Who's Got What?

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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?

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

We have a Bullard, and a Fire Warrior...

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.

www.PineBluffFire.com

We just bought another camera..... a MSA 5200. It will be used in conjunction with the ISI that we currently have.

We recently purchased a Bullard... one of the biggest selling points that got our attention was the apparent durability of the beast. We had demonstrations from a couple different suppliers that came to the station, and most of them were handling the imagers like they were a carton of eggs.

Granted, a fire scene isn't somewhere you'd want to carry a carton of eggs around and not expect a couple broken ones... They explained to us that they could take minor shocks without damage (like maybe dropping it a short distance), but a good jolt would damage the unit. When the guy from Bullard showed up, we handled his demonstrator like the other ones. He promptly asked us why we were trying to be so careful with it... we explained our experience with the last couple we had, and he responded by TOSSING the unit about 8' out on to the concrete floor of the hall, picked it up, turned it on, and showed us that it still worked, then told us that it was a TOOL more than a piece of technology. He then said that any of us were welcome to do the same to test it's durablity.

Of course, there was discussion that care does still need to be taken with any electronic device (obviously), but it could get knocked around a bit and most likely not sustain any damage. The features were good, comparable or exceeding some of the others. We were sold.... and to date, have been completely satisfied with it's operation. I'd be willing to recommend a Bullard to anyone.

That drill's been around as long as Bullard TICs.I don't throw my axe,saw or other tools to the floor,and I'm not going to launch my TIC either.Any of the major players offerings will take a pretty good pounding and still work; I've used just about all of them and they've all been dropped,kicked,or otherwise launched by students who are still learning how to lug all their "stuff".As I've said before and as JB indicates:ANY tool is only as good as it's operator;become proficient at all you do.This includes TIC operation.Learning in this business NEVER stops,make EVERY day a learning day. T,C,

On the subject of detection equipment, anyone else use the less-expensive noncontact thermometers (like Raytek and others) as a supplement to their TIC's?

I've found them to be handy as anything when doing mop-up and on smaller incidents like chimney fires, etc... Nice little tool to have to check the temperature in an area or at a surface (like the side of a chimney pipe or flue)... and a lot more accurate / safer than un-gloving a hand, feeling the surface, and going "wow... that's pretty warm".

Yes, we have a Raytek that comes out everytime we have a fire call

Raytek,tool of many uses.Yes,ours is used in conjunction with the TIC.Along with a lot of other applications. T.C.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by firemanjb

Proof that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing...there is so much in here that deserves being addressed, I don't even know where to start.

Let's just say that firefighters should evaluate what is important TO THEM, not the salesperson. If you don't understand what he is selling, then it probably isn't relevant to you.

And to everyone else, since this guy is already a lost ball in tall weeds, remember that color on a TI is COMPLETELY artificial. It has nothing to do with the visual color of an object, it is merely an algorithm assigning a color (instead of gray scale) to a temperature. It started as a marketing thing and the fire service now demands it.

---

you hit the nail on the head. the color in my use with the cameras is a neat option but the gray scale gives the best image when there is a fire.

We had a very similar issue a couple of years ago during our evaluations. The competitors didn't want us banging them around too much or getting into any real heat. The Bullard rep had us literally throw the T3 Max across the parking lot as the dismay of the local tech college fire instructors :)

We tossed, it bounced, it worked! The ISG hardly handled about 10 minutes of the burn room before it failed miserably.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by meekrol

you hit the nail on the head. the color in my use with the cameras is a neat option but the gray scale gives the best image when there is a fire.

---

I wish that colorization and temperature measurement had never been introduced into fire service TIs. To understand what they actually do and how they actually work can take hours of classroom time. Actual practice to prevent misuse requires even more.

Unfortunately, both options are here to stay. I just suggest to firefighters that they not make any life-critical decisions based on colorization and temperture measurement. Too much can go wrong if you don't understand how they work.

The basic application is if you see yellow/orange/red in a fire environment, that is BAD. For the most part, ignore the temperature indicator as it won't change your tactics 95% of the time.

I'm with you JB on the temperature indicator.However,if I see yellow,orange or red in my camera it WILL change my tactics.You see we have a gray scale camera and if it's doing colors;I'm leaving Dodge,hehe T.C.