|
13 Oct 07 - 02:39 AM (#2170089) Subject: BS: Super Fire Protection From: JohnInKansas I considered putting this in the "newspaper" thread, but with the number of people we have who live in areas subject to forest/prairie fires, and the likelihood that it may take some time and investigation to get the straight poop on this, it seemed to deserve the prominence of a separate thread. Fire-retardant, slimy gel can save homes [quoting] Super-absorbent polymer provides 'water bubble' before fires reach houses The Associated Press Updated: 8:50 p.m. CT Oct 9, 2007 HOT SPRINGS, S.D. - It was the most intense fire ever recorded in the Black Hills National Forest, but nearly all homes coated with a slimy gel were saved while dozens of houses nearby burned to the ground. The gel was a super-absorbent polymer that can hold many times its weight in water and clings well to vertical surfaces and glass. It is mixed with water and then can be sprayed on homes with a truck-mounted hose or a backpack apparatus, or dropped from a plane. The substance is relatively new to firefighting, having been developed about a decade ago, and is not widely used. But some firefighters who have tried it are impressed, saying it offers longer-lasting protection than the foam retardants that have been around for many years. [end quote] I've quoted about a fourth of the article, so those interested will want to click it up and read the whole thing. This stuff is not really as new as the article makes it seem, and has received positive response from a number of firefighting agencies. As the article does indicate, in areas where an "official" agency has not yet picked up on it, one may need to be prepared to self-apply. Some cleanup is required after a successful use, and it might be worthwhile to try to get agreement in advance from insurers (among others) that it's worth pushing for, and maybe the application and cleanup could be covered by insurance(?). In some areas, forming a local/neighborhood co-op to get the applicator(s) and stock the gel might certainly be worth considering. The much lower cost of application equipment, compared to older foams etc., might be persuasive when one talks it up to insurance agencies and to local fire control agencies. Local conditions may make it less suitable/effective than in the areas that are praising it now, but that's for local people to investigate and decide. John |
|
13 Oct 07 - 08:06 AM (#2170197) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Rapparee Our FD is looking into it. Cost, as with so much, is an object. The fact that a homeowner can get it is attractive, at least to me. |
|
13 Oct 07 - 08:14 AM (#2170203) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: McGrath of Harlow Maybe what's needed to get the idea into circulation is a superhero "Gel-man", who would be made of the stuff, or covered in it, and he'd go round rescuing people... |
|
13 Oct 07 - 08:19 AM (#2170206) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: bobad I think this stuff made an appearance in a 1958 movie co-starring Steve McQueen, it wasn't too popular with the townfolk. |
|
13 Oct 07 - 08:19 AM (#2170208) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Rapparee A think a youth group, the Gel Scouts, might be better. They could sell cookies to raise money. |
|
13 Oct 07 - 08:57 PM (#2170589) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Ebbie If developed further would it be feasible to spread on brush and trees well ahead of an oncoming forest or grass fire? |
|
13 Oct 07 - 09:02 PM (#2170590) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: GUEST,leeneia Thanks for spreading the word, John. It sounds like a good idea. Ebbie, I don't think it would work to spread it on bushes and trees, because a big fire can spread via grass and underground roots. It would just re-appear on the other side of the sprayed vegetation. |
|
13 Oct 07 - 10:16 PM (#2170638) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Peace And, it washes off after the fire has passed. It is quite costly, however. I expect it will be something that homeowners will have to get themselves, and maybe insurance companies will reduce premiums or some such thing. |
|
13 Oct 07 - 11:41 PM (#2170680) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: katlaughing Thanks, John, for the info! |
|
14 Oct 07 - 12:08 AM (#2170688) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: open mike our water tender has a compressed foam system..(CAFS)and the foam is able to stay on vertical walls, etc. it also does confine and stop the spread of fire for flammable liquids which are spilled. It also stretches the capacity of the water so one gallon covers as much as it used to take 10 or 100 gallons. This is great in areas where there are not hydrants, and the water has to be trucked to the site. the tanker holds 3600 gallons of water and 80 gallons of foam concentrate. There was a manufacturer who had a small pick up truck sized unit who did a demonstration for our fire dept. when we were in the market for this system. I will let you know if i come across the name of the company or the apparatus. |
|
14 Oct 07 - 01:43 AM (#2170705) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: JohnInKansas Part of the resistance to more widespread use may be just with the concept. This is a fire protection system, and for some fire departments the notion that they're there to put out the fires may be more deeply ingrown than is obvious. The fire department doesn't install sprinkler systems either. Maybe your local "security systems" people could sell a contract to appear at just the right time to slather up your house, as a rider on your intrusion alarm systems and neighborhood patrols? The linked article mentions equipment price: Sabo has developed a $12,0001-to-$20,000 gel system that can be attached to fire trucks and recently has begun to sell it to fire departments. (By comparison, a compressed-air foam system for a fire truck, which is what most fire departments use to protect homes, costs about $80,000.) The gel is made by such companies as Barricade International of Hobe Sound, Fla. 1 I paid about half that for my first (home office) laser printer, about 15 years ago. [It had a few accessories.] A vague reference to "a few hundred dollars" to protect a home seems to be the only reference to the cost of the gel(?) - in this article. John |
|
14 Oct 07 - 05:25 PM (#2171098) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: McGrath of Harlow Sounds like it might be a pretty good business opportunity, being a gel applicator racing around in front of advancing forest fires and protecting houses. Sort of like Ghostbusters. |
|
15 Oct 07 - 02:03 AM (#2171316) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: JohnInKansas "in front of advancing forest fires" probably is a key requirement.(?) John |
|
15 Oct 07 - 06:20 AM (#2171407) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: McGrath of Harlow Timing is everything in business enterprise. |
|
15 Oct 07 - 11:04 AM (#2171559) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Uncle_DaveO and it might be worthwhile to try to get agreement in advance from insurers (among others) that it's worth pushing for, and maybe the application and cleanup could be covered by insurance(?). The insurance companies just MIGHT pay for cleanup, but I doubt they'd pay for application. Why would I say that? A few years ago we had a massive windstorm in our area. We had two big trees down, and were without power for five days. I bought as much dry ice as I could and put it in our chest freezer, trying to save the food. When I tried to make a damage claim, which included the cost of the dry ice, I was told that "It's the policyholder's responsibility to minimize damage from an event." I strongly suspect they would consider the application of this stuff to be an effort to minimize damage from a fire, which is the responsibility of and should be paid for by the homeowner. Dave Oesterreich |
|
15 Oct 07 - 11:11 AM (#2171562) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Peace "This is a fire protection system, and for some fire departments the notion that they're there to put out the fires may be more deeply ingrown than is obvious." Good point. Fire departments do a great deal of volunteer work in terms of making sure people have smoke alarms, escape plans, advice that brush be cut back from the house/structure at urban/rural interfaces, etc. However, it's not the departments job to go replace batteries in alarms or cut the brush, etc. |
|
15 Oct 07 - 08:14 PM (#2171965) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: folk1e Why not have building regs that state you must install such a system in houses that are "at risk"? Even having a portable unit owned (and used) by several householders would make sense. But there again so would building from non-flamable materials! |
|
15 Oct 07 - 08:27 PM (#2171971) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Peace That has been the rub with the whole damned deal. We know that sprinklers are effective. We do ask the question: "You want twenty/hundred/two hundred gallons from your sprinkler or 20,000 gallons from us?" The answer: "But that increases the cost of the house . . . ." |
|
15 Oct 07 - 08:38 PM (#2171976) Subject: RE: BS: Super Fire Protection From: Peace One more thing. Fire departments do not have the 'influence' many people think they do. It took over 30 years of lobbying to get a law in effect that motorists have to slow to 35 mph/60 km per hour when passing a scene where emergency workers are dealing with a scene. We initially wanted that to be 30 mph or 50 km hr. WE would love it if houses were sold with sprinkler systems installed. It would save us lots of lives, because the new building materials are dangerous and structures collapse much faster than they used to. BUT, if anyone wants that stuff changed, get in touch with those folks who establish building codes, etc. They are the ones to ask. Not us. |