I wouldnt consider this an accuratre test, the fire seems "suppressed" but not extinguished. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel....fire sprinkler are the real answer.
This test is not very convincing on it's own. If they could do a comparison with automatic sprinklers of various densities, it would help to show if it is better or just as effective as sprinklers.
And still the fire services and the Governments advisor have not looked at water mist for serious fire fighting. Pity that we do all these tests and we still try and throw loads of water at the problem.
Great demonstration of an under estimated and miss understood method of fire control. Water mist works and is so effective, we have portable systems for fire response - Richard Baker web site nimbus2010
Great demonstration of an under estimated and miss understood method of fire control. Water mist works and is so effective, we have portable systems for fire response - Richard Baker web site nimbus2010
@bruceblazo From my experience, a small system like this would release (at most) a total of 1 cubic metre of Nitrogen over the total discharge of the water mist. This is about as much inert gas as a large (5kg) CO2 extinguisher emits. Even if released all at once, this amount of gas would only be a hazard in a very confined space. Released over several minutes, as a gas entrained in the water, the N2 is easily dispersed, and the fumes from the fire are a far bigger hazard.
I wouldnt consider this an accuratre test, the fire seems "suppressed" but not extinguished. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel....fire sprinkler are the real answer.
MegaObamasux 3 days ago
Is the 5mm/min per square centimeter? I read a typical sprinkler can put out anyhwere from 20-40 gallons per minute.
LukeL007 5 days ago
Isn't it sad that people can't see (want to) the evidence before their eyes. Water mist works.
NIMBUSFIREEU 3 weeks ago
This test is not very convincing on it's own. If they could do a comparison with automatic sprinklers of various densities, it would help to show if it is better or just as effective as sprinklers.
dotsontom 1 month ago
Hmm...well, the fire is suppressed, but it's obviously not put out.
hebneh 2 months ago
@theirryxxtheirry nice try to get sum likes...
uke67 2 months ago
thats my desk!
thierryxxthierry 3 months ago
with this kind of fire, the room temperature would have activated the fire sprinkler sooner
psnavata 5 months ago
And still the fire services and the Governments advisor have not looked at water mist for serious fire fighting. Pity that we do all these tests and we still try and throw loads of water at the problem.
NIMBUSFIREEU 5 months ago
show the same effect with coldfire. just for shiggles
wcresponder 7 months ago
Crap!
Corzayy 9 months ago
Great demonstration of an under estimated and miss understood method of fire control. Water mist works and is so effective, we have portable systems for fire response - Richard Baker web site nimbus2010
NIMBUSFIREEU 9 months ago
Great demonstration of an under estimated and miss understood method of fire control. Water mist works and is so effective, we have portable systems for fire response - Richard Baker web site nimbus2010
NIMBUSFIREEU 9 months ago
These systems use nitrogen to pressurize the water. How much nitrogen is released in the protected area and does it pose a suffocation hazard?
bruceblazo 1 year ago
@bruceblazo From my experience, a small system like this would release (at most) a total of 1 cubic metre of Nitrogen over the total discharge of the water mist. This is about as much inert gas as a large (5kg) CO2 extinguisher emits. Even if released all at once, this amount of gas would only be a hazard in a very confined space. Released over several minutes, as a gas entrained in the water, the N2 is easily dispersed, and the fumes from the fire are a far bigger hazard.
EnragedPantoGoose 1 year ago