Fire Engineering Training Community

Where firefighters come to talk training

If you can remember from what you were taught or if you currently instruct in engine operations how do you handle the question of opening the line in smoke. I say you do not open the line in smoke, however when the smoke is extremly hot you must open the nozzle. Other options include leaving the area (fallback position) and increasing ventilation of the area. What do you say?

Views: 1505

Replies to This Discussion

Where were you taught penciling as an escape technique? That was not intention of the originators of that technique.

Alan Butsch said:
The best explanation I have heard is to regard the smoke as a separate fuel package. Combine that with the theory of rate of heat release and it is pretty plain that there are circumstances which will warrant putting water into "just" smoke. When its black, hot and rolling - its not "just" smoke anymore. As far as penciling - its taught here as an escape technique. Its certainly not a fire suppression technique. I always took it with a grain of salt anyway considering it was developed in a country with a lot of masonry structures whose fire service uses high pressure fogs. Love the feedback on the smoothbores - I am a distinct minority in my department - everyone else loves them some fogs!
I just got the instructors notes for the 1001 class "Fire Control" chapter I am teaching. I could not believe that when discussing the direct attack method IFSTA recommends "penciling"!! It also says to use a 40-60 degree fog pattern. I guess I have to teach this with the follow up that if anyone does this on my line that they will get a big smack in the back of the head.

I think that was written by the same guy that waits till you are right on top of him, going lights and siren and then he veers across the double yellow to get out of your way. 

Seriously though, you've really identified a major problem Tom.  How many departmental training systems will demand that the lesson plan be followed, in spite of the erroneous teaching?  I have been told so many times that "we do it the IFTSA way,..."  Serious disconnect.

Tom Bradley said:

I just got the instructors notes for the 1001 class "Fire Control" chapter I am teaching. I could not believe that when discussing the direct attack method IFSTA recommends "penciling"!! It also says to use a 40-60 degree fog pattern. I guess I have to teach this with the follow up that if anyone does this on my line that they will get a big smack in the back of the head.
If you teach any other programs from IFSTA you find similar contradictions like this one. You really need to review the material before hand so that you can point out what is right and what is wrong.  The unfortunate thing is that in our state the test is from that material.

Tom Bradley said:
I just got the instructors notes for the 1001 class "Fire Control" chapter I am teaching. I could not believe that when discussing the direct attack method IFSTA recommends "penciling"!! It also says to use a 40-60 degree fog pattern. I guess I have to teach this with the follow up that if anyone does this on my line that they will get a big smack in the back of the head.

You are exactly right Jason.  I've run into the problem that some instructors believe in only what the "red book" tells us and they will not stray from it.  It's hard to talk tactics and try to learn from someone who is close minded.
Jason Hoevelmann said:
If you teach any other programs from IFSTA you find similar contradictions like this one. You really need to review the material before hand so that you can point out what is right and what is wrong.  The unfortunate thing is that in our state the test is from that material.

Tom Bradley said:
I just got the instructors notes for the 1001 class "Fire Control" chapter I am teaching. I could not believe that when discussing the direct attack method IFSTA recommends "penciling"!! It also says to use a 40-60 degree fog pattern. I guess I have to teach this with the follow up that if anyone does this on my line that they will get a big smack in the back of the head.
What if the heat condition does not allow you to get to the seat of the fire?

Ian Ramirez said:
I would have to agree Ray. If conditions permit, advance to the seat of the fire and get water where it needs to be. Communication between the Engine Officer and the Roof or OV is essential for timing ventilation with suppression.


Hi US guys, :)

 

My answer is the one we teach in many countries: use fog not solid stream. Why? In order to cool something, water has to increase in temp then evaporate. That's physics. In order to do that, water must have a large contact with heat. The more the contact is, the better is the transformation of water so the better is the cooling effect. The problem is that this transformation of state (from liquid to gas) create steam which will burn you.

The "3D" method is the result of this study: when you see accident, you see that they always happen between the main entrance and the seat of the fire. Because there is air movement: from outside to inside for air (so oxygen), and from inside to outside for smoke (so fuel). In order to go to the seat of fire , you must go "under" a mix of fuel and O2. In order to avoid ignition of that, you can "refresh" the smoke and dilute it. I remember a test we've done in a flashover container, with heavy black smoke: a gas detector was used and after only 2 or 3 minutes, the poor gas detector was shouting as the level was far more over 1000ppm. After 2 or 3 pulses, the level was down to 700ppm.

The problem is that smoke is a gaseous fuel. A "3D" fuel. If you use a solide bore against a chair, the chair will stop the water. But the smoke will not. That's because water you flow with the solid bore is "heavy" and goes far. Just take a stone, and launch it. It goes far. Break the stone in small pieces and launch it: it's not going so far. The challenge of the 3D method is to cool the smoke, but without touching wall nor ceiling. If you touch them, the water will turn to steam. And at 400°C, water expand 3000 times when turned to steam. So the steam will push down the smoke and burn you.

What you say here, is that you go into the house, without using the nozzle and wait to crunch on the floor to use it. Logical, because as you are using solid bore, each time you try to cool the smoke, the result is a poor cooling effect (poor contact surface and poor time of contact between water and smoke) and a high steam production (as the water strike the ceilling, and expend). So in order to avoid that, you just go in without flowing water.

 

Our method is different: even if we have just a little smoke layer, we pulse. So we never wait to suffer heat, as we cool before that.

Do we create water damage? No. Do we create excess steam? No. Just see this video: this is a demonstration of the progression method, used in many countries:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38tg8_progression_tech

Just look the cloud of water: the nozzle is fully opened and immediatly closed. The time of opening is about 1/3 of a second. The nozzle is a 135GPM one, but used at about 40GPM. This mean the nozzle, in one pulse, flow only 40/180 = 0,22 gallons of water. The pattern is about 60° wide. And as you can see the cloud of dropplets don't go too high (the container is 2,50m hight, so 8 feets, like a common ceilling), and the cloud go in front of the guys, cooling the location where they progress on. Notice also that, as the contact between water and heat is very important, we have a high level of water transformation. We compute it's about 90% of water used as a cooling effect, as a solide bore against smoke has only a max of 20%. This mean that, while opening a solid bore nozzle against smoke, you will have 80% of the water on the ground. If you open you nozzle at 135GPM, during 10 seconds, you flow

22,5 gallons, and you'll have 80% on the floor, so 18 gallons. And you cool with only 20% so with 4,5 gallons. And this is what we see on videos.

With pulsing method, we flow 0,22gallons each time, and have only 10% on the floor so 0,022 gallons of "water damager": turn out gear stay dry, we don't suffer heat stress (so less heart attack) and so on.

What I can say is that this way of doing is very very good and very easy to learn. But, at "contrario" is very very very hard to explain with text of only video. But really, you must see that.

If you want to stay with the idea that fog create steam and burn everybody, OK. But we use that without burn. So in this case, we are not talking about the same: I don't want to be burned, and I'm not. So my conclusion is that you certainly know how to use a solid bore, but you don't really know how (and why) use a fog pattern. So it's very hard to build a correct opinion.

 

I'm now living in Brasil. It's far from USA, but I think we must show you.If you can do something for that, feel free to contact me, eg by using the contact form on www.tantad.com

Best regards to you all, and sorry for my poor english

Pierre-Louis

Brother Pierre

I am sorry.  We have a totally different fire load than you.  Fog for interior attack burns too many firemen.  This will not work here.

Pierre-Louis LAMBALLAIS said:


Hi US guys, :)

 

My answer is the one we teach in many countries: use fog not solid stream. Why? In order to cool something, water has to increase in temp then evaporate. That's physics. In order to do that, water must have a large contact with heat. The more the contact is, the better is the transformation of water so the better is the cooling effect. The problem is that this transformation of state (from liquid to gas) create steam which will burn you.

The "3D" method is the result of this study: when you see accident, you see that they always happen between the main entrance and the seat of the fire. Because there is air movement: from outside to inside for air (so oxygen), and from inside to outside for smoke (so fuel). In order to go to the seat of fire , you must go "under" a mix of fuel and O2. In order to avoid ignition of that, you can "refresh" the smoke and dilute it. I remember a test we've done in a flashover container, with heavy black smoke: a gas detector was used and after only 2 or 3 minutes, the poor gas detector was shouting as the level was far more over 1000ppm. After 2 or 3 pulses, the level was down to 700ppm.

The problem is that smoke is a gaseous fuel. A "3D" fuel. If you use a solide bore against a chair, the chair will stop the water. But the smoke will not. That's because water you flow with the solid bore is "heavy" and goes far. Just take a stone, and launch it. It goes far. Break the stone in small pieces and launch it: it's not going so far. The challenge of the 3D method is to cool the smoke, but without touching wall nor ceiling. If you touch them, the water will turn to steam. And at 400°C, water expand 3000 times when turned to steam. So the steam will push down the smoke and burn you.

What you say here, is that you go into the house, without using the nozzle and wait to crunch on the floor to use it. Logical, because as you are using solid bore, each time you try to cool the smoke, the result is a poor cooling effect (poor contact surface and poor time of contact between water and smoke) and a high steam production (as the water strike the ceilling, and expend). So in order to avoid that, you just go in without flowing water.

 

Our method is different: even if we have just a little smoke layer, we pulse. So we never wait to suffer heat, as we cool before that.

Do we create water damage? No. Do we create excess steam? No. Just see this video: this is a demonstration of the progression method, used in many countries:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38tg8_progression_tech

Just look the cloud of water: the nozzle is fully opened and immediatly closed. The time of opening is about 1/3 of a second. The nozzle is a 135GPM one, but used at about 40GPM. This mean the nozzle, in one pulse, flow only 40/180 = 0,22 gallons of water. The pattern is about 60° wide. And as you can see the cloud of dropplets don't go too high (the container is 2,50m hight, so 8 feets, like a common ceilling), and the cloud go in front of the guys, cooling the location where they progress on. Notice also that, as the contact between water and heat is very important, we have a high level of water transformation. We compute it's about 90% of water used as a cooling effect, as a solide bore against smoke has only a max of 20%. This mean that, while opening a solid bore nozzle against smoke, you will have 80% of the water on the ground. If you open you nozzle at 135GPM, during 10 seconds, you flow

22,5 gallons, and you'll have 80% on the floor, so 18 gallons. And you cool with only 20% so with 4,5 gallons. And this is what we see on videos.

With pulsing method, we flow 0,22gallons each time, and have only 10% on the floor so 0,022 gallons of "water damager": turn out gear stay dry, we don't suffer heat stress (so less heart attack) and so on.

What I can say is that this way of doing is very very good and very easy to learn. But, at "contrario" is very very very hard to explain with text of only video. But really, you must see that.

If you want to stay with the idea that fog create steam and burn everybody, OK. But we use that without burn. So in this case, we are not talking about the same: I don't want to be burned, and I'm not. So my conclusion is that you certainly know how to use a solid bore, but you don't really know how (and why) use a fog pattern. So it's very hard to build a correct opinion.

 

I'm now living in Brasil. It's far from USA, but I think we must show you.If you can do something for that, feel free to contact me, eg by using the contact form on www.tantad.com

Best regards to you all, and sorry for my poor english

Pierre-Louis

I'm interested in all you have said, however remember you are talking about container fire, and yes I believe it works quite well in that environment. When a fire in manageable cooling the hot fire gases may have a good effect, however I'm not concerned with that type of fire, I'm concerned with fires that have the possibility to kill firefighters, fires that are of a greater magnitude. I am not sure that the pulsing can accomplish what you want it to. When you speak of steam conversion, why do you think it will expand at that amount? Can the steam be hotter than 212 F?Your PPE will handle 212 F much better than uncontrolled fire gases.Do you know of any firefighters killed from steam? What about civilians? If the cooling effect is so great won't it keep the expansion down. The other problem I see is what if your size-up is off and there is a greater fire load than anticipated(I've made wrong decisions based of bad size-up) and you've got yourself deep into a structure by pulsing and now the heat release rate spikes and you are holding a hand-line that can not handle this situation? I'm willing to keep an open mind to your tactics, however I need to know more.

Pierre-Louis LAMBALLAIS said:


Hi US guys, :)

 

My answer is the one we teach in many countries: use fog not solid stream. Why? In order to cool something, water has to increase in temp then evaporate. That's physics. In order to do that, water must have a large contact with heat. The more the contact is, the better is the transformation of water so the better is the cooling effect. The problem is that this transformation of state (from liquid to gas) create steam which will burn you.

The "3D" method is the result of this study: when you see accident, you see that they always happen between the main entrance and the seat of the fire. Because there is air movement: from outside to inside for air (so oxygen), and from inside to outside for smoke (so fuel). In order to go to the seat of fire , you must go "under" a mix of fuel and O2. In order to avoid ignition of that, you can "refresh" the smoke and dilute it. I remember a test we've done in a flashover container, with heavy black smoke: a gas detector was used and after only 2 or 3 minutes, the poor gas detector was shouting as the level was far more over 1000ppm. After 2 or 3 pulses, the level was down to 700ppm.

The problem is that smoke is a gaseous fuel. A "3D" fuel. If you use a solide bore against a chair, the chair will stop the water. But the smoke will not. That's because water you flow with the solid bore is "heavy" and goes far. Just take a stone, and launch it. It goes far. Break the stone in small pieces and launch it: it's not going so far. The challenge of the 3D method is to cool the smoke, but without touching wall nor ceiling. If you touch them, the water will turn to steam. And at 400°C, water expand 3000 times when turned to steam. So the steam will push down the smoke and burn you.

What you say here, is that you go into the house, without using the nozzle and wait to crunch on the floor to use it. Logical, because as you are using solid bore, each time you try to cool the smoke, the result is a poor cooling effect (poor contact surface and poor time of contact between water and smoke) and a high steam production (as the water strike the ceilling, and expend). So in order to avoid that, you just go in without flowing water.

 

Our method is different: even if we have just a little smoke layer, we pulse. So we never wait to suffer heat, as we cool before that.

Do we create water damage? No. Do we create excess steam? No. Just see this video: this is a demonstration of the progression method, used in many countries:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38tg8_progression_tech

Just look the cloud of water: the nozzle is fully opened and immediatly closed. The time of opening is about 1/3 of a second. The nozzle is a 135GPM one, but used at about 40GPM. This mean the nozzle, in one pulse, flow only 40/180 = 0,22 gallons of water. The pattern is about 60° wide. And as you can see the cloud of dropplets don't go too high (the container is 2,50m hight, so 8 feets, like a common ceilling), and the cloud go in front of the guys, cooling the location where they progress on. Notice also that, as the contact between water and heat is very important, we have a high level of water transformation. We compute it's about 90% of water used as a cooling effect, as a solide bore against smoke has only a max of 20%. This mean that, while opening a solid bore nozzle against smoke, you will have 80% of the water on the ground. If you open you nozzle at 135GPM, during 10 seconds, you flow

22,5 gallons, and you'll have 80% on the floor, so 18 gallons. And you cool with only 20% so with 4,5 gallons. And this is what we see on videos.

With pulsing method, we flow 0,22gallons each time, and have only 10% on the floor so 0,022 gallons of "water damager": turn out gear stay dry, we don't suffer heat stress (so less heart attack) and so on.

What I can say is that this way of doing is very very good and very easy to learn. But, at "contrario" is very very very hard to explain with text of only video. But really, you must see that.

If you want to stay with the idea that fog create steam and burn everybody, OK. But we use that without burn. So in this case, we are not talking about the same: I don't want to be burned, and I'm not. So my conclusion is that you certainly know how to use a solid bore, but you don't really know how (and why) use a fog pattern. So it's very hard to build a correct opinion.

 

I'm now living in Brasil. It's far from USA, but I think we must show you.If you can do something for that, feel free to contact me, eg by using the contact form on www.tantad.com

Best regards to you all, and sorry for my poor english

Pierre-Louis

Russ, why is there fire load different? Same question to you, do you know any firefighters that have been killed by steam, what about civilians?

Russ Chapman said:

Brother Pierre

I am sorry.  We have a totally different fire load than you.  Fog for interior attack burns too many firemen.  This will not work here.

Pierre-Louis LAMBALLAIS said:


Hi US guys, :)

 

My answer is the one we teach in many countries: use fog not solid stream. Why? In order to cool something, water has to increase in temp then evaporate. That's physics. In order to do that, water must have a large contact with heat. The more the contact is, the better is the transformation of water so the better is the cooling effect. The problem is that this transformation of state (from liquid to gas) create steam which will burn you.

The "3D" method is the result of this study: when you see accident, you see that they always happen between the main entrance and the seat of the fire. Because there is air movement: from outside to inside for air (so oxygen), and from inside to outside for smoke (so fuel). In order to go to the seat of fire , you must go "under" a mix of fuel and O2. In order to avoid ignition of that, you can "refresh" the smoke and dilute it. I remember a test we've done in a flashover container, with heavy black smoke: a gas detector was used and after only 2 or 3 minutes, the poor gas detector was shouting as the level was far more over 1000ppm. After 2 or 3 pulses, the level was down to 700ppm.

The problem is that smoke is a gaseous fuel. A "3D" fuel. If you use a solide bore against a chair, the chair will stop the water. But the smoke will not. That's because water you flow with the solid bore is "heavy" and goes far. Just take a stone, and launch it. It goes far. Break the stone in small pieces and launch it: it's not going so far. The challenge of the 3D method is to cool the smoke, but without touching wall nor ceiling. If you touch them, the water will turn to steam. And at 400°C, water expand 3000 times when turned to steam. So the steam will push down the smoke and burn you.

What you say here, is that you go into the house, without using the nozzle and wait to crunch on the floor to use it. Logical, because as you are using solid bore, each time you try to cool the smoke, the result is a poor cooling effect (poor contact surface and poor time of contact between water and smoke) and a high steam production (as the water strike the ceilling, and expend). So in order to avoid that, you just go in without flowing water.

 

Our method is different: even if we have just a little smoke layer, we pulse. So we never wait to suffer heat, as we cool before that.

Do we create water damage? No. Do we create excess steam? No. Just see this video: this is a demonstration of the progression method, used in many countries:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38tg8_progression_tech

Just look the cloud of water: the nozzle is fully opened and immediatly closed. The time of opening is about 1/3 of a second. The nozzle is a 135GPM one, but used at about 40GPM. This mean the nozzle, in one pulse, flow only 40/180 = 0,22 gallons of water. The pattern is about 60° wide. And as you can see the cloud of dropplets don't go too high (the container is 2,50m hight, so 8 feets, like a common ceilling), and the cloud go in front of the guys, cooling the location where they progress on. Notice also that, as the contact between water and heat is very important, we have a high level of water transformation. We compute it's about 90% of water used as a cooling effect, as a solide bore against smoke has only a max of 20%. This mean that, while opening a solid bore nozzle against smoke, you will have 80% of the water on the ground. If you open you nozzle at 135GPM, during 10 seconds, you flow

22,5 gallons, and you'll have 80% on the floor, so 18 gallons. And you cool with only 20% so with 4,5 gallons. And this is what we see on videos.

With pulsing method, we flow 0,22gallons each time, and have only 10% on the floor so 0,022 gallons of "water damager": turn out gear stay dry, we don't suffer heat stress (so less heart attack) and so on.

What I can say is that this way of doing is very very good and very easy to learn. But, at "contrario" is very very very hard to explain with text of only video. But really, you must see that.

If you want to stay with the idea that fog create steam and burn everybody, OK. But we use that without burn. So in this case, we are not talking about the same: I don't want to be burned, and I'm not. So my conclusion is that you certainly know how to use a solid bore, but you don't really know how (and why) use a fog pattern. So it's very hard to build a correct opinion.

 

I'm now living in Brasil. It's far from USA, but I think we must show you.If you can do something for that, feel free to contact me, eg by using the contact form on www.tantad.com

Best regards to you all, and sorry for my poor english

Pierre-Louis

I am open to opinions, but the fog pattern in interior fires????, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Water has to be applied at the fuel/ fire interface to stop pyrolisis with its cooling effect. Now if you are saying you pulse the atmosphere or pencil your way into this area and then apply water, maybe?? I still don't like this attack, but if it works for you then maybe our types of fire attack are totally different. What kind of conditions does this provide for teams operating outside the protection of the hose line? I mean we search in front of and adjacent to the fire area for the seat of the fire to direct the hose team to its proper location while looking for life and then working our way back to the exit. If you are filling the atmosphere with steam how tenable are the conditions inside? Anyway, I still think the reach of a straight or solid stream allows the attack team to make a quicker and safer attack than having to worry about cooling the smoke with vapor. If small amounts do a good job of cooling then large amounts should be great!! 
John, I don't know any firefighters that have been killed by steam.  I do know MANY  firefighters, myself included who have spent time in a burn ward due to steam.  Our fire load is drasticlly different.  We use many more petroleum products. Again, as I said in my original post, I will be happy when they put this penciling thing to bed.

John Ceriello said:
Russ, why is there fire load different? Same question to you, do you know any firefighters that have been killed by steam, what about civilians?

Russ Chapman said:

Brother Pierre

I am sorry.  We have a totally different fire load than you.  Fog for interior attack burns too many firemen.  This will not work here.

Pierre-Louis LAMBALLAIS said:


Hi US guys, :)

 

My answer is the one we teach in many countries: use fog not solid stream. Why? In order to cool something, water has to increase in temp then evaporate. That's physics. In order to do that, water must have a large contact with heat. The more the contact is, the better is the transformation of water so the better is the cooling effect. The problem is that this transformation of state (from liquid to gas) create steam which will burn you.

The "3D" method is the result of this study: when you see accident, you see that they always happen between the main entrance and the seat of the fire. Because there is air movement: from outside to inside for air (so oxygen), and from inside to outside for smoke (so fuel). In order to go to the seat of fire , you must go "under" a mix of fuel and O2. In order to avoid ignition of that, you can "refresh" the smoke and dilute it. I remember a test we've done in a flashover container, with heavy black smoke: a gas detector was used and after only 2 or 3 minutes, the poor gas detector was shouting as the level was far more over 1000ppm. After 2 or 3 pulses, the level was down to 700ppm.

The problem is that smoke is a gaseous fuel. A "3D" fuel. If you use a solide bore against a chair, the chair will stop the water. But the smoke will not. That's because water you flow with the solid bore is "heavy" and goes far. Just take a stone, and launch it. It goes far. Break the stone in small pieces and launch it: it's not going so far. The challenge of the 3D method is to cool the smoke, but without touching wall nor ceiling. If you touch them, the water will turn to steam. And at 400°C, water expand 3000 times when turned to steam. So the steam will push down the smoke and burn you.

What you say here, is that you go into the house, without using the nozzle and wait to crunch on the floor to use it. Logical, because as you are using solid bore, each time you try to cool the smoke, the result is a poor cooling effect (poor contact surface and poor time of contact between water and smoke) and a high steam production (as the water strike the ceilling, and expend). So in order to avoid that, you just go in without flowing water.

 

Our method is different: even if we have just a little smoke layer, we pulse. So we never wait to suffer heat, as we cool before that.

Do we create water damage? No. Do we create excess steam? No. Just see this video: this is a demonstration of the progression method, used in many countries:

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x38tg8_progression_tech

Just look the cloud of water: the nozzle is fully opened and immediatly closed. The time of opening is about 1/3 of a second. The nozzle is a 135GPM one, but used at about 40GPM. This mean the nozzle, in one pulse, flow only 40/180 = 0,22 gallons of water. The pattern is about 60° wide. And as you can see the cloud of dropplets don't go too high (the container is 2,50m hight, so 8 feets, like a common ceilling), and the cloud go in front of the guys, cooling the location where they progress on. Notice also that, as the contact between water and heat is very important, we have a high level of water transformation. We compute it's about 90% of water used as a cooling effect, as a solide bore against smoke has only a max of 20%. This mean that, while opening a solid bore nozzle against smoke, you will have 80% of the water on the ground. If you open you nozzle at 135GPM, during 10 seconds, you flow

22,5 gallons, and you'll have 80% on the floor, so 18 gallons. And you cool with only 20% so with 4,5 gallons. And this is what we see on videos.

With pulsing method, we flow 0,22gallons each time, and have only 10% on the floor so 0,022 gallons of "water damager": turn out gear stay dry, we don't suffer heat stress (so less heart attack) and so on.

What I can say is that this way of doing is very very good and very easy to learn. But, at "contrario" is very very very hard to explain with text of only video. But really, you must see that.

If you want to stay with the idea that fog create steam and burn everybody, OK. But we use that without burn. So in this case, we are not talking about the same: I don't want to be burned, and I'm not. So my conclusion is that you certainly know how to use a solid bore, but you don't really know how (and why) use a fog pattern. So it's very hard to build a correct opinion.

 

I'm now living in Brasil. It's far from USA, but I think we must show you.If you can do something for that, feel free to contact me, eg by using the contact form on www.tantad.com

Best regards to you all, and sorry for my poor english

Pierre-Louis

RSS

Policy Page

CONTRIBUTORS NOTE

Our contributors' posts are not vetted by the Fire Engineering technical board, and reflect the views and opinions of the individual authors. Anyone is welcome to participate.

For vetted content, please go to www.fireengineering.com/archive/.

Fire Engineering Editor in Chief Bobby Halton
We are excited to have you participate in our discussions and interactive forums. Before you begin posting, please take a moment to read our policy page. -- Bobby Halton

Be Alert for Spam
We actively monitor the community for spam, however some does slip through. Please use common sense and caution when clicking links. If you suspect you've been hit by spam, e-mail peter.prochilo@clarionevents.com.

FE Podcasts


Check out the most recent episode and schedule of
UPCOMING PODCASTS

© 2020   Created by fireeng.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service