Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 74 of 74
  1. #61
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,578

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave1983
    Simple question. Which would you rather have blow when its in your hand, a 10K line or a 5K line?
    That's really a silly question. Do you really think that your hand would be able to handle a 5k rupture? Would you rather get hit by a car going 65mph or a truck going 65mph? Does it really matter?
    "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?


  2. #62
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Southwestern, Pa
    Posts
    168

    Default

    Isitjustme:
    Perhaps I have been misinformed or used the wrong chemical term. I have nerver been with a company that used the old Hurst 5000 lb systems. However, SEVERAL RESCUE INSTRUCTORS I have had over the years have cautioned that what they called "aircraft hydraulic fluid" used by Hurst (and others) was corrosive and very bad to get on your skin or in your eyes. Since these were instructors in which I had faith, I never questioned this fact or their use of the word corrosive. Most of these instructors were from Hurst companies so I presumed they knew what they were talking about. No SALESMAN had anything to do with my understanding of this fluid. I have gotten AMKUS mineral oil on me (and my gloves) without any discomfort or problem to my gear. My question then is..."Is the Hurst type fluid worse for me if I get it on my skin or in my eyes than mineral oil?" Please no BS from anyone...just a correct answer based on fact!
    BB

  3. #63
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,578

    Default

    Is it worse than mineral oil? Yes. Is it something truly "dangerous"? No. If left on your hands for an extended time, you may develop a rash. It's really not a big deal, just wear gloves and/or wash your hands off later. I still have all my skin on my hands and have been using Hurst 5000psi system since early 1980's.
    "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?

  4. #64
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    151

    Default Ok

    Ok, who in here has actually had Hurst oil in their eyes? Oh wait I have!! Fact: Phosphate Ester MELTED my contact lens in my eye!!! Fact: Phosphate Ester is very corrossive, look at any compartment that has housed Hurst tools for years, it eats up plastic decking, it even eats up the hoses that carry it (I've seen it). Oh and that lame argument that you would rather hold a bursting 5000 line over a 10,000 line? Please!! Put a 5000 tool side by side with a 10,000 tool and tell me the 5000 is better and safer!!

  5. #65
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    86

    Cool

    Oh yeah wait... I have Hurst fluid in my eyes too... and your point is?? Melting the contact lens, was that a ANSI certified lens?? Took the paint off, why it certainly does... and very well I will add. You know what, Coke will take paint off, you drink that... bologna will take paint off, you eat that... egg will take paint off... you eat those too!!

    Corrosive... eats metal... damn those plastic tools anyway... Oh yeah, it doesn't eat the hoses that carry it, the crap that you got on the hoses and were too damn lazy to clean off "ate" the hose....

    Lame arguement maybe on which tool to have in your hand... I will still rather have the 5000psi tool. A little heavier maybe, but I can handle it.

    Safer... no question! Less operating pressure, electrically non conductive, Kevlar reinforced hose, fluid that will not support combustion.

    Will they do the same jobs as a 10000psi... NO QUESTION ABOUT IT!!! and they will do it safer and with less wear and tear on the equipment.

    Next?

    Oh I forgot one thing, Jake... which tool you sellin??

  6. #66
    Forum Member Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BB3939
    I'd go for the 10K mineral oil also vs. the 5K corrosive fluid.
    Let's talk tools, not what ifs!
    Do you really belive that when your 10K mineral oil slices through you like a laser its going to matter thats its not a corrosive?

    And I thought I was talking tools. The question was Amkus v Hurst. We use Hurst do to the added safety of the lower operating presures.

    BTW, we use non-corrosive fluid in our Hurst systems.
    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

  7. #67
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Between here and there
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Just because a tool operates at 5000 psi does not mean its safer. What makes it safe is the safey factor of the tool and hoses. NFPA requires a 2:1 safety so it does not matter. In addition, if you look at the MSDS sheet for phosphate esther and mineral oil, they are similar. As for the non-electrical issue, the dirt and containiments on the hose will conduct electricity.

  8. #68
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    196

    Default

    And just because a tool operates at 10,000 psi does not make it "better".

    Dave1983: are you using something other than Phosphate Ester fluid in your Hurst system??
    Last edited by MEAN15; 05-19-2006 at 04:59 PM.

  9. #69
    Forum Member Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MEAN15
    Dave1983: are you using something other than Phosphate Ester fluid in your Hurst system??

    Not sure, I was just told we switched to non-corrosive fluid last year when Hurst came and did the PM on all the equipment. I dont know the name/type.
    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

  10. #70
    Forum Member Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rescuemaster
    Just because a tool operates at 5000 psi does not mean its safer.
    Perhaps, but the "damage" will be less with a 5000psi system.
    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

  11. #71
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Boy, this one is getting old..

    Sorry to everyone who has been misled, but tissue damage will be NO different between 5000 psi and 10,500 psi. You are no SAFER with one or the other. That is hype the salesmen QUIT using 10 years ago, when most firefighters became educated on the subject.

    However, the damage to your back may be less when using lighter weight 10,500psi tools. Yes, that's what I use. Have used both, we evaluated, and changed. It is due to the laws of hydraulics, more pressure, smaller pistons and cylinders, lighter tools.
    And as far as wear and tear on equipment, there are 20 plus year old sets of 10,500 psi tools everywhere, and they still work fine.
    We need to get off calling it High vs. low pressure, it is all very high pressure.

  12. #72
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Southwestern, Pa
    Posts
    168

    Default

    We seem to have gotton off the subject of which of the two tools mentioned (or of the many tools now available) does a great job. I started looking at this thread because I wanted to know what was new and who had good documented experience with a tool or tools. (Not salesman hype.) As far as 5000 vs 10500, I am as safety conscious as the next guy but I want to know what does the best job under normal operating conditions and safety measures. There is less chance we will get hurt with an attack line pressureized to 35 pounds than 100 pounds, but I doubt anyone wants to use a 35 pound line for attack. (Not exactly a parallell, but you get the idea.) It's good that we are proud of what we are using and if it gets the job done then that's good. I am interested in securing information about how Hurst, Amkus, Homatro, Genesis, Lukas, etc., etc. work and what cutters will cut some of the more hardened metals we are likely to encounter in highway and other rescue situations. I hope everyone is interested in safety reguardless of pressure.
    BB

  13. #73
    Forum Member MetalMedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    The Home of Smucker's Jelly
    Posts
    1,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hrtrescue10
    However, the damage to your back may be less when using lighter weight 10,500psi tools. Yes, that's what I use. Have used both, we evaluated, and changed. It is due to the laws of hydraulics, more pressure, smaller pistons and cylinders, lighter tools.
    If you have evaluated both, then I hope you made a note of how differently the tools behave when you are operating them. Both the "Hi pressure" 10K+psi and the "Low pressure" 5Kpsi tools will accomplish the tasks you put them to, as long as the operator is competent and understands the strength and weaknesses of the particular tool that they are using. But, I think it is a dangerous practice to think that "all tools work alike" regardless of the operating pressure, fluid selection or brand name.
    Richard Nester
    Orrville (OH) Fire Dept.

    "People don't care what you know... until they know that you care." - Scott Bolleter

  14. #74
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Good link, gives some insight into the tools.

    http://wjz.com/video?cid=7

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. TNT Replacing Hurst at FDNY?
    By AC1503 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 03:03 PM
  2. New Lightweight HURST Spreader
    By alcatrazlt in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-05-2005, 10:26 PM
  3. Holmatro? Hurst? or Amkus?
    By Engine21 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 09-20-2002, 08:39 PM
  4. Amkus - Afailure or Success?
    By firemedic818 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-21-2001, 05:54 PM
  5. Amkus, Hurst or something else
    By WestEnd #1 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 08-13-2001, 06:28 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