Thread: Who's Got What?

  1. #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).

  2. #27
    Forum Member
    Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,679

    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?

  3. #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).

  4. #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.

  5. #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.

  6. #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.

  7. #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

  8. #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.

  9. #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

  10. #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.

  11. #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.

  12. #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.

  13. #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

  14. #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).

  15. #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).

  16. #41
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb
    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.

    The 250 and 500 degree temps were two different tests. The first was 250 at 20 minutes. We had the cameras attached to 5 ft. poles so that the cameras were at the same height. There was a FF assigned to each TIC. Another FF was assigned to monitor air temp (with air monitioring temp gauges) in the surrounding area of the cameras and to make sure that the temp stayed at 250 for the duration. Another FF was assigned to stoke the fire to keep it at that level.

    The 500 degree test came later on after the cameras had a chance to cool down. We used the same method.

    You are right about the refresh rate. You validate that its working correctly when it IS invisible to the naked eye. When it is NOT, is when you have the problem.

    Hope this answers your questions.

    Eric

  17. #42
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb
    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.
    Again, in this particular fire, there were reported people trapped. It was a large building. I won't criticize you in your tactics, so I would ask you to "tread lightly" about our firefighters and their commitment in risking their lives for others.

    According to reports, this building was NOT showing signs of flashover conditions when enry was made.

    To say that "no firefighter should again be caught in a flashover" is a statement we would all like to make, then there would have to be no "gray area", when it comes to offensive/defensive attacks, no "marginal" fires.

    We are all taught fire science. HFD wanted the cameras we purchased for engine companies to be well-tested.

    I mentioned this in an earlier thread: If we allow manufacturers to do the testing, then we allow them the authority to dictate to us what products we can and cannot have. Its up to us (the FF's) to push technology to our expectations.

    Surely you would agree to that.

    Hope that helps you to see where we were coming from.

    Eric

  18. #43
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd
    The 250 and 500 degree temps were two different tests. The first was 250 at 20 minutes. We had the cameras attached to 5 ft. poles so that the cameras were at the same height. There was a FF assigned to each TIC. Another FF was assigned to monitor air temp (with air monitioring temp gauges) in the surrounding area of the cameras and to make sure that the temp stayed at 250 for the duration. Another FF was assigned to stoke the fire to keep it at that level.

    The 500 degree test came later on after the cameras had a chance to cool down. We used the same method.

    You are right about the refresh rate. You validate that its working correctly when it IS invisible to the naked eye. When it is NOT, is when you have the problem.

    Hope this answers your questions.

    Eric
    While your effort in the temperature regulation is commendable, scientifically I doubt you were as exact as you hoped. It is very difficult to regulate the temperature of a fire and different areas in the burn room will have different temperatures based on how construction forces heat currents to move. If you didn't test it in a controlled oven, the test is not reliable.

    Second, a user cannot validate refresh rate. That is the speed at which the detector sends an image to the video display. Unless you connect the engine and display to the appropriate electronics, it cannot be validated.

    Perhaps you meant you were evaluating how well the imager maintained image quality?
    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).

  19. #44
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 23yrsinhfd
    Again, in this particular fire, there were reported people trapped. It was a large building. I won't criticize you in your tactics, so I would ask you to "tread lightly" about our firefighters and their commitment in risking their lives for others.

    According to reports, this building was NOT showing signs of flashover conditions when enry was made.

    To say that "no firefighter should again be caught in a flashover" is a statement we would all like to make, then there would have to be no "gray area", when it comes to offensive/defensive attacks, no "marginal" fires.

    We are all taught fire science. HFD wanted the cameras we purchased for engine companies to be well-tested.

    I mentioned this in an earlier thread: If we allow manufacturers to do the testing, then we allow them the authority to dictate to us what products we can and cannot have. Its up to us (the FF's) to push technology to our expectations.

    Surely you would agree to that.

    Hope that helps you to see where we were coming from.

    Eric
    My post did not make any statements about HFD's tactics, strategies or decisions in that fire (or any fire). If you inferred criticism about that, I apoligize that you felt that way, but ask that you re-read the post to see that there is no criticism. I have never, and will never, challenge the dedication of a firefighter who risks so much for someone he doesn't know.

    My comments were designed to point out just facts:
    1. a firefighter in turnout gear will not survive being in a complete flashover; he has less than 2 seconds to escape the conditions.
    2. even if the thermal imager survives the flashover, it will not help a dead firefighter.
    3. by COMBINING fire knowledge, building knowledge, visual cues AND thermal image interpretation, a well-trained firefighter WILL recognize pre-flashover conditions. There is no gray area in that.
    4. if fire departments adequately equipped fire companies with thermal imagers, and properly trained firefighters in their use, firefighters would not get caught in flashovers.

    These are not an attack on HFD or any other FD...the reality is that municipalities do not see thermal imagers as life-critical tools and therefore firefighters continue to operate at an unnecessary disadvantage in fires.

    I agree fully that each FD should evaluate thermal imagers on its own. The tests should be fair, realistic and apolitical.
    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. #45
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by firemanjb
    My post did not make any statements about HFD's tactics, strategies or decisions in that fire (or any fire). If you inferred criticism about that, I apoligize that you felt that way, but ask that you re-read the post to see that there is no criticism. I have never, and will never, challenge the dedication of a firefighter who risks so much for someone he doesn't know.

    My comments were designed to point out just facts:
    1. a firefighter in turnout gear will not survive being in a complete flashover; he has less than 2 seconds to escape the conditions.
    2. even if the thermal imager survives the flashover, it will not help a dead firefighter.
    3. by COMBINING fire knowledge, building knowledge, visual cues AND thermal image interpretation, a well-trained firefighter WILL recognize pre-flashover conditions. There is no gray area in that.
    4. if fire departments adequately equipped fire companies with thermal imagers, and properly trained firefighters in their use, firefighters would not get caught in flashovers.

    These are not an attack on HFD or any other FD...the reality is that municipalities do not see thermal imagers as life-critical tools and therefore firefighters continue to operate at an unnecessary disadvantage in fires.

    I agree fully that each FD should evaluate thermal imagers on its own. The tests should be fair, realistic and apolitical.
    I did not mention earlier that two of the imagers in our testing failed the burn building tests while we were still in there, so that is why testing imagers to their limit is important. That's why I believe our testing was fair and realistic.

    TIC's are tools and tools can fail. Depending solely on them can get you in trouble, but, knowing that you tested these particular tools to their limit is not beyond anybody's expectations. All the vendors we spoke with were glad we were doing this kind of testing. A realty check for them too.



    Take care and stay safe my friend,

    Eric

  21. #46
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    3

    Default

    FIREMAKEITH - Check out the Fire Flir FF131 TIC. The website is www.fireflir.com It is the nicest camera I have used and has lots of features. I would be happy to get you a price quote. Thanks, rrhodehamel@totalsafety.com

  22. #47
    Protective Economist
    Jonathan Bastian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    966

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TSUSI80239
    FIREMAKEITH - Check out the Fire Flir FF131 TIC. The website is www.fireflir.com It is the nicest camera I have used and has lots of features. I would be happy to get you a price quote. Thanks, rrhodehamel@totalsafety.com
    As far as I know, the FF131 hasn't changed much since Scott introduced it as the Scott Eagle II about 5 years ago. Scott discontinued it; FLIR marketed it on its own for a few years, and I think they have sold the product line to another company, which uses the same FF131 name.

    While I couldn't find the FF131 on your corporate website, I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you sell it...especially since you offer to give a quote. Saying a product is "the nicest camera I have used" when you actually sell it is rather misleading, don't you think?
    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).

  23. #48
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    We just got the new Scotts. Not sure the model, but I would guess its the latest/greatest version.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  24. #49
    MembersZone Subscriber
    WMFF12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    115

    Default

    We have a Bullard, and a Fire Warrior...
    Giggity - Giggity!

  25. #50
    firefighter7160
    Firehouse.com Guest

    Talking Arkansas

    We have 3 Scott Thermal Imaging Cameras. Got them 2 years ago. Love them. Have used them just about everyday sence they were placed inservice. The only thing we dont like about them is that the battery charger only lasts about 2 years. We have replaced 2 already. The onboard charger is not all that great. Other them that its a good tool. We have used them in rescues. The three rescues ive been on this year the cameras were in the buildings, but the victims were found during wall searchs.


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

Log in

Click here to log in or register