I came across this video for a neat looking product for fighting high rise fires from the floor below.
During the video we see how water can be applied through the device in either straight stream or via a remote controlled combination nozzle.
I have no opinion about the product positive or negative, that is not the reason for my sharing the video. As you watch, pay careful attention to the changes in smoke conditions between straight stream and fog.
Just in case you always wondered why there is more smoke when you use the fog nozzle as opposed to putting the fire out with the straight stream.
VIDEO REMOVED DUE TO MALWARE
More reach, more water, less fire, less smoke.
During the video we see how water can be applied through the device in either straight stream or via a remote controlled combination nozzle.
I have no opinion about the product positive or negative, that is not the reason for my sharing the video. As you watch, pay careful attention to the changes in smoke conditions between straight stream and fog.
Just in case you always wondered why there is more smoke when you use the fog nozzle as opposed to putting the fire out with the straight stream.
VIDEO REMOVED DUE TO MALWARE
More reach, more water, less fire, less smoke.
Comments
But have a look at this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3tAgBb2pt0&list=FLtyXs8bJEiw-wYTz4cnx5Nw&index=63
and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M4tZIB0hTYQ&feature=related
They are pretty good representations of 3D firefighting as we do it over here. If we used the USA tactics we would be sued for water damage as the smooth bore nozzles are only 20% efficient whereas our fog nozzles are 80% efficient, allowing us to use a lot less water. We can put out a fully involved living room fire with less than 20 gallons of water in less than 2 minutes.
So differents ways but both seem to work if used correctly.
There is no need to shoot, advance, shoot, advance etc because the stream has the reach to do the work for you.
Construction methods do need to be taken into account, with the majority of our residences being made of flammable materials as opposed to bricks and masonry as in the second video.
the key is using the techniques on an occupied space. An occupied space contains flammable items that all the short bursts to the ceiling in the world will not contain, plain and simple.
I do admire the tactic of reversing out from the fire I have seen in europe though. Meaning we move from the fire and lay line back to the pump as opposed to America where we advance forward from water to the fire.
Also to take into account is population density in first alarm of the fire. We in the US seem to keep to ourselves more than our European counterparts and only in a few metro areas are we in attatched dwellings. I think this has alot to do with fires in the US being well into free burning stage as opposed to incipient when the first units arrive.
Certainly a topic for more discussion!
Thanks for reading!
Using the HEROpipe you would have personnel working directly under the fire. And you're pumping a lot of water into the space. How concerned would you be with the added weight on the floor right above you? I'm not going to claim to know squat about building codes but all that water represents a lot of weight being added to a potentially weakened floor and I'm not sure it can flow away and down fast enough.
BGM
The high pressure nozzle is efficient at changing water to steam, but as Justin pointed out, most of our structures are made out of flammable materials with high fire loads making the chance of a TRUE structural fire (in the Francis Brannigan sense) where the immediate involvement of structural members in the fire in possible. The heat release requires a higher rate of flow.
And right now, most fire departments are using the adjustable pattern fog nozzle but you will see most departments using a straight pattern for interior attack.
These larger buildings are designed to hold a lot of weight, but it all goes back to SMART water application to effect knocking down the fire.
The key is not applying a lot of water, but the right amount of water. The old phrase "Big fire, big water" was never correct and needs to be stricken from our lexicon.
One thing that struck me is that even in the middle of it's operating range a HEROPipe system is putting a shade more than two tons of water into the fire space in a minute. Now granted a minute is a lot longer than it sounds to most folks but still... Would I be correct in assuming that the standard interior attack tactics would use water at a similar flow rate? If so is drainage a consideration in planning and executing the attack? A brief wander through the internet turned up all sorts of information about venting heat and gasses but I found nothing about allowing a safe path for water to exit.
Not wanting to get hung up on the question but it's something I've never really considered before. Any water used in fighting the fire has to go somewhere and it seems like a perfect way for Murphy's law to come into play.
BGM
It's the same as when we pour water on a camp fire. it seems to take an incredible amount of water to extinguish the fire and one big dump rarely works. the first few pours will simply disappear into steam, but soon we discover more targeted application works better and the fire gets smaller. hitting it from the side or below works best, less heated air (ventilation) and it decreases the amount of fuel burning.
Great discussion!
Thanks Happy.
Wait, WHAT?? Dude, you're in healthcare- how can you even SAY that??