1. #1
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    22

    Default Amazing Video New Apparatus

    My friend George Sack, Jr., Hollywood pyrotechnics fire fighter and the stuntman who jackknives all the big rigs in the movies/TV, patented a non glogging nozzle for mega mobile delivery of dry chemicals such as Ammonium Phosphate. The linked video shows a nozzle test where he used up some 200 micron Ammonium Sulphate he had on hand (OK for an aerial water drop mix...20 micron Ammonium Phosphate is better for dry application). The modest target fire was a mix of wood, hay, 6 truck tires and 5 gal each of pyrotechnic glue, diesel and gasoline. He points out that the mobile delivery system is his game...not proving that dry Phoshates work. He also did a Dual Agent test which was also successful. It was easy to side stream a water/foam mix into the 500 MPH nozzle stream without going to a sexy twin nozzle.

    The next test comming up is with 20 micron Mono Ammonium Phosphate and the targets will be a 40' wooden mobile home and a large petroleum fire. A skid mounted unit to be dragged by a dozer and a 90' aerial ladder are in the works.

    Google....You Tube and Search....Worlds Largest Dry Fire Extinguisher

  2. #2
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    22

  3. #3
    MembersZone Subscriber
    KevinFFVFD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA
    Posts
    573

    Default

    Hmmmm, certainly interesting, but not practical. I donít see how anyone could actually use this. That seems it would expensive for one, and it would seem you would have to have ideal weather to use it (wind in the right directions and not raining). Would be one hell of a way to put a house out, but it would be a lot of cleanup, haha.

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Northeast Coast
    Posts
    3,891

    Default

    Sorry but that wasn't impressive at all. That fire could have been snuffed faster, cleaner and cheaper with one small diameter CAFs line. But at least there are people out there toying with other ideas. Maybe the payoff is in the large petroleum fire.

  5. #5
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    22

    Default

    This was just a nozzle test. We were using up some brand X 200 micron Sulphates...not at all best for dry but OK for the pressure test. The 20 micron Mono Ammonium Phosphate powder will be a much better agent. It will project further and knockdown way way faster. We can drive down a highway/ road for about a half mile
    and unload our 24,000 lbs.payload (1,000 lbs. in the video) widening the break out 50-100+ yards. And yes, with the Dual Agent mode it will handle petroleum/refinery fires. Our aim however is to continue testing until we have a great tool to assit firefighters in wildlands and structure applications...keeping the firefighter at a safe distance.

    Thanx for your observations and imput. Valued!

  6. #6
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    22

    Default

    One more thing...this test was about Distance and Volume of material. Target fire could have been from the outward position shown in video all the way up to near the truck and 100+ yards wide in the stationary mode shown if we wanted. The nozzle sweeps left/right. The small 1,000 lbs. shot here would have knocked it all down with 23,000 lbs. still left on board. Or....multiply width of fire by 23 times in mobile mode. Depends on how you view the video.

    Anyway, imputs valued.

  7. #7
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,239

    Default

    Look I am as interested as the next guy, and maybe even more so, in new ideas and technologies but to be honest this seems impratcical and wasteful to me. If you look at the video I think that fire could have been extinguished with less than 200 gallons of water in less time with less agent slop over. There is a huge cloud of agent just blowing completely past this fire and being carried down wind. That cloud is blanketing everything in its path, homes, cars, animals, and people. It may or may not be hazardous but it sure is a mess to clean up.

    In my mind this is just not a practical idea.

    FyredUp

  8. #8
    Forum Member
    DeputyChiefGonzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Somewhere between genius and insanity!
    Posts
    13,584

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Look I am as interested as the next guy, and maybe even more so, in new ideas and technologies but to be honest this seems impratcical and wasteful to me. If you look at the video I think that fire could have been extinguished with less than 200 gallons of water in less time with less agent slop over. There is a huge cloud of agent just blowing completely past this fire and being carried down wind. That cloud is blanketing everything in its path, homes, cars, animals, and people. It may or may not be hazardous but it sure is a mess to clean up.

    In my mind this is just not a practical idea.

    FyredUp
    That was like trying to swat a mosquito with a MOAB.

    That was a small class A fire. If they really want to impress the masses, they should use it against a fully involved gasoline tanker.
    ‎"The education of a firefighter and the continued education of a firefighter is what makes "real" firefighters. Continuous skill development is the core of progressive firefighting. We learn by doing and doing it again and again, both on the training ground and the fireground."
    Lt. Ray McCormack, FDNY

  9. #9
    Forum Member
    FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    10,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainGonzo View Post
    That was like trying to swat a mosquito with a MOAB.

    That was a small class A fire. If they really want to impress the masses, they should use it against a fully involved gasoline tanker.
    When I was a CFR firefighter for the military we had a 350 pound dry chen system on our ramp truck. We would train at the pit using that dry chem system and to be honest I thought it was just stupid. If there was any wind it would blow the agent away unless you were in a position to use the wind to move the agent over the fire.

    In open air I just see this as wasteful and impractical.

    FyredUp

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    SWLAFireDawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    303

    Default

    For larger dry chem applications, even on petroleum fires , we have found that "hydrochem" applications are the most effective. By carrying the agent in a liquid stream you remove most of the concerns around wind direction and limit the amount of overspray carried downwind. Mainly, you eliminate wasted product.

    By using the proper hydrochem nozzle, with say a 10 pound per second dry chem orifice, you can effectively knock down large petroleum spills or even LPG fires in 3 seconds or less. The drawback is that it is a skill, and must be practiced.

    It is easy to throw tons of product at a fire and call it a successful extinguishment, but in our opinion, a successful extinguishment is when the cost of putting the fire out is less than the material or property saved. Otherwise you could bring in a 3000# skid unit of Purple K, open the 4" discharge, pressure the system, and just walk out the area and wait for the fire to go out. That makes an impressive cloud by the way!

    By the way, aren't most dry chem agents mildly corrosive? I would not want that on my car.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2

    Default

    Interesting new use of dry chem. I used to work at one of the 5 busiest fixed wing bases in the US, of course in socal. Seems like an obvious issue/problem with your system - just ask anyone who has worked ARFF what it's like to blow dry chem into the wind, any strength wind, let alone the kind of wind that drives a fast moving fire. Second, its kinda tough getting tractor-trailers to the fireline in most of the areas wildland fires are fought.

    Back in the day, our MSDS also showed that Phos-Chek (di-ammonium phosphate) caused emphesema in laboratory animals, and requires using a NIOSH respirator when working around the dry powder. Guess you'd have to clear the area before discharging it? What about kicking it up afterwards when you're mucking around in it during mopup. And just like it cracks the beejesus outta your skin by sucking all the moisture out of it, it wreaks havoc on leather boots, too. I like my White's.

    Aerial application of finely misted retardant is still in use today in the form of the MAFFS tankers, the military owned, retardant equiped C130's. It's a modular system that's loaded into the cargo area of the plane when needed and is sprayed with nozzles out the back doors. Problem is it comes out in such a fine mist that it is difficult to hit the target area with any kind of wind. The developement of the constant velocity tank door systems was to get the retardant to the ground in the right concentration in the right drop area. I can only imagine that dry chem from airplanes would end up in the next county. Really, the gum thickener was added to the wet retardant
    just to help it to fall straighter to the ground without dispersing so much during the fall. Vortex turbulence is a bitch!

    Well, not to be a party pooper, but good luck with your system. Maybe it'll be the next best thing since foam/water for firefighting!

  12. #12
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    22

    Default

    Excellent points and observations. I have passed them on to George. George points out that he aims to offer one additional tool into an arsenal of tools. Wind is the friend/enemy with dry application. I have walked the exact spot on Highway 5 where the Day fire jumped from the east side up over and 100,000+ acres on to the west. With 24 tons of powdered MAP (not the heavy crap we used for the nozzle test) the wind would have been an ally and at about 5 mph in the mobile format a 1/2 mile long 100-250 yard wide extention to the Highway fire break couuld have been laid out. We have tested with a tandem 4000 gal. tender running along side with Class A foam mixed into the stream. Nothing, nothing else was on the hill that day to otherwise stop the Day event before jumping 5.

    We have also stood at the Malibu Mansion fire site. The 35 mile an hour wind at the back would have made this machine a dream....24,000 lbs. of MAP to vacuum up afterwards in and around otherwise mostly saved homes. Hours long water streams did nothing....ask Suzzane Sommers. She had nothing but several fireplaces to look at.

    The next video will be narrated, we will lite up MUCH larger targets and use powdered MAP this time. Distances will be visually marked. And yes DAP and MAP are mildly corrosive...(same as the pink stuff).

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    johnny46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    2,094

    Default

    The soundtrack sucked. It amde me angry, and I wanted the fire to win instead of the truck from Mad Max.

  14. #14
    MembersZone Subscriber
    mcaldwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Panorama, British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    3,022

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnny46 View Post
    The soundtrack sucked. It amde me angry, and I wanted the fire to win instead of the truck from Mad Max.

    Lol!

    I was waiting for Knight Rider to come racing through the fog.



    But seriously, it is cool to see someone experienting with some new R&D. Sometimes the final product may not work out, but the lessons learned can be applied to other applications.

    Never argue with an Idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience!

    IACOJ

  15. #15
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    22

    Default

    I was in Israel last year. You all recall when Hezbola sent several thousand Katusha missles into Israel....mostly into the forested north. A thousand small fires were set and Israel mostly used low flying crop dusters with dry MAP powder dropped on the up wind side to quell the fires. They thought is was unusual that we and Australia always mix Phosphates with water.

    And yes...that music does suck. Narration on follow up video with powdered MAP. No music...I promise.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. another SCBA question
    By DJACOBSON in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-21-2006, 11:03 PM
  2. educational video
    By lilyogi in forum Illinois
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-27-2006, 10:16 PM
  3. Comm - seperate & dedicated bands for voice, data and video - Any thoughts?
    By frstrspndrsprtr in forum Hurricane Katrina & Rita Forums
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-15-2005, 10:52 PM
  4. NFPA 1901 Pumper Equipment Requirements
    By Brtengr in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-16-2003, 05:27 PM
  5. Fire Apparatus Manufacturer Logos?
    By yfdbuff in forum Fire Buffs' Firehouse
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-13-2002, 10:32 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