This is a travesty

Status
Not open for further replies.
jap said:
I don't know why you quoted me on this.
I never mentioned anything about wanting an amendment to anything.


The trick to all of this is to come up with something that will prevent the fire from starting in the first place, not trying to put it out after the fact.

By the time a sprinkler system has activated, your more than likely full into a life or deaths situation.


JAP>
Click to expand...

I was quoting the "who better" (than mbrooke) part as to who might be more qualified/able to get it passed.

There is no way with the myriad of fires and their varying origins (gas leak, electrical short, careless cigarette, kids playing, arson, oil-soaked rags spontaneously combusting, battery failures, etc) to prevent them all unless you live in a concrete box with nothing flammable inside.

Watch that Christmas tree video I linked. It happened so quickly that the ceiling of that room was well over melt temp for a sprinkler head before the fire (more the smoke) would have gone to a second floor and killed everyone.

Fire prevention is one aspect of fire safety. Compartmentalization, annunciation, and suppression are key too. So is planning (fire drills) and design of buildings, the latter of which is why you dont see revolving doors anymore unless they are flanked by outward opening doors on both sides (in a word: egress)

I could see requiring AFCI if all buildings had already exhausted all other means of fire protection (sprinklers, alarm panels, fire-resistant construction methods, etc). But requiring AFCI in a place with no sprinklers is like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon.
 
ActionDave said:
Like gas, or steam, or plain old fire..... Oh wait, those were all more unsafe and more inefficient.

Truth is lectricity is about as safe as you can get. It certainly is the most forgiving of all forms of energy available to us.
Click to expand...

And with all of the hardships of people who came along before us, our being able to communicate electronically from our computers under a light being powered by modern electrical technology, rather than a lantern or a steam driven generator, makes this not as much of a Travesty as everyone seems to think it is now doesn't it ?


JAP>
 
jap said:
And with all of the hardships of people who came along before us, our being able to communicate electronically from our computers under a light being powered by modern electrical technology, rather than a lantern or a steam driven generator, makes this not as much of a Travesty as everyone seems to think it is now doesn't it ?


JAP>
Click to expand...

That is called human progress. Mandating technology which is not even in its infancy based on wishful thinking is not human progress.
 
JFletcher said:
I could see requiring AFCI if all buildings had already exhausted all other means of fire protection (sprinklers, alarm panels, fire-resistant construction methods, etc). But requiring AFCI in a place with no sprinklers is like bailing out the Titanic with a teaspoon.
Click to expand...

But you just said the Christmas Tree heat got higher than the sprinkler head could react to it so the sprinklers and alarms aren't fast enough either.

JAP>
 
mbrooke said:
That is called human progress. Mandating technology which is not even in its infancy based on wishful thinking is not human progress.
Click to expand...

Human progress made by those who would actually stand up for what they believed and not support or install what they didn't.

JAP>
 
winnie said:
Basically follow the Scottsdale, AZ approach.

My understanding is that rather than simply requiring sprinklers, Scottsdale allowed developers to relax other safety requirements if they implemented sprinklers. These were things such as road size and turn radius requirements intended to let fire trucks get to a location quickly, which were very expensive because of the additional land used.

The city also wanted to save money by putting fire stations further apart.

The net result was a big increase in the number of homes with sprinklers, and fewer deaths even though FD response time was slower.

In addition to the 'sprinkler alternative' to AFCIs, I'd suggest: 'AFCI protection shall not be required for circuits in all metallic wiring methods protected by ground fault protection'.

-Jon
Click to expand...
But only were the metallic covering is listed as an equipment bonding conductor.
 
Looped piping will take care of it.

Looped piping will take care of it.

JFletcher said:
You're welcome. I mentioned bf preventers because unless the potable water is recirculated thru the sprinkler system, there will be dead spots where water will stagnate; I dont want to drink that! and sure, pex is fine.
Click to expand...

If the piping is laid out in loops so that the fixtures take their water supply from two directions then there will not be any stagnant water to worry about. Loops would allow the use of smaller pipe as well.
 
jap said:
I don't know why you quoted me on this.
I never mentioned anything about wanting an amendment to anything.


The trick to all of this is to come up with something that will prevent the fire from starting in the first place, not trying to put it out after the fact.

By the time a sprinkler system has activated, your more than likely full into a life or deaths situation.


JAP>
Click to expand...

That simply is not true. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has done the testing which shows that the environment in the compartment of origin will remain survivable if it is protected by Domestic Automatic Sprinkler Heads.
 
hornetd said:
If the piping is laid out in loops so that the fixtures take their water supply from two directions then there will not be any stagnant water to worry about. Loops would allow the use of smaller pipe as well.
Click to expand...

Systems designed to P2904 in the IRC use flow through fittings and the sprinkler is never the last device in the line.
 
electrofelon said:
...I'd like to see the figures for dollars per life saved for afci's vs feeding starving children in Africa, or any number of other things.
Click to expand...

zero.jpg


Why is it so hard to find a meme with correct spelling?
 
hornetd said:
That simply is not true. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has done the testing which shows that the environment in the compartment of origin will remain survivable if it is protected by Domestic Automatic Sprinkler Heads.
Click to expand...

It simply is true.

An environment in a compartment of origin would be much safer if it wasn't on fire to begin with.

That's just common sense.

JAP>
 
That dodge is beneath you sir!

That dodge is beneath you sir!

jap said:
It simply is true.

An environment in a compartment of origin would be much safer if it wasn't on fire to begin with.

That's just common sense.

JAP>
Click to expand...

That Only works if you leave out your original assertion that "By the time a sprinkler system has activated, your more than likely full into a life or deaths situation." I had not seen you dodge the original question like this before. You know that I was referring to that statement you made so your reply is disingenuous. Fact: Domestic Automatic Sprinklers will maintain survivable conditions in the compartment of origin.
 
hornetd said:
That Only works if you leave out your original assertion that "By the time a sprinkler system has activated, your more than likely full into a life or deaths situation." I had not seen you dodge the original question like this before. You know that I was referring to that statement you made so your reply is disingenuous. Fact: Domestic Automatic Sprinklers will maintain survivable conditions in the compartment of origin.
Click to expand...

And you know what I mean.

My point being, if your waiting on the sprinkler system to activate, you've already got a fire on your hands.

Most electrical is installed to try and prevent that fire from happening to begin with.

At least that's what they're trying to do with Arc Fault Breakers whether you'd like to believe that or not.

JAP>
 
jap said:
...

At least that's what they're trying to do with Arc Fault Breakers whether you'd like to believe that or not.

JAP>
Click to expand...
The stated intention of the code rules is to do that.
As to whether it succeeds or not, the majority here seem to argue "not".
There is more mixed opinion on what the true underlying motivation for those rules is.
 
GoldDigger said:
The stated intention of the code rules is to do that.
As to whether it succeeds or not, the majority here seem to argue "not".
There is more mixed opinion on what the true underlying motivation for those rules is.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm hearing.

Most of what I hear is the complaining about neusance tripping that they have to go back on that somehow embarrasses their egos and the price.

I'd say those 2 things are what makes most dislike them so much, not the fact that it's required.

I guess we don't have as many issues with Arc Fault trips where I'm at.

JAP>
 
The same could be said about having to install GFI Breakers.

But evidently the call backs on a GFI tripping holds a little more clout than the Arc Fault.

JAP>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top