Automatic fire sprinklers

Page 4 of 6  


Prewires are pretty common in new construction these days. A relative bought an entry level home a couple of years ago that came with it, as did the last (somewhat higher level) house I had built. The spinkler system has an independent bell tied to a flow switch. I added a relay and brought it into the house alarm.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Just read a statistic in a trade magazine ( I don't know the source) One in four residences have an alarm system of some sort. I don't know what they mean by "sort".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That is a piss poor excuse... Do you have door locks on your doors in small-town Midwest too? Or is the town so small and safe that everyone would be on red alert the moment a strange car pulled off the main road at the blinking traffic signal at the one intersection?
Wow... Sadly the ridiculous things that are being offered as challenges and/or excuses against requiring automatic fire sprinklers in homes are surprising me... Which shouldn't, I mean airbags became a requirement in cars because people were failing to use the seatbelts... In many accidents the combination of airbag and seatbelt will save your life...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Bullshit... Airbags are supplemental, they work best when deployed on someone who is belted in...
They will stop you from hitting the steering wheel and windshield if you aren't wearing your seat belt...
Seat belt laws don't *MAKE* people wear them, even when it is a primary offense that the police could make a traffic stop if they observe you not belted in...
Airbags are not just there to make it easier on the people properly wearing seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't wear belts too...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

seat belts, they are a last ditch effort to save the idiotic who don't wear belts too... <<<<<<<
If that is intend their intended purpose do they really accomplish it? What about collateral damge?
Any comment on this article?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/25466.php
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You keep missing the point, if someone wants a house full of sprinklers or a car with airbags and seatbelts fine but don't have the government mandate it
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 15, 4:38pm, "Stormin Mormon"

And for someone who is supposedly busy "working" and doesn't have enough time to explain his personal method of performing an industry standard technique on something, and then keeps stating that the actual industry standard when described by someone who knows it is wrong... well...
But it does seem like you have enough time to constantly window shop Harbor Freight products and make off the wall commentary on Usenet, just not defend your REAL position on something you claim to be an experienced tradesperson in... oh well...
You are starting to sound much more like an un-handy handyman troll who does quite a few things but none of them well...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

If you look at the legislative history of the airbag you will see that you are wrong. In 1977, when President Carter appointed former Ralph Nader lobbyist Joan Claybrook to head the NHTSA. Claybrook actively sought to establish an effective safety restraint law and her efforts partially paid off when Transportation Secretary Brock Adams ordered all new cars to have automatic safety belts **OR**air bags by 1984.(This was also called the passive restraint law because of the either mandate where the driver/occupants did not have to do too much more than just sit in the seat. (emphasis mine). After a little hooha under Reagan, (State Farm vs Auto Mfrs Assoc) the Department of Transportation issued new regulations ordering Auto producers to install air bags between 1986 and 1989. But it left one loophole: If, by 1989, states comprising two thirds of the US population implemented mandatory seat-belt use, the federal regulation would not apply. (In other words if there were mandatory seat belt laws, then there was no need for airbags). IN '91 Bush the Senior signed a law saying airbags would be mandatory in a couple of years, of course by then, most automakers were offering them as standard for marketing reasons. It was known, FYI,
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Yeah and by now I have forgotten what tremendously salient point I was trying to make (g). I have always thought it sort of an interesting example of the law of unintended consequences that airbags were originally thought as a replacement for seat belts, until they started killing people. Bureaucratic oopsy. ALthough to be fair, the regs for airbags called for inflation forces that were above what most of the airbags at the time were doing. (Which triggered another round of rulemaking, BTW). I have often wondered if the less aggressive airbags might have actually done their job.
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just look at anti lock brakes how they where suppose to save lives and instead end up taking lives when people push down here the strange noise there suppose to make and then let off and try to pump there brakes instead. again lack of education and people die.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 04:58:08 -0800 (PST), nick markowitz

Less aggressive air bags certainly would be better, assuming seat belts are properly worn. OTOH, if everyone wore seat belts, airbags would likely have never made the scene.

Seat belts are hardly an issue of lack of education.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Or as a FA once said during a pre-flight briefing: "For those of you who have been in a coma since the early 60s, this is how the seat belt works."
--
"Even I realized that money was to politicians what the ecalyptus tree is to
koala bears: food, water, shelter and something to crap on."
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Yeah, except if you're under 40 or so and haven't been on an airplane before, the seat belt unbuckles differently from what's in a car. That's why the FAA-required announcement exists.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The problem is community's that have run these model sprinkler programs have good water supply relatively flat etc etc. which makes a big difference I can look out my window and I am even with water tank on hill what kind of pressure you think we have here. They always cite this community outside philly with sprinklers again a flat community with all new 18" water lines Then you have to wonder how many systems are actually still turned on after first hard freeze I will bet at least 20% will not work. but as usual no one wants to talk about it it is always rosy glasses. guess there going to have to find out 20 years out what bad mistakes where made. just like with this new pex pipe looks great now what about 20 years from now.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

here want to see some code double talk here is a comment on new arc fault protection they ant put into old wiring which actually provides no protection
From Electrical contracting magazine Analysis: As aging wiring systems become more of a concern in the electrical industry, the Code is taking a proactive approach to providing protection of these systems. Many areas of a dwelling require the use of AFCI protection in an effort to help avoid electrical fires. When AFCIs were first introduced into the NEC, the substantiation for their inclusion was based largely on electrical fires in older homes. With the inception of these devices, the Code began protecting new and future wiring systems but didnt address the older ones that contained many of the fires discussed in the AFCI arguments. This change expands the AFCI requirements to older homes. Because these older homes often dont contain an equipment grounding conductor, installation of an AFCI circuit breaker does very little in the way of protecting the branch circuits. The receptacle-type AFCIs also provide a significantly lower level of protection, but they will be required, nonetheless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Of course we have locks on the doors. We also have a very low crime rate; security systems seems like expenditure for very little return. Not that I think you're interested, but here's a crime map for my area:
http://arborweb.com/articles/crime_maps /
I live in the lower right corner.

I was just curious about how many people have security systems. My previous house had a really crappy one; the previous owner was some kind of paranoid cheapskate. It kept going off by itself, so we disconnected it.
My 1948 house probably will never be retrofit with sprinkler systems, and I think a security system is unlikely while I live there.
Cindy Hamilton
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Would seem to me that anyone wanting to break into a home just might look at a "low crime" area as a place where few people have alarm systems ...... or that a lot of people have alarm system.
The thing to keep in mind is ..... anyone who has the mentality to think that breaking into homes is ok, is not likely to have the mentality to evaluate where the crime rate is high or low. If it looks easy and the conditions are right ..... they do it. Ya just never know ..... Security systems are like insurance. You have it just in case you need it hoping that you never need it. If you don't have a security system when the time comes .... you regret it for the relatively small cost as compared to the loss you suffer... particularly the sentimental items and the "invasion of privacy" issues that no one ever can appriciate until it happens to them. Statistically, people with alarm system suffer a lower dollar amount of loss then those who don't have systems. The other probably more important reason is the fire alarm.
There's got to be something to it if the insurance companys give a discount for having an alarm system. Many times the discount almost equals the cost of the central station monitoring fee. You never know if you're going to be one of those "statistics"
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 11, 10:26am, "Stormin Mormon"

Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how to interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted and clarified the document in the ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding fathers and architects of our country...
The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of the US Congress which has the sole authority on the regulation of Commerce in the United States...
Article I, 8:
-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")
-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"
-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")
So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem to need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I guess...
Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally available materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to procure your supplies and materials which had to move across state lines to arrive at the local store from which you purchased them... THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how those materials should be sold and used... Or to require any safety laws it feels are necessary...
It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers will soon be a nationwide requirement...
~~ Evan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Perhaps you do not know how to read the Constitution nor how to interpret what is written there and how the Supreme Court of the United States has interpreted and clarified the document in the ensuing 223 years since it was written by the founding fathers and architects of our country...
The fact that you can *buy* anything is at the discretion of the US Congress which has the sole authority on the regulation of Commerce in the United States...
Article I, 8:
-- "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"
(Commonly referred to as the "Commerce Clause")
-- "To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;"
-- "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
(Commonly referred to as the "Necessary and Proper Clause")
So it is written there, just not in the terms which you seem to need it to be so that you can clearly understand it I guess...
Unless you are building a log cabin using only locally available materials (meaning you chopped down the logs yourself) you are engaging in and benefiting from interstate commerce to procure your supplies and materials which had to move across state lines to arrive at the local store from which you purchased them... THAT gives Congress the power to decide on how those materials should be sold and used... Or to require any safety laws it feels are necessary...
It is my opinion that in the next few coming generations of the National Building Code that automatic fire sprinklers will soon be a nationwide requirement...
Commerce Clause might not work for 'intra' state commerce. see Montana gun case. Many states have signed onto the case. States contend if your commerce is all done in one state and purchases come from that same state you are intra state and out of the reach of the fed. this would be one way for the states to reign in the out of control federal govt..
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Smitty Requiring sprinklers is just a way to shift the cost of keeping your fire to yourself from your fellow citizens to you. The state is not trying to protect you from yourself. They are trying to protect you from your neighbors and your neighbors from you. Manual fire protection is far more expensive than automatic fire protection. That is a fact. -- Tom Horne
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.