In article , Alan
scribeth thus
In message , Rod Speed
wrote


"Hugo Nebula" wrote in message
. ..
[Default] On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 01:12:21 -0700 (PDT), a certain
chimpanzee, NT , randomly hit the keyboard and
wrote:

What might make a bit more sense is a cheaper domestic version, with
just sprinklers on a pipe, but no storage tank or upgrading of mains
supply.

Ta-da!

http://www.wiltsfire.gov.uk/fire_saf...e_safety_domes
tic_sprinklers.htm

Doesn't demonstrate that it would be cost effective to mandate.

Last thing I need, I prefer to ensure that there isnt anything
likely to produce a fire that a sprinkler is going to help with instead.

And they ignore the problem with water on fat fires which just
happen to be one of the main problems with domestic fires that
are a real threat to life.


Isn't it the smoke that kills in the majority of cases? Would a
sprinkler operate before levels of toxic fumes get to great?




Yes, any competent fireman will tell you that..

I rather expect that if the UK had compulsory fire detection and alert
systems that would have a much better cost benefit overall...

--
Tony Sayer

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Terry Fields wrote:


Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

I used to work at an organisation that was very keen on safety,
including fire safety.

They used to light a large tray of petrol, and get to put it out with
a CO2 extinguisher, including trying it with one that had ho horn
(which was spectacular).

Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.

Terry Fields

One of the Unis in London runs excellent courses - but as you say, petrol is
frowned upon. So they have these nifty burners that pass gas through water
and burn it on top - in a variety of metal boxes that emulate liquite fires,
bin fires and others.

Seems to work quite well as it actually proves quite hard to put out the
"liquid" fire - needed a concerted sweep with a major portion of a CO2
extinguisher to achieve.

I thought foam was best for oil fires.

regards

--
Tim Lamb

Tim Lamb wrote:

In message , Tim Watts
writes
Terry Fields wrote:


Martin Brown wrote:

It isn't unreasonable to
require every household to own and maintain a current CO2 or dry powder
extinguisher for instance. Local councils could provide basic fire
training as beginners aim too high missing the root of the flames.

I used to work at an organisation that was very keen on safety,
including fire safety.

They used to light a large tray of petrol, and get to put it out with
a CO2 extinguisher, including trying it with one that had ho horn
(which was spectacular).

Then the greenies came along and wouldn't let petrol be burned, or CO2
extinguishers be discharged, and it all went to sleep-inducing
lectures instead.

Terry Fields

One of the Unis in London runs excellent courses - but as you say, petrol
is frowned upon. So they have these nifty burners that pass gas through
water and burn it on top - in a variety of metal boxes that emulate
liquite fires, bin fires and others.

Seems to work quite well as it actually proves quite hard to put out the
"liquid" fire - needed a concerted sweep with a major portion of a CO2
extinguisher to achieve.

I thought foam was best for oil fires.

I believe that is the case - but the fire officer got us to try all types
with all fire types to see what the differences were. CO2 was a *lot* of fun


--
Tim Watts

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Isn't it the smoke that kills in the majority of cases? Would a
sprinkler operate before levels of toxic fumes get to great?




Yes, any competent fireman will tell you that..

Not exactly a useful answer..

Would a sprinkler always operate before the toxic smoke killed?
The answer is no.

So the real question is how many lives would be saved by fitting better
detection and alarms v fitting sprinklers v doing nothing.
Would it be better to spend the cash on something else and save more lives?

Its like the dubious railway spending.. millions to fit automatic braking v
repairing the fences.
the one may have saved 20 lives in the last 20 years, the other more than
that.

In message , tony sayer
wrote

That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile
bomb?.

I doubt if it was water. The fire fighting will have been geared to the
event and car fuel fires. There may have also been some driver error as
there should have been a shut off mechanism to stop the fuel leaving the
fuel tank.

And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...

All the people fighting the fire were in fireproof clothing, as was the
driver of the car. The first two marshals at the scene also wear
fireproof balaclavas when the cars are running more exotic fuels.

The main fire fighting vehicles are down the other end of the track
(quarter of a mile away) where there is more of a chance of an engine
letting go at 300+ miles per hour. (the car in the video probably
accelerates to 200+ mph in around 6.5 seconds).

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 03/06/2012 23:17, Alan wrote:
(the car in the video probably accelerates to 200+ mph in around 6.5
seconds).

I'm guessing that's some exotic fuel mix, probably with nitrous in it.
Burn much better than petrol...

Andy

In article , Alan
scribeth thus
In message , tony sayer
wrote

That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile
bomb?.

I doubt if it was water. The fire fighting will have been geared to the
event and car fuel fires. There may have also been some driver error as
there should have been a shut off mechanism to stop the fuel leaving the
fuel tank.

Well the vehicle that turned up at 1:30 into the vid looked very much
like water but whatever it was it didn't seem to last that long or have
much effect! The operator seemed as if he was having some trouble with
it...


And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...

All the people fighting the fire were in fireproof clothing, as was the
driver of the car. The first two marshals at the scene also wear
fireproof balaclavas when the cars are running more exotic fuels.

Well I must have been looking else where then. They had what might have
been fireproof clothing on but were sorely lacking in head protection
unlike the gent who did turn up at 1:30..


The main fire fighting vehicles are down the other end of the track
(quarter of a mile away) where there is more of a chance of an engine
letting go at 300+ miles per hour. (the car in the video probably
accelerates to 200+ mph in around 6.5 seconds).


Yes I know they go at the speed of light but I wouldn't have given that
driver much of a chance if he had been trapped in his car. None of the
fire fighting devices looked as if they were that capable of controlling
a serious blaze. I did note a much larger vehicle turning up at 3:00 at
the end of the vid...
--
Tony Sayer

In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Isn't it the smoke that kills in the majority of cases? Would a
sprinkler operate before levels of toxic fumes get to great?




Yes, any competent fireman will tell you that..

Not exactly a useful answer..


A very good answer from someone who experiences this sort of situation
more then what you do Den...






Would a sprinkler always operate before the toxic smoke killed?
The answer is no.

So the real question is how many lives would be saved by fitting better
detection and alarms v fitting sprinklers v doing nothing.
Would it be better to spend the cash on something else and save more lives?

Its like the dubious railway spending.. millions to fit automatic braking v
repairing the fences.
the one may have saved 20 lives in the last 20 years, the other more than
that.


--
Tony Sayer

On 01/06/2012 16:59, Andrew May wrote:
On 01/06/2012 16:17, Pete Shew wrote:
On 31/05/2012 10:21, Roger Mills wrote:
On 30/05/2012 23:52, John Rumm wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064


Probably necessary in Wales! After all, it is the place where holiday
cottages[1] used to get torched - don't know whether they still do.

[1] Was it Not-the-nine-o'clock-news that parodied the NCB advert?
"Come home to a living fire.
Buy a cottage in Wales!"
But the owners probably turn off the water when they are not there to
avoid flooding due to pipe bursts. No water, no sprinklers.

There is a dedicated storage tank.
Not always.

--
Pete
Lose (rhymes with fuse) is a verb, the opposite of find. Loose (rhymes
with juice) is an adjective, the opposite of tight.

tony sayer wrote:
In article , dennis@home
scribeth thus


"tony sayer" wrote in message
...

Isn't it the smoke that kills in the majority of cases? Would a
sprinkler operate before levels of toxic fumes get to great?




Yes, any competent fireman will tell you that..

Not exactly a useful answer..


A very good answer from someone who experiences this sort of situation
more then what you do Den...

Don't forget dennis started a fire with his cheap induction hob and his
cheap wok.

--
Adam

"Cash" wrote in message ...

John Rumm wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-18266064


John,

As one who over the years has been involved in repairing several fire
damaged dwellings (two with fatalities) [1], I think that sprinklers in
dwellings are a bloody good idea, and is one of those where the value of
fitting them could well far outweigh the costs in lives saved and reduced
injuries. As for the builders shouting about the costs, they will recoupe
these simply by increasing the cost of their houses from eye-watering to
larcency with the extortionate profits they make on them.

Now if they could legislate for householders to have some training in how
a dwelling fire develops when doors are left open at night, along with the
very high temperatures created, and how to escape from a burning building,
that would be a bonus - but then the shoutsof a "nanny state" would be
very loud!

[1] Some of the sights I've seen have been horrendous, and I have a
great respect for those professionals that fight the things (and a great
awareness instilled in myself and family).

How much does such a system cost to retro-fit to an existing, say, 4-bed
house?
Did your house/flat come with a system, or did you add one later?

In message , Andy Champ
wrote
On 03/06/2012 23:17, Alan wrote:
(the car in the video probably accelerates to 200+ mph in around 6.5
seconds).

I'm guessing that's some exotic fuel mix, probably with nitrous in it.
Burn much better than petrol...


I believe that class of car uses petrol. They run 100mph+ slower than
the top-class cars.

--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:41:03 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4



That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile bomb?.

Very tiny fuel tank on those.

Whyever don't they have an airport style foam tender alongside the
track?.

Didn't you see it? Got there too late, in any case.

And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...

That's a valid point, but waiting around while Nomex-clad marshals
turn up might be a bit on the long side. Given that the majority of
marshals are volunteers, and all different shapes and sizes, who would
provide the Nomex? I would hope that the Pod and other venues would
have sufficient funds to Nomex-equip all of its marshalling staff, but
I wouldn't hold my breath. The alternative is for all marshals to buy
their own kit and that would be quite prohibitive for many of them.

Useful in multi-storey or multiple-occupancy.

Not much use in small domestic, the trigger systems would have to
respond quicker than smoke. We still lack sufficient smoke alarms in
the UK, which would be a better use of money.

Lobbyists have been pushing this one for a decade, with all variety of
statistics which will end up as a "if anyone asks" whitepaper filed in
government. Insurers will like it though, re leak/failure applicable
premium greater than payout. Tradesmen will like it re gold plated
body for installation & maintenance. Houses are a vehicle for non-
china job creation, nothing else.

The only viable domestic sprinkler is a foam unit in a kitchen, that I
would go for. Just a matter of aesthetics (remote tank fitted on
cupboard with hose leading to nozzle discretely placed on ceiling).
That combined with natural gas detector re elderly (although reliable
units are expensive and still poisoned after a few years).

In article , Grimly
Curmudgeon scribeth thus
On Sun, 3 Jun 2012 21:41:03 +0100, tony sayer
wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDIngnxr-w4



That is amazing. Using water on a fire that is in effect a mobile bomb?.

Very tiny fuel tank on those.

Even so that fire took hold very quickly..

Whyever don't they have an airport style foam tender alongside the
track?.

Didn't you see it? Got there too late, in any case.


Yes at the 3:00 mins point ..

And permitting marshals to fight the fire using only normal i.e. non
fireproof clothing?...

That's a valid point, but waiting around while Nomex-clad marshals
turn up might be a bit on the long side. Given that the majority of
marshals are volunteers, and all different shapes and sizes, who would
provide the Nomex? I would hope that the Pod and other venues would
have sufficient funds to Nomex-equip all of its marshalling staff, but
I wouldn't hold my breath. The alternative is for all marshals to buy
their own kit and that would be quite prohibitive for many of them.


Well I just wonder what the liability issues are even if they are
volunteers. I work in an organisation that has volunteers but it seemed
according to the H&S person we spoke with they are no different to paid
staff...

So a Marshall gets seriously injured or burnt and sues Santa pod raceway
etc and their insurer says that did they have the correct PPE for that
occasion and they didn't, they'll I suppose are going to what to know
why?.. Y/N?...
--
Tony Sayer

In message , tony sayer
wrote

So a Marshall gets seriously injured or burnt and sues Santa pod raceway
etc and their insurer says that did they have the correct PPE for that
occasion and they didn't, they'll I suppose are going to what to know
why?.. Y/N?...

All those marshals fighting the fire were wearing fireproof clothing.

In my experience any problem on track is dealt with in an efficient
manner. Within 15/30 seconds one or two fire fighting vehicles will be
in attendance, as will be the doctor, ambulance and the vehicle carrying
the cutting gear.
--
Alan
news2009 {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
tony sayer wrote:



Well I just wonder what the liability issues are even if they are
volunteers. I work in an organisation that has volunteers but it seemed
according to the H&S person we spoke with they are no different to paid
staff...

that is my understanding, too.

So a Marshall gets seriously injured or burnt and sues Santa pod raceway
etc and their insurer says that did they have the correct PPE for that
occasion and they didn't, they'll I suppose are going to what to know
why?.. Y/N?...

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

In article , Alan
scribeth thus
In message , tony sayer
wrote

So a Marshall gets seriously injured or burnt and sues Santa pod raceway
etc and their insurer says that did they have the correct PPE for that
occasion and they didn't, they'll I suppose are going to what to know
why?.. Y/N?...

All those marshals fighting the fire were wearing fireproof clothing.


So why do few have extra face protection?. Surely the most vulnerable
part of the body in a fire?..,

In my experience any problem on track is dealt with in an efficient
manner. Within 15/30 seconds one or two fire fighting vehicles will be
in attendance, as will be the doctor, ambulance and the vehicle carrying
the cutting gear.

Well that vid display wasn't that confidence inspiring, perhaps they
rarely have such happenings at the start of the race more so at the
end...

--
Tony Sayer