Letters to the Editor
Sprinkler Tests
Albany, N. Y.
Mr. Maier’s article in the April issue of Fire Engineering titled “Sprinkler Tests Answer Heat Rating Questions” makes a very valid point regarding the selection of sprinkler operating temperature for light hazard occupancies such as motels, apartments, etc., where life safety is a prime consideration.
However, the concept that the use of higher temperature sprinklers (212°F and 286°F) reduces water demand is not a “simplistic fad” as it is referred to in this article.
The use of high temperature sprinklers as suggested in NFPA No. 231C, “Rack Storage of Materials” and other NFPA and Factory Mutual standards is intended for storage warehouses, plastics occupancies, and other high heat release industrial type risks. This principle was developed during extensive large-scale fire tests conducted at the Factory Mutual Test Center in West Glouster, R.I. It is a well-documented scientific principle and not a “simplistic fad.”
Hopefully, what Mr. Maier intended to say was that some of the people recommending the use of higher temperature sprinklers are doing so in the wrong places because they don’t understand the overall idea of these tests and standards or are trying to apply the wrong standard.
John E. Tutein, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer
Thanks Expressed
Eaglesville, Pa.:
On behalf of the Montgomery County Fire Training School, I would like to thank you for publishing the list of upcoming courses being sponsored by us.
The response from all interested persons has come from all parts of the country and has been overwhelming.
Thank you again for your cooperation in our training endeavor.
Jack K. McElfish Fire Training Coordinator
“Unsafe Practices” Vs “Carelessness”
Garden City South, N. Y.:
While reading the charts on page 73 of the March issue of Fire Engineering in the article “New York Designs Door-to-Door Effort to Cut Fire Deaths,” I observed in several instances that the term “carelessness” was used.
The words “unsafely” or “unsafe practices” seem to be the preferred terms rather than “carelessness.” During my years when working with New York State, I was exposed to many recognized safety men at the various safety conventions and these men recommended that the use of carelessness be discontinued as meaningless when used in connection with safety activities. The terms unsafely, unsafe practices and unsafe conditions used as causes created further thought or interest. 1 found the use of these suggested terms greatly improved my safety recommendations.
Ed C. Dreyer
