Burton We're all suffering from that !
Best Stewart On 16 Apr 2012, at 13:58, Ford, Charles wrote: > 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 _______________________________________________ Sprinklerforum mailing list [email protected] http://fireball.firesprinkler.org/mailman/listinfo/sprinklerforum
