Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Question High Pump Pressure/Low Capacity?

    High Pump Pressure / Low Capacity?

    Using a Single Stage pump we know that we get approximatly 70% of the pumps efficiency pumping 200 psi and around 50% while pumping above 250-psi.

    Using a two stage pump we know that going to pressure mode provides approximatly 50% of the pumps capacity.

    All this considered, what is really gained by pumping 275-400-psi to a handline? Are we not giving up a great deal of our capacity? Less capacity means that less lines can be laid by incoming crews.

    I'm just curious as to whether anyone has taken this into consideratoin.

    Big Paulie: If your still reading the posts, please comment on this considering you are probably the most qualified on this topic.


    Thanks for your thoughts in advance!

    ------------------


  2. #2
    HYTHE FIRE DEPARTMENT
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    I am no expert in hydrolics or pump efficiencies, but should we be more concerned with the pressure and efficiency at the nozzle rather than the pump? Depending on the number and size of lines you are running, and the type of nozzles, you may have no choice as to what pressure to run at. If your friction loss calculations tell you that you have to run your pump at 300 psi, then you have to run at 300 psi even though this is less efficient.

    John

  3. #3
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    To KEA- (this will be a 2 part answer)
    First of all, let's talk about the type of engine pressure you are explaining. You are talking about net engine pressure. Net engine pressure is the engine pressure developed totally from the horsepower of the powerplant of the pumping apparatus. Your figures are correct, however, you need to also explain the difference between the net engine pressure and the overall engine pressure developed with not only the horsepower of the pumping apparatus, but the incoming hydrant pressure from the incoming supplyline. Incoming pressure assists the powerplant of the pumping apparatus in developing the final pump discharge pressure. Example-let's say you have a net discharge pressure of 150 psi. This is the pressure that you started with in a booster tank operation. You're supplying a "whatever" handline. Now let's say a supplyline gets laid to you, you make your hookup and cut in your supplyline. Let's say that the incoming pressure from the hydrant is 80 psi. If the pump operator does not throttle down during the changeover process from tank water to hydranted water, the discharge pressure will jump up dramatically. The reason being the new incoming pressure adds to the existing net engine pressure and therefore raises the pump discharge pressure. To go one step further, let me explain what it does to the net engine pressure.
    Remember we started off with a 150 psi net engine pressure. To find out what the new net engine pressure is, simply subtract the incoming hydrant pressure from the net engine pressure. 150 take away 80 equals 70 which is the new net engine pressure assisted by the hydrant.
    end of part 1

  4. #4
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Part 2 of answer to KEA-
    High Pressure High Flow Handlines

    I'd like to explain what I teach about high pressure/high flow handlines. The first thing you need to understand is that the high pressure/high flow handlines are intended to be used on initial Blitz attack offensive operations. The only size handlines I teach that are actually high pressure according to most fire department standards across the country are 1-3/4" and 2". First let's talk about 1-3/4". Based on a 200 foot 1-3/4" handline, with pump discharge pressures reaching up to 325 psi, I am capable of reaching flows up to approximately 400 GPM. The quality and make of the hose will actually determine the highest flows. You know there can be a difference in friction loss between the different makes. With 2" hose based on the same 200 foot length and same maximum 325 psi pump discharge pressure, I am reaching flows just above 450 GPM. In fact, I have pumped a 2" line at 350 psi pump discharge pressure reaching a flow of 500 GPM. I use various types of nozzles for these handlines (smooth bores and automatics). On my smooth bore nozzles, my nozzle pressures will range from 40 psi to 120 psi. Of course, the automatics as a standard are 100 psi, there are some low pressure automatics but they tend to give you the lower flows.
    All of the above mentioned flows are capable of being deployed by no more than two firefighters in the stationary attack mode. These are not advancing lines while full flowing.
    I'd like to share with you a little about my large high flow handlines which are 2-1/2" and 3". Based on a 200 foot line, I have the capability of flowing 600 GPM. This is based on an engine pressure no higher than 210 psi pump discharge pressure. This is not considered a high pressure handlne. If I operate off tank water with this size line, I am limited to 500 GPM based on maximum allowed flow through tank to pump plumbing. Again, these big lines can be handled with no more than two firefighters in a fixed attack mode.
    It's important to remember that the high pressure lines are within NFPA and manufacturers guidelines as long as the hose you are using is at least a 400 psi service test pressure. I have literature available to anyone who may request it, simply email me at LayinLine@aol.com
    Sincerely,
    Paul Shapiro
    Fire Flow Technology

  5. #5
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Paul: Thanks for the info. I appreciate your detailed information.

    I also agree that these handlines you mention can be handled with two firefighters with proper training.

    All to often people say it cant be done without ever acutally trying it. I personally have flowed over 400-gpm with our Blitz Attack Vindicator at 60-psi NP and around 260 discharge pressure. As you know, its all in the training.

    What type of flowmeter do you use to confirm your 300+gpm fog nozzles. We have found that fire research has been the most reliable and can easily be calibrated in the field with a smooth bore tip and a handheld pitot.

    Are you finding that very few departments have ever used or own a flowmeter?

    Thanks Again
    Kirk
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.

  6. #6
    Dalmation90
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Cool

    Rambling Thoughts...
    Speaking about two stage pumps...

    Did anyone notice in the November(?) Fire Engineering Round Table discussion, Dallas Texas (I think it was them) is trying high-pressure 2.5" hose to hook two pumpers in series to achieve high pressure for feeding high-rise stand pipes?

    Which, is after all what a two-stage pump essentially is. Instead of a single 1000gpm pump, you have two 500gpm pumps being driven by the same motor that can be used parrallel with each other to deliver 1000gpm@150psi; or in series with each other to deliver 500gpm@300psi -- kinda that net/overall engine pressure Big Paulie wrote about. And it's probably a better trade off for to have all single stage pumps and use them in series on the rare occassions you need very high pressures and volume together, than spec all two stage pumps.

    Given a 1500gpm single stage pump can put out 500gpm@250psi, I'd reckon it can put out the 400gpm@325psi for B.P.'s big flows without needing a special two stage pump.

    When multi stage? When you regulary run large flows through long pipes/hose and/or heights (such as high-rise operations).

    Or, if you're in New Zealand, they add in a very high pressure third stage that feeds a booster-style hose to power a "Dragon" which uses a venturi effect to draft from places too far away to too far below the pump for hard suction -- kinda neat, booster goes out with a little water, 2.5" comes back with a lot of water! (Same idea as jet dumps and jet transfers for tanker shuttle/dump tank operations)

  7. #7
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    In Las Vegas we have a building called the Stratosphere tower that is about 135 stories up. It takes a engingine pressure on the bottom between 550 and 600 psi to get the required flows to the top. We have done this operation three times using two single stage 1500 pumpers. The first pumps 300 psi into the second. The second pump does the work of pumping 300 psi (net engine pressure) however with the assistance of the incoming pressure of 300 from the first pump it has a pump discharge pressure od 600 psi. Flow tests from the top proved about a 1100 gpm flow. Kinda a hairy operation but we don,t have a choice. We use high pressure 2-1/2" hose with a burst pressure of 1850 psi and a service test pressure of 600 psi. We have never had a accident yet.

  8. #8
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Lightbulb

    Paul:
    OK you lost me! Take me back to the basics.

    // 135 stories up/ engingine pressure on the bottom between 550 and 600 psi/ Flow tests from the top proved about a 1100 gpm //

    Was the 1100-gpm in a usable form?

    Here in Chicago we go by a 10foot per story for new construction and 12 foot per story for old. Assuming we use 10 foot per story, it would equate to 1,350 feet in a 135 story building.

    Just to get the water to the top we know that we must have at least 1/2-psi per foot of elevation. This would equate to a need of 675-psi just to reach the top. Thats 75-psi more than what your pumping just to get it to the top.

    Note that this does not include the friction loss in the hose from the pumper to the building, the friction loss in the interior piping, nor does it include any nozzle pressure.

    Since you said discharge pressure was 550-600psi we know that hydrant pressure is not part of my confusion.

    What type of nozzle was used at the top, how many lines and what size or was this simply open but? If it was open but you would need around 34-psi from a 2 1/2" open but for 1082gpm. That being the case we know that it would take 675psi (elevation)+ 34psi (NP)which is 709psi and friction loss has not been added.

    Could you explain to me what type of flowmeter you used to confirm these flows?

    Unless I missed something in the math I don't understand how these flows would be possible at the pressures outlined.

    Just looking for Answers.

    Kirk Allen
    Fist Strike Technologies, Inc.

  9. #9
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    John: //should we be more concerned with the pressure and efficiency at the nozzle rather than the pump?//

    Great question.
    I believe that it is important to know the BALANCE of pump capacity and its relation to the nozzles/monitors you use. It makes little sense to use four 350-gpm nozzles on an apparatus that has a 750 or 1000-gpm pump and expect to be able to supply each nozzle to 350-gpm as an example. It simply does not have the capacity to properly supply the lines, especially in a VOL situation where porta-tanks are common practice and you do not have the benefit of Hydrant pressure to assist with capacity. The use of flow meters is the key to knowing what you can and cant do. This is why I'm so insistent on the use of flow meters to measure our flows.

    A recent test we did for a coal mine proved quite interesting. The above ground facility was supplied by one 1000 gpm low pressure pump (NOT A STANDARD FIRE PUMP AS WE KNOW IT). The max pump pressure we could get was 85-psi. The 8 nozzles being used by the facility were automatic 100-psi nozzles, on 1 3/4" and 2 1/2" hose. (THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC NOZZLE PROBLEM)

    Considering the nozzles need 100-psi to operate properly these nozzles were not the correct choice for the system capacity (FLOW vs Pressure), even though the nozzles may have needed more flow and pressure to work properly it simply was not available. What had happen was a salesman came in and told them a particular type nozzle would solve their concerns and since they were 350-gpm nozzles they would be flowing 350-gpm. Considering the Safety people at the coal mine were not fire fighters and didn't have a good understanding of hydraulics, they listened to the salesman and bought 8 nozzles that were basically useless for their operation.

    I've seen the same thing in numerous petrochemical plants. One 2500gpm pump on the facility yet a slick salesman sold six 1000 gpm nozzles for the protection of one tank. When all six stationary monitors were open for flow to the nozzles, the pump maxed out, the flows from the nozzles told the rest of the story. They were useless for that application.

    What's my Point?
    I believe that it is very important to know the balance of pump capacity and its relation to the nozzles/monitors you purchase to prevent the problems outlined above.

    Know what your capacity is and its relation to the number of lines you pull. How many fires have you been too where you have 5 or 6 lines being used from one pumper that simply cannot be suppied properly? The result is all the lines end up with less than adequate flow for the nozzle, thus we FIGHT fire instead of Extinguish it.

    PLEASE NOTE: This is not in any fasion an attack on ANY brand or type of nozzles. These problems our knowledge based and nothing more in my opinion. It is not an equipment problem.

    Stay Safe
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.


    [This message has been edited by KEA (edited January 06, 2000).]

    [This message has been edited by KEA (edited January 06, 2000).]

  10. #10
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    DISREGARD THIS POST. THE SAME MESSAGE IS ABOVE:

    John: /should we be more concerned with the pressure and efficiency at the nozzle rather than the pump? /

    Great question.
    I believe that it is important to know the BALANCE of pump capacity and its relation to the nozzles/monitors you use. It makes little sense to use four 350-gpm nozzles on an apparatus that has a 750 or 1000-gpm pump and expect to be able to supply each nozzle to 350-gpm as an example. It simply does not have the capacity to properly supply the lines, especially in a VOL situation where porta-tanks are common practice and you do not have the benefit of Hydrant pressure to assist with capacity. The use of flow meters is the key to knowing what you can and cant do. This is why I'm so insistent on the use of flow meters to measure our flows.

    A recent test we did for a coal mine proved quite interesting. The above ground facility was supplied by one 1000 gpm low pressure pump (NOT A STANDARD FIRE PUMP AS WE KNOW IT). The max pump pressure we could get was 85-psi. The 8 nozzles being used by the facility were automatic 100-psi nozzles, on 1 3/4" and 2 1/2" hose. (THIS IS NOT AN AUTOMATIC NOZZLE PROBLEM)

    Considering the nozzles need 100-psi to operate properly these nozzles were not the correct choice for the system capacity (FLOW vs Pressure), even though the nozzles may have needed more flow and pressure to work properly it simply was not available. What had happen was a salesman came in and told them a particular type nozzle would solve their concerns and since they were 350-gpm nozzles they would be flowing 350-gpm. Considering the Safety people at the coal mine were not fire fighters and didn't have a good understanding of hydraulics, they listened to the salesman and bought 8 nozzles that were basically useless for their operation.

    I've seen the same thing in numerous petrochemical plants. One 2500gpm pump on the facility yet a slick salesman sold six 1000 gpm nozzles for the protection of one tank. When all six stationary monitors were open for flow to the nozzles, the pump maxed out, the flows from the nozzles told the rest of the story. They were useless for that application.

    What's my Point?
    I believe that it is very important to know the balance of pump capacity and its relation to the nozzles/monitors you purchase to prevent the problems outlined above.

    Know what your capacity is and its relation to the number of lines you pull. How many fires have you been too where you have 5 or 6 lines being used from one pumper that simply cannot be supply properly? The result is all the lines end up with less than adequate flow for the nozzle, thus we FIGHT fire instead of Extinguish it.

    PLEASE NOTE: This is not in any fasion an attack on ANY brand or type of nozzles. These problems our knowledge based and nothing more in my opinion. It is not an equipment problem.

    Stay Safe
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.


    [This message has been edited by KEA (edited January 06, 2000).]

  11. #11
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    KEA- (part one of two part answer)
    As I see it, you have asked me a couple of different questions. #1-what type of flow meter am I using to measure my streams? I do not use flow meters, instead I use a certified, calibrated handheld Pitot gauge in conjunction with smooth bore tips. This is an extremely accurate method for measuring smooth bore tip flows. You yourself stated that flow meters are calibrated to Pitot gauges. To determine my flow for a fog nozzle, I first select a smooth bore tip as close as possible to the nozzle pressure of the fog nozzle at the required flow. Example- let's say I'm trying to find the correct smooth bore tip at a flow of 300 GPM with a nozzle pressure as close as possible to the fog nozzle I'm working with (100 psi). I obtain the flow on the smooth bore, establish my engine pressure and add the difference in nozzle pressure between 100 and whatever my nozzle pressure is on the smooth bore to the overall engine pressure. This method has worked well for me. I'm not sure if a calibrated flow meter would be more accurate or not, however what I am sure of is that flow meters that are designed into pumpers an extremely high percentage of the time do not get recalibrated on a regular basis and therefore become very inaccurate. It would be nice if someday a flow meter could be designed that is firefighter friendly.
    Question #2 will be on part two of this answer.

  12. #12
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    KEA- (part two of answer)
    Question #2- It's important to remember the difference for pump operations for buildings that do not have fire protection pump systems within and for those that do. For buildings that have standpipe systems with no fire pump, all the necessary calculations need to be made by the pump operator to come up with the proper engine pressure. Some of the things that need to be calculated are elevation, standpipe friction loss, friction loss in attack lines, nozzle pressure, appliances and FDC discharge lines. When a building has a fire pump, the only figure that needs to be known, or I should say calculated, is the churn pressure of the building pump itself. If the engine pressure from the pumping apparatus does not exceed the churn pressure of the building pump, water will not enter into the system from fire department apparatus. It does not matter what floor the fire is on, the churn pressure of the building pump has to be exceeded by fire department pumping apparatus.

    Let me first correct myself with some updated figures from my research papers. The building is 135 stories tall, which includes the tip of the building. The flow tests were conducted in what is called the Pod, which is a portion of the structure which is 850 feet up. This would probably equate, using the Chicago figures, to be 85 stories. The 1100 GPM was delivered through two 2-1/2" open butt lines secured to a fixture. The residual pressure after flowing 1100 GPM was 35 psi. Now you ask was this realistic? I would say for fire streams, No, however, this was a part of the acceptance test for the pumps and you know as well as I do, NFPA doesn't give a crap about working fire streams in high rises. If they did, there would not be a need for low pressure nozzles and large handlines. We did a second flow test with our standard high rise pack which consists of 150 feet of 1-1/2" hose (very restrictive). With the same 550 psi engine pressure from the ground, we were able to get 150 GPM with a standpipe residual pressure of 150 psi. Based on these figures I am very confident that we can develop several adequate fire streams in this structure using our current pump operations.

    Sincerely
    Big Paulie

  13. #13
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Part 1 of 2
    Paul:
    Couldn't agree with you more on the smooth bore flow process! Question: Do you use inline pressure gauges to ensure that your fog nozzles are in fact working at the 100-psi? If you do not, how do you confirm the nozzle pressure of 100-psi?

    If you take a smooth bore, 1" for example and establish 100-psi NP which is 297 gpm with lets say 200 psi engine pressure and then take a fog nozzle (automatic since thats what you use)rated for 300gpm @ 100psi you may be suprised that even pumping the same 200 psi engine pressure does not give you the 300gpm (297)you got with the smooth bore. I have compared flow test as you described and although that process works fairly well for fixed gallonage nozzles provided you have an inline pressure gauge, our testing with hundreds of departments has shown us that it is very inconsistant with an automatic nozzle. The reason for the inconsistancy is the Stem in an automatic is adjusting all the time to incoming flow/pressure, we do not know if the proper test pressure used on the smooth bore is obtained on the automatic without inline pressure gagues. The the smooth bore is a fixed orifice, just as is the fixed or single gallonage nozzles so the problem is far less relevant.

    /It would be nice if someday a flow meter could be designed that is firefighter freindly./

    I assure you the UL listed portable flow meter from Fire Research is not only user freindly, it is extreamly accurate. Considering you teach classes I would be more than happy to arrange for you to have one at our cost. I know you will find it to be a very valuable tool.

    I also agree with you the flow meters on apparatus are virtually never calibrated. This is another topic we teach in our class. Makes little sence to have one built in if you don't know how to calibrate it.

    [This message has been edited by KEA (edited January 08, 2000).]

    [This message has been edited by KEA (edited January 10, 2000).]

  14. #14
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Part 2 of 2
    Paul:
    /however, this was a part of the acceptance test for the pumps/

    Is this a Department required test? I'm not familiar with this type of an acceptance test of a pump. Wouldn't suprise me for a place like Vegas.

    I'm still lost on the math. HELP!

    /85 stories / 850 feet /150 feet of 1-1/2" hose/550 psi engine pressure from the ground,
    standpipe residual pressure of 150 psi, 150 GPM/

    What type of nozzle was flowing the 150 gpm and what was the NP?

    based on this info you would need 425-psi for elevation just to get the water that high, then another 150 in residual which brings us to 575-psi and we haven't yet added friction loss for 150 feet of 1 1/2 hose or the nozzle pressure.

    Please tell me I'm missing something in these figures or that I'm misunderstanding what you posted?

    Thanks for the help
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.


  15. #15
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    KEA
    1. If you place an inline gauge at the inlet of the automatic it's my understanding that the pressure should stay basically the same throuhout the flow range of the nozzle there for making it not usable to find the nozzle pressure at a specific flow. Maybe if the TFT boys are reading this they can help out. It is also my understanding that automatics can have friction loss in the nozzle itself thus creating a somewhat inacuracy in a flow test. I do not think the difference is very significant at the lower flows that we have been disscussing. Do you?

    Yes Iam very intrested in a flow meter especially at your cost. Could you please E-Mail me with the details.

    OK now the highrise stuff. I think you are relying too much on formulas and things to come up with conclusions. I have found that these numbers are only an aid but should not be taken as absolute. We have already discussed the need for accurate flow tests. Time and time again my flow tests disprove the formulas . I can tell you with certainty that the tests performed on our Stratosphere were done by competent people with crtified equipment. In fact I neglected to tell you that the FDC hookups are about 400' from the fire pump and the building standpipe system. Now look at your figures. They are way off. But we did it.

    I can remember a flow test that I did that involved a single handline. I wanted to establish engine pressure for a class that I was going to present. I always repeat my tests twice to assure accuracy. The first time I ran the test there was a slight curve in the hose but no kink. The second time there was a greater curve again with no kink. Would you belive there was a 40 psi difference between the two tests.

    And finally the pump tests we did on the Stratosphere were above the NFPA requirements. Our fire protection Engineer wanted to make sure that the take over process by FD units would work since we never had to do the type of operation before. Again Kirk This has not only been a pleasure, but a learning expierience as well

    Talk to you soon

    Big Paulie

  16. #16
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Part 1 of 2
    Paul
    1. You are correct, If you place an inline gauge at the inlet of the automatic the pressure should stay basically the same throuhout the flow range of the nozzle there for making it not usable to find the nozzle pressure at a specific flow. That is the very reason we use flow meters to test all brands of automatics. The other reason for using the inline pressure guage is to ensure that the nozzle is in fact regulating properly.

    Knowing that few departments perform the recommended maintenance we have found hundreds of nozzles that were not regulating properly. Some had low nozzle pressure and high flow and others had high nozzle pressure and low flow. Thus the importance of both the inline pressure gauge and the flowmeter. If there is a problem with the nozzle, 1. you wont know it without the pressure gauge, 2. your flow is a guessing game by using the smooth bore engine pressure for a given flow as described.

    /automatics can have friction loss in the nozzle itself thus creating a somewhat inacuracy in a flow test/

    All nozzles will have some amount of friction loss. The friction loss they have will have no bearing on a flow test accuracy provided the test are done with a flow meter. Assuming it's calibrated, whatever it says is flowing, that's what it is flowing regardless of what the nozzle pressure or friction loss is.

    Do you agree?

    Thanks
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.

  17. #17
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Part 2 of 2
    Paul

    I'm sorry if it appears I'm making conclusion from formulas. I have stuck to the one formula that I'm sure you would agree with, 1/2=psi (technically .434psi) per 1 foot of elevation. This is simple physics. I have not used any other formula in ANY of my figures.

    From this I simply took your figures, (850 feet)and know that it would take 425-psi to get the water to that elevation. Then, add your 150-psi of residual pressure that was taken by certified equipment as you stated. That totals 575-psi. This is now 25-psi above the 550-psi used for the test.
    25-psi off? No big deal in my book for this operation, assuming the residual pressure of 150 was recorded at the nozzle. If it was recorded at the standpipe at the 850 elevation there is still hose friction loss that to this point has not been added to the total equation.

    Considering this was done 400 feet from the builing standpipe, I'm even more confused purley on the physics involved, all formulas aside. I'm not saying it wasn't done, however if the numbers were "recorded" as you describe, there has been a new law of physics established.

    I'm in no way questoining the people who did it or the equipment they used considering you said it was certified. What I would quesiton is the accuracy of the recording of the results.

    I agree, our tests also have proven that formulas are very inaccurate, especially for the reasons you mentioned regarding hose bends. Thats one of the reasons we insist on using flow meters. I have seen the 40-psi difference, and more, depending on how the hose is laid on the ground. This alone should raise quesitons to the formulas being tought all over the county. Those formulas are established with straight line hose lays on level ground. I don't know about you, but I can't remeber the last time I saw a hose in that configuration on the fire ground.

    /Our fire protection Engineer wanted to make sure/
    Thats along the lines of what I figured. Its good to be able to try those things that the city fathers expect us to do, but rairly give us the chance to test.

    Kinda like the FAA requireing annual live fire training for Airport personnel yet the EPA wont let us burn!

    Stay safe and thanks for the update.

    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.

    PS when I called you last your wife, (I think it was your wife)said that you were working on your race car? What kind do you have? I built oval track motors for Silvercrown Sprints during high school and college. Still do a fair share of tinkering!


    [This message has been edited by KEA (edited January 14, 2000).]

  18. #18
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Paul (Big Paulie)
    Could you please tell me where you mesured the residual pressure of 34-psi during the 1100gom flow and how many feet of 2 1/2" hose? Was it at the standpipe just as you stated for the 150-gpm at the same 550-psi discharge pressure?

    Assuming it was measured at the same place you would have a residual pressure difference of 115-psi and a flow difference of 950-gpm.

    Are you saying that while flowing 150-gpm with 150-psi residual at the standpipe you can simply remove the 1 1/2 hose and install two 2 1/2" hoses and get 950-gpm more water without changing the discharge pressure of 550-psi at the base?

    If this is not what your saying I would appreciate if you could help me understand your figures.

    Thanks

    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.

    PS could you please e-mail me informatioin on your book contents,the cost and where to buy one.

  19. #19
    BIG PAULIE
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    KEA, The residual pressure was taken at the standpipe outlet. I am not sure how long the 2-1/2 " lines were but no longer than 100' each. Finally, the two flow tests, 150 gpm and 1100 gpm. were done seperately. each time the ep. was 550 psi. the difference between the two was the required horsepower needed to flow the water measured in RPMs. I can flow 125 gpm through a 1-3/4" line at 150 psi or 1000 gpm through a 5
    " line at the same 150. The only thing that will be different besides the flow is the RPMs. This is the same principle as the highrise tests. I hope that helps you.

  20. #20
    KEA
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Post

    Big Paulie:
    Two things.

    1. Please forward me a copy of your book to the address below. COD or Invoice is fine.

    2. Please foward me the COMPLETE test data that covers the above mentioned testing done at the Stratosphere. I assume the equipment used and hose lengths would be part of that data.

    I would like to have the data so that I can better understand excactly what was done and how.

    Thanks

    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.
    PO Box 146
    Algonquin, IL 60102-0146

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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