I did mean methyl bromide. Methly chloride burns! Note to self check memory for accuracy
C. Burton Ford Nicet Certified Special Hazards IV Fire alarm IV Sprinkler III Water Based Inspections I NFPA Certified Fire Protection Specialist [CFPS] Cintas Fire Protection 1038 Conshohocken Road Conshohocken ,PA 19428 610-233-1400 Fax 610-233-1401 ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stewart Kidd [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 4:06 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents I have done some literature research on these systems over the years, first for the protection of the car shuttles on Eurotunnel and more recently when one of my clients was being bounced into using them for a small power generation facility in Ukraine. Aerosol systems were developed in the 1970's in the USSR and Israel for the protection of the engine compartments of armoured fighting vehicles ('tanks'). There is quite a lot of research indicating that the systems (when they operate) do extinguish or suppress liquid fires. One of their claimed strengths is a very low maintenance burden. But there is at least anecdotal evidence to suggest that their failure rate is higher than that for other fire protection systems. I've now rejected them on several occasions because: 1. I have real problems approving a fire protection system which relies on an explosive device to generate a fire fighting agent. 2. There are significant contamination and clean up issues. (I handled a case a few years ago when the wilful discharge of a simple 6kg dry chemical extinguisher in a church resulted in clean-up costs of more than $500,000.) 3. There are life safety issues for areas which may be occupied from time to time. 4. I've yet to find an insurer who is comfortable with their use. I really don't believe these things provide anything which is not done better by the inert gases or the newer chemical agents such as Halotron. (Don't get me started on FM 200 and its corrosive by products). I'll fully support Burton's sentiments if he'll add Methyl Bromide ! Stewart Kidd Loss Prevention Consultancy Ltd - in his personal capacity On 13 Apr 2012, at 20:08, Ford, Charles wrote: > Why are we trying to compare aerosol to Halon? ( 1301, I presume not the more > toxix 1211 or 2402). > If we must consider a dirty agent, compare it to dry chemical, say ABC. > The Ansul I-101 book shows UL listing for total flood as low as 64 gm /cubic > meter. Is that really relevant? > What is the UL listing for aerosols? > Total flooding hazard for DC need not be airtight either. > If I were selling aerosol protection, I might be convinced to remain within > the space for a sales movie, but our customers like to look at the MSDS > before exposing their employees to any chemical. I doubt any particulate > agent would pass muster for inhalation. > In addition, virtually every Special Hazard system has : > Manual release > Aubible/ visual alarms > Time delays for evacuation > Automatic shutdown of processes and or air handiling. > Detection is always custom tailored to fit specific hazards and the expected > fire devlopment and often fairly expensive. > > IMHO, until tested, listed and accepted, aerosols belong in the same museum > with carbontetrachloride balls, Methyl Chloride spheres, ABC/Halon 1211 balls > and assorted dry chemical tanks with sprinkler heads attached. > > Call me fuddy duddy > > > C. Burton Ford > Nicet Certified > Special Hazards IV > Fire alarm IV > Sprinkler III > Water Based Inspections I > NFPA Certified Fire Protection Specialist [CFPS] > Cintas Fire Protection > 1038 Conshohocken Road > Conshohocken ,PA 19428 > 610-233-1400 > Fax 610-233-1401 > ________________________________________ > From: [email protected] > [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili > [[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, April 13, 2012 1:40 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents > > Thanks for the replies, > Look at a video showing the release of Aerosol unit while people are > breathing normally. > http://www.aerohub.com.my/safe-to-human.html > > They claim to be three times more effective than halon and need only > 100gr/cubic meter. > > Considering the same fire alarm system, while using aerosol instead of > Halocarbon/Inert agents will save about 30% , so can I offer for normally > unoccupied areas such as pump rooms, flammable liquid storage, book storage > rooms, ... > > I am not sure if aerosol units like Pyrogen have the same level of protection > and reliability like FM-200, what do you think? > > Best, > Reza > Sarian System Novin Co., Ltd. > www.sarian.ir > > > --- On Fri, 4/13/12, Russell & Carol Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: > > > From: Russell & Carol Gregory <[email protected]> > Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents > To: [email protected] > Date: Friday, April 13, 2012, 8:06 AM > > > We used to call this product "Russian Rocket Fuel" as it seems to have been > developed by the Soviet Soyuz project. > The use of Aerosol units like Pyrogen or Micro-K is OK in the enclosed > flammable liquid risks or electrical switchboard cupboards or small > electrical rooms. The small particles produced by the rapid combustion of > the chemical do leave a dusty residue which may be harmful to disc drives > and other small electronic componentry. So it would seem less suitable for > Computer Rooms etc. > The major use in NZ has been in small vessel engine rooms, flammable liquid > storage rooms and the like where dust or residue is of lesser concern. > > With multiple canister installations the integrity and security of the > actuation firing circuits becomes an issue. These must be duplicated, > supervised and should not be run together. The first unit that fires may > cause a circuit disconnect before later units are fired thus all units may > not discharge. > > The ongoing testing and maintenance does not allow checking of the firing > device inside the container thus one can never be certain that it is going > to work. This was the same problem with pyrotechnic squib actuators but at > least you could replace them at 3 - 5 year intervals and actually fire them > all off when replacing them. Micro-K didn't use an electrical filament but > was set off by pulling a friction plug inside the chemical. This enable all > actuation components to be tested up to the friction plug connection. > > I attended training courses on Pyrogen when it first came out, but have > always been concerned that it can be over sold and used in unsuitable > applications because of the cheaper initial cost. > > Kind Regards, > Russell > > Russell Gregory Ph 03 338 4853 > Christchurch, New Zealand > e-mail [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nicky > Marshall > Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 11:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents > > I have been looking into Aerosol systems lately so that we can advise > clients if these are suitable for their use. > > As mentioned below NFPA 2010 does cover the 'system' and multiple aerosol > units can cover reasonable size rooms. > I still have concerns about the dust/particles and it is my opinion that > this is not a replacement for gaseous systems. Suppliers advise the > particles are not of concern but there is also advice that it is not > suitable for applications such as tape storage arrays. > > I have come to a conclusion of sorts that this is a cheaper option for those > wanting to protect information rather than equipment. > A full system with alarms and warning would be preferred (as per NFPA 2010), > but even cheaper still is just the aerosol unit with no alarms which is > obviously a significantly cheaper option. But with no monitoring and > alarms, if no one knows the units have discharged in an unmanned room - what > is being achieved? Air handling remains on and the extinguishing capacity > reduced .... > > If I was recommending to a client, it would be gaseous system, aerosol > system, aerosol units. In that order - decreasing cost gives decreasing > protection and benefits. Not to say that aerosol is less effective in fire > suppression as I have not been able to find that type of information. > > Regarding the comment about large companies not producing this type of > product, it also made me more wary of the product. However I do note that > Ansul/Tyco used to produce an Aerosol known as Micro-K. Not sure what > happened to it. Maybe someone else on the forum could comment on this? > > > Kind regards > > > Nicky Marshall > Branch Manager (Blenheim) > > Protech Design > Specialist Fire Protection Consultants > 03 579 5577 > 021 433 488 > skype: nicky-marshall > 105A Alabama Rd, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201, New Zealand PO Box 4022, > Redwood Village, Blenheim 7242, New Zealand > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Friday, 13 April 2012 1:10 a.m. > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents > > Reza my friend haven't heard from you in a long while, E-mail me off the > forum. > > NFPA 2010 addresses aerosol fire extinguishing systems. It would seem > however that the NFPA 2010 systems are a bit different than what Firepro and > the others you mentioned are offering. > > Firepro is actually UL Listed for use in the US and approved for use by > other international governing agencies. The technology has actually been > around for more than 30 years so it's not new. > > The market for aerosol may be small so if there are not substantial sales > the big companies who are already invested in other means of extinguishment > probably will leave it for someone else. It's not a matter of them not > "approving" aerosol since they can't approve of an item, they can only > choose to offer a similar item or not. > > I would agree that the aerosol extinguishing has its place in small > enclosures and such. But cost and practicality for larger volumes would > have to be analyzed. > > > Craig L. Prahl, CET > Fire Protection > CH2MHILL > Lockwood Greene > 1500 International Drive > Spartanburg, SC 29304-0491 > Direct - 864.599.4102 > Fax - 864.599.8439 > CH2MHILL Extension 74102 > [email protected] > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Reza Esmaeili > Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 8:30 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Aerosol vs Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents > > Hi all, > Some companies are persuading the end users to use condensed aerosol fire > suppression systems instead of Halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents for > local application or total flooding protection. > I have seen many end users buying aerosol systems for server rooms/archive > rooms and don't use any other kind of protections. > > The big companies like Tyco, Kidde, Fike & Chemetron are not offering > aerosol systems and usually say it is not a good and even toxic! they > say halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents are the only choice. > > Aerosol manufactures are usually Asian companies like www.pyrogen.com.my > (Malaysia)or www.firepro.info (Cyprus) www.granit-salamandra.ru (Russia) > with even UL listed products. > Aerosol manufactures say this a new technology and much better than others, > they say the big companies like Tyco, Kidde, Fike & Chemetron have already > invested too much on halocarbon/Inert extinguishing agents and that's why > they are not approving aerosol systems. > > I personally think aerosol fire extinguishing generators are good for some > small spaces like electrical cabinets, but they can't be used as a total > flooding solution instead of FM-200 system in a server room as they can't > penetrate everywhere like FM-200 and also they are not clean that much. > > Thanks for sharing your valuable experience & professional comments. > Reza > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachment > s/20120412/9fff7bda/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > <http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/private/sprinklerforum/attachments/20120413/50a95f1c/attachment.html> > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum > > > This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be > confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a > named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, > print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of > the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply > to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was > misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any > attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this > error is appreciated. > > _______________________________________________ > Sprinklerforum mailing list > [email protected] > http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum This e-mail transmission contains information that is intended to be confidential and privileged. If you receive this e-mail and you are not a named addressee you are hereby notified that you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy or disseminate this communication without the consent of the sender and that doing so is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please delete and otherwise erase it and any attachments from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
