Thread: Foam systems

  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    75

    Question Foam systems

    We are looking at foam systems for our new engines and I have been tasked with finding the best foam system out there.We currently use Hydro-Pro system with class A&B foam. My question is what other Depts. are using and the pros and cons to there system. Any help on this matter is greatly appreciated. Thank you

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Las Vegas,Nevada
    Posts
    1,012

    Wink foam

    We have the Hypro systems and one unit with the Husky system. When we first got the Hypro we had multiple paddles and found out that we only need one paddle wheel installed for the whole system. There are occasional problems with the paddle wheels, Hypro control heads and connection cables but not too much. We had some problems with the capacitor wire loose that would create a no flow condition or control head problems. Overall a good system just a lot more gadgetry than the old eductor systems. The Husky system is a little complicated and the only real problem there was somebody running the foam tank dry and creating an air pocket in the lines that prevented the transducer from reading and a no faom flow situation. Direct injected foam is probably a better thing than eduction but more complicated with electronic stuff but once understood easy to work and fix. Hope this helps.

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    BVFD1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    IL
    Posts
    434

    Default

    CAFS is nice but man is it expensive.
    FTM - PTB

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    383

    Default

    We have a FoamPro 2002, dual agent with electric selector switch. Have had it for about 18 months. It has work maybe four times in that period. It still does not work. The FoamPro rep. has been to our station numerous times and the truck man. has replaced part after part per FoamPro's request. Waiting on a valve to show up next week to see if that fixes it. I am doubtful.

  5. #5
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Halligan84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 1999
    Location
    Blackwood NJ, USA
    Posts
    816

    Default

    I've had experience with 2 feecon around the pump proportioners. Both have been trouble free and very easy to operate.

  6. #6
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    22

    Lightbulb Jumping on the question...but a little different

    sorry to jump in, but you have attracted the "foamies". How about small, self contained foam units on a 1st responder type truck (Ford F550 with a rescue body). Does any one have a suggestion for the type of foam application (obviously not CAFS). I have not found any truck manufacturers that actively advertise this application.

  7. #7
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    466

    Default

    Rockhopper,

    Send me an email, I may be able to find what you are looking for. I just need to dig up the information.

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    TCFD12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rockhopper62
    sorry to jump in, but you have attracted the "foamies". How about small, self contained foam units on a 1st responder type truck (Ford F550 with a rescue body). Does any one have a suggestion for the type of foam application (obviously not CAFS). I have not found any truck manufacturers that actively advertise this application.
    We have a Tri-Max CAFS self contained unit. Holds 30 gallons of product that produces 600 gal. of foam.

    Go here for more info:

    http://www.crashrescue.com/Hydro-Chem/trimax30.asp

    Our unit is in a 2500 HD:

    http://www.tcfd.com/photos/image.php?source=609

    We also use the Tri-Max 3, CAFS cans on our first due engines.

    http://www.tri-max.info/trimax3.html

    They are nice products, very easy to use.
    Last edited by TCFD12; 11-03-2005 at 10:07 AM.
    "The hero is commonly the simplest and obscurest of men."
    -Henry David Thoreau

    Visit my dept. at www.TCFD.com

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TCFD12
    We have a Tri-Max CAFS self contained unit. Holds 30 gallons of product that produces 600 gal. of foam.

    Go here for more info:

    http://www.crashrescue.com/Hydro-Chem/trimax30.asp

    Our unit is in a 2500 HD:

    http://www.tcfd.com/photos/image.php?source=609

    We also use the Tri-Max 3, CAFS cans on our first due engines.

    http://www.tri-max.info/trimax3.html

    They are nice products, very easy to use.
    Excellent information.....I can see why I missed this.....thanks.

  10. #10
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Penn Valley, Ca
    Posts
    571

    Default

    We had a dual-agent system, Foam Pro 2002, it was a real problem. The underlying problem is that class A foam uses alcohol for its solvent while most departments use an alcohol type concentrate (ATC) class B foam which solidifies on contact with alcohol for fire supression purposes but when they get mixed inside the system, they gel together really bad. Additionally the class B foam gels by itself over time if not used up regularly and it is expensive. Also people not being careful enough tend to pour the wrong type of foam into the wrong tank, again causing a jellied mess. The dual agent system must be flushed internally by the operator after every use to prevent internal mixing. Also, the foam injector must first push out the entire hose's worth of flush water on the fireground before foam starts to flow, and in my experience this can take a couple minutes.

    Compound that with the fact that most class B foams must be injected at 3 or 6 percent. The standard FoamPro 2000 series system pump cannot inject concentrate into the water at a rapid enough rate to maintain those percentages with more than a single handline and IIRC at 6% the maximum flow is only like 70 gpm.

    Add to that the fact that at 3 or 6% your typical apparatus mounted 30 gallon foam tank is only going to be enough to treat 1000 or 500 gallons of water.

    I'll tell you what I did. I got rid of all the class B concentrate, which was no good anyway, and refilled both tanks on my dual agent engine with class A. As far as I know, since 1989 the class B foam we carried had never been used.

    If you can overcome these difficulties then I would recommend entirely separate injection systems for class A and B foams, or just go with no A foam at all if you can afford to us B foam on an A fire. And make sure the injection system for the B foam is more than a 2000 series.

    Birken

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Rescue101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Bridgton,Me USA
    Posts
    8,162

    Default

    Sshank,try this trick.If you don't get foam,hit both reset buttons together.If the foam light starts blinking you should have foam.If it's on steady,you don't. T.C.

  12. #12
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Did that. That is the simulated flow. We get concentrate out of the cal./flush valve. Start water pump, turn foam on, nothing. The A/B valves will not work. They wiggle but will not come open. Turn truck off and then turn just the master switch on and the A/B valve will open and close all day long. Start truck engage pump and they will not work. Nothing is gelled up. I took the check valves apart and they are clean as a whistle. Strainers are not plugged. When the A/B valve worked it does so properly, as in, A will close-clean water valve will open for the 7 second - clean water will close - purge valve will work to dump excess pressure - then B valve will open. Fire the water pump up and nada. Like I said all components have been replace numerous times. Power has been switched from place to place and the ground has been redone. 18 months of wondering whether it will work or not is starting to suck. I believe it has something to do with the clean water valve leaking thru and allowing the pressure to stay on the A/B valve even after the purge valves dump the extra pressure. This is the only valve that has not been replace. It should be here early next week. Only time will tell.

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

    Default

    If I'm reading you right,your AB valve is electric?Ours is manual so I'm not going to be much help there.Where are you located? I might be able to get you connected,"cause you sure don't need that system in that condition.I'll hook you up if I can. T.C.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    383

    Default

    Yeah it is electric. I am in Southeast Ohio. We have been working with the district rep. on this since day one. I think he is leaning toward putting in the manuel valves if this clean water valve does not fix the problem. He was worried about finding room on the pump panel for it.

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    956

    Default

    We have FoamPro on all of our engines, the only issue we've had is that it ate up the level sensors in one of the foam tanks, but with the foam being slightly caustic it's bound to happen eventually. Other than that the system we have is awesome..oh, and FWIW, we never turn our system to flush. We just clear the line and pack up.
    FF/NREMT-B

    FTM-PTB!!

    Brass does not equal brains.

    Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the ability to control it.

  16. #16
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mohican's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    850

    Default

    we have a "a" Hale foam logix system on our rescue engine, and after seeing the results, we plan to a a system to our front line structural engine

    We are using "JET-X" foam, but are trying to get some info on FLAMEOUT

  17. #17
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Celina, TN USA
    Posts
    78

    Default foam choice

    We are getting three new pumpers in the county with Class A injected foam systems. Anybody had any experience with Fireade 2000?

  18. #18
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Wilmot,Ohio
    Posts
    36

    Default

    We have a Hale foam logixs 3.3 with class A foam for about 9 months and have had no problems with this unit. We have used the class A foam on 4 house fires and 3 tractor trailer fires, and it has worked well.

  19. #19
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default Foams- FireAde 2000

    Yes I have experience with FireAde

    Found some vidoes........

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffK5...elated&search=

  20. #20
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by massfire View Post
    Yes I have experience with FireAde

    Found some vidoes........

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LffK5...elated&search=
    NO CLASS AT ALL. Spams topics all over the boards trying to sell his product.

    FyredUp

  21. #21
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    45

    Default Fireade

    fyredup

    like i have said. "we use the product".

  22. #22
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,274

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by massfire View Post
    fyredup

    like i have said. "we use the product".
    If that is really your only motivation please explain why you felt it necessary to open all of these long dropped topics and post time after time after time after time about fireade? Well? It sure seems you have an agenda.

    FyredUp

  23. #23
    dazed and confused
    Resq14's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    1,993

    Default

    %^&$$%^$%^

    I can't even escape to the secluded Apparatus Innovation threads without dealing with this TOS Violator's spam! WTF

    WHERE IS WEBTEAM? WHERE IS CONSISTENCY?
    God Bless America!Remember all have given some, but some have given all.
    Google Is Your Friend™Helpful forum tip - a "must see" if you're new here
    Click this to search FH Forums!

  24. #24
    MembersZone Subscriber
    npfd801's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in Illinois
    Posts
    2,223

    Default

    I'm sorry I just can't help myself. Is Fireade related to Kool-Aid?

    Where's Investigative Reports when you need them?
    "Share your knowledge - it's a way to achieve immortality." - Stolen from Chase Sargent's Buddy to Boss program

  25. #25
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    37

    Default Foam & Ethanol - HEADS UP!!!

    Industrial Fire World Web Page

    Extinguishing Ethanol
    Foams Fail E95 Tests In Direct Application

    By David White

    Based on the results of a two-week blind testing program conducted in February, foams without an alcohol resistant polymer were unsuccessful in extinguishing fires involving E-95, a blend of 95 percent ethanol and five percent gasoline. E-95 is the typical blend of ethanol shipped to distribution terminals by rail car, truck or barge.

    Environmental issues have a huge impact on modern life, the fire service included. Until recently, if a fire department had a spill or a fire involving bulk quantities of motor fuel, the remedy was to apply either Alcohol-resistant aqueous film forming foams (AR-AFFF), alcohol resistant fluoroprotein foam (AR-FP), or alcohol-resistant film fluoroprotein (AR-FFFP). Then came ethanol, a biofuel alternative to gasoline.

    In 2006, the ethanol industry produced 6 billion gallons, which was blended into 46 percent of our gasoline supply nationwide. Derived from grains such as corn, wheat or switchgrass, ethanol is used to oxygenate gasoline and raise the octane rating. It can be used as fuel in any combination up to and including pure ethanol.

    Praised as a renewable source of energy, ethanol is being handled in ever increasing volumes in the U.S. However, ethanol is a water soluble polar solvent. Traditional non-alcohol resistant foams that are otherwise effective on gasoline and other class B liquid fire are not effective on ethanol. This has left firefighters to debate whether these same foams will work on fires involving ethanol blended with gasoline.

    These differing opinions were the driving force being a recent project to determine through scientific analysis the most effective methodology for responding to a spill or fire involving a bulk container of ethanol or ethanol blended fuel. In order to document the challenges that face first responders in handling ethanol fires and spills, the United States Ethanol Emergency Response Coalition was formed. The organizations involved are the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Ansul Fire Protection, Independent Liquid Terminals Association, Virginia Department of Emergency Response, Williams Fire & Hazard Control and the U.S. Department of Transportation.

    Fire departments and industry need to make informed decisions as to which foam concentrates should be used and the associated equipment and tactics to be employed based on the most significant risk. The EERC testing program, conducted in February, used UL 162 test methodology within a structural test environment, the 10,000-square-foot fire test house at the Ansul Fire Technology Center in Marinette, WI.

    Forty-three individual tests were conducted on denatured alcohol, E95 and E10 or gasohol. Three foam application scenarios were used for the UL 162 tests — type 2, which involves directing a stream of foam solution against a vertical surface, creating a more gentle application across the fuel; type 3, which involves a foam stream directed onto the burning surface of the fuel and sprinkler application like a truck loading rack.

    Every test consumed 55 gallons of fuel with both E95 and E10 tested. The fuel had to be a minimum of 50 degrees F before ignition. Once ignited, a 60 second pre-burn period was observed for the type 2 and 3 testing, allowing the volume of the fuel to heat up. Sprinkler application only required a 15 second preburn.

    If the foam was able to extinguish the fire, it was put through a burn back test to evaluate the foam’s resistance to fire. The last corner of the 50 square foot pan to stop burning is used. A technician scoops out a portion of the foam blanket and re-ignites the fuel. After five minutes the foam blanket is inspected. If it has deteriorated by 20 percent since re-ignition, the foam fails the burn back portion of the test. However, if the foam does not lose 20 percent of its coverage, it passes.

    Using the type 2 application, only one of the six foams was able to extinguish and pass the UL 162 burnback test for denatured ethanol fire — alcohol resistant AR-AFFF. Alcohol resistant AR-AFFP foam extinguished the E95 at an increased application rate but did not pass the burnback test.

    None of the foams extinguished an E95 fire with a type 3 topside foam application similar to a fire department using a monitor nozzle. Only the AR-AFFF was capable of passing a sprinkler application.

    Similarly, only the AR-AFFF was considered successful in combating the gasohol fires. Both the AR-AFFF and the conventional AFFF extinguished the gasohol fire with a type 3 application at the UL specified application rate. But only the AR-AFFF could pass the burnback portion of the test and this required an increased application rate. Technically, this failed the UL test but still achieved the required results.

    Two foams were able to pass the UL 162 sprinkler testing on gasohol — AR-AFFF and conventional fluoroprotein foam. The alcohol resistant film forming fluoroprotein foam failed the sprinkler test on a gasohol fire, as did the conventional AFFF, Class A foam and the emulsifier.

    Regardless of the manufacturer or brand, chemically these tests verified that if the foam is water soluble and does not contain an alcohol resistant polymer to create a protective coating between the foam the fuel it will not effectively put out a large ethanol fire.

    Many firefighter put forward the theory that it is possible to dilute an ethanol spill with water. The lab work says otherwise. Lab tests show ethanol diluted to 500 percent will still burn steadily. Results do not support fighting a polar solvent tank fire by flooding it with water.

    What does all this tell the fire service? Many fire departments use crash trucks to respond to gasoline tankers on fire. It used to work real good. A crash truck carrying 3,000 gallons of AFFF and applying it at 500 to 1,000 gpm can knock the heck out of a fire. But with ethanol involved, you might as well leave the crash truck at home. The way we fight flammable liquid fire has to change.

    Testing this at home is simple. First, go to a gas station that sells E95. Buy a gallon and take it back to the fire house. After you pour it into a container, mix a quart of the foam solution you have on hand at the percentage you would use it at. Then pour it on the ethanol. You will find almost the same results with any foam that is not alcohol resistant.

    http://www.fireworld.com/ifw_articles/e95_tests.php

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. World Of Fire Report: 10-04-05
    By PaulBrown in forum World of Fire Daily Report
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-12-2005, 08:28 AM
  2. Compressed Foam Systems
    By Phila20 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 04-20-2003, 05:34 PM
  3. Foam Systems
    By amos221 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-31-2003, 10:25 PM
  4. AFFF or FFFP
    By Lallo in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-18-2002, 09:34 PM
  5. ROBWEN foam injection systems
    By anthony mattingly in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-14-2001, 03:32 PM

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