私人防火

私人防火

新英格兰承销商局的经理戈勒姆·达纳（Gorham Dana）在新英格兰水厂协会（New England Waterworks Association）的前几天发表的地址，旨在安装洒水装置。他想像的一些水厂部门反对允许街道主狭窄的适当尺寸的洒水连接。但是，“在火灾的情况下，必须使用水，洒水器将用少于软管溪流将其扔掉。如果连接不够大，洒水器可能无法做到他们的期望，那么软管流就会因此，必须此外使用。因此，水务部门似乎是经济的，无论主要大小是多少。在大小上可以制作，尽管在必要时可以建立多个这样的连接 - 在纳税人身上是不必要的困难。首先，它通常会引入另一个大门和检查阀，这也增加了费用由于引入了另一个麻烦的机会，因为阀门被错误封闭。这也意味着更多的摩擦损失。”该规则的唯一原因似乎是“浪费的可能性较小，以防万一休息。”但是，“如果两个4英寸。连接进入一栋建筑物，并聚集在一起以喂养一个6英寸。提升物，这个立管中的休息时间将以两个4英寸的速度喂食。 pipes, which have a capacity of practically the same as one 6-in. and, in case of a break in the 4-in., the water would come from each direction and would again be altout the equivalent of one 6-in. As a matter of fact, tlie chance of breakage in one of these large pipes is extremely small, and it would seem that the benefit from a good sprinkler system would more than offset any possible danger of wasting water at a time when it was needed elsewhere.” As to metering private fire-pipes: Underwriters object to the practice, alleging that it causes extra expense through friction-loss and other complications, such as clogging. The Detector meters, however, he admitted, have overcome this trouble to a large extent, and the practice can be justified, because water departments often suffer through water being stolen from sprinkler systems, and it is their duty to put a stop to such thefts. Insurance companies, however, "do not allow sprinkler-pipes to be used for any other purpose. All water departments should have a similar rule and should enforce it rigidly In addition, they may seal all dripvalves and private hydrants and require that they be notified if a seal has to be broken for any reason. * * This is done in some cities.” Nearly all the sprinkler systems contain alarm valves. Now an alarm-valve placed in a sprinkler pipe is to my mind just as good as a meter. No water can pass through the pipe, without giving an alarm, provided tile alarms are in order. I he insurance inspectors going through the plant several times a year see that these are kept in order. In cities where there is sprinkler-supervision such devices can be supervised from a central station, in which ease, a trouble signal is received, in ease any part of the system gets out of order. If further proof is needed, small sized meters (t in. or 44-in.) can be placed in the pipe that runs to the alarm-bell. In this case, no water can be drawn through the sprinklw-pipt without registering on this meter. This does not give the actual amount passing through the system; but the proportion could be roughly fig ured. In case there is a rule not to use any, the amount is not important, for the rule is broken and the person who does it can IKpunished." Another means suggested is to place a recording pressure gauge on the pipe from the alarm valvea method which (he claims), incase of fiowage, owing to the pressure, would record on the gauge and dial, the exact length of time, during which the flowage occurred. With respect to an annual charge being made for sprinkler-connections, front waterworks systems, as is done in some localities: The insurance engineer is concerned in these, as “it is his duty to keep the cost of such equipments as low as possible, so that they may be more general)’ installed, and thus cut down the fearful annual fire-waste. Where a waterworks system is owned by a town or city and supported by public taxes (Mr. Dana proceeded), there appears to be no more reason for charging for private fire-service than for public protection. It may be thought best to make the property owner pay for the original cost of installing such a connection; but it certainly seems wrong to charge him any annual rental. This, of course, is assuming that the fire-service pipes are used for fire protection only, as they should be. The property owner is entitled to public fire protection on account of the taxes he pays. I f he chooses to put in at considerable expense private fire protection that will put out a fire with the use of much less water than would be used by fire department, it is certainly not fair to make him pay the community for so doing. It would seem rather that the community should pay him for making such an improvement. Where the water system is owned by a private corporation the problem is somewhat different. In this case, the town usually pays the water company a given amount per year for each hydrant. Now there seems to be no reason why the private connection should not be placed on the same basis as hydrants in this case, too. If a mill owner should ask for more public hydrants near his plant, they would be supplied without cost to him. If, therefore, he asks for sprinkler-connection which will put out the fire with less water, why should he not be supplied with that too, at the town’s expense? As in the previous case, this is on the supposition that the sprinkler-connection will be used for fire purposes only. The domestic service connection should be entirely separate. If he desires more yard-hydrants, these, too, might be well supplied at public expense, at least, so far as annual rental is concerned, for such hydrants are simply an extension of the public hydrant system and to this he is entitled, if he pays taxes.” As to the basis for payment for fire-service connections: Mr. Dana thinks it only fair some payment should be made either by the town or the property owner, where a private corporation owns the waterworks. A charge of so much per sprinkler he considers unfair, because "sprinklers are installed on the theory that only one floor will be on fire at once. Sprinklers (he insists) will almost always control a fire before it spreads to another floor, and, if they do allow it to spread to this extent, the chances are that they will not control it all. The same size connections and riser are allowed for a 10-story building as for a i-story building, provided the floor-areas are the same. Only so much water can be obtained from a given sized pipe, whether it supplies to stories or one. “Some water companies charge a certain proportion of the insurance carried, or a proportion of the reduction in rate allowed by the insurance companies for the protection.” This method, also, Mr. Dana considers unfair, as “it might be that a large portion of the insurable value at the plant was in storehouses that contained no fire protection. Again, the reduction in rate for improved fire protection is not based on the protection afforded by public water connections only, but, also, on private water supplies, such as pumps and tanks, upon private brigades, private hose, watchman’s service and numerous other features. The fairest basis for the charge would seem to be that of the number and size of connections, for it is this that determines the amount of water that could be used in such a system. It would seem fair to consider a 4-in. connection as about the equivalent of one hydrant, for this is the smallest size of pipe permitted for a hydrant supply. On this basis a 6-in. pipe would be the equivalent of two hydrants, and an 8-in. pipe to four hydrants, a 10-in. to six hydrants, etc., this being figured on the relative area of these pipes. If, therefore, the price charged per hydrant is taken as a standard, and the sprinkler-connection is figured on the above basis, we should have a simple method of computation, yet one that is fair both to the property owner and the water corporation.”

新英格兰承销商局的经理戈勒姆·达纳（Gorham Dana）在新英格兰水厂协会（New England Waterworks Association）的前几天发表的地址，旨在安装洒水装置。他想像的一些水厂部门反对允许街道主狭窄的适当尺寸的洒水连接。但是，“在火灾的情况下，必须使用水，洒水器将用少于软管溪流将其扔掉。如果连接不够大，洒水器可能无法做到他们的期望，那么软管流就会因此，必须此外使用。因此，水务部门似乎是经济的，无论主要大小是多少。在大小上可以制作，尽管在必要时可以建立多个这样的连接 - 在纳税人身上是不必要的困难。首先，它通常会引入另一个大门和检查阀，这也增加了费用由于引入了另一个麻烦的机会，因为阀门被错误封闭。这也意味着更多的摩擦损失。”该规则的唯一原因似乎是“浪费的可能性较小，以防万一休息。”但是，“如果两个4英寸。连接进入一栋建筑物，并聚集在一起以喂养一个6英寸。提升物，这个立管中的休息时间将以两个4英寸的速度喂食。 pipes, which have a capacity of practically the same as one 6-in. and, in case of a break in the 4-in., the water would come from each direction and would again be altout the equivalent of one 6-in. As a matter of fact, tlie chance of breakage in one of these large pipes is extremely small, and it would seem that the benefit from a good sprinkler system would more than offset any possible danger of wasting water at a time when it was needed elsewhere.” As to metering private fire-pipes: Underwriters object to the practice, alleging that it causes extra expense through friction-loss and other complications, such as clogging. The Detector meters, however, he admitted, have overcome this trouble to a large extent, and the practice can be justified, because water departments often suffer through water being stolen from sprinkler systems, and it is their duty to put a stop to such thefts. Insurance companies, however, "do not allow sprinkler-pipes to be used for any other purpose. All water departments should have a similar rule and should enforce it rigidly In addition, they may seal all dripvalves and private hydrants and require that they be notified if a seal has to be broken for any reason. * * This is done in some cities.” Nearly all the sprinkler systems contain alarm valves. Now an alarm-valve placed in a sprinkler pipe is to my mind just as good as a meter. No water can pass through the pipe, without giving an alarm, provided tile alarms are in order. I he insurance inspectors going through the plant several times a year see that these are kept in order. In cities where there is sprinkler-supervision such devices can be supervised from a central station, in which ease, a trouble signal is received, in ease any part of the system gets out of order. If further proof is needed, small sized meters (t in. or 44-in.) can be placed in the pipe that runs to the alarm-bell. In this case, no water can be drawn through the sprinklw-pipt without registering on this meter. This does not give the actual amount passing through the system; but the proportion could be roughly fig ured. In case there is a rule not to use any, the amount is not important, for the rule is broken and the person who does it can IKpunished." Another means suggested is to place a recording pressure gauge on the pipe from the alarm valvea method which (he claims), incase of fiowage, owing to the pressure, would record on the gauge and dial, the exact length of time, during which the flowage occurred. With respect to an annual charge being made for sprinkler-connections, front waterworks systems, as is done in some localities: The insurance engineer is concerned in these, as “it is his duty to keep the cost of such equipments as low as possible, so that they may be more general)’ installed, and thus cut down the fearful annual fire-waste. Where a waterworks system is owned by a town or city and supported by public taxes (Mr. Dana proceeded), there appears to be no more reason for charging for private fire-service than for public protection. It may be thought best to make the property owner pay for the original cost of installing such a connection; but it certainly seems wrong to charge him any annual rental. This, of course, is assuming that the fire-service pipes are used for fire protection only, as they should be. The property owner is entitled to public fire protection on account of the taxes he pays. I f he chooses to put in at considerable expense private fire protection that will put out a fire with the use of much less water than would be used by fire department, it is certainly not fair to make him pay the community for so doing. It would seem rather that the community should pay him for making such an improvement. Where the water system is owned by a private corporation the problem is somewhat different. In this case, the town usually pays the water company a given amount per year for each hydrant. Now there seems to be no reason why the private connection should not be placed on the same basis as hydrants in this case, too. If a mill owner should ask for more public hydrants near his plant, they would be supplied without cost to him. If, therefore, he asks for sprinkler-connection which will put out the fire with less water, why should he not be supplied with that too, at the town’s expense? As in the previous case, this is on the supposition that the sprinkler-connection will be used for fire purposes only. The domestic service connection should be entirely separate. If he desires more yard-hydrants, these, too, might be well supplied at public expense, at least, so far as annual rental is concerned, for such hydrants are simply an extension of the public hydrant system and to this he is entitled, if he pays taxes.” As to the basis for payment for fire-service connections: Mr. Dana thinks it only fair some payment should be made either by the town or the property owner, where a private corporation owns the waterworks. A charge of so much per sprinkler he considers unfair, because "sprinklers are installed on the theory that only one floor will be on fire at once. Sprinklers (he insists) will almost always control a fire before it spreads to another floor, and, if they do allow it to spread to this extent, the chances are that they will not control it all. The same size connections and riser are allowed for a 10-story building as for a i-story building, provided the floor-areas are the same. Only so much water can be obtained from a given sized pipe, whether it supplies to stories or one. “Some water companies charge a certain proportion of the insurance carried, or a proportion of the reduction in rate allowed by the insurance companies for the protection.” This method, also, Mr. Dana considers unfair, as “it might be that a large portion of the insurable value at the plant was in storehouses that contained no fire protection. Again, the reduction in rate for improved fire protection is not based on the protection afforded by public water connections only, but, also, on private water supplies, such as pumps and tanks, upon private brigades, private hose, watchman’s service and numerous other features. The fairest basis for the charge would seem to be that of the number and size of connections, for it is this that determines the amount of water that could be used in such a system. It would seem fair to consider a 4-in. connection as about the equivalent of one hydrant, for this is the smallest size of pipe permitted for a hydrant supply. On this basis a 6-in. pipe would be the equivalent of two hydrants, and an 8-in. pipe to four hydrants, a 10-in. to six hydrants, etc., this being figured on the relative area of these pipes. If, therefore, the price charged per hydrant is taken as a standard, and the sprinkler-connection is figured on the above basis, we should have a simple method of computation, yet one that is fair both to the property owner and the water corporation.”