Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 55 of 55
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: Class A/B Foam How Effective

  1. #41
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    15

    Default

    This discussion has been very informative and dynamic.Like with most subjects there are many different opinions so at the end of the day you still have to make the decision what will best serve our needs. I am still intrigued with the Fireade 2000 and HCT F-500 and their capibilities. We need to inform Pierce exactly what foam we require so if I were to decide today I would most likely choose one of the above listed foam brands. We have a mutual aid co 5 miles away that carries on one of their rigs 150 gallons of AR AFFF. So any substantial Class B fire could be knocked.
    If we don't like either one we can always switch to something else.


  2. #42
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Rural Iowa
    Posts
    3,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by totheroof View Post
    ....
    If we don't like either one we can always switch to something else.
    Not necessarily. You need to spec. what foam viscosity and flow rate you want for your Plan B. If your backup is to use 3/6 Ar-Afff (Brand XYZ) equipment required is very different than required for 1/3 low viscosity Ar-Afff.

  3. #43
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    55

    Smile

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Not necessarily. You need to spec. what foam viscosity and flow rate you want for your Plan B. If your backup is to use 3/6 Ar-Afff (Brand XYZ) equipment required is very different than required for 1/3 low viscosity Ar-Afff.
    Several years ago the foam pro folks were giving away viscosity charts for all the approved brands. Check thier web site to see if that is still available

  4. #44
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    55

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by neiowa View Post
    Not necessarily. You need to spec. what foam viscosity and flow rate you want for your Plan B. If your backup is to use 3/6 Ar-Afff (Brand XYZ) equipment required is very different than required for 1/3 low viscosity Ar-Afff.
    Good stuff! Also some of the one size fits all juice claims A - B but thier only B reports are for hydrocarbons not polar solvents.

    Again I recomend the alcohol fuels coalition website: http://www.ethanolresponse.com/ they are very helpful and they gave a full set of videos and test results to our academy

  5. #45
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    2

    Default

    There has been an incident that the NFPA has discussed about a metal fire and the use of FireAde. One fatality and serious injuries involved.

    4. Tim Myers gave a presentation on the St. Anna, WI fire (one firefighter killed,
    several injured) at an aluminum casting facility. Aluminum machining residue was found
    in an outside dumpster containing fines and powder, and several drums of dross. The
    dumpster was full.
    - The fire department started applying water mist with ¾-inch line.
    - began applying 1% Fireade foam @ 50 psi
    - increased to 2% Fireade foam @ 50 psi
    - increased to 3% Fireade foam @ 75 psi
    - explosion approximately 12 minutes after fire department arrived.

    http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/abo...nutes_2-10.pdf

    2. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADB298978

    Look at page 5.

    The first toxicity screen performed with FireAde 2000 had an unusual reaction with fish. After the fish had died the remains turned to a gel-like consistency. This result had never been observed before with any other agent. Additional analysis of the foam concentrate showed that the pH ( 12.4) was higher than the neutral pH indicated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer sent a second sample for testing and the first batch was sent back the manufacturer for analysis. The second batch of FireAde 2000 was closer to neutral; HOWEVER, this did not significantly improve the LC50 (74 to 92 ppm), indicating that the high level of toxicity was not due to pH alone.

  6. #46
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    foam...

    I can't help but wonder what your problem is with Fireade. Are you a competitor in the firefighting foam industry? Why do I ask? Because this is the SECOND post you have made attacking Fireade regarding its use on a METALS fire. Any entry level trained firefighter knows you do NOT use water or foam on a metals fire. It would not have made one bit of difference what type of firefighting foam or additive was used as long as water was the agent carrying the foam to the fire. It is a well known fact that metals fires react violently to water.

    Personally I think you are a competitor. We have seen these kinds of tactics used here on FH.com before. A new member joins and immediately launches an attack on some product. Then it eventually comes out that they are selling their own version of whatever is being attacked.

    My career FD has been using Fireade for about 3 years with no issues, both of my POC FDs use Fireade with no issues.

    Just for the record I am NOT a fire equipment salesman, I do not represent Fireade in any way, I do not work for Fireade in sales or production of Fireade.

    Come clean foam what is your hard on with Fireade?
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  7. #47
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by foam View Post
    There has been an incident that the NFPA has discussed about a metal fire and the use of FireAde. One fatality and serious injuries involved.

    4. Tim Myers gave a presentation on the St. Anna, WI fire (one firefighter killed,
    several injured) at an aluminum casting facility. Aluminum machining residue was found
    in an outside dumpster containing fines and powder, and several drums of dross. The
    dumpster was full.
    - The fire department started applying water mist with ¾-inch line.
    - began applying 1% Fireade foam @ 50 psi
    - increased to 2% Fireade foam @ 50 psi
    - increased to 3% Fireade foam @ 75 psi
    - explosion approximately 12 minutes after fire department arrived.

    http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/abo...nutes_2-10.pdf

    2. http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADB298978

    Look at page 5.

    The first toxicity screen performed with FireAde 2000 had an unusual reaction with fish. After the fish had died the remains turned to a gel-like consistency. This result had never been observed before with any other agent. Additional analysis of the foam concentrate showed that the pH ( 12.4) was higher than the neutral pH indicated by the manufacturer. The manufacturer sent a second sample for testing and the first batch was sent back the manufacturer for analysis. The second batch of FireAde 2000 was closer to neutral; HOWEVER, this did not significantly improve the LC50 (74 to 92 ppm), indicating that the high level of toxicity was not due to pH alone.
    chickencrap
    ?

  8. #48
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    56

    Default

    To those who say a flammable liquid fire requires lots of foam, I disagree.

    We use Akron Turbojet nozzles with the Akron foam tube adapter. Our foam is Thunderstorm AFFF 3 x 3. We have very rapid knockdown. Each engine only carries 25 gallons. Tankers carry 75 gallons. The key is training on the proper application methods plus with superior foam and superior nozzles. There are still too many firefighters who believe in the rain-down method which is the least efficient use of AFFF. Also, engineers are hesitant to place 200 PSI on a handline, but at lower pressures MORE foam is educted and is therefore wasted. Akron and Elkhart eductors require substantail pressure to educt at the proper rate.

    I do agree with application of Class B foam at low rates on A fires. It works.

  9. #49
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    16Scott,

    I agree with you that the 200 psi pressure needed for proper eduction does cause not only pump operators concerns, but officers too. The fact that most fail to understand is 200 psi is needed at the eductor to create the venturi effect to "pull" the foam up the tube into the hoseline. The corrolary being that a portion of that pressure is used up there and not sent out to the nozzle.

    I disagree that the result of too low of pressure to the eductor is more foam being educted. It has been my experience that the exact opposite is true and generally too little pressure results in either too little foam or none at all being educted.
    don120 likes this.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  10. #50
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Huh, I guess foam ran away...
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  11. #51
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    554

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post

    I disagree that the result of too low of pressure to the eductor is more foam being educted. It has been my experience that the exact opposite is true and generally too little pressure results in either too little foam or none at all being educted.
    Your experience and the laws of physics. I have been hearing this same misconception for nearly 40 years. Once I had to get a guy to stare at the hose on the pickup tube while I ran the throttle to prove it was wrong. As I increased the throttle nothing moved until I hit the magic number.

    For best results it is 100psi for the eductor, 100psi for the nozzle (if you are using 100psi nozzles), and add the friction loss.
    Last edited by firepundit; 07-24-2012 at 09:41 AM.

  12. #52
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,775

    Default

    16 Scott:

    I'm not sure the issue is knockdown. We all should know that with flammable liquids fires, putting them out is one thing, keeping them out by maintaining a proper blanket is another. The amount of foam necessary must consider the persistence of the material you'e covering, and the size and depth of the spill. In some cases it may be better to have the flammable liquid burn then have an uncontrolled spill awaiting a ignition source.

  13. #53
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RFDACM02 View Post
    16 Scott:

    I'm not sure the issue is knockdown. We all should know that with flammable liquids fires, putting them out is one thing, keeping them out by maintaining a proper blanket is another. The amount of foam necessary must consider the persistence of the material you'e covering, and the size and depth of the spill. In some cases it may be better to have the flammable liquid burn then have an uncontrolled spill awaiting a ignition source.
    Interesting idea, but seemingly irrelevant to the question asked by the OP. Of course there will always be scenarios where first repsonders are overwhelmed by the size/quantity of flammable liquids in relationship to the amount off foam on hand. I don't think anyone would argue the futility of attempting to extinguish the entire contents of a tractor trailer load of gasoline with the typical 20 or 30 gallons of class B/multi-agent foam on board an engine company.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 07-25-2012 at 03:30 PM.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

  14. #54
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Since my original posts I have done a little research on some of these one size fits all "foam concentrates" thier test data is not aailable or from offshore testing labs. They seem to be emuslifiers and do not create a film to keep oxygen out of the fire tetrahedron. There are so many on the market I have only investigated the ones that my chief asks me to look at. Bottom line IMHO is show me your UL - NFPA - FAA - API - USCG - USFS approvals.

  15. #55
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,666

    Default

    I just walked over to the apparatus bay and looked at a 5 gallon pail of FireAde and it has both UL and ULC labels on the bucket.
    “The person who risks nothing, does nothing, has nothing, is nothing, and becomes nothing. He may avoid suffering and sorrow, but he simply cannot learn and feel and change and grow and love and live.” Leo F. Buscaglia

    This place gets weirder and weirder every day...

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 10-04-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2005, 07:28 AM
  2. Class A Foam -- Thumbs up or down?
    By 3Swings in forum Fireground Tactics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-13-2004, 04:58 PM
  3. What type of foam for CAFS?
    By PITT8TRUCK in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-08-2003, 11:40 PM
  4. Class A Foam for us?
    By bvfd25 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-16-2002, 09:03 PM
  5. vindicator with class A foam
    By cfdLt22 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-23-2002, 12:51 AM

Posting Permissions

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