Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 62

Thread: Who's Got What?

  1. #21
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by npfd801
    I'd love to hear it JB, but if you're not wanting to do it, I understand. I don't think you'd sound like a salesman, but someone with first-hand knowledge sharing what they know. An educated consumer is a happy one, regardless of whether you work for Bullard anymore or not.
    There have been serveral evolutions in the engines and the primary difference to the user is image quality and options. The latest engines can view temperatures over 1100 F before the detector pixels saturate; the original engine would saturate around 500 F. The logic used to adjust the picture has improved, giving better detail in high contrast situations (such as a firefighter lying next to or near the fire). The engine progression first added radiometery (temperature measurement), then colorization. The latest has transparent tri-color capability as well as a user interface to help identify hotspots better.

    That's the short version, anyway.

    And congrats on the new radio system. As long as Joe stays out of it and you don't get a trunked system, it should be a great improvement.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).


  2. #22
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Thanks JB,that was the way I remembered it but lately I have problems remembering what day of the week it is.Too many hours and too many crisis management issues.The 'lil T3 certainly has improved.I could take or leave the color though. Happy holidays to you and yours,T.C.

  3. #23
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Tensed Idaho
    Posts
    27

    Talking Bullard

    Our department has a bullard TMax, with the new mobile command center. We use it on almost every call. We have searched mva accident, fire alarm calls, wildland fires, but not inside a burning house yet. I recommend that if you do get a TIC, use it. Make it habit. Every call we go on, the camera is put in operation. (mostly to make us remember). I love the bullard camera. It is durable, simple to operate and differentiate relative temps on the display. I also was able to get equipment to link the mobile command center into my laptop computer to someday beam TIC images along side regular video footage over the internet for DHS/Hazmat incidents. I used this logic to purchase the TIC, Mobile command and the laptop. A local ISP is working on wireing up an engine with wireless broadband. Its way cool. I dont know if anyone else has done this before, but its awesome.

  4. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Wetaskiwin, AB, Canada
    Posts
    134

    Default

    I'm from Alberta Canada and my department uses the Bullard as well. We've used it in everything you've mentioned as well as searching for people that may have been ejected during an MVC in the dark. It works really well in structure fires. Just a word of caution, when doing searches during structure fires you need to be aware that if you see your image on the camera it may be a reflection from a mirror or window, that has thrown me for a loop before.

  5. #25
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default Perspective from Houston

    Haven't heard anyone say anything about the Scott Eagle X.

    In Houston three years ago, we received a fed grant to purchase TIC's for all of our engine companies. I was on the committee to help choose the camera for the engines along with 5 other FF's.

    We wanted a smaller camera, that could take the heat, give good pic quality, and hold up to a lot of abuse.

    Personally, I liked the MSA 5000 and the smaller ISG, but after we finished all the testing criteria, the Scott Eagle X took the unanimous decision. There was concern because it was a new product, but it certainly held up to its part of the bargain.


    The cameras were subjected to the following tests:

    1. Camera in the on position submerged in three feet of water for thirty minutes.
    All cameras passed except the MSA 5000.

    2. Camera in the on position dropped vertically from six feet onto concrete surface.
    All cameras passed.

    3. Ease of operation and changing of batteries with gloved hands.

    4. Cameras were exposed to 250 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes. The cameras were
    carried by committee members in the burn building. During the heat test, cameras were
    also evaluated on clarity of picture, refresh rate, and ease of use. Cameras were then
    allowed to cool off.

    5. Cameras were then exposed to 500 degrees Fahrenheit for 5 minutes. The cameras
    were again carried by committee members in the burn building with the same
    evaluations taking place. Any camera able to exceed 8 minutes at 500 degrees
    was awarded 5 additional points. The ISG K-80 failed the burn building test. The
    MSA 5000 and the Scott Eagle X were awarded 5 additional points for exceeding the 8
    minutes at 500 degrees.

    The Scott Eagle X unanimously was graded the highest among all imagers tested.

    *TIC committee members were not allowed to discuss among themselves which camera they liked. They were only allowed to grade the cameras at the end of evaluations. This was to keep the evaluation completely unbiased.

    Hope this helps, but like anything else, technology is dynamic. There is always improvements, so I would advise everyone interested in purchasing a camera, to evaluate them personally, so that you can find the technology that best meets the needs of your department.

    If you would like further info on the evaluation process we went through, feel free to email me: renschlernco@hotmail.com

    Sincerely,

    Eric Renschler
    Captain, Houston Fire Dept. (retired)

  6. #26
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd

    4. Cameras were exposed to 250 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes. The cameras were
    carried by committee members in the burn building. During the heat test, cameras were
    also evaluated on clarity of picture, refresh rate, and ease of use. Cameras were then
    allowed to cool off.

    5. Cameras were then exposed to 500 degrees Fahrenheit for 5 minutes. The cameras
    were again carried by committee members in the burn building with the same
    evaluations taking place. Any camera able to exceed 8 minutes at 500 degrees
    was awarded 5 additional points. The ISG K-80 failed the burn building test. The
    MSA 5000 and the Scott Eagle X were awarded 5 additional points for exceeding the 8
    minutes at 500 degrees.
    How did you "expose" the imagers to these temperatures? Then how did you validate that they still performed? Was the exposure in the burn building, or did you bring an oven to the building?
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  7. #27
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,570

    Default

    1. Camera in the on position submerged in three feet of water for thirty minutes.
    Do you normally use your TIC's under water? Seems like a faily unrealistic testing environment to me.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  8. #28
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42
    Do you normally use your TIC's under water? Seems like a faily unrealistic testing environment to me.
    LOL! Especially since most of them will float if dropped into a full folded tank or other body of water....
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  9. #29
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    29

    Default

    Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd

    4. Cameras were exposed to 250 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes. The cameras were
    carried by committee members in the burn building. During the heat test, cameras were
    also evaluated on clarity of picture, refresh rate, and ease of use. Cameras were then
    allowed to cool off.

    5. Cameras were then exposed to 500 degrees Fahrenheit for 5 minutes. The cameras
    were again carried by committee members in the burn building with the same
    evaluations taking place. Any camera able to exceed 8 minutes at 500 degrees
    was awarded 5 additional points. The ISG K-80 failed the burn building test. The
    MSA 5000 and the Scott Eagle X were awarded 5 additional points for exceeding the 8
    minutes at 500 degrees


    Im not sure I understand this part. How do you decide to go for the eight minute mark? Do you bake it for five minutes, and if the little red button doesnt pop out, cook for three more and award some points?

    Doesnt sound like Bullard was even invited to the party judging by the results.

  10. #30
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default Answers to your questions

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb
    How did you "expose" the imagers to these temperatures? Then how did you validate that they still performed? Was the exposure in the burn building, or did you bring an oven to the building?

    It wasn't that hard. We burned pallets in the burn building until we got the ambient air temp to 250 and 500 degrees at 5 ft from the ground. Each committee member carried and validated the camera for its refresh rate and pic quality before, during and after the tests.

  11. #31
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default Answer to your question

    Quote Originally Posted by Bones42
    Do you normally use your TIC's under water? Seems like a faily unrealistic testing environment to me.

    Of course we don't use the TIC under water. LOL Actually all the vendors asked that we would do this. All of the vendors said that their cameras would hold up, so we gave it a try. You're right when you say they float. They did.We had to hold them down to a three foot level.

    Of course, all this proves is that they're waterproof at three feet for thirty minutes. It also lets us know that the camera will probably hold up in a wet environment.

  12. #32
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default Answers to your questions

    Quote Originally Posted by SpokaneRep
    Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd

    4. Cameras were exposed to 250 degrees Fahrenheit for 20 minutes. The cameras were
    carried by committee members in the burn building. During the heat test, cameras were
    also evaluated on clarity of picture, refresh rate, and ease of use. Cameras were then
    allowed to cool off.

    5. Cameras were then exposed to 500 degrees Fahrenheit for 5 minutes. The cameras
    were again carried by committee members in the burn building with the same
    evaluations taking place. Any camera able to exceed 8 minutes at 500 degrees
    was awarded 5 additional points. The ISG K-80 failed the burn building test. The
    MSA 5000 and the Scott Eagle X were awarded 5 additional points for exceeding the 8
    minutes at 500 degrees


    Im not sure I understand this part. How do you decide to go for the eight minute mark? Do you bake it for five minutes, and if the little red button doesnt pop out, cook for three more and award some points?

    Doesnt sound like Bullard was even invited to the party judging by the results.

    To answer your last question first, yes, of course, Bullard was invited. They chose not to participate.

    As far as the time alloted for the tests and the temps, we used real-time and temps that was experienced in a flashover fire that killed one of our firefighters. We did not want to get caught in a flashover situation and have a thermal imager fail on us as we try to get out.

    Hope this makes a little more sense to you now. Sorry for not explaining it farther.

    Eric

  13. #33
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.A PRIMARY use of a TI is to help identify and AVOID preflashover/flashover conditions.Why do we expose personnel to conditions which are exposing "flash"? No good can come of it.Essential skills 101,know when it's time to go. T.C.

  14. #34
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101
    Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.A PRIMARY use of a TI is to help identify and AVOID preflashover/flashover conditions.Why do we expose personnel to conditions which are exposing "flash"? No good can come of it.Essential skills 101,know when it's time to go. T.C.

    Of course its used to help identify and help us avoid flashover conditions. However, when we were purchasing cameras for our Engine companies, we wanted something small, light, and able to withstand a large amount of heat JUST IN CASE a flashover condition happens while we are in the building.

    For us to say we can see every flashover coming, is to say that we are over-confident in our abilities, and this gets people hurt.

    Our purpose was to purchase the most reliable, hold up to heat, camera we could get.

    Don't look too far past our main objective, to save lives and property, including our own.

    Remember, manufacturers work for the customer, not the other way around. If we do not try to expect more from the manufacturer, we allow them to dictate to us what we will and will not be able to have. This goes for all products, especially in the fire service.

    Hope this helps you understand,

    Eric

  15. #35
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Eric,just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm QUITE familiar with cameras,I work with Maine Fire training as a TI instructor. Also high on my list of favorite subjects is FF safety and survival.That being said you and I have differing opinions on flashover.I believe it to be predictable and preventable.And my students are educated about the dangers from day one.Reading smoke is but one indicator of conditions about to go bad.And there are less and less qualified instructors to help teach this important subject.Our new gear lets us get closer and closer to that magic "line".that's why teaching cause and effect of Flashover is SO IMPORTANT! Just my observations over 38 years on the job. T,C.
    Last edited by Rescue101; 07-27-2006 at 11:57 AM.

  16. #36
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rescue101
    Eric,just so you know where I'm coming from: I'm QUITE familiar with cameras,I work with Maine Fire training as a TI instructor. Also high on my list of favorite subjects is FF safety and survival.That being said you and I have differing opinions on flashover.I believe it to be predictable and preventable.And my students are educated about the dangers from day one.Reading smoke is but one indicator of conditions about to go bad.And there are less and less qualified instructors to help teach this important subject.Our new gear lets us get closer and closer to that magic "line".that's why teaching cause and effect of Flashover is SO IMPORTANT! Just my observations over 38 years on the job. T,C.
    TC,

    I don't think we have differing views on flashover. All laws of science have predictability. Teaching our new firefighters about the cause and effects of smoke and combustibles should be done. TICs are valuable tools...and just that. They have limitations and can fail. Totally relying on TICs is bad medicine.

    Remember, we had a LODD. This coincided with the time we were evaluating TICs. It was agreed by all that we give the TICs hard testing, so we did.

    One of the Captains that was in charge at the LODD fire volunteered to be on the evauating team for TICs. He is a top-notch veteran and I would never second-guess his opinion. There was a report of people trapped in that fire.
    He did what he thought was right. Nobody second-guessed him.....including the firefighter's widow.

    Firefighters do what we do.....period. Save lives and property, including our own. Our tools and equipment help us do our job and get out alive. We owe it to all our brothers and sisters to test that equipment and push it to its max to get an "overall" better piece of equipment. SURELY you can't disagree with that!!!!

    All of the evaluating team wanted to "push" the thermal imagers to the max.....so we did.

  17. #37
    Forum Member Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Eric,you'll get no arguement from me on totally relying on TI's to do anything.While I hold my brothers and sisters of the HFD in the highest regards you do have a couple "peculiar"habits. HFD is one of only a few depts that regularly wears a Reed hood which I equate to one step from an entry suit.Hfd is also well known for being very aggressive in interior ops(no,this isn't a bad thing).This combination in my opinion puts you more at risk than my personnel in the lighter hoods.Plus our total fire ops are different here,not so many big buildings; a whole bunch of little ones.Personally,I couldn't do the job you've done for 23 yrs,I don't like the hot season here in Maine,in Houston it's brutal and a lot longer season.So that's my take,we welcome yours,T.C.

  18. #38
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Agreed. Houston does take a very agressive interior attack. I've never known anything other than a Reed hood (until this year). Before we got the Reed hoods (1985?) we just used the ear flaps (probably what you remember too)
    When the ears started to burn, it was time to back up or out.

    I am currently in Mosul, Iraq doing a year here contract firefighting. They use nomex hoods. I've only had one fire. A small one at that.

    The coat, gloves and pants in Houston were also "beefed up", so when you say "one step from an entry suit" your pretty close.

    I don't miss Houston (the weather). I now live in Colorado and love the weather. However, In Iraq, I feel like I'm back in Houston.

    Take care, God bless, and stay safe,

    Eric

  19. #39
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd
    It wasn't that hard. We burned pallets in the burn building until we got the ambient air temp to 250 and 500 degrees at 5 ft from the ground. Each committee member carried and validated the camera for its refresh rate and pic quality before, during and after the tests.
    How did you monitor the air temperature (thermocouples throughout the room?) and keep it constant for all of the evolutions? You note yourself that there was fluctuation in the air temperature. 8 minutes at 500 is about the same as 20 minutes at 250. Expecting the fire to burn hotter as time goes on, the TIs entering early (when temps are near 250) get the easiest test.

    How do you validate the refresh rate?! That's an automatic function of the processor and at any rate above 24 Hz, it is invisible to the human eye.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

  20. #40
    Protective Economist Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd
    To answer your last question first, yes, of course, Bullard was invited. They chose not to participate.

    As far as the time alloted for the tests and the temps, we used real-time and temps that was experienced in a flashover fire that killed one of our firefighters. We did not want to get caught in a flashover situation and have a thermal imager fail on us as we try to get out.

    Hope this makes a little more sense to you now. Sorry for not explaining it farther.

    Eric
    I'll pass on the first part. As for "surviving a flashover": who cares if the TI survives the flashover? The person holding it won't. Your turnout gear will NOT keep you alive in a flashover; new, top-of-the-line gear just might save more to bury, but you'll still be dead.

    Any of the top TIs will survive longer than a firefighter in high-heat conditions.

    A properly trained firefighter WILL be able to identify preflashover conditions with a thermal imager. Between the signs that are visible to the firefighter, his knowledge of the building, conditions and construction, and what is visible on the TI, no firefighter should again be caught in a flashover.
    Last edited by firemanjb; 08-03-2006 at 09:43 AM.
    My comments are sometimes educated, sometimes informed and sometimes just blowing smoke...but they are always mine and mine alone and do not reflect upon anyone else (especially my employer).

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