Anybody have any exposure to these systems? Seems DOD is buying them for the FOB's in the box. 20 GPM at 1100 psi with Class A foam. Just wondering. Seems that which is old is new again.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8
Thread: Ultra High Pressure
05-31-2011, 11:34 PM #1
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
Ultra High Pressure
06-01-2011, 02:03 AM #2
06-01-2011, 07:52 AM #3
- Join Date
- Nov 2009
The war. Forward operating base
Maybe something like this??
Last edited by fire49; 06-01-2011 at 08:08 AM.
06-01-2011, 08:47 AM #4
They are better than nothing. Back in the 2005 timeframe, the Marine Corps purchased about 20 HMMVs with these type systems and they were sent to the FOBs ie, bases too small for a crash crew or contract FD, for "1st aid firefighting". In most cases, they sat in the motor pool with no maintenance or training until they got cannibalized for parts or were used by the receiving units to pressure wash vehicles until they broke. When I was in Iraq, our fire marshal couldn't even find half the units that were sent out, and all but a few of those left were broke. I do know personally of at least one HMMV engine fire that was extinguished with one.
DOD has been doing a lot of testing with HP for ARFF. It is mostly outdoors firefighting, not for structural use/interior attack. Very effective in testing.
06-01-2011, 10:53 AM #5
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
We use a 10gpm at @1000psi Maddog system with class A foam capabilities for fighting brush fires. This unit is very effective, and most departments in our area are switching to this system including the department of forestry.
06-01-2011, 12:38 PM #6
Ah - Thanks. You'd think I'd know that since a military base near here has a lot of troops in the sandbox.
Looks an awful lot like John Bean High Pressure Fog, with foam added. What's old is new...Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.
Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.
06-01-2011, 12:43 PM #7
- Join Date
- Apr 2004
- Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
I have3 played with a couple of ultra high pressure systems brought to either or station or the LSU facility just down the road.
Honestly, they may have thier place, but IMO there simply isn't enough water flow to do anything but knock down anything besides light grass or shallow duff, even with the foam.
In one of the demos, we made a fire attack on a burned out car loaded with pallets, and while it knocked down the fire well enough, complete extinguishment and overhaul seemed to take forever.
In another demo we made a fire attack on a fully intact vehicle and was not inpressed with it's fire attack abilities, and again, overhaul took forever.Train to fight the fires you fight.
06-04-2011, 03:18 PM #8
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Full disclosure....I am closely associated with HMA Fire and it's ultra-high pressure systems.
HMA has accomplished extensive research and development in conjunction with the Air Force Research Lab at Tyndall AFB in Florida. The HMA Hydrus system was zeroed in at 20 gpm at 1150-1250 psi at the nozzle, 1400 psi at the pump after testing at 30 gpm, 20 gpm, 15 gpm and 10 gpm. The testing also included use of a low pressure system with an 1.5" line, 125 psi, at 150 gpm down to 90 gpm. The test was conducted on jet fuel, in a pit of 380 gallons. The Hydrus used 13.8 gallons of water, extinguishing the fire in 31 seconds vs. the best low pressure results of 58 seconds, using 94 gallons of water (both systems used a 6% foam concentration) When you go even 5 gallons below the 20 gpm, the resulting extinguishing time goes higher than the best low pressure system, which is why HMA tests every system for flow and pressure at the nozzle at the factory.
In structure fire testing, the Hydrus system has shown to lower the room temperature at flash over significantly quicker than a low pressure system.
Every customer that has purchased a system has had glowing reviews of the ability of the suppression system on wildland fires, car fires, and even structure fires.
In regards to the Bean pump, similar concept yes, but at much higher pressure (Bean was around 800 psi at the pump, we are at 1400 psi. Our flow rate is also higher than a Bean pump and there are other system upgrades to assist flow control.
I have talked to many in firefighting industry at shows; some embrace the idea, some don't, feeling more water is needed...which is fine. I only suggest you do not rule it out as a very effective and efficient method of fighting fire, regardless of who's system you might use. If anyone is interested, I can provide more data, give you some users to talk to, and even schedule a demo for you.
Sorry for the commercial, but I really want people to get the data driven facts about ultra-high pressure.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
By DelSol in forum The EngineerReplies: 37Last Post: 04-02-2007, 05:27 PM
By Massicotte22 in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 35Last Post: 04-16-2006, 01:39 AM
By firefighterox in forum University of ExtricationReplies: 13Last Post: 01-07-2005, 12:13 AM
By firefighter26 in forum Firefighters ForumReplies: 25Last Post: 10-15-2002, 08:56 PM
By Lieutenant Gonzo in forum Fire WireReplies: 0Last Post: 01-23-2000, 11:59 AM