Talk:Dry riser
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale. | |
| 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. |  |
It's been suggested that this article should be merged with "dry stand pipe". PLEASE DON'T. Cross reference, yes, but innocent questers after information like me might have failed to find the article if it had been merged, and might have beenless confident in its accuracy if it had the air of a transatlantic hybrid.82.45.205.207 14:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I suggest this page name be changed to Dry Pipe Fire Sprinker System. In the US, the terms standpipe and riser are exclusive. A standpipe supplies water to a hose system, whereas a riser supplies water to a sprinkler system. This should be resolved with the existing Dry systems section at the Fire sprinkler page. Fireproeng 03:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Future suggestions for edits :
- Delete reference to Fire Department Connection in intro. This position give the impression of importance, whereas an FDC fulfills a completely independent function in a sprinkler system, and is not unique to dry systems, being a part of every sprinkler system.
- Resolve with redundant description in fire sprinkler systems article.
- Change references to impressions of reduced water damage for dry systems. If a person is educated enough to understand the difference between wet and dry systems, I have not seen them confused by the chance of water damage with dry systems based on operational sequencing. The text is true of the impressions of single interlock pre-action systems.
- Change "advantages of dry systems" to reflect the view that dry systems cannot be used unless there are freezing considerations. Therefore, using a dry system is not an advantage, but an unwanted necessity.
Fireproeng 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
