Click here squad21@ReportsNetwork.com and send a blank e-mail to receive the latest report on Gas-Phase Cooling Instantly delivered to your e-mail box!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 3 of 3
03-09-2002, 09:49 AM #1
This Will Save Firefighter Lives!
03-09-2002, 11:58 AM #2
Interesting read Paul.
I couldn't help but think the majority of tests and results were based on compartments of steel construction. There didn't seem to be much data involving class "A" materials of a porous nature which would absorb excess water and cool.
I was also a bit troubled by words like exact, involving such applications. While I am not saying we are undisiplined, I would be hard pressed to stop a nozzleman from opening up as he is being enveloped.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing your numbers or conclusions. I just wonder if these techniques have been performed outside of the "lab" and would want to know some of the negatives which have occured.
The suggestion of NOT venting, closing the door behind you and waiting out the expansion of gases would be disconcerting to many.
Again, a very interesting read and a tip o' the helmet to you.
03-10-2002, 09:36 AM #3
Thanks for taking the time to download and read this report Lou. You are right on the mark when you refer to 'steel-box' and 'lab' data without any major class 'A' fire load.
This is a point that I have also written about http://www.firetactics.com/COMPARTMENT-FLOW-RATES.htm and I am quick to acknowledge that container training burns are only a simulation of forming fire gases igniting. They are not representative of 'real' compartment (room) fires. These simulations should be used to demonstrate fire (gas) behavior and nozzle techniques. However, the gas-cooling techniques used have been tried and tested extensively since the early 1980s on 'real' fires and I can attest to only good experiences in the field. In Australia they advanced the training simulations into purpose-built structures with realistic fire loads and learned a great deal in doing so - but still the experience was all positive. My own experience has developed on the fireground in multi-storey hotels, offices and low-level industrial units where gas-colling techniques have complemented direct stream fire attack for many years. It is reported in Sweden that no firefighter lives have been lost to 'flashover' since the early 1980s having made the transition in their tactical approach to gas-cooling applications.
The technique of 'anti-ventilation' as the Swedes call it is not an alternative to regular venting techniques but another 'tool' to be considered by experienced firefighters when attempting to control the burn-rate of a compartment fire - I am sure you appreciate this tactic but recognise its limitations.
Again Lt - deepest respect to you for taking the time to view
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)