Talk:Fire sprinkler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is part of WikiProject Fire Protection, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to fire protection equipment. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |  |
I'd like to request a Wikipedia:administrator to move this page from sprinkler system (which can also refer to irrigation), to fire sprinkler (the subject of the article), if there are no major objections. –radiojon 05:58, 2004 Jul 5 (UTC)
- It would seem that between the redirect page and the cross-reference to other sprinkler systems at the bottom of the page, this point is covered. However, it probably works with the redirect from here and the main article under fire sprinklers. I think, however, that a pure disambiguation page wouldn't work, because fire protection is probably a much more common search for "sprinkler" than irrigation. In the US, only lawn irrigators are commonly called sprinklers. Ortolan88 16:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I have seen criticisms of sprinkler systems on several grounds including (a) supposed tendency to go of accidentally or due to sabotage, causing economic damage that isn't quantified. [I observe that agencies charged with saving life aren't generally charged with balancing cost or inconvenience, but a higher agency must as e.g. in the argument that many lives would be saved if cars could not go over 20 mph.] (b) sprinklers represent a danger where there is electrical equipment (i.e. just about everywhere). [I observe that sprinklers originated in the US where the domestic voltage is much less dangerous than in Europe]. I don't know whether these criticisms are valid, but as more moves to compulsory sprinklers in the UK appear, I would like to see some analysis. At any rate, a neutral article should deal with common criticism. I have tried to research this myself on the web, but without any particular conclusions. Notinasnaid 13:14, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Could be, but it sounds like the sort of thing a landlord might say. I'd value human protection higher than property protection. I wrote this article immediately after the terrible Rhode Island rock club fire where more than a hundred people died due to lack of sprinklers. Do the research and improve the article. Ortolan88 16:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
-
- It is indeed the sorts of things a landlord might say (a good all purpose bogeyman aren't they), but it's also the sort of thing I might say - if faced, for instance with being forced to install sprinklers in a room with thousands of precious books. And there are signs that the UK, and Scotland in particular, is going that way: valuing statistical safety over quality of life and providing insufficient checks and balances to single-issue specialists e.g.[1] . I will see what I can find out. Notinasnaid 17:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Just trying to get you turned on to do the research :=) The destructiveness of fire-fighting methods is very little appreciated. For a long time (but no more), the city of Chicago had a private "insurance fire department" that went to big fires and did such things as lay out canvas gutters down the stairs to duct the water poured on by the city firemen out of the building.
- In the case of the library -- a very dear topic to me, believe me -- I don't think sprinklers should be installed without also installing some sort of interior "roofs and gutters" to handle the water. Sprinklers are, however, limited to flowing where there is heat, where presumably the books would be in greater danger from fire than from water. They don't just pop on and flood the whole building (which, as above, human firefighters do). And, books, having been wetted (as in the Venetian floods) have a better chance of restoration than books that have been burned.
- That said, your point is well taken and the article, which is pretty much pro-sprinkler, could be improved by well founded discussion of the issues you mention. I don't believe the article violates POV restrictions, however, because all that it says about sprinklers is true to the best of my knowledge (and I did do some research).
- I've been a landlord, had one good (great) landlord, many indifferent ones, and a couple of really lousy ones. Ortolan88 20:04, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- PS -- In talk page layout, if your reply were not indented, that is, left so it was on the same left margin as your original comment, it would be easier to follow the discussion, IMHO. O88
Contents |
[edit] More on same topic
I removed this from the article:
- It seems likely that the march towards sprinklers will continue unabated. The debate cannot be won, because the those for and against are measuring different things: on the one hand, saving lives is paramount and property damage is unimportant; on the other hand, fires are rare and property damage is an alarming prospect. Independent research into incidental damage and costs may help to reassure (or confirm the opinions of) the second group, but culturally many countries are moving to a culture where safety 'at any cost' is the priority.
Someone should do the research and put some facts in the article about sprinkler damage. The only ax I have to grind is making this a better encyclopedia. Good information on comparative costs of fire damage and danger versuse sprinkler damage and danger would make for a better article. Unsupported opinions don't. Ortolan88 19:55, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I'm happy enough to leave this out. The article has better balance overall. However, I don't think something should be removed JUST because it about unsupported opinions: I am reporting the existence of two opinions, and the existence of both opinions is, I think, an accepted fact. Apparently my take on political trends is not sufficiently neutral, though I thought that was pretty much accepted fact too...
[edit] Fahrenheit/Celsius, gallons/liters and feet/meters
When adding temperature/volum/distance information, please include metric values. Remember, Wikipedia is an international effort! Brutulf 22:43, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Rewrite
Condensed the article, removed repeated information, etc. I still think it needs more work, possibly a section on either Contraversy and/or Myths. Eg spell out that with sprinkler systems (except Deluge systems) only the sprinkler activated goes off. Possibly quote the failure rate (1 in 16 million or something similar). Also point out the other side of the coin, forkhoists in warehouses have an unexplainable gravitational attraction to sprinkler heads, usually with a very wet result. -- Zaf 06:52, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and can someone please tell me how the bulb chart can be done better. Before it was in the text and left a large white space, and didn't seem to flow well. I think the best bet would be an image style border/small text caption, but I can't figure how best to do this, or even if it will look ok. Zaf 06:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alternates
How about some information on new or alternate types of fire sprinklers? Like a "dry fire suppression system" that uses gasses? (something like http://www.e1.greatlakes.com/wfp/product/jsp/fm200_works.jsp ) Or the water wall method that I heard was popular at trade shows here is a good link to some different types of fire suppression systems ( http://www.uos.harvard.edu/ehs/ih_fire_detection.shtml ) and some reasons to use or not use Gas ( http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/columnItem/0,294698,sid80_gci1148917,00.html ) I think it might be good to consider starting a page for Fire Suppression Systems that could link to this page and others that exist like Gaseous fire suppression already Andrew Powell 20:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Large blank space on page
Could someone fix that space so that the text wraps around the picture? Nwwaew 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
