LETTERS
DEPARTMENTS
First Impressions
I have just received the new Fire Engineering magazine. When I picked it up my first impression was that it was a new magazine on the market. It looks so different. I am very impressed with what you have done with it. The articles seemed to stand out more and although I never thought the magazine could be improved on, it has been. For some reason I just couldn’t put it down until I had completed going through it all. Keep up the good work.
Daniel M. Contini, Jr.
Fire Chief Palmer, Alaska
Eye Strain. Do You?
I’ll come right out and say it, I do not like the choice of type face in the new format of “Fire Engineering.” You should consider your reading audience and be extremely judicious in the choice of a readable type face, not to pick one simply because it happens to look good in a presentation sheet or that it is supposed to be modern.
The niceties of composition seem to be disappearing since the advent of the high speed computer, tied to photo composition. Maybe it also might be laid on the shoulders of the more recent graduates of the schools of journalism or directly out of the weekend seminars on composition by the equipment manufacturers.
You had an excellent magazine, now someone has spoiled it!
George S. Gibby
Volunteer Fire Fighter West Topsham, Vermont
Lighter and Brighter
I have just picked up your October issue of Fire Engineering and wanted to pass along my compliments and congratulations.
The magazine appears lighter and brighter and a bit less crowded. And I imagine that the subject grouping on your table of contents page will be copied in the months to come by other fire journals. It is much easier to quickly see the areas covered by the articles than it is with just titles.
Philip N. Cooksey
Assistant to the Chief Oklahoma City
Consolidation Issue
The (December 1982) issue of Fire Engineering magazine is an outstanding example of modern fire journalism. I am so pleased to see the fire magazines taking the controversial issues (Police-Fire Consolidation), and dealing with them in a face-to-face manner.
Just as a matter of course, I would like to tell you that I have developed a rather extensive library on police-fire integration, and if any cities that you come across need that as a resource, please give them my name. We have spent so much time patting ourselves on the back over the last few decades that we fail to realize that someone is chipping away at the foundations of fire protection. Keep up the good work.
R.J. Coleman
Director of Fire Protection San Clemente, California
Enlightenment on Upkeep
I was very pleased to see that the subject of truck maintenance was the main topic of the January 1983 issue of Fire Engineering. Our fire department has a very satisfactory and proven maintenance program, but your article enlightened me to various ways that we can improve the upkeep of our apparatus.
Also in the January issue, I read with great interest the article entitled “Oil Analysis Allows Longer Change Intervals”. I was disappointed, however, to find that no further information on the product was included in the article, i.e. approximate cost, distributors of the product, etc. How may I obtain this information?
Once again, I would like to express my enjoyment of the January issue of Fire Engineering I would also appreciate any information you can give me on the oil quality analyzer mentioned in your magazine.
George W. Scholl
Fire Chief
Vienna, West Virginia
Editor’s Note: Many readers have requested more information about the source of the oil analyzer mentioned in the above article. The company was not named because our main interest editorially was to make you aware of an idea, not to sell it. The editor’s selection of an article is always based entirely on what is useful or thought -provoking to the fire service, without commercial considerations. However it seems that in this case the editorial independence was too great The manufacturer of the oil analyzer is Northern Instrument Corp., 6680 No. Highway 49, Lino Lake, Mn. 55014, 800-328-2433.
Pride
Gene Carlson’s remarks on “Pride Makes a Professional” (December, 1982) could not have been better expressed. The key word is “Pride” — in the department, fellow members, the community, and also in oneself.
John Mueller
Lake Geneva. Wisconsin
LETTERS
Foam Application…
In the December, 1982 issue, the article entitled “Are You Really Prepared?” made several valid points regarding foam usage, but there are some clarifications that should be made.
I would first refer those who want more information on the whole subject of foam to the excellent article in your December, 1980 issue.
Even there, however, the subject of application rates was only touched lightly. In using foam, it is necessary to apply it faster than it is being consumed. Different types of foam, different modes of application and different types of fuel vary the optimal application rate.
As an example, a foam system on a tank which delivers all of the finished foam to the surface to be covered requires an application rate of 0.1 gpm/ sq. ft. If foam delivery is to be by hose lines with consequent shortfall and wind effects, an application rate of 0.16 gpm/sq. ft. might be required. The NFPA 11 and 11B standards differentiate between protein and AFFF foams in regard to application rates for spill fires, using 0.16 for the former and 0.1 for the latter. But, it also provides for increasing the 0.1 rate if the fuel has a flashpoint below 100 degrees. Polar solvents, which require special concentrates/ percentages, may push the application rate into the 0.2 gpm/sq. ft. range.
In the reported fire, the area to be covered was 16,800 square feet. Presumably, the reported dimensions did not describe a rectangle. Using a rate of 0.16 gpm/sq. ft., all 3 percent foam yields the 70 gallons of foam concentrate figure in the article, but it needs to be understood that this is a rate per minute. The NFPA recommendation for such an operation is that you have enough foam on hand to run for 10 minutes, in this case 700 gallons of foam using the same assumptions.
From the foregoing and the facts reported, it can be asked if the 3000 gallons of gasoline were saved by 272 gallons of various foams (including high expansion) applied over 70 minutes or if the spill fire mostly burned off and the runoff and tank fire were extinguished? To avoid pouring costly concentrate down the drain, it is necessary to train our personnel to estimate the foam needs while protecting exposures (and perhaps write off areas of the fire problem as being unsaveable), marshal our resources and then make an all-out attack on the defined area.
Roy C. Gelbhaus
Training Officer Panama Canal Commission
LETTERS
More on Foam…
Every day, more and more departments, both paid and volunteer, are finding out that they really aren’t prepared to attack a flammable liquid fire or, if they are, they’re using incredible amounts of foam. Sometimes the fire burns out before they even get set up
Your article entitled, “Are You Really Prepared? “. December, 1982, is a good example, in that article, 272 gallons of foam concentrate were expended on a 16,520-square-foot fire. Using NFPA 11 as a reference, we find that 16 1/2, 49 1/2, or 99 gallons of foam concentrate applied properly would do the job.
Why such a wide range? It all depends on the percentage of the agent used. Which is the best concentrate? The answer as far as AFFF and hydrocarbon fires is concerned is 1 percent! Why? Only 16 1/2 gallons of foam concentrate would be needed to handle that 16,520square-foot fire; that’s three times less than 3 percent and six times less than 6 percent. As far as cost, 1 percent is a third less expensive than 6 percent and 15 percent less than 3 percent.
So what does all this mean? One 5gallon pail of I percent foam mixed with 500 gallons of water (just dump it in the tank and use whatever size stream the fire dictates) will produce enough foam to knock down 5000 square feet of fire. Whereas 6 percent will knock down 833 square feet and 3 percent will knock down 1666 square feet.
In your article, any of the arriving pumpers or tankers, supplied with four pails of 1 percent foam with the proper amount of water (1650 gallons) would probably have taken care of the fire.
The intent of this letter is not to armchair quarterback, but to simply suggest a better, simpler, cheaper and safer method of foam application.
One way to make the attack on a flammable liquid fire even better would be to team up 1 percent AFFF or, for that matter, any AFFF concentrate with an automatic nozzle. By doing so, you can enjoy up to a 66 percent increase in expanded foam over conventional nozzles.
If your department, like the one in the article, carries 10 gallons of low expansion foam (AFFF, fluoroprotein, protein, etc.) you’ve got between 1-3/4 to 3 ½ minutes of fire attack using a 95gpm nozzle and 3 or 6 percent foam.
Ten gallons of 1 percent and the same nozzle provides 10 1/2 minutes of attack capability.
If these figures upset you, then you’d better do some research or change the percentage of foam concentrate you’re using. The time is now to improve our methods of attack. The way to accomplish this is through technique and technology and not overwhelming and wasting! If we don’t learn from the past, we can’t help but repeat it!
Larry H. Stevens
Deputy State Fire Marshal
Director of Fire Service Training Section
Carson City, Nevada
Hydrant Hook-up Solution
As a subscriber to Fire Engineering for over 25 years, I have seen a number of changes and approaches — some wise and some otherwise.
I was extremely disappointed, however, in the article on hydrant hookups (“Maximum Water Flow, Minimum Manpower”) in the December, 1982 issue. It hardly represents the “state-ofthe-art” approach one would expect from a magazine of your stature.
Aside from the use of equipment already possessed by the department in question, the hook-up described has no merit. It does not make use of the 4 1/2inch connection (which would supply more water at a lower friction loss), uses 50-foot lines (increasing friction losses), requires a line to be shut down to switch to pumper supply, and presents a potential traffic hazard or obstacle with its 50 foot “butterfly” supply lines.
A number of departments utilize the newer four-way valves, which provide maximum water supply and uninterrupted flows while switching from hydrant to pumper supply, (in fact, Baltimore has had this capability for almost a century.) Use of large diameter hose and a second supply line with a gate valve or 2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 2 1/2-inch Siamese further enhance the capability to supply large volumes quickly for in-line pumping and later volume pumping at the hydrant.
Suffice it to say that the article advocates a hook-up which is not the simplest and most effective method of affording the first-in company a volume water supply.
Richard A. Greenstein
Bowie, Md.
Siamese Suggestion
The articles in Fire Engineering usually provide excellent solutions to pressing problems although sometimes a good idea should be taken a bit further. I feel that an article in the December 1982 issue, “Maximum Water Flow, Minimum Manpower” — falls into this category.
When I first skimmed through the article, my immediate reaction was, “This idea is at least 15 years behind the times. Haven’t they heard of four-way hydrant valves or large diameter hose”?
Continued on page 46
LETTERS
Continued from page 14
Curious, I decided to read it through from the beginning, feeling that I must be missing something. I picked-up on the emphasis of “using existing equipment” therefore I now read the article with proper perspective. However, I still felt uncomfortable with a procedure that required the disconnecting and changing of numerous lines before the evolution could be considered complete. It seemed to present too much of an opportunity for something to go wrong.
I feel the best solution is the use of a four-way hydrant valve, preferably used in conjunction with at least four-inch hose. However, in keeping with the theory of “using existing equipment” a better method came to mind by using the same equipment plus one more piece – a clapper-valve Siamese (2 1/2 x 2 1/2 x 2 1/2). The clappered Siamese adds dependability and simplification.
Starting from scratch, female swivel of the Siamese is attached to one of the gates of the gated wye. That gate is left in the open position while the remaining gate on the wye is left closed. This actually creates a totally effective four way valve. Next, the no. 1 supply line is attached to the male outlet fitting on the Siamese and the entire assembly is mounted on the back step The rest of the “hydrant kit” consists of the single gate (loose) and the hydrant wrench, both of which can be kept in a canvas bag and tied to the end of the supply hose.
To use the assembly, the gated wye is attached to one hydrant outlet and the single gate is attached to the other outlet, when the hydrant is turned on, water will flow immediately into the supply line and to the pumper at the fire scene.
The second supply could be laid dry or can be connected to the single gate on the hydrant to establish two supply lines. This would require two hose clamps at the pumper but in many cases the two lines provide an adequate water supply for a first-in pumper.
If it becomes necessary to place a pumper at the hydrant, the no. 1 supply line never has to be shut down. The supply hose to the hydrant, pumper is connected between the remaining outlet on the gated wye and a suction inlet on the pumper. A discharge line from the pumper is then connected to the remaining female on the Siamese. Now by opening the proper gates, water flows through the completed circuit and pressure can now be increased on supply line no. 1.
LETTERS
Next, the single gate on the hydrant can be shut down and supply line no. 2 can be changed to a discharged port on the pumper and a second supply line can be connected between the single hydrant gate and the hydrant pumper.
I think that this slight modification of an essentially good idea makes this evolution simpler and more dependable, i.e„ the primary supply line to the fire scene pumper never need be disconnected or interrupted.
Karl H. Meyer, Jr.
Associate Director of Fire/
Occupational Safety Newark, New jersey
Writer’s Response
Regarding my article “Maximum Waterflow, Minimum Manpower” there seems to be some confusion as to why we use this method. My method was instituted to use “only existing equipment” found on almost every engine. Existing equipment varies in each department, but normally the basic equipment found will be 2 1/2 or 3-inch hose, two gates, and a hydrant wrench. Clappered Siameses may be found on some engines but normally not on all. Fourway hydrant valves are surely the abnormal equipment to be found, but is truly the way to go.
As a fire instructor in five New England states, I find myself usually faced with the above basic equipment coupled with shrinking operating budgets, some being under $10,000 annually. Departments with career firefighters, especially Massachusetts, were facing layoffs, never mind the addition of new equipment.
So, in this time of economic depression, most fire departments have to be frugal when they allocate their funds.
This means back to basics whenever possible, so department funds can be utilized for priority equipment.
For example, I would rather purchase one 3/4 or 2-inch attack hose with automatic nozzles prior to purchasing fourway hydrant valves or clappered Siameses for say three engines. Therefore, my article provides departments having only “basic equipment” a proven option to provide maximum water flows immediately, the only requirement is practice. Everyone realizes there are easier methods, but they normally require substantial expense to outfit a department, — remember ALL engines should be standardized.
Joseph B. Gervais
Deputy Chief
Ware Fire Department
Massachusetts
