1. #76
    Forum Member
    johnny46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    This is going to be long, FireMedic, thank you for pointing out to me that you don't get what I am saying. Look at this video. This is not a small fire, you can see fire from sill to ridgepole & it has vented through windows, the eaves and partly through the roof. This is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires. This is a structure fire. A R&C fire suggests only the content in a room is on fire. Once the structural elements of a blding ignite, like the studs, joists, & sheathing it is no longer a R&C fire, but a structure fire. Collaspe become an over riding safty concern here. This is a fact in homes like this right out of Dunn's book. "Fire burning through or against a side wall is more likely to collapse a blding than fire burning through several fls or the roof".(remember at a house fire at least 2 of the 4 side walls are bearing), this video shows fire is probably attacking the exterior side wall from the inside.
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's. Agreed? When speaking of a R&C fire, most residental rooms have a fireload of 5lbs per/sqft. Each pound of ORDINARY conbustibles gives off 7,000-10,000 BTU's. Add plastics & synthetic & it can double. Each gallon of water absorbs about 9,275 BTU's when heated from 70 degrees to turning to steam. This is right out of Norman

    Stay with me!

    Theroy is 1 gallon will provide sufficient cooling to put out 5lbs of fuel at an average R&C fire. So in that case you are right 1-2 R&C fires, 1 3/4in good call! Tests performed by the NFPA & Factor Mutual have said that flows of 10gpm for each 100sqft of fire is sufficient to control light fireloads. So again you are right in saying a 1 3/4in could handle multipe R&C fires. Problem is this is not a R&C fire or a bunch of R&C fires like I said at the start.
    Now I think this is a fully involved structure all of the content in the home is on fire and a good majority of the structural elements that make up the home seem to be burning. So in addition to the content burning you have to factor in the building elements now, which changes the fireload from light to heavy. 1000sqft x 10gpm as stated by the fire gods(NFPA) equals 10,000 gpm. This is just the structural elements not including the content. NFPA numbers don't lie. This building is lost, sorry, & if you use a 1 3/4in on this fire before protecting your exposures you may lose another house.
    As for flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 in. I don't believe it. Tell me where I can find this information cause it's not possible in my firefighting book of hydralics.

    Be safe.
    Now close your book and say that three times fast.
    Logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead.

  2. #77
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    34

    Default

    [QUOTE=MemphisE34a;1076978]Wrong! The source and volume of water DO NOT matter as much as the rate at which you you apply it. What determines how fast the fire goes out depends more importantly on how fast you apply the water that you do have, not how much more water you can get.[/QUOTE

    If this rate is not sufficient enough then what happens? The house still burns down! Exactly what happened in the video.

  3. #78
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    who even cares about the hoseline, lets get some powercall action on this rig

  4. #79
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HooknCanman32 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    Wrong! The source and volume of water DO NOT matter as much as the rate at which you you apply it. What determines how fast the fire goes out depends more importantly on how fast you apply the water that you do have, not how much more water you can get.
    If this rate is not sufficient enough then what happens? The house still burns down! Exactly what happened in the video.
    Yahtzee, but thats not what he said.

    Here it is again:

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's.
    That is wrong.
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  5. #80
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40
    As for extingishment. There must be a source of water of sufficient VOLUME to suppress the number of BTU's.
    That is wrong.
    To a point, he is right. You have to have sufficient rate of water flow to overcome the btu production of the fire. You also still have to have sufficient water behind that rate of flow to actually put it out. Case in point, take a 5 gallon bucket of water as your source. I could apply that at 500gpm rate but its still just 5 gallons of water.

    You need both rate and volume.

  6. #81
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    465

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFNG View Post
    To a point, he is right. You have to have sufficient rate of water flow to overcome the btu production of the fire. You also still have to have sufficient water behind that rate of flow to actually put it out. Case in point, take a 5 gallon bucket of water as your source. I could apply that at 500gpm rate but its still just 5 gallons of water.

    You need both rate and volume.
    I would agree with that. You need the rate (5,000 gallons through a garden hose won't work) and you also need the volume to supply the rate you are applying (5 gallons at 325 gpm won't work).

  7. #82
    Forum Member
    MemphisE34a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Memphis, TN - USA
    Posts
    2,531

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheFNG View Post
    To a point, he is right. You have to have sufficient rate of water flow to overcome the btu production of the fire. You also still have to have sufficient water behind that rate of flow to actually put it out. Case in point, take a 5 gallon bucket of water as your source. I could apply that at 500gpm rate but its still just 5 gallons of water.

    You need both rate and volume.
    And to a point you are right, however you either missed my first post to the point or you are missing the point altogether.


    As written in post #59: When confronted with a large volume of fire and a limited water supply, using the deck gun is the best choice.

    When you initially arrive on the scene there is nothing you can do about the immediate amount of water you have available on the apparatus. That is limited by tank size which most likely none of the people riding had anything to do with. Yes, you can get a hydrant or wait to be supplied, but to me, that is not immediate. The only thing you can control is the rate at which you apply the water that you do have. You can only control that two ways - the size of your discharge and the pressure at which you pump it.

    Is this guaranteed to completely extinguish the fire? No, but it's your best shot and will give you the maximum knock down capability. It's the best way to not just **** away your water.

    Seeing how you like snappy examples, perform the following experiment.

    Make 2 identical 1 cubic foot cribs of wood using 1"x1"'s or 1"x2"'s placing all of the sticks on either 1" or 2" spacing respectively.

    Place a 1 gallon milk jug next to one of them and a 1 gallon hand pressure srayer next to the other - like a bug or weed srayer. Finally place a garden hose 10 feet away that you may use to refill your "tank" when you run out of water. The only other thing you will need is a stop watch.

    Light the first fire, start the clock, and wait until it reaches maximun intensity. Dump the 1 gallon milk jug on the fire, making maximum use of the water by spreading it around as best you can as the fire is extinguished - don't cheat yourself. This should take about 10-15 seconds. Most, if not all of the fire will be "knocked down." Wait one minute (simulating the time to establish a water supply), then go refill your "tank" with the garden hose - your supply line and go back and use what you need to finish the job. Count the number and make note of the size of the sticks that remain. Stop the clock. Total time including the 1 minute wait, under 2 minutes.

    Light the next fire and start the clock. Again, when the fire reaches it maximum intensity start your attack with the pressure srayer. It will take you longer to run out of water, but you will not have made a very big dent in the fire. Wait one minute, go refill and repeat the process as many times as it takes to achieve a "knock down" on the fire. Examine the number and size of the sticks that remain. Most of your fire will have burned out due to the reduction in fuel despite the amount that you have applied most likely 10+ times the water and time towards the effort.

    Had the pile of sticks been a house, which do you think had a more favorable outcome?

    I say again: When you have a limited water supply and truely alot of fire, your best option is to apply the water that you do have at the fastest rate possible.
    RK
    cell #901-494-9437

    Management is making sure things are done right. Leadership is doing the right thing. The fire service needs alot more leaders and a lot less managers.

    "Everyone goes home" is the mantra for the pussification of the modern, American fire service.


    Comments made are my own. They do not represent the official position or opinion of the Fire Department or the City for which I am employed. In fact, they are normally exactly the opposite.

  8. #83
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    Seeing how you like snappy examples, perform the following experiment....
    Light the first fire...

    Light the next fire...
    Please obtain the proper open burning permits as dictated by state and local law.

    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  9. #84
    Forum Member
    bum291's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    POHA, Finland
    Posts
    159

    Default

    As written in post #59: When confronted with a large volume of fire and a limited water supply, using the deck gun is the best choice.
    The deck gun isn't exactly the sniper rifle in the fire fighting world, with a burning house, you won't be able to get inside of it all. All those figures won't matter unless you get the water there. I don't see the surround and drown fires go out that quickly. Deck guns do come in handy now and then, but not always.

    No matter how many "faults" these guys made, they did put it all out fairly quickly without injuries or close calls. It's a common joke here (based on reality) that the full time firefighters arrive on site with the fire already put out by volunteers and tell them that they put the fire out the wrong way and that they should have waited for the professionals.

  10. #85
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bum291 View Post
    The deck gun isn't exactly the sniper rifle in the fire fighting world, with a burning house, you won't be able to get inside of it all. All those figures won't matter unless you get the water there. I don't see the surround and drown fires go out that quickly. Deck guns do come in handy now and then, but not always.

    If you can't shoot your deck gun into a window or doorway from the street, there is a major problem. Could be the equipment could be you, but something is failing miserably.

    No one is saying to use it all the time or that it will completely extinguish the fire, but if applied correctly it can buy time if you can't get a water supply immediately.
    Last edited by nameless; 07-08-2009 at 07:11 PM.

  11. #86
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Southern Indiana
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MemphisE34a View Post
    And to a point you are right, however you either missed my first post to the point or you are missing the point altogether.


    As written in post #59: When confronted with a large volume of fire and a limited water supply, using the deck gun is the best choice.

    When you initially arrive on the scene there is nothing you can do about the immediate amount of water you have available on the apparatus. That is limited by tank size which most likely none of the people riding had anything to do with. Yes, you can get a hydrant or wait to be supplied, but to me, that is not immediate. The only thing you can control is the rate at which you apply the water that you do have. You can only control that two ways - the size of your discharge and the pressure at which you pump it.

    Is this guaranteed to completely extinguish the fire? No, but it's your best shot and will give you the maximum knock down capability. It's the best way to not just **** away your water.

    Seeing how you like snappy examples, perform the following experiment.

    Make 2 identical 1 cubic foot cribs of wood using 1"x1"'s or 1"x2"'s placing all of the sticks on either 1" or 2" spacing respectively.

    Place a 1 gallon milk jug next to one of them and a 1 gallon hand pressure srayer next to the other - like a bug or weed srayer. Finally place a garden hose 10 feet away that you may use to refill your "tank" when you run out of water. The only other thing you will need is a stop watch.

    Light the first fire, start the clock, and wait until it reaches maximun intensity. Dump the 1 gallon milk jug on the fire, making maximum use of the water by spreading it around as best you can as the fire is extinguished - don't cheat yourself. This should take about 10-15 seconds. Most, if not all of the fire will be "knocked down." Wait one minute (simulating the time to establish a water supply), then go refill your "tank" with the garden hose - your supply line and go back and use what you need to finish the job. Count the number and make note of the size of the sticks that remain. Stop the clock. Total time including the 1 minute wait, under 2 minutes.

    Light the next fire and start the clock. Again, when the fire reaches it maximum intensity start your attack with the pressure srayer. It will take you longer to run out of water, but you will not have made a very big dent in the fire. Wait one minute, go refill and repeat the process as many times as it takes to achieve a "knock down" on the fire. Examine the number and size of the sticks that remain. Most of your fire will have burned out due to the reduction in fuel despite the amount that you have applied most likely 10+ times the water and time towards the effort.

    Had the pile of sticks been a house, which do you think had a more favorable outcome?

    I say again: When you have a limited water supply and truely alot of fire, your best option is to apply the water that you do have at the fastest rate possible.
    First - fundamentally we agree. Do what it going to yield the best results with what you have now. That said, sometimes containment is a better choice even if it simply slows the fire growth. To many variables to make absolutes.

    Oh, and your example, while interesting was a bit off in scale. The 1ft cube of wood could almost be submerged in 1 gal of water.

    Again, if it was us - we'd pull a 1 3/4 cafs line (2 if we have another hand) and use the booster tank with those lines. We've got 1000gal to play with so we can accomplish a lot with tank water alone.

  12. #87
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ffmedcbk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    781

    Default

    the biggest issue with the deck gun is where it is placed..... high on the pumper. unless it is the 2nd floor your aiming at it will not cover the ceiling area and dispurse through the room cooling the contents. on a 1st flr it will only cool the carpet.

    we have a blitzfire but wouldn't use that either. 2 x 1.75" with 15/16th sb's would be sufficient or 1 x 330 gpm slug on the 2.5" then finished off with a 1.75" hose extended from it after darkening it down. (just depends on OIC's)
    Originally Posted by madden01
    "and everyone is encouraged to use Plain, Spelled Out English. I thought this was covered in NIMS training."

  13. #88
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    If you can't shoot your deck gun into a window or doorway from the street, there is a major problem. Could be the equipment could be you, but something is failing miserably.
    It could also be the result of other factors. Like our abandoned house fire last night in which an electrical wire burned off the house and was laying in the street in front of the house preventing the engine from taking a position in which the deck gun could be used.

    No one is saying to use it all the time or that it will completely extinguish the fire, but if applied correctly it can buy time if you can't get a water supply immediately.
    It can also be effective even if your water supply is immediately available.

  14. #89
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    It could also be the result of other factors. Like our abandoned house fire last night in which an electrical wire burned off the house and was laying in the street in front of the house preventing the engine from taking a position in which the deck gun could be used.
    obviously there are exceptions, but to disregard deck guns as in option due to inaccuracy is very off base.

    I can name a ton of reasons why a deck gun might not be able to hit a window, but its not due to the inaccuracy of the device.

  15. #90
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Wheaton IL
    Posts
    1,767

    Default

    When you watch this video, they eventually hit the main body of fire and what happens?...They flow water through the front door and the fire doesn't go out.
    A larger line with more punch would darken it right away, then they could move in and finish up.
    Watch the video a few times to see the smaller lines effectiveness.
    I think I'd still go with a 2.5" then mop up.

  16. #91
    Forum Member
    Lewiston2FF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2000
    Location
    Niagara Falls, NY, USA
    Posts
    1,924

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ADSNWFLD View Post
    When you watch this video, they eventually hit the main body of fire and what happens?...They flow water through the front door and the fire doesn't go out.
    A larger line with more punch would darken it right away, then they could move in and finish up.
    Watch the video a few times to see the smaller lines effectiveness.
    I think I'd still go with a 2.5" then mop up.
    I'm going to disagree with you on that one. It is not the line size that is ineffective, it is the fact that the nozzleman kept shutting the nozzle off. Once you are hitting the fire and darkening it down, don't stop with the water! Shutting the line down and giving the fire time to regain a foothold is not effective use of water. Now if there was a search or a rescue going on at the same time I agree with the tactics used, contain but do not steam the hell out of the occupants.
    Shawn M. Cecula
    Firefighter
    IACOJ Division of Fire and EMS

  17. #92
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    ADSNWFLD, says it the best!!!

    Also, I can't find any articles on flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 handline. No one I know seems to think it is possible or if it is how effective or manageable the line would be.

    If there is an articles or anything out there that explains this can you tell me where to find it

    Thanks

  18. #93

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    5

    Default

    I Totally Disagree On The Use Of A 2.5" Line For This Fire I Would Have Stretched An 1.75" Preconnect And Used Tank Water Through The Front Door Then Slowly Progressed Inside Once Water Supply Was Set Up And More Manpower Arrived Onscene To Set Up A Back Up Line.

    In My Department We Are Super Rural And Yes We Use Water Shuttles Sometimes But Our Main Engine Carries 1250 Gal Of Water And The 2nd Eng Has 1000gal I Would Still Use The Same Tactic Of Stretching The 1.75 And Hitting It Head On I Can Do Alot Of Damage With 1250 Gals Of Water With A 200 Gpm Nozzle At 175 Psi. I Also Understand What You Mean By The Departments "wasting" Water We Have 2 Departments That We Run With That Absolutely Refuse To Do Interior Attack Unless They Have A Hydrant.

  19. #94
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    ADSNWFLD, says it the best!!!

    Also, I can't find any articles on flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 handline. No one I know seems to think it is possible or if it is how effective or manageable the line would be.

    If there is an articles or anything out there that explains this can you tell me where to find it

    Thanks
    http://www.okolonafire.org/docs%20an...0Chart%203.pdf
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  20. #95
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Clearly this is an application for high pressure fog.

  21. #96
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Ok, good chart! But who would do this? At 200ft of hose your Engine pressure is 324. I think that's crazy to do. I'd rather pull a 2.5!!!

    Thanks,

  22. #97
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Central NJ
    Posts
    1,214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    Ok, good chart! But who would do this? At 200ft of hose your Engine pressure is 324. I think that's crazy to do. I'd rather pull a 2.5!!!

    Thanks,
    The nozzle salesman...thats who.

  23. #98
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    ADSNWFLD, says it the best!!!

    Also, I can't find any articles on flowing 325gpm out of a 1 3/4 handline. No one I know seems to think it is possible or if it is how effective or manageable the line would be.
    Well, as far as effectiveness goes, I'd guess 325gpm out of a 1-3/4 line would be pretty much the same as 325gpm out of a 2-1/2.

    I don't know much about the manageability, but the article I read made the point that when flowing this amount (regardless of hose size), you're probably going to be stationary and not trying to advance and flow at the same time.

    If there is an articles or anything out there that explains this can you tell me where to find it

    Thanks
    Try Fire Engineering also, maybe I was mistaken on which magazine the article was in.

  24. #99
    Back In Black
    ChiefKN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The Nice Part of New Jersey
    Posts
    6,981

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    Ok, good chart! But who would do this? At 200ft of hose your Engine pressure is 324. I think that's crazy to do. I'd rather pull a 2.5!!!

    Thanks,
    Not advocating it. You asked, I provide.

    Seriously though, I bet good money that anyone lugging a 2 1/2 through a SFD is not gonna open that bale all the way. Just isn't gonna happen.

    So, don't beat em up, use the 1 3/4.
    I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

    "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

    "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

  25. #100
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,970

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ffnj40 View Post
    Ok, good chart! But who would do this?
    Probably nobody, however the point of the article I mentioned wasn't about replacing your 2-1/2 lines, but rather that you could achieve comparable flows from the smaller handlines if necessary vs retreating and stretching the bigger line or if you have very limited personnel it could be an alternative stretch to a bigger line.

    At 200ft of hose your Engine pressure is 324. I think that's crazy to do. I'd rather pull a 2.5!!!

    Thanks,
    With a smoothbore, it's 274 and with a 150ft stretch and smoothbore, it's only 218 psi.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Havana, FL---Single-family dwelling burns down
    By Firefighter1219 in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-14-2003, 10:23 AM
  2. Single Family Dwelling Search Tactics?
    By FFFRED in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 09-26-2002, 03:01 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-06-2002, 10:33 AM
  4. LAFD Single Family Dwelling FIre
    By webteam in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-23-2000, 03:52 PM
  5. Single Family Dwelling
    By Captstanm in forum Fire Wire
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-26-2000, 11:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register