[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Fwd: Re: wet vs dry sprinkler systems
- Subject: Fwd: Re: wet vs dry sprinkler systems
- From: Robert Pojasek <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 11:57:32 -0400
- Delivered-To: email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- List-Name: p2tech
- Reply-To: Robert Pojasek <email@example.com>
I think Sandy was referring to a DRY PIPE SYSTEM. The pipes are filled
with air under pressure instead of water. When a fire develops, a
sprinkler opens up and lowers the air pressure, which in turn automatically
trips a dry-pipe valve to let water into the piping system and to the
sprinkler head. This system is used in unheated buildings where the water
in the pipes would freeze.
I expect that it would be harder to find leaks of air than of water and
that there is energy needed to keep this system under pressure, thus
bringing up the life cycle concerns that Sue raises.
I have advised Sandy to look into preaction systems and fire cycle systems
to lower water use.
Harvard School of Public Health
>Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 10:57:47 -0500
>From: Sue Sommerfelt <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Organization: Iowa Waste Reduction Center
>X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (Win98; U)
>To: Sandy Rock <srock@pprc.ORG>
>Subject: Re: wet vs dry sprinkler systems
>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2001 15:49:59.0581 (UTC)
>Reply-To: Sue Sommerfelt <email@example.com>
>Dry systems are used for electronics. The Halon floculant retards the
>fire without shorting out the computers. P2 --- doubtful - the chemical
>is bound to be more polluting when manufactured.
>Definitely take a Life-cycle-analysis approach!
Dr. Robert B. Pojasek
Pojasek & Associates
PO Box 1333
E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071