
to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and
townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best
solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The
downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control
fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point
in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little
fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature,
auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so
long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to
life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

Sounds like over kill for a kitchen fire. However, one town
where I used to live. They had a stretch of apartments that
were tinder boxes. We in the FD all had heart flutters when
we heard "wintergreen way" on the air.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

I'm of the opinion there are better solutions:

1. If a city can mandate smoke alarms (at, say, $5.00 each),
it could easily
mandate fire extinguishers for the same amount. This is a
big difference
from $1,500.00 to install sprinklers.
2. If response time from the fire department is an issue,
beef up the fire
department! In my city, our fire department virtually
guarantees the first
piece of equipment will be on-scene within four minutes of
the alarm.*
3. If sprinklers were worth it, insurance companies would be
offering
discounts to homeowners. Obviously, the insurance people
couldn't offer a
big enough discount to amortize the cost of sprinklers.

-------
* Last year the power went out in my home. After putzing
around for about
ten minutes, I stepped outside from boredom. Jay-suss! There
were FORTY-TWO
fire department vehicles on my block! (I've got pictures)
Seems there was a
spreading kitchen fire in the apartment house across the
street.

The fire department had ripped down and uprooted the
iron-picket fence
between the apartment units and the street, had run hoses
off to the
horizon, and swarmed over the whole shebang like vultures on
a dead zebra.
There were ladder trucks, ordinary pumper trucks, a truck
with ladders that
could reach the thirty-seventh floor of this two-story
aparment house, a
water-spray truck with a boom like a cherry-picker,
supervisor vans,
ambulances, a cascade unit, special operation's vans, and a
HUGE, black,
bus-looking vehicle labeled "City of Houston Mobile Command
Center" that
looked like the thing that carries seniors to the local
Indian reservation
for a day of gambling.

I recognized one of the station numbers on a pumper. It was
from the station
near the Texas Medical Center, some eight miles away.

In addition to the 42 fire trucks in front of my house, a
couple of
neighbors reported that several pumpers were stationed up to
six blocks away
with hoses connected to fireplugs ready to race to the scene
with more
water.

There were police cars without number to direct the traffic.
News vans. A
helicopter. A power company truck (he was the one that cut
power to the
block). Everything but a steam-powered calliope playing the
Star Spangled
Banner. I half-expected a hurdy-gurdy man with a monkey and
a tin cup.

Lordy!

On the plus-plus side, I now know what to do if I get
lonely.

There's a lot of different people out there. Some can whomp
out a fire with an extinguisher, do the salvage and such.
Others, it's a virtual death sentence, to go after a fire.
I like the smoke detectors, the other things (sprinklers and
fire extinguishers) oughta be personal choice.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"John Grabowski" wrote in message
...

*In NJ the fire extinguisher manufacturers lobbied for
mandatory fire
extinguishers in every home. So now we are required to have
a visible fire
extinguisher in or close to our kitchens. When we sell our
homes we have to
pay for a smoke alarm and fire extinguisher inspection by
the town before we
can close. I talked to several fire inspectors about this
and they all said
that they were against this law. Their thinking is that
they want people to
get out of the house if there is a fire; not stick around
and try to put it
out.

There are many towns here that have all volunteer fire
departments. The
response time can be as long as 20 minutes. Sprinklers are
not a bad idea
in a situation like that. I personally feel that the fire
rating for walls
and ceilings should be increased in certain areas of the
house such as the
kitchen and garage.

John Grabowski wrote:

There are many towns here that have all volunteer fire departments. The
response time can be as long as 20 minutes. Sprinklers are not a
bad idea in a situation like that. I personally feel that the fire
rating for walls and ceilings should be increased in certain areas of
the house such as the kitchen and garage.

Not only many towns...

When someone tells me there's no private substitute for some governmental
entities - like fire and police - I like to point out that there are MANY
more private security guards on the job than cops and that 85% of the
nation's firefighters are volunteers.

Good one! That really puts government in perspective.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...

When someone tells me there's no private substitute for some
governmental
entities - like fire and police - I like to point out that
there are MANY
more private security guards on the job than cops and that
85% of the
nation's firefighters are volunteers.

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Your ignorance is astounding. Please let me attempt to
replace ignorance with facts.

1) Generally, sprinklers reduce water and fire damage. Non
sprinklered areas, the fire gets a much better "hold". Also,
fire departments have been known to do water damage.
Sprinklers generally don't let fires get big enuff to bring out the
truckies which means vast expanses of roof remain intact (g).

2) Each individual head has a low melting point metal, or
some other way of activating. The only way to wash the TV is
if the sprinkler head gets hot enough for the fusible metal
to melt.


The other thing is that only the ones that are near the fire go
off. I always get a kick out of the TV when a small fire in a corner
kicks off the sprinklers throughout the entire warehouse. About the same
as when the car ALWAYS catches fire after a wreck.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

There's a lot of different people out there. Some can whomp
out a fire with an extinguisher, do the salvage and such.
Others, it's a virtual death sentence, to go after a fire.
I like the smoke detectors, the other things (sprinklers and
fire extinguishers) oughta be personal choice.

Outside of high rises. Anything over about 6 stories should get
sprinklers because that is generally about as high as most ladder can
get by the time you get setback, etc., out of the way.
In the City County Building in Ft. Wayne, because the bldg had a
underground garage the largest ladder could only get to the third floor.
Guess which the floor the FWFD occupied?

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Good one! That really puts government in perspective.

And most wars in history were fought by (or helped by) mercenaries.

The original British Navy was founded by a gift of warships by British
merchants ("Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves...").

The Pony Express was a private outfit.

And so on.

On another matter:

Ran into an interesting statistic on health care, particularily the
president's claim that there is too little competition. Consider Maine where
two companies have 88% of the insurance business (Wellpoint 78% and Aetna
10%).

Ah, but 52% of the employers in Maine SELF-INSURE and merely hire some
companies to manage the paperwork (much like administering payrolls). That
means that Wellpoint (in this example), the largest insurer in the state,
manages only 37% of the health insurance in the state. Wellpoint is in
"competition" with thousands of medium-sized businesses that self-insure.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...-claims-obama/

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:

Your ignorance is astounding. Please let me attempt to
replace ignorance with facts.

1) Generally, sprinklers reduce water and fire damage. Non
sprinklered areas, the fire gets a much better "hold". Also,
fire departments have been known to do water damage.
Sprinklers generally don't let fires get big enuff to bring out
the truckies which means vast expanses of roof remain intact (g).

2) Each individual head has a low melting point metal, or
some other way of activating. The only way to wash the TV is
if the sprinkler head gets hot enough for the fusible metal
to melt.


The other thing is that only the ones that are near the fire go
off. I always get a kick out of the TV when a small fire in a corner
kicks off the sprinklers throughout the entire warehouse. About the
same as when the car ALWAYS catches fire after a wreck.

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off. Better to be
wet than blown into the ocean.

Please post evidence. I've never seen such.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go
off. Better to be
wet than blown into the ocean.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off. Better to be
wet than blown into the ocean.

None that I ran into in 9 years in the fire service. Although I did
not do inspections so did not have to run the numbers, it would seem
that if they did all go off, you'd lose too much water pressure and they
would be close to useless.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

On Sep 18, 10:00 am, Eric in North TX wrote:
" The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

The sprinklers only go off in the area of the fire, not the entire property
so that is not a consideration. Homeowner should be able to turn them off,
also. In commercial/industrial applications, the shut off valve is usually
chained open to prevent accidental or mischievous turning off of the valve.

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
About the same
as when the car ALWAYS catches fire after a wreck.

But they do. I've seen it on TV so I know its real.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
Please post evidence. I've never seen such.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"HeyBub" wrote in message
...

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go
off. Better to be
wet than blown into the ocean.


Deluge systems
"Deluge" systems are systems that have open sprinklers, i.e. the heat
sensing operating element is removed or specifically designed open
sprinklers, so that all sprinklers connected to the water piping system are
open. These systems are used for special hazards where rapid fire spread is
a concern, as they provide a simultaneous application of water over the
entire hazard. They are commonly seen as preventative measures to prevent
egress of fire from an external source (eg hi-rise windows, warehouse bay
entries, over openings in a fire-rated wall)

Water is not present in the piping until the system operates. Because the
sprinkler orifices are open, the piping is at atmospheric pressure. To
prevent the water supply pressure from forcing water into the piping, a
deluge valve is used in the water supply connection, which is a mechanically
latched valve. It is a non-resetting valve, and stays open once tripped.

Because the heat sensing elements present in the automatic sprinklers have
been removed (resulting in open sprinklers), the deluge valve must be opened
as signaled by a specialized fire alarm system. The type of fire alarm
initiating device is selected mainly based on the hazard (e.g., smoke
detectors, heat detectors, or optical flame detectors). The initiation
device signals the fire alarm panel, which in turn signals the deluge valve
to open. Activation can also be manual, depending on the system goals.
Manual activation is usually via an electric or pneumatic fire alarm pull
station, which signals the fire alarm panel, which in turn signals the
deluge valve to open.

Operation - Activation of a fire alarm initiating device, or a manual pull
station, signals the fire alarm panel, which in turn signals the deluge
valve to open, allowing water to enter the piping system. Water flows from
all sprinklers simultaneously.

When I took some fire protection courses, we learned about
the Parmalee Perforated pipe system (it was 20 years or so
ago I learned of this). Some textile mill owner put pipes
overhead, with holes drilled. In case of fire, they could
open the valve, and spray the entire plant. Same concept.

I doubt deluge systems will be installed in homes.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...


Deluge systems
"Deluge" systems are systems that have open sprinklers, i.e.
the heat
sensing operating element is removed or specifically
designed open
sprinklers, so that all sprinklers connected to the water
piping system are
open. These systems are used for special hazards where rapid
fire spread is
a concern, as they provide a simultaneous application of
water over the
entire hazard. They are commonly seen as preventative
measures to prevent
egress of fire from an external source (eg hi-rise windows,
warehouse bay
entries, over openings in a fire-rated wall)

Water is not present in the piping until the system
operates. Because the
sprinkler orifices are open, the piping is at atmospheric
pressure. To
prevent the water supply pressure from forcing water into
the piping, a
deluge valve is used in the water supply connection, which
is a mechanically
latched valve. It is a non-resetting valve, and stays open
once tripped.

Because the heat sensing elements present in the automatic
sprinklers have
been removed (resulting in open sprinklers), the deluge
valve must be opened
as signaled by a specialized fire alarm system. The type of
fire alarm
initiating device is selected mainly based on the hazard
(e.g., smoke
detectors, heat detectors, or optical flame detectors). The
initiation
device signals the fire alarm panel, which in turn signals
the deluge valve
to open. Activation can also be manual, depending on the
system goals.
Manual activation is usually via an electric or pneumatic
fire alarm pull
station, which signals the fire alarm panel, which in turn
signals the
deluge valve to open.

Operation - Activation of a fire alarm initiating device, or
a manual pull
station, signals the fire alarm panel, which in turn signals
the deluge
valve to open, allowing water to enter the piping system.
Water flows from
all sprinklers simultaneously.

On Sep 18, 10:23*pm, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
HeyBub wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

Most house fires are caused by Jewish lightening.I'm sure the firebug
will find a way to disable the sprinkler.

Actually the leading cause of home fires is smoking. I doubt
sprinklers would have saved someone who died smoking in bed. But a
working smoke detector probably would.

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Please post evidence. I've never seen such.

"Deluge systems are connected to a water supply through a deluge valve that
is opened by the operation of a smoke or heat detection system. The
detection system is installed in the same area as the sprinklers. When the
detection system is activated water discharges through all of the sprinkler
heads in the system. Deluge systems are used in places that are considered
high hazard areas such as power plants, aircraft hangars and chemical
storage or processing facilities. Deluge systems are needed where high
velocity suppression is necessary to prevent fire spread."

http://www.apifiregroup.com/firesprinkler/deluge.html

or

http://www.tpub.com/content/construc...s/14259_71.htm

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off.
Better to be wet than blown into the ocean.

None that I ran into in 9 years in the fire service. Although I did
not do inspections so did not have to run the numbers, it would seem
that if they did all go off, you'd lose too much water pressure and
they would be close to useless.

Where water pressure may be inadequate, auxillary pumps are installed as
part of the system.

You probably never inspected a munitions bunker, a Minuteman Missle silo, or
similar. In my town, near the ship channel, is a WW2 Ordnance Depot. It has
hundreds of munition bunkers that have these overhead water pipes.

Aside:
The San Jacinto Ordnance Depot was sited on 5,000 acres and is comprised of
these bunkers. Each bunker is about 150' long and 50' wide, and 20' high,
made of concrete with 6-ft walls in the shape of a Quonset hut. Each bunker
it topped with about ten feet of dirt. Between each bunker is a mound of
soil higher than the bunker.

These bunkers are arranged in rows with VERY small thick steel-doored
entrances (~3x6 ft) that face each other across a "street." The "street" is
more like a concrete pad with a railroad track down its center. The bunkers
are on either side of this 100' wide "street."

Over the years, since 1941, the dirt and mounds between the bunkers have
been overgrown with a pine forest and assorted shrubbery.

You'd think the valuable land - on the Houston Ship Channel - would have
been converted to something other than storage warehouses for honey. It
hasn't, and I suppose the reason is the enormous cost to demolish these
bunkers. For sure you can't blow them up!

HeyBub wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go off.
Better to be wet than blown into the ocean.
None that I ran into in 9 years in the fire service. Although I did
not do inspections so did not have to run the numbers, it would seem
that if they did all go off, you'd lose too much water pressure and
they would be close to useless.

Where water pressure may be inadequate, auxillary pumps are installed as
part of the system.

You probably never inspected a munitions bunker, a Minuteman Missle silo, or
similar. In my town, near the ship channel, is a WW2 Ordnance Depot. It has
hundreds of munition bunkers that have these overhead water pipes.

Aside:
The San Jacinto Ordnance Depot was sited on 5,000 acres and is comprised of
these bunkers. Each bunker is about 150' long and 50' wide, and 20' high,
made of concrete with 6-ft walls in the shape of a Quonset hut. Each bunker
it topped with about ten feet of dirt. Between each bunker is a mound of
soil higher than the bunker.

These bunkers are arranged in rows with VERY small thick steel-doored
entrances (~3x6 ft) that face each other across a "street." The "street" is
more like a concrete pad with a railroad track down its center. The bunkers
are on either side of this 100' wide "street."

Over the years, since 1941, the dirt and mounds between the bunkers have
been overgrown with a pine forest and assorted shrubbery.

You'd think the valuable land - on the Houston Ship Channel - would have
been converted to something other than storage warehouses for honey. It
hasn't, and I suppose the reason is the enormous cost to demolish these
bunkers. For sure you can't blow them up!


And each one of those bunkers likely has a blowout plug in the top or in
the back wall, designed to be weaker than the door, and to vent the
pressure wave from an explosion away from the other bunkers. Any crew in
the bunker would be a writeoff, of course, but they didn't want the
whole yard going up.

As to linked sprinkler heads- I'm no expert, but I thought they just
linked heads within the local firewall perimeter- ie, that wing or floor
or whatever. No need to flood the whole building for a small fire.

--
aem sends...

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Stormin Mormon wrote:
Please post evidence. I've never seen such.

"Deluge systems are connected to a water supply through a deluge valve that
is opened by the operation of a smoke or heat detection system. T

The original context was how sprinkler always all came on on TV and
how unlike real life that is. Unless people are having nuclear reactors
or refineries or some kinds of warehouses storing highly flammable haz
materials in their homes, it is still very unrealistic. Probably about
as many deluge systems going off over the course of a year as cars
actually blowing up.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


You probably never inspected a munitions bunker, a Minuteman Missle silo, or
similar. In my town, near the ship channel, is a WW2 Ordnance Depot. It has
hundreds of munition bunkers that have these overhead water pipes.

I missed those, I admit. Of course the original context of how they
ALWAYS all go off on TV and how that is unlike reality (outside of maybe
something they are doing on 24).

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

On Sep 18, 10:00*am, Eric in North TX wrote:
On Sep 18, 7:04*am, "HeyBub" wrote:

"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

I've always been a fan of that plan. I see it as the best solution,
eliminating the response time from the fire department. The downside
would be the water damage from a relatively easy to control fire, but
likely worth the risk. They should be zoned though, no point in
washing down the TV in the living room to control a little fire in the
kitchen. Easy to turn off would be another good feature, auto off
after flames subside for 10 minutes or so. even better, so long as it
had the ability to turn back on if the embers came back to life. Cost
would probably eliminate those desirable features though.

Automatic Fire Sprinklers are always zoned. Except in some rather
exotic systems, that protect risks containing flash fire or flammable
liquid hazards, fire sprinkler heads; which is what the individual
discharge nozzles are called; do not open until the temperature at the
individual head reaches a set level and remains there long enough to
melt the woods metal, or rupture the glass bulb, that hold it closed.
In other words ordinary fire sprinkler heads open one at a time in
response to the temperature at the head. They can be combined with a
heat detector system that will shut off the water when the temperature
has dropped to a safe level but such additional controls add markedly
to the cost. There are even sprinkler heads that shut themselves when
the temperature drops but there cost is quite high compared to the
much simpler open and replace type. All fire sprinkler systems are
easy to shut off but premature shut down is the primary cause of large
losses in sprinklered premises. Many large cities have local laws or
ordinances that forbid the closing of sprinkler valves prior to the
fire department's permission.

--
Tom Horne

On Sep 18, 8:46*pm, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:
Please post evidence. I've never seen such.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
*www.lds.org
.

"HeyBub" wrote in message

...

In some sprinkler systems, when one goes off, they all go
off. Better to be
wet than blown into the ocean.

Those are known as deluge sprinkler systems. The individual heads are
open and only covered with a light weight dust cover to keep hte heads
clear of accumulations that might interfere with the discharge
pattern. Deluge systems are used to protect occupancies like cotton
mills, explosives and pyrotechnic manufacturing, and aircraft hangers
were there is a danger of flash fire or the ignition of spilled
flammable liquids such that the fire might spread faster than
individual heads would heat up and open to the point that more heads
would open then the system was designed to supply. Deluge sprinklers
are often supplied with foam or other water additives that make them
effective against the particular hazard for which the system is
installed.

--
Tom Horne

On Sep 19, 8:13*am, wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:23*pm, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers

Most house fires are caused by Jewish lightening.I'm sure the firebug
will find a way to disable the sprinkler.

Actually the leading cause of home fires is smoking. * I doubt
sprinklers would have saved someone who died smoking in bed. * *But a
working smoke detector probably would.

Unfortunately the smoke detectors do not save small children, the
elderly and infirm, or the smoker themselves, because the smoking
ignition is often coupled with the consumption of intoxicants which
render the user incapable of responding effectively to the alarm.
Children, and others that are incapable of self evacuation, can only
be completely protected by automatic fire suppression. The office of
the State Fire Marshal did a study of ten years worth of fire
fatalities in the State. They concluded that about half of those
deaths would have been prevented by a fire alarm system that would
have automatically summon the fire department and that all except the
smoking igniters; including the children and others who had died with
the person who's smoking had caused the fire; would have been saved by
fire sprinklers.

--
Tom Horne

Tom Horne wrote:
On Sep 19, 8:13 am, wrote:
On Sep 18, 10:23 pm, Van Chocstraw
wrote:

HeyBub wrote:
"State and local officials are now wrestling over whether to adopt building
codes that would require sprinklers in every new home and townhome starting
in 2011 amid intense lobbying from both sides."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090918/...ome_sprinklers
Most house fires are caused by Jewish lightening.I'm sure the firebug
will find a way to disable the sprinkler.
Actually the leading cause of home fires is smoking. I doubt
sprinklers would have saved someone who died smoking in bed. But a
working smoke detector probably would.

Unfortunately the smoke detectors do not save small children, the
elderly and infirm, or the smoker themselves, because the smoking
ignition is often coupled with the consumption of intoxicants which
render the user incapable of responding effectively to the alarm.
Children, and others that are incapable of self evacuation, can only
be completely protected by automatic fire suppression. The office of
the State Fire Marshal did a study of ten years worth of fire
fatalities in the State. They concluded that about half of those
deaths would have been prevented by a fire alarm system that would
have automatically summon the fire department and that all except the
smoking igniters; including the children and others who had died with
the person who's smoking had caused the fire; would have been saved by
fire sprinklers.

--
Tom Horne
Hmmm,
One reason I have two different kind of detectors.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

As of three years ago there had NEVER been a fatality reported in a
fire with a functional sprinkler system.

Uh, both World Trade towers had sprinklers.

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:23:51 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

As of three years ago there had NEVER been a fatality reported in a
fire with a functional sprinkler system.

Uh, both World Trade towers had sprinklers.


I'm almost sure the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
had sprinkler units.

After the MGM fire circa '87, 74 souls lost, Las Vegas became a
leader in mandatory sprinkler system for high rises.

Locally, a city ordinance requires sprinklers in any home that is
5,000 sf - even a single story home of that size.

In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

As of three years ago there had NEVER been a fatality reported in a
fire with a functional sprinkler system.

Uh, both World Trade towers had sprinklers.

WHich were not functional after the planes took out the
risers.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

In article ,
Oren wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 17:23:51 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

As of three years ago there had NEVER been a fatality reported in a
fire with a functional sprinkler system.

Uh, both World Trade towers had sprinklers.


I'm almost sure the Oklahoma City Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building
had sprinkler units.

I'd have to dig out my copy of the report, but all the fatalities
were from the blast and (mostly) collapse, IIRC. I don't recall there
being any fire or if it was it was very small.


After the MGM fire circa '87, 74 souls lost, Las Vegas became a
leader in mandatory sprinkler system for high rises.

A couple of years later the International Association of Arson
Investigators met in LV and went over that in really great detail. The
HQ hotel was the Bally (earlier the MGM). It was strange sitting right
next to where the fire blew out the front door like a blo wtorch.

--
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."
-P.J. O'Rourke

On Sat, 19 Sep 2009 19:16:06 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

After the MGM fire circa '87, 74 souls lost, Las Vegas became a
leader in mandatory sprinkler system for high rises.

A couple of years later the International Association of Arson
Investigators met in LV and went over that in really great detail. The
HQ hotel was the Bally (earlier the MGM). It was strange sitting right
next to where the fire blew out the front door like a blo wtorch.

And then, LV got a fire truck (largest in the country then). Posted
right off the Strip at a fire house. I wish I could find the picture.
I occasionally speak with a strip fire captain and he remembers the
name of the fire engine. The Engine had a driver on the rear-end to
turn corners.

It is a two-driver truck....

Thanks, you're exactly correct. Of course, those aren't
often used in residences.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Stormin Mormon wrote:
Please post evidence. I've never seen such.

"Deluge systems are connected to a water supply through a
deluge valve that
is opened by the operation of a smoke or heat detection
system. The
detection system is installed in the same area as the
sprinklers. When the
detection system is activated water discharges through all
of the sprinkler
heads in the system. Deluge systems are used in places that
are considered
high hazard areas such as power plants, aircraft hangars and
chemical
storage or processing facilities. Deluge systems are needed
where high
velocity suppression is necessary to prevent fire spread."

http://www.apifiregroup.com/firesprinkler/deluge.html

or

http://www.tpub.com/content/construc...s/14259_71.htm

That's not quite the same as a cigarette butt lighting up a
trash can.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
Kurt Ullman wrote:

As of three years ago there had NEVER been a fatality
reported in a
fire with a functional sprinkler system.

Uh, both World Trade towers had sprinklers.