The Court Street Corner
Justin D. Meyer

"Pick up your stuff, don't leave it lying around on the floor." -all moms

Journalistic integrity has always been at the forefront of issues close to the hearts of our society. The ever-so-holy pursuit of the "free press" is harped in parallel with a precious few editorials lamenting (yet still defending obliquely) whatever current issue needs to be picked apart in the public press. The public's right to know not withstanding, much of the media depends on a certain amount of sensationalism for attention.

From time to time this ratings search results in an issue being blown completely out of proportion or well beyond reasonable informing of the public (i.e., local to national). The difference between disinformation and the creation of "FUD" is present, but possesses all existing shades of gray. Digressing for a moment, FUD was coined by Gene Amdahl after he left IBM and formed his own company. The acronym stands for fear, uncertainty, and doubt: a concept/strategy employed by people or companies to steer you away from the truth, thinking for yourself, or from their competitors. In the competitive business world, most companies would like nothing better than for various forms of media to propagate any FUD they generate.

The front-page article in the December 5, 2003 issue of The Stute, "Davis Hall soaks in unanswered questions about the flood", was a prime-unintentional by my estimation -example of FUD. Near the end of the article was the coup-de-gras, the scathing conclusion that "…[the perceived problem] could be an indicator of a flaw in the sprinkler system, which could endanger students in a real fire." It was a one-sided article (the ORL did not have to be the author's only 'counterpoint' source) based mostly on opinion, erroneous statements, a little ignorance (which I hope to change), and a splash of not thinking things through fully.

It is said that newspaper articles must be written at about a 6th grade level to be understood by society at large. I'm not so sure that's the problem. I think we have to work at getting people who believe the FUD anybody doles out-wittingly and unwittingly-to think at or above a 6th grade level. Presumably someone who writes, edits, or prints something must believe it. Otherwise they would be lying or pandering for attention (ratings).

The main concerns collected and aired by the author and those interviewed seem to be 1) not knowing what set the sprinklers off, 2) not being informed of progress during the incident, 3) time resulting in further damages, 4) not knowing if students will be reimbursed for damages, and 5) all the "speculation" as to whether or not the sprinkler system is "reliable." During the first twenty minutes of the incident, residents of the affected floors were called together and advised that it would be at least a couple hours before they were let back in while the Fire Department repaired the head and Temco cleaned. Also discussed was that the sprinkler had probably been set off by the residents' shenanigans (i.e., the inter-floor pellet war that everyone knows about). And lastly that Stevens was not responsible for their belongings, but would let them know if there turned out to be a way they could help affected residents. And of course, reason alone would tell you: if it was on the floor, it is now wet. Right off the top, issues one, two and four were already addressed. Issues three and five will require further explanation.

As far as belongings being damaged over time, a little thought on anyone's part will clear that up. Considering the amount of water (we will get to that) and the fact that it was turned off as soon as possible, three situations exist. First, if an item like books, leather or electronics is going to be damaged, it will happen in the first one to two minutes. Second, an item dissolves in water or soaks it up slowly (rugs) over time, and lastly, cannot be dried out (wood or furniture). Anything in the first situation never had a chance under any circumstances. Items in the second situation had a chance, but depend primarily on being treated and dried before mildew sets in. For the last situation, you do what you can. In all cases, the water is smelly and oily from the grease which keeps the insides of the pipes from rusting. Basically, after a few minutes, everybody loses. It is important to remember that the purpose of the fire sprinkler system is not to save one person's stuff; it is already gone. Their purpose is to save lives and the infrastructure, and then everyone's belongings.

As a sort of public service-and because the author of the article certainly did not have the room or time to pursue this avenue-we are taking this opportunity to breeze through the fundamentals of sprinkler head design and operation. As most of our readers are engineers, much of this will seem elementary, but knowledge breeds understanding and familiarity breeds confidence. So we will lastly address the least substantiated concern.

The design and operation of sprinkler heads, while complicated in details, is quite simple to understand. And, as they have been around for 80+ years, they definitely qualify as a 'mature' technology. The basic elements of a fire sprinkler head are the fitting/base, O-ring, plug, glass activator bulb, bulb restraint (the part that forms an arch over the base), and the spray pattern template and optional shield. An optional attachment, necessary in the more "hazardous" environments, is a protective cage fit over the head and to the base-protecting the glass activator and bulb restraint from most accidental forces.

On the operational end of things, the concept remains simple, but requires precision engineering and fabrication. The plug is fit into the throat of the sprinkler head with the O-ring creating a watertight seal. The frangible glass activator bulb is fit between the plug and the bulb restraint, preventing the water from escaping until activated by appropriate conditions. Although the newer bulbs look quite thin, the opening the plug and O-ring fill is about ½" in diameter. At an operational pressure of about 150psi, that permits several hundred gallons per minute from just one head! Once activated, the spray pattern template forces calculated amounts of water to be sent in various directions, drenching everything in the volume covered by that head. So much water is put into the air that it is rather difficult to breath within 10 feet of an activated head.

Obviously the activation of a sprinkler head requires the fracturing of the glass activator bulb, permitting water to expel the plug from the throat of the sprinkler. These bulbs can be broken two ways: by heat activation, as intended, or by an external force. (Among the tens of millions of sprinkler heads installed, spontaneous failure is so seldom as to be almost inconsequential.) Bulb activation temperatures range from 135 degrees Fahrenheit all the way up to more than 600 degrees Fahrenheit, depending on the environment and the application. This, along with bulb size and glass strength, is controlled by the water to air ratio within the bulb-the smaller the amount of water, the hotter the smoke or air must be to raise the internal pressure to the fracture point of the glass. Most residential codes specify that the activation point be in the 130-150 degree range, putting it as low as possible without having to worry about showers setting them off.

More information can be found at http://www.collegefiresafety.org, check out the "resources" link for all sorts of federal, professional, and other types of fire sprinkler and safety information.

To the intrepid Davis freshmen in particular: fear not that fire sprinklers in your halls "will go off for no apparent reason." For even this potential flaw characterized in the last month's Stute article will not actually create a life-endangering situation. Think about it…if a head activates, it gets you and your belongings wet, it does not start a fire or fail to put one out! Fear more what your eyes can tell you is true-that most all damages in your hall are the result of your fellow residents' accidents, hall sports, and tom-foolery. Without those protective cages, several of them would surely have been set off already.

To all those students: think before you speak! People have told me I speak as other people write… I take that very happily, as it tells me they understand I put a lot of thought into what I say. As my good friend Brian Nolte once told someone looking for dirt: "J doesn't really do anything embarrassing…he always thinks things through two or three times." This is not self-serving, just an example of how one is perceived when extra thought and care go into what one says and does. Now spontaneity is great in moderation, but maybe people at least ought to think things through once, if not two to three times, before opening their mouths or acting like idiots. If so, there would be a lot less grief and frustration in the world.

Mom always told you to pick up your stuff and not leave it lying around. Now you know why. Listen to your mother.

Sean D. Nelson, Tom J. Raynor, and Carlos A. Tafur contributed to this column.