You can't use telephone wire to wire up you outlets anymore in Iowa.

[soulasphil]

Aren't the rear tires a bit big on your Massey 35 as compared to the original tires on mine ? Or are you in a particularly muddy part of Wales ?

 

[033614]

Aren't the rear tires a bit big on your Massey 35 as compared to the original tires on mine ? Or are you in a particularly muddy part of Wales ?

They're standard 11 x 28, just a quirk of the photo, the tractor is on a bit of a slope and isn't all of Wales a bit muddy? Too wet at the moment to even drive over a field. Why do you think the next project is a 4 WD. Got a set of twin rear wheels to go on it as well.

 

[crazyal]

So I didn't read anything more than the first few words of each post. From what I gather a fire marshall wired the outlets in his house with telephone wire in Iowa and his autoworker union friend said that's not to code on a Massey 35 tractor, right?

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I really like the idea of fire sprinklers in houses. My house has them. I really hate the idea that it has to be installed by a licensed fire sprinkler installer. A plumber can do it just fine, and the type of sprinklers put in a house use the existing domestic cold water lines. I've volunteered and put in sprinklers at a lot of habitat houses. The cold water lines are run in the ceiling, the heads come off of those pipes, and there are drops down to the sinks and toilets. The installation is not rocket science, it's plumbing.

So the problem here is that in the passing of a law, a trade group has got themselves written in as a monopoly. If firefighters can volunteer to put in sprinklers on habitat houses, and if the plumbing can be done by a plumber, why write this into the law? The plumbing already has to be inspected, so there is no new inspector needed, no new forms or paperwork.

My 2nd beef with requiring sprinklers in houses points back to the fire community. They have taken an "all or none" approach. From what I've seen (and somewhere there is lots of data on this) a lot of fires start in the kitchen and laundry. If there is a furnace (something that burns fuel) that that's the 3rd location. Given that a sprinkler head cost about $10, I see value in putting a head in the kitchen, in the laundry, and by the furnace. That would get about half of where fires start. I'm at odds with a lot of my fellow firefighters here, but the way I see it an "all or none" posture is worse than an extra $100-150 installed cost that would have good results. It would let the plumbers learn how to install them, and with time they would become more pervasive. It lets the private sector have competition and do it's thing.
I have sprinklers in my insulated garage. I do not have sprinklers in my electronics work area where the price of failure or accident would exceed $100K. Requiring the entire house to be sprinklered removed thought, discretion and choice from the consumer. Combining that with giving a monopoly to a trade that has shown reluctance to price the jobs at a rate that is commensurate with other residential trades compounds the concerns I have with this path.

One more "Stick my neck out" comment. As people get dumber about everyday things, then the need to have those things inspected by those in the know increases. People buying or renovating a house today typically don't have the skills to know if the wiring, plumbing, framing, HVAC and the like are correctly and safely done. The problem is the best way to do this. A totally private sector approach says that when you buy or do something you hire a private inspector. This is getting more common place when people by a house. The government approach involves a mix of licensing and inspections. So all these things come back to the same of arguments that grow here like weeds in a field.
How ignorant are people, and to what degree should the Government try to protect them and to what degree would private sector protect them. And how do you make sure those protection mechanisms actually work. I'm sorry, but I don't have an answer to that.

Pete

I'm with you on this one.

 

[doall]

So I didn't read anything more than the first few words of each post. From what I gather a fire marshall wired the outlets in his house with telephone wire in Iowa and his autoworker union friend said that's not to code on a Massey 35 tractor, right?

Now that's funny.

 

[Transit]

I can understand the need for a uniform code. PVC and flexible tubing would be useless in a fire and a DIY er would get into trouble. A sprinkler system may be more than a few sprinkler heads. Are there alarms involved?

 

[eepete]

I agree on the need for a sprinkler installation code, and agree that it's a risky DIY project, just don't like restricting installation so a plumber can't do it. The pipe used in residential systems is a flame retardant PVC approved for the use. As for using PEX or PVC, it's another trade off. By the time the fire is big enough to bring down the drywall and expose the pipe (remember the sprinkler head is flowing), it will take a minute or so to burn through (longer if water is flowing, think boiling water in a Dixie cut on a open fire). By this time the occupants are out. But before this drywall collapse point, there is a lot of time and the fire is either mostly put out or the speed at which is spreads is reduced dramatically. This is another facet of the goals of the system. Is this a life safety system or a protect the property system? More choices, more opinions, more debate. Type of construction is a factor too. "Stick built" vs. "gusset plate trusses" affects how long until structural collapse. Ties back to the goals: Is this a get people out safely or a put out the fire 95% of the time system? Note that plumbers are skilled in installing PVC systems, and the "special" PVC used in residential fire systems installs exactly the same as "normal" PVC and is therefore within the plumbers skill set.

The how many heads needed is also "pondering point". If you legislate that the entire house must be done, the cost goes up quite a bit. If four heads can get more than 50% of the fires, that's not bad. I did my entire house except for my electronics area. A hard rule means that I would have to have done that too (or go back after the fact and defeat them). As for the "We are talking about lives here, so we must do the whole house to at least a 'protect the people' level" argument, well if that were true we'd also mandate driving only cars with full airbags, collision avoidance radar, and the like. All houses would be framed with steel. You see the problem, the cost of everything triples is this protect life at all costs criteria is uniformly enforced.

Yes, it's a big decision to figure out how many and where to install heads, but this is no different than many safety vs. cost trade offs we make every day.

As for alarms, a residential system uses the existing cold water distribution to run the sprinklers. A commercial system has a dedicated set of pipes. This trade off makes the residential systems less expensive (and should mean that a plumber can install it). Unfortunately, it means that you can't look for flow in the pipes as an alarm trigger like you can with a commercial system. So the alarm aspects of a residential system fall back to the smoke detectors. We also see more cost trade-offs here. Less robust system in residential (can't detect water flow) but at a lower cost.

Come to think of it, smoke detectors are another area where we all make cost vs. safety trade offs. Most residential environments just have the smoke detectors as per code (in and near bedrooms, at least one per floor). I have additional detectors at my house, one in every room (such as the laundry, TV room and office). I also have heat detectors in the kitchen and garages. These are cheaper than any sprinkler system, yet it is not mandated that you have detectors in each room. For that mater, many residential alarm systems are wired so that you can't tell which detector is sounding (cost less to install that way). If the system can tell where the fire is and announce it, that good information for both the home owner and the fire department. So if you applied the same economic trade offs to sprinkler systems that we currently apply to smoke detectors, you would have certain areas with heads, others without.

All safety vs. cost decisions suck. And since you're drawing a line in the sand, there will be fierce discussions by passionate people about their views. I have my entire house sprinklered based on what I've seen. But I don't want to force my views on others, and vise-versa. If I were King of the Universe, I'd sprinkler the kitchen, laundry, furnace area, and a head in each hall by a bedroom. And of course you can add more as you would like. That in conjunction with smoke detectors isn't a bad imposition (in the King's opinion). But this is the real world, so we struggle with where the line is, draw it as best we can, accept the rules, and tractor on .

Back to the OP's concerns, this all comes back to what's reasonable to require, what's reasonable to leave to the discretion of the home owner, and what's reasonable in terms of limits on who can do the work and how the work gets inspected.

Pete

 

[sweettractors]

I just got my latest electric bill from the Coop.that I used in my home. 2571 KWH used $239.92 + $25.56 Environmental Surcharge + $15.17 for a outside Sodium Light + $8.44 school tax for a total of $289.88. I think that 10% Environmental surcharge is for the birds! Ken Sweet

 

[soulasphil]

Still OK in Brittany but raining cats and dogs. I will soon be unable to drive over the meadows even with the 4wd JD 3520 without doing a lot of damage.

 

[beppington]

So I didn't read anything more than the first few words of each post. From what I gather a fire marshall wired the outlets in his house with telephone wire in Iowa and his autoworker union friend said that's not to code on a Massey 35 tractor, right?

Yes, that's an accurate cliff notes summary! :laughing: