With installaion change with compulsory fire sprinklers?

[Alarm]

To achieve a gravity flow of 60lts/min with a 1000mm head you would need 50mm pipe. And your house would need some serious reinforcement to support the weight of the water tank - guessing 200 gallons which is getting on for a ton.
So the only way they can work is with serious mains pressure or a pump.

That's what my intuition was telling me - and I presume the pump option is a no-no (since one can't guarantee that electricity will be available when there is a fire). Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that one couldn't have a useful sprinkler system, with flows much lower than 60 l/min - that I don't know.

Kind Regards, John.

As before, a mist system takes less water is local specific and takes oxygen from the room as the droplets expand.

Hope to have the spec later this week, as promised.

 

[ericmark]

I have been sent a 27 page report on the use of sprinklers in the USA and page 2 admits “Interviewees felt that these other requirements dwarfed any cost effects from the sprinkler installation requirements”. So really even in the USA the report was void. In the UK we have different building materials and weather so even less use.

The http://www.assemblywales.org/bus-ho...siness-legislation-measures-domfiresafety.htm does show the stages this went through but it seems the media was more interested in reporting phone hacking than telling us of the new laws pending.

Some Pratt has really messed things up. In fact H.W. Pratt in 1872. However

In Europe, a small number of residential designs have also emerged. These units often employ water mist with or without a surfactant additive, and target retrofit applications where the risk of fire or fire injury is high but where a conventional fire sprinkler system would be unacceptably expensive.

but there does not seem to be anything to say what type should be used. If Heptafluoropropane was used in the AMP's homes maybe this would remove the problem?