11-24-2021, 08:56 PM
At the risk of starting what has been a bit of a "ruffling of neck hackles" on 'another forum' where this topic was beat up...allow me to offer my opinions.
My opinion is based on my 30 year firefighting career, which comes with education, experience, and real-live scenarios, drills, etc. In other words...WE played with a lot of fire and blew stuff up! LOL
The PROTENG fire extinguishing weenie, as I call it, was the item of contention among the group. While I would admit that something "MAY BE" better than nothing, to rely and trust upon something that you EXPECT to extinguish any and every fire, is just not smart. In fact, it can lead you to a false sense of security, and here's why:
Agents such as what is contained in the PROTENG or similar device have to do 2 things; one, they must be activated by heat of the fire, and two, their agent must reach the SEAT of the fire.
Here lay the argument: individuals were paying quite a bit of money to have these "strung" along engine compartments, bays, inverters, etc. without regard to the above factors.
The "demonstrations" that were originally done in Europe, showed these things exploding when placed in a CONFINED SPACE, WITH DIRECT FLAME CONTACT. So, sure...without a doubt...they are extremely effective. Heck, they were SO close, that they practically BLEW the fire out from the popping of the tube; the agent probably had little to with the extinguishment.
So, to recap, extinguishing agents (whatever they may be), must reach the base of the flame or the point of combustion. In a confined space, the old Halon systems were MAGIC for computer fires. Only problem was the toxicity. But, point is, if the extinguishing system can be located WITHIN the confined space, PLUS be activated EARLY by direct flame, then you've got a very effective system.
So, to spend hundreds of dollars draping tubes OUTSIDE of an enclosure, where not only are they NOWHERE NEAR THE HEAT/FLAME TO ACTIVATE, let alone be close enough for the agent to REACH THE SEAT OF THE FIRE, is something that I cannot assure will be effective at all.
Finally, even if you WERE to place any auto-extinguisher into an enclosed space, the heat AND fuel need to be separated. Hence, on any fuel-based fire, such as a gas engine, shutting off the fuel will be just as important as extinguishing the flame and reducing the heat.
Sorry, this reply turned into Fire Tech 101...and that wasn't my intention. I hope you can understand my concern that people, I feel, are being taken advantage of due to fear and lack of knowledge. And, I'd hate that to happen on my watch.
Here is a video I made just to help address some these concerns with KNOWLEDGE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1tICZZss
My opinion is based on my 30 year firefighting career, which comes with education, experience, and real-live scenarios, drills, etc. In other words...WE played with a lot of fire and blew stuff up! LOL
The PROTENG fire extinguishing weenie, as I call it, was the item of contention among the group. While I would admit that something "MAY BE" better than nothing, to rely and trust upon something that you EXPECT to extinguish any and every fire, is just not smart. In fact, it can lead you to a false sense of security, and here's why:
Agents such as what is contained in the PROTENG or similar device have to do 2 things; one, they must be activated by heat of the fire, and two, their agent must reach the SEAT of the fire.
Here lay the argument: individuals were paying quite a bit of money to have these "strung" along engine compartments, bays, inverters, etc. without regard to the above factors.
The "demonstrations" that were originally done in Europe, showed these things exploding when placed in a CONFINED SPACE, WITH DIRECT FLAME CONTACT. So, sure...without a doubt...they are extremely effective. Heck, they were SO close, that they practically BLEW the fire out from the popping of the tube; the agent probably had little to with the extinguishment.
So, to recap, extinguishing agents (whatever they may be), must reach the base of the flame or the point of combustion. In a confined space, the old Halon systems were MAGIC for computer fires. Only problem was the toxicity. But, point is, if the extinguishing system can be located WITHIN the confined space, PLUS be activated EARLY by direct flame, then you've got a very effective system.
So, to spend hundreds of dollars draping tubes OUTSIDE of an enclosure, where not only are they NOWHERE NEAR THE HEAT/FLAME TO ACTIVATE, let alone be close enough for the agent to REACH THE SEAT OF THE FIRE, is something that I cannot assure will be effective at all.
Finally, even if you WERE to place any auto-extinguisher into an enclosed space, the heat AND fuel need to be separated. Hence, on any fuel-based fire, such as a gas engine, shutting off the fuel will be just as important as extinguishing the flame and reducing the heat.
Sorry, this reply turned into Fire Tech 101...and that wasn't my intention. I hope you can understand my concern that people, I feel, are being taken advantage of due to fear and lack of knowledge. And, I'd hate that to happen on my watch.
Here is a video I made just to help address some these concerns with KNOWLEDGE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4d1tICZZss
Steve & Janice Vance
2015 Newell #1524
Glendora, CA