|
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 01/06/2012 07:43, Martin Brown wrote:
On 31/05/2012 23:00, hugh wrote: In message , Robin writes That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Snip Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting. You will also find that we pay insanely high premiums to make already incredibly safe methods of mass transport like trains and air travel safer still whilst ignoring the piecemeal carnage on our roads. The thing is that plane and train crashes make big news stories whereas another dozen or so dying every day in car crashes isn't even news unless they do mass suicide in fog by driving nose to tail at 70+. About 100x more people die every year in car crashes than in trains or planes and even if you express it as deaths per billion passenger miles the car is still almost an order of magnitude more dangerous. Stats for the UK are available online at: http://www.igreens.org.uk/uk_rail_accident_deaths.htm Much though I would like my own airfield or railway station, there just isn't room in the garden. Colin Bignell |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote: On 31/05/2012 23:00, hugh wrote: In message , Robin writes That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Snip Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting. but what happened on appeal? US juries often make absurd awards against big business which are usualy reversed on appeal. -- From KT24 Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18 |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 01/06/2012 07:43, Martin Brown wrote:
On 31/05/2012 23:00, hugh wrote: In message , Robin writes That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Snip Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting. You will also find that we pay insanely high premiums to make already incredibly safe methods of mass transport like trains and air travel safer still whilst ignoring the piecemeal carnage on our roads. The thing is that plane and train crashes make big news stories whereas another dozen or so dying every day in car crashes isn't even news unless they do mass suicide in fog by driving nose to tail at 70+. This comes down to the way humans have evolved to assess risk. We have an innate sense of some immediate risks - we can avoid the rock flying toward us without even needing conscious thought, its practically wired into our primitive brain. However, while our intuitive assessment of risks is surprisingly good at keeping us physically safe from the environment, we are very poor at dealing with the more sophisticated risks of the modern day world that need a more cognitive approach to assessment. The result is that we tend to underplay any risk that is common, familiar, something likely to happen a long time into the future, and things we think are under our control. However stuff that is rare, or unknown, more immediate, and things we perceive are out of our control, we assess as being far more threatening. So driving being both under our control (at so it seems) and being a common everyday thing does not scare us. Train and plane crashes being news worthy and rare events, coupled with our involvement being just as passengers get assigned a much greater perceived risk. -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , Rod Speed
wrote The real problem with the cost is that only a tiny subset of houses ever have a fire that sprinklers would help with. You will not be able to get house/building insurance without a sprinkler system - an it will have to be maintained on an annual basis by a "professional" organisation. -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 31/05/2012 10:21, Roger Mills wrote:
On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 Probably necessary in Wales! After all, it is the place where holiday cottages[1] used to get torched - don't know whether they still do. [1] Was it Not-the-nine-o'clock-news that parodied the NCB advert? "Come home to a living fire. Buy a cottage in Wales!" But the owners probably turn off the water when they are not there to avoid flooding due to pipe bursts. No water, no sprinklers. -- Pete Lose (rhymes with fuse) is a verb, the opposite of find. Loose (rhymes with juice) is an adjective, the opposite of tight. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Jun 1, 1:28*pm, Alan wrote:
! * As my recent quotes for £1m building/£35k contents insurance are around £160/annum I cannot see much scope for any substantial discounts being applied for having a sprinkler system -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk So who is your insurer that sounds very cheap. Jonathan |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 01/06/2012 16:17, Pete Shew wrote:
On 31/05/2012 10:21, Roger Mills wrote: On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 Probably necessary in Wales! After all, it is the place where holiday cottages[1] used to get torched - don't know whether they still do. [1] Was it Not-the-nine-o'clock-news that parodied the NCB advert? "Come home to a living fire. Buy a cottage in Wales!" But the owners probably turn off the water when they are not there to avoid flooding due to pipe bursts. No water, no sprinklers. There is a dedicated storage tank. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Alan wrote
Rod Speed wrote The real problem with the cost is that only a tiny subset of houses ever have a fire that sprinklers would help with. You will not be able to get house/building insurance without a sprinkler system Don't believe that. That hasn't happened with back to base alarms or with fire extinguishers in cars either. - an it will have to be maintained on an annual basis by a "professional" organisation. Don't believe that either, that hasn't happened with alarms or with the electrical or water or gas supply either. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html
Water on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers. Are you *sure* that comment is safe given the rather more robust approach being taken to comments which are prejudicial to a fair trial? -- Robin reply to address is (meant to be) valid |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Alan wrote
Rod Speed wrote Have fun listing even a single example of any operation that provides enough of a reduction on your insurance premium to pay for the installation of sprinklers in your house. Ticking all the box on a house insurance for approved locks, maintained alarms etc. usually results in a saving of less than £5 and item! As my recent quotes for £1m building/£35k contents insurance are around £160/annum I cannot see much scope for any substantial discounts being applied for having a sprinkler system Yeah, and with that sort of annual premium, even a 20% saving, which isnt going to happen, isnt going to pay for a sprinkler system. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Robin wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html Water on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers. Are you *sure* that comment is safe given the rather more robust approach being taken to comments which are prejudicial to a fair trial? And our dennis could actually do jury sevice. That scares me. -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Robin" wrote in message ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html Water on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers. Are you *sure* that comment is safe given the rather more robust approach being taken to comments which are prejudicial to a fair trial? Perfectly safe, and there is no mention of who the murder may be. It wont prejudice ARW anyway as he is not a fit person to serve on a jury. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:28:38 +0100, Alan
wrote: As my recent quotes for £1m building/£35k contents insurance are around £160/annum I cannot see much scope for any substantial discounts being applied for having a sprinkler system Yes, well, on that sort of premium I'd be surprised if they'd do it. Otoh, many premiums are far higher than that. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"charles" wrote in message ... In article , Martin Brown wrote: On 31/05/2012 23:00, hugh wrote: In message , Robin writes That's the whole problem you don't seem to get. A lot less than £6.7m could be spent in saving one person in other fields. Town bypasses could be just one. I'm sure others here will come up with other suggestions. The DfT "value of a life" figure is around £m2 so it's easy peasey: light more roads/junctions. (DfT were always the government leaders on how to deal with death and injury in cost-benefit analyses because they have to do them so often for road schemes, speed limits etc) Snip Story was that Ford looked at the frequency of deaths with the Pinto caused by rear end shunts splitting the petrol tank and decided it was cheaper to carry on paying out compensation than rectify the problem. Now that is cost-benefit analysis!! They were right too, but the court didn't see it that way and applied punitive damages against the manufacturer for its callous beancouting. but what happened on appeal? Nothing. US juries often make absurd awards against big business which are usualy reversed on appeal. That one wasn't. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pi...s_and_lawsuits |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , Grimly
Curmudgeon wrote On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:28:38 +0100, Alan wrote: As my recent quotes for £1m building/£35k contents insurance are around £160/annum I cannot see much scope for any substantial discounts being applied for having a sprinkler system Yes, well, on that sort of premium I'd be surprised if they'd do it. Otoh, many premiums are far higher than that. The premiums are only higher if you are too lazy to shop around :) £1m/35k of cover should cover the average property in the UK. There are variations of the above offers with higher contents cover at prices not much different. Also, consider if you need all the "add on" bits offered with most policies as these can seriously ramp up the price. -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
dennis@home wrote:
"Robin" wrote in message ... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html Water on a petrol fire, not likely. Anyway the murderer would be able to disable the sprinklers. Are you *sure* that comment is safe given the rather more robust approach being taken to comments which are prejudicial to a fair trial? Perfectly safe, and there is no mention of who the murder may be. So you are saying someone pouring petrol through a letter box is able to turn off the sprinkler system? It wont prejudice ARW anyway as he is not a fit person to serve on a jury. People would get a fairer trial with me on the jury than a pillock like you. -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
[Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:37:31 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Grimly Curmudgeon , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 **** the moaning *******s. This is good thing. I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together. I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about that if the majority of the house is intact. The water damage from a single sprinkler head is a LOT less than from out a hose or two. -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
[Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:59:40 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, Jonathan , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast is burnt! Sprinklers are a purely 'mechanical' system. They have a small glass bulb with a liquid inside that breaks at 68-degrees C. This opens the way for water to spray via a sprinkler head. It's only the head or heads heated by the fire that operates. They have been proven to be a very reliable system with only one (non-moving) part. The scenario in movies & TV where a person holds a lighter to a sprinkler head and sets off all the sprinklers is impossible. -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 02/06/2012 18:29, Hugo Nebula wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 00:37:31 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, Grimly , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: On Wed, 30 May 2012 23:52:36 +0100, John Rumm wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 **** the moaning *******s. This is good thing. I'm fitting sprinklers in my gaff and it's not so much to save my life, although that's important enough; it's so that I don't have to stand at the side of the road watching my house burn to the ground while the local volunteer fire brigade get their act together. I don't mind clearing up some water damage - who gives a ****e about that if the majority of the house is intact. The water damage from a single sprinkler head is a LOT less than from out a hose or two. Does rather depend on if there is someone there to catch it. A whole 40 gal tank dumped into one room will do a fair amount of damage (worse if its not on the ground floor) -- Cheers, John. /================================================== ===============\ | Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk | |-----------------------------------------------------------------| | John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk | \================================================= ================/ |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Tim Streater wrote
Hugo Nebula wrote Jonathan wrote Our smoke detectors are very sensitive. Would sprinklers be triggered by the same mechanism, resulting in a wet house whenever the toast isburnt! Sprinklers are a purely 'mechanical' system. They have a small glass bulb with a liquid inside that breaks at 68-degrees C. This opens the way for water to spray via a sprinkler head. It's only the head or heads heated by the fire that operates. They have been proven to be a very reliable system with only one (non-moving) part. The scenario in movies & TV where a person holds a lighter to a sprinkler head and sets off all the sprinklers is impossible. OK. This is starting to sound more sensible. Not on the cost effective question tho and certainly not on the compulsory for all new houses and flats. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message ... The scenario in movies & TV where a person holds a lighter to a sprinkler head and sets off all the sprinklers is impossible. Why? It would be easy to make them all operate when the pump starts in a stored water pumped system. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
dennis@home wrote
Hugo Nebula wrote The scenario in movies & TV where a person holds a lighter to a sprinkler head and sets off all the sprinklers is impossible. Why? Because you don't get enough heat to burst what contains the water that way. It would be easy to make them all operate when the pump starts in a stored water pumped system. How do you propose to burst all those things that stop the water coming out until they burst from the heat ? |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , "dennis@home"
wrote "Hugo Nebula" wrote in message .. . The scenario in movies & TV where a person holds a lighter to a sprinkler head and sets off all the sprinklers is impossible. Why? It would be easy to make them all operate when the pump starts in a stored water pumped system. Pump? What is the most common thing to fail to start when people switch on their central heating system after 6 months of non-use? On average, your sprinkler system would probably sit there for 1000+ years before being activated and the pump starting up. -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On Jun 2, 9:00*am, Alan wrote:
In message , Grimly Curmudgeon wrote On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 13:28:38 +0100, Alan wrote: *As my recent quotes for £1m building/£35k contents insurance are around £160/annum I cannot see much scope for any substantial discounts being applied for having a sprinkler system Yes, well, on that sort of premium I'd be surprised if they'd do it. Otoh, many premiums are far higher than that. The premiums are only higher if you are too lazy to shop around :) Someone hasnt had his morning coffee yet £1m/35k of cover should cover the average property in the UK. There are variations of the above offers with higher contents cover at prices not much different. Also, consider if you need all the "add on" bits offered with most policies as these can seriously ramp up the price. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On May 30, 11:52*pm, John Rumm wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains supply. NT |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
[Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:33:32 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
"dennis@home" , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: No they require heat, enough heat that the occupants are probably dead if they are in the same room as the fire. You need smoke alarms and escape routes to save lives, sprinklers save property. http://www.bafsa.org.uk/sprinkler-stops.php?pg=7 Third one down. Sprinklers are also to save lives by controlling the fire size and the production of smoke. -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
[Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:52:56 +0100, a certain chimpanzee,
Tim Streater , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Am I going to have all my possessions everywhere in the house soaked because SWMBO's doing soss in the oven? (The kitchen smoke detector goes off each time she does this.) Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a ladder? And how do you turn them off once its clear that the danger is over? Yes, but only in Hollywood. That's the same place where you can crawl through three foot tall ducts from one flat to another without fire dampers, and walk the entire length of a city through twenty foot tall sewer pipes. -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
[Default] On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:12:21 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, NT , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains supply. Ta-da! http://www.wiltsfire.gov.uk/fire_saf...sprinklers.htm -- Hugo Nebula "If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this, just how far from the pack have I strayed"? |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
NT wrote
John Rumm wrote http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064 What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains supply. Still not cost effective and the ******s would never buy that anyway. The only real advantage over an alarm that triggers on the same temperature is that it will put out the fire when no one is there or is capable of dealing with the fire, and that situation is so uncommon that it still isnt cost effective given that most would have to pay someone to do it. I wouldn't even bother to do that myself even it it wasn't compulsory. Makes a lot more sense to do other stuff instead like alarms. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message ... [Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 15:33:32 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, "dennis@home" , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: No they require heat, enough heat that the occupants are probably dead if they are in the same room as the fire. You need smoke alarms and escape routes to save lives, sprinklers save property. http://www.bafsa.org.uk/sprinkler-stops.php?pg=7 Third one down. Sprinklers are also to save lives by controlling the fire size and the production of smoke. Doesn't say what would have happened if there was just a back to fire station alarm and no automatic sprinkler, saving of life wise. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message ... [Default] On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:12:21 -0700 (PDT), a certain chimpanzee, NT , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains supply. Ta-da! http://www.wiltsfire.gov.uk/fire_saf...sprinklers.htm Doesn't demonstrate that it would be cost effective to mandate. Last thing I need, I prefer to ensure that there isnt anything likely to produce a fire that a sprinkler is going to help with instead. And they ignore the problem with water on fat fires which just happen to be one of the main problems with domestic fires that are a real threat to life. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , Rod Speed
wrote "Hugo Nebula" wrote in message .. . [Default] On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:12:21 -0700 (PDT), a certain chimpanzee, NT , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains supply. Ta-da! http://www.wiltsfire.gov.uk/fire_saf...e_safety_domes tic_sprinklers.htm Doesn't demonstrate that it would be cost effective to mandate. Last thing I need, I prefer to ensure that there isnt anything likely to produce a fire that a sprinkler is going to help with instead. And they ignore the problem with water on fat fires which just happen to be one of the main problems with domestic fires that are a real threat to life. Isn't it the smoke that kills in the majority of cases? Would a sprinkler operate before levels of toxic fumes get to great? -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:52:56 +0100, Tim Streater wrote: When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Not normally. Ones near the heat source, thus already near to the point of trigger, may also go off due to the shock through the water/pipe work when one does go off. The kitchen smoke detector goes off each time she does this. Kitchens shouldn't have "smoke" detectors they should have heat (ie fixed temp) or rate of rise detectors. The should be fixed temperature. Opening oven doors activates the rate of rise ones. -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Hugo Nebula wrote:
[Default] On Thu, 31 May 2012 09:52:56 +0100, a certain chimpanzee, Tim Streater , randomly hit the keyboard and wrote: When one sprinkler goes off, do they all go at the same time? Am I going to have all my possessions everywhere in the house soaked because SWMBO's doing soss in the oven? (The kitchen smoke detector goes off each time she does this.) Or if I accidentally biff one while carrying a ladder? And how do you turn them off once its clear that the danger is over? Yes, but only in Hollywood. That's the same place where you can crawl through three foot tall ducts from one flat to another without fire dampers, and walk the entire length of a city through twenty foot tall sewer pipes. Where as I only had to crawl though 3 foot underground ducting linking all the buildings at St Catherines hospital to pull in the SWA for the sump pumps:-) -- Adam |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
"Alan" wrote in message ... In message , "dennis@home" wrote "Hugo Nebula" wrote in message . .. The scenario in movies & TV where a person holds a lighter to a sprinkler head and sets off all the sprinklers is impossible. Why? It would be easy to make them all operate when the pump starts in a stored water pumped system. Pump? What is the most common thing to fail to start when people switch on their central heating system after 6 months of non-use? On average, your sprinkler system would probably sit there for 1000+ years before being activated and the pump starting up. well look at the sprinkler tanks stuck outside places and think how they get the water up and out of the sprinklers without a pump. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In message , Terry Fields
wrote Martin Brown wrote: It isn't unreasonable to require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames. Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2 extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing lectures instead. These days the advice is NOT to fight the fire but remove yourself from the danger as fast as possible. One reason why most car extinguishers would be more dangerous than running away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4 -- Alan news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
On 03/06/2012 07:23, Alan wrote:
Pump? What is the most common thing to fail to start when people switch on their central heating system after 6 months of non-use? On average, your sprinkler system would probably sit there for 1000+ years before being activated and the pump starting up. Ah, what you do then is use a gravity fed system. Of course the tank will have to be in a water tower 10ft above the roof, with its own internal heating system in case of frost... Andy |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Alan wrote
Rod Speed wrote Hugo Nebula wrote NT wrote What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains supply. Ta-da! http://www.wiltsfire.gov.uk/fire_saf...e_safety_domes tic_sprinklers.htm Doesn't demonstrate that it would be cost effective to mandate. Last thing I need, I prefer to ensure that there isnt anything likely to produce a fire that a sprinkler is going to help with instead. And they ignore the problem with water on fat fires which just happen to be one of the main problems with domestic fires that are a real threat to life. Isn't it the smoke that kills in the majority of cases? Yes, but that's avoidable by not having what can produce that where it can burn. I don't have any carpets at all, not even any rugs and have real leather on the seats. Would a sprinkler operate before levels of toxic fumes get to great? Nope. The sprinkler would put the fire out quickest tho except with the very common fat fires in kitchens. I don't even have containers of melted fat either. |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
Terry Fields wrote:
Martin Brown wrote: It isn't unreasonable to require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames. I used to work at an organisation that was very keen on safety, including fire safety. They used to light a large tray of petrol, and get to put it out with a CO2 extinguisher, including trying it with one that had ho horn (which was spectacular). Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2 extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing lectures instead. Terry Fields One of the Unis in London runs excellent courses - but as you say, petrol is frowned upon. So they have these nifty burners that pass gas through water and burn it on top - in a variety of metal boxes that emulate liquite fires, bin fires and others. Seems to work quite well as it actually proves quite hard to put out the "liquid" fire - needed a concerted sweep with a major portion of a CO2 extinguisher to achieve. -- Tim Watts |
And you thought some of the English building regs were OTT?
In article , Alan
scribeth thus In message , Terry Fields wrote Martin Brown wrote: It isn't unreasonable to require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames. Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2 extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing lectures instead. These days the advice is NOT to fight the fire but remove yourself from the danger as fast as possible. One reason why most car extinguishers would be more dangerous than running away. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4 That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile bomb?. Whyever don't they have an airport style foam tender alongside the track?. And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non fireproof clothing?... -- Tony Sayer |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter