A learning experienceSeptember 19 2017 at 10:06 AM
|Paul (no login)|
Response to Re: Thanks
I agree Steven, I have also learned so much from this site, it's the sharing of information that is so great. I have had to deal with so many building specifications and agency codes over the years, I always like to verify things instead of trying to go by memory. In architecture if you go by memory it can get pretty expensive.
On one project in California many years ago, we won the job from Nashville (I as an architect working for a development firm as the overall development project manager), and we hired an Atlanta firm to produce the architectural documents for us, and when the building was finished the local inspectors would not approve it because the Atlanta firm designed to NFPA-101, which is sort of a universal building code with regards to distance to stairs, fire seperations, etc., but in California they don't recognize NFPA-101 because they have their own code that addresses a higher earthquake risk. Come to find out, with six weeks left before opening date, we had to go in and build fire walls from the ground floor all the way to the roof, at two positions on each floor, segregating the building into three fire zones per floor to establish a "horizontal exit equivalency", because as it turned out, the stairs at each end of the building were not wide enough to meet the code. lol What a mess that was, and yes, the Errors and Omissions insurance policy kicked in for that firm who did the work.
Based on a few experiences like that over the years, I never try to memorize or "remember" the codes, I always look them up and read them. There are so many variations.
Reading the code is one thing, but asking the officials who enforce the codes for an interpretation is another thing and good policy. They know the codes better than anyone else and they know the loopholes, equivalencies, and what they will or will not approve, and what happens in the real world.
The other thing that is so important with codes and inspections, as long as we're on the topic, is the fact that during a building inspection, if a code inspector misses something in his walk-through inspection and it is a code requirement, that does not obsolve the designer/contractor/owner from meeting that code because it is still a requirement.
On a boat if you were inspected and the inspector missed a code violation, you are still liable for it especially if you knew about it and did not fix it. Naturally, we do not EVER suggest subverting any code or regulation.
With these distributors and all marine equipment, it is against the codes and very bad policy to use automotive equipment in a boat, like carburetors, fuel pumps, starters, distributors, etc. As Ron Zick so aptly pointed out, the old equipment is pretty obsolete these days, and I can only imagine how many sparks my starboard 427 was tossing around when it had the popping fit years ago with a bad ground or whatever it was with the ignition. In addition, the 427 manual gives strict instructions to be sure you do NOT let plug wire 7 and 8 touch, because they fire sequentially and that can cause detonation and popping (in which case there must be one heck of an induction spark there too). Upgraded equipment for reliability makes a lot of sense, especially when I remember how many times I had a negative experience trying to make the motors run properly, and the hot spark helps an older engine get good combustion.
There are a variety of upgrade distributors on the market. The DUI system is one I am familiar with because it was the only marine unit I could find for the FE Ford motors, but some of the other guys have had very good results with other systems on GM motors too. I noticed on their literature the other day, they have a smaller unit for areas where the big chunk won't fit, but I don't know if that comes in a marine package or not.