Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Thoughts? Would save more lives than Part 'P' ...

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Thoughts? Would save more lives than Part 'P' ...


The risk of water damage from a faulty system may be greater than the cost
of fire damage. Alarms effectively save lives. Property is replaceable.

Basic prevention and stiff penalties for arsonists are needed. Not keeping
commercial rubbish next to the building would go a long way in reducing
commercial fires.

John

The risk of water damage from a faulty system may be greater than the cost
of fire damage. Alarms effectively save lives. Property is replaceable.

I believe that the sprinklers have proved heavily positive in the water
damage vs fire damage stakes in actual usage.

Remember that sprinkler systems don't "go off" due to electrical signals.
They have a heat sensitive "tap" that ruptures in the event of high
temperatures. Sprinkler heads only activate if the fire is close to them.
You don't get the whole house flooding just because of some computer glitch.

Christian.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:17:41 GMT, "john"
wrote:

The risk of water damage from a faulty system may be greater than the cost
of fire damage. Alarms effectively save lives. Property is replaceable.

The only type of sprinkler which would make sense would be the high
pressure low volume systems which produce a mist rather than a lot of
"watering can" water. These are popular in the USA where a
combination of aluminium mains cable, low voltage, high current and
wooden houses make house fires a more common occurrence than they are
in Europe.

The amount of water damage produced by HPLV sprinklers is very small.

--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

On 10 Nov 2005 06:01:06 -0800, "Phil"
wrote:

Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Sprinklers are to stop big fires taking h9old in big buildings -
particularly those with many people who will take som etime to evacuate.

Houses never cause big fires. Even a well-burning house is pretty small
by the scale of stuff the brigade deals with regularly. Also houses
contain a small number of people who are usually capable of walking out
of the door in under a minute. The issue is one of _warning_ and giving
early notice that there actually is a fire.

A policy of encouraging / distributing smoke detectors would have done
far mor than part P or sprinklers ever would. But then that was never
the idea of part P, was it.

In article .com,
Phil wrote:
Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Thoughts? Would save more lives than Part 'P' ...

I own a high-rise flat in Australia which is sprinklered - the layout
of rooms (bedrooms off the lounge) would not be acceptable in any UK
building above two storeys.

Domestic sprinkler systems are designed to give a low volume spray not
a drenching. See http://www.domesticsprinklers.co.uk

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

"Phil" wrote in message
oups.com...
Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Thoughts? Would save more lives than Part 'P' ...

Several years ago, an American town decided that it was cheaper to install
sprinklers in every building than it was to maintain a fire brigade. When I
last heard, it was also proving to be more effective at saving both lives
and property.

Colin Bignell

Phil used his keyboard to write :
Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Thoughts? Would save more lives than Part 'P' ...

Ordinary low pressure sprinklers would likely cause more damage than a
fire would do. I once saw a demo of a high pressure system which
controlled fire by producing an extremely fine water mist. This type of
idea might be worth thinking about, as it used very much less water
than conventional 'area flood' sprinkler systems and seemed much more
effective.

--

Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:33:25 GMT, "Harry Bloomfield"
wrote:


Ordinary low pressure sprinklers would likely cause more damage than a
fire would do. I once saw a demo of a high pressure system which
controlled fire by producing an extremely fine water mist. This type of
idea might be worth thinking about, as it used very much less water
than conventional 'area flood' sprinkler systems and seemed much more
effective.

High pressure mist is also used in fire hoses, especially in the USA
where it has been the preferred method of dealing with domestic fires
for decades. It is particularly good at flame knockdown.

Years ago I was involved in some trials of fire suppression in
passenger aircraft. High pressure mist was very effective in
providing a clear fuselage for escape and the amount of water used
was very low - in the order of a few liters.


--
Peter Parry.
http://www.wpp.ltd.uk/

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
The risk of water damage from a faulty system may be greater than the
cost
of fire damage. Alarms effectively save lives. Property is replaceable.

I believe that the sprinklers have proved heavily positive in the water
damage vs fire damage stakes in actual usage.

Remember that sprinkler systems don't "go off" due to electrical signals.
They have a heat sensitive "tap" that ruptures in the event of high
temperatures. Sprinkler heads only activate if the fire is close to them.
You don't get the whole house flooding just because of some computer
glitch.

Jesus I hope they don't do this. our neighbours seem to use the smoke
alarms (it's a rented property) as an indicator that something is slightly
over done in the over/toaster/whatever the hell they are trying to cook
with. I have a strong suspicion given the frequency with whcih the smoke
detectors go off over there (it's a semi so we can hear it *all*!) we'd
become waterfront property!!

cheers
dan.

Dan delaMare-Lyon wrote:


Jesus I hope they don't do this. our neighbours seem to use the smoke
alarms (it's a rented property) as an indicator that something is slightly
over done in the over/toaster/whatever the hell they are trying to cook
with. I have a strong suspicion given the frequency with whcih the smoke
detectors go off over there (it's a semi so we can hear it *all*!) we'd
become waterfront property!!

They're pretty good on bacon, and some years back we had a couple
which could detect garlic. We quickly learned to leave the covers
hanging open when the batteries were removed to remind us to put them
back afterwards.

"Phil" wrote:

Topic on Radio 2 just now, ex- Fire Chief supporting the idea of all
new or refurbished homes having sprinkler systems fitted.

Thoughts? Would save more lives than Part 'P' ...

ex- Fire Chief now working for a fire sprinkler company ?


--

Jesus I hope they don't do this. our neighbours seem to use the smoke
alarms (it's a rented property) as an indicator that something is slightly
over done in the over/toaster/whatever the hell they are trying to cook
with.

Indeed. They appear to have a very bad installation of smoke alarms. You
should not install a smoke alarm anywhere near a kitchen. The kitchen should
have a heat detector interlinked with smoke detectors in hallways or other
living spaces.

My system has been in 2 years. It has gone off once, when the toaster was
actually on fire.

Christian.

"Christian McArdle" wrote in message
...
Jesus I hope they don't do this. our neighbours seem to use the smoke
alarms (it's a rented property) as an indicator that something is
slightly
over done in the over/toaster/whatever the hell they are trying to cook
with.

Indeed. They appear to have a very bad installation of smoke alarms. You
should not install a smoke alarm anywhere near a kitchen. The kitchen
should
have a heat detector interlinked with smoke detectors in hallways or other
living spaces.

My system has been in 2 years. It has gone off once, when the toaster was
actually on fire.

I would disagree about "not install anywhere near a kitchen". We have one
just outside ours in the loung. It has a silence button. Ours has gone off
twice in the last 6 months - both times when I was attempting to super-heat
oil (aka cook a fry up) - plonk the silence button and it shuts up bleeping
every few minutes to remind you to press the silence button again to
re-enable it (it does it itself automatically I think after about 30
minutes)

I think what you actually need to do is get in the mindset of not setting
things up precariously (like wedging oversized slices of bread in the
toaster) and wandering off - causing the problem in the first place!

I actually have 4 somke detectors in a 2 bedroom house. Lounge, hallway to
stairs, top of stairs (lit one) and top of staircase (as the stair cranks
round 90 degrees and up some more). It's a little OTT, but, given our
escape options - I'd rather know something is wrong well ahead of time!

(plus father is an ex senior FSO for cambs fire service - so he sited them!)

Cheers
Dan.

I would disagree about "not install anywhere near a kitchen".

Well you shouldn't disagree.

We have one just outside ours in the loung. It has a silence button.
Ours has gone off
twice in the last 6 months - both times when I was attempting to
super-heat
oil (aka cook a fry up) - plonk the silence button and it shuts up
bleeping
every few minutes to remind you to press the silence button again to
re-enable it (it does it itself automatically I think after about 30
minutes)

Every false alarm totally destroys the integrity of the system. You get into
the mindset of "i need to press the silence button" rather than "i need to
get the **** out of here". On the other hand, if it really was belching out
loads of black smoke into the other rooms, then it is probably OK as it is.
After all, you don't have one actually in the kitchen, which would be the
really bad idea.

General cooking should never set off the system, even frying or toasting.

Christian.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:17:11 GMT, a particular chimpanzee named "Dan
delaMare-Lyon" randomly hit the keyboard and
produced:

I have a strong suspicion given the frequency with whcih the smoke
detectors go off over there (it's a semi so we can hear it *all*!) we'd
become waterfront property!!

There are a lot of misconceptions about sprinklers, largely from TV
and films.
1. They are only set off by a fully developed fire, of 65°C or more.
I don't know how much heat is generated by a cigarette lighter held
directly underneath as one often sees in films.
2. They are _not_ operated by smoke (which is why you would still need
smoke detectors).
3. Only the sprinkler head in the vicinity of the fire is set off. It
doesn't set off the whole building, as seen in films & TV.
4. The amount of water coming from a sprinkler head is far, far less
than that from a fire hose.
5. They are a very robust mechanical device, with no moving parts.
The failure rate of a sprinkler head going off accidentally is IIRC
one in a million or of that order of magnitude. I don't think there's
a reported case of a sprinkler head not operating when needed.
6. Residential sprinklers can be recessed under flush covers, which
look no more obtrusive than a downlighter, and certainly less than a
smoke detector.
--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

Every false alarm totally destroys the integrity of the system. You get into
the mindset of "i need to press the silence button" rather than "i need to
get the **** out of here".

Could not agree more. I live in the city and alarms are constantly
sounding. Nobody, including myself, takes a blind bit of notice
anymore and even in public buildings I tend to look at my watch to see
if it is on the hour, if it is I assume it is a test.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Tony Bryer
saying something like:

Domestic sprinkler systems are designed to give a low volume spray not
a drenching. See http://www.domesticsprinklers.co.uk

"Monkey World for a secure unit for monkies"
holds head in hands
--
Dave
GS850x2 SE6a
I demand nothing of you except that you amuse me.