Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Smooth Bore Nozzles

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • hwoods
    replied
    Oops.........

    That was meant for Dalmation90, who in turn was poking a bit of fun at Jaybird, who was....well.... Never mind.... I know you guys were just having a discussion, I've had MANY with Stan myself. Y'all Stay Safe....

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    CaptStan...

    Nah, it was a balmy 74 or so that day. Dayum it was hot!! LOL


    hwoods...

    There is no horse beating going on just an exchange of ideas by 2 crusty old firefighters....

    FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • captstanm1
    replied
    I just noticed you are from the great state of wisconsin.....Darn things were probably frozen...LOL

    Leave a comment:


  • hwoods
    replied
    Heyyyy Dal.............

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Dalmatian90
    [B]

    ============
    And with apologies to everyone, the following is a work of fiction and resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental:

    Don't you mean "to horses living or dead"?

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    While I can't 100% attest to the age of the nozzle I would put his integrity and honesty up against anyone in the business. I have taken other classes with that instructor and even have taught live fire training with him at a regional fire school for the past few years.

    I too have experienced the problems you speak of with auto nozzles in my part-time teaching gig. I was doing a nozzle flow test at a county association meeting showing FF's how to flow test nozzles. we flowed everything they threw at me. Turbojets, low presure Elkharts, auto Elkharts, smoothbores, Marauders, and a TFT 50-350 were among what we played with. The set-up I had in place was a calibrated flow meter at the pump discharge and a inline pressure gauge right behind the nozzle. It was the TFT's turn to flow and we fired up the pump to 100 psi at the discharge. The nozzle pressure wouldn't go above 70 psi. We upped the pressure to 150, still only 70 at the nozzle. Then to 200 psi still only 70 at the nozzle, irregardless of pattern. I had them take the pump back to 150 and turned the nozzle to flush and then back to a narrow fog. The nozzle pressure jumped up to 100 psi. We guessed something might have been stuck in the nozzle and gotflushed out. Well we shut the nozzle off to change crews and started up again. Same thing as above happened. Couldn't get the nozzle above 70 psi unless we flushed it first. Well, we shut down and I asked a few questions while we changed nozzles. Has this nozzle ever been serviced? Cleaned? Lubed? No to all the questions, and a question back to me, why do we need to do that? We never had to on our old Turbojets. I had to explain the spring and so on of how an automatic works. My guess however is that when I left they put it back on the rig and it is probably still there today. And just incase you were wondering it was not a lowpressure auto, it was a standard 100 psi auto that had been neglected.

    The problem in describing the parts of an automatic nozzle may be one of semantics. The slide valve is exclusively produced by TFT. It is the shut off on the single piece auto nozzles. The internal parts of the auto nozzle that make it function are the deflection stem and a spring. They are not the slide valve.

    By the way I don't sell anything. I am a full time firefighter and a volly where I live. I also teach part-time for the local tech college. Neither fire department uses automatic nozzles. In fact both used to and went away from them.

    FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • captstanm1
    replied
    I know that the slide valve and the pressure control spring are two different things. What I was eluding to was the fact that even using a combination, automatic nozzle with a ball valve shut-off, that the tip only version still has the slide valve in it. In that case the opening and closing of the bale does not control the slide valve.

    As far as the demonstration you saw..... Well...you saw it and I can not dispute the outcome. Some questions??? What was the age and condition of the automatic nozzle? The reason I ask is this...I once visited a fire department in and began discussing nozzles. It seemed they had recently switched to another brand because a rep had come in and done some side by side flows. When they told me the results, I was puzzled and asked to see the nozzle that was used for comparison to what they bought. Both were comparable except that the one the rep tested against the one they bought, came out of the storage room and was at least 15 years old. I asked....."Had it been in service prior to the test." No was the reply..."because it had gotten hard to open." I asked..."How often you clean and service your nozzles?" (any brand)....the look and response I got was priceless...Basically it was something like this... .... I took the nozzle, cleaned it in hot soapy water, lubed it and then we again flowed it side by side......Low and behold...at 15+ years old, it was still delivering very close to the rated flow at the required NP and there was very little difference in GPM delviery for the "BRAND NEW" one they just bought. However....again...I am not disputing your results of your test as you were there and witnessed it. The point is when doing evaluations of that type, the equipment must be of similar age and in somewhat good repair. Using old stuff to compare to new stuff is not a tactic that I will stoop to when doing demonstrations. I beleive in my products enough (and yes...I do sell SBs) to compare them head to head.

    In fact, I have loaned nozzles and equipment to some FDs to do similar testing in actual high rises where they actually pumped the SP. However, they started in the low pressure/emergency setting (realizing that there is most probably not going to be 100 PSI at the nozzle in High Rises). They then compared the flow to the SB and the results were very similar GPM. They chose the low dual pressure automatics because it gave them versatility.

    In my job as a consultant I deal with Jim quite often and he boggles me with his knowledge in many many areas.

    Again...I am NOT...NOTTA...NOW WAY...opposed to SB nozzles and have used them successfully myself. However, over the past 3 years, in working with Jim and others, I have learned a great deal...(yes...you can teach an old dog new tricks). SB nozzles are outstanding in their ability to hit and hit hard without the loss of the ability to absorb BTUs by getting to the seat of the fire. However, with a SB you are limited to just that....a SB stream. I personally like the additional benefit of fog in certain applications.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    CaptStan...

    The slide on/off valve and the automatic water control spring mechanism are 2 very different things.

    The slide valve is a flow control device that is manually operated by the nozzle operator. It is for throttling the flow of water through operation of the bale.

    The automatic water control spring mechanism is an internal device that senses water flow and pressure and opens or closes dependent on available water...The deflection stem of the automatic nozzle has a spring on it that operates at a given pressure. As more water is fed to the nozzle the spring allows the deflection stem to open farther to allow for more water flow.

    The automatic nozzle will operate with either type of shut off valve, ball or slide. The automatic gallonage adjustment made by the spring operated deflection stem doesn't care what type of shut off or even if there is a shut off at all.

    As far as the dual pressure nozzle I have a little anecdote for you that i personally witnessed. I was at a hose and nozzle school to learn about various nozzles. All flows were tested by the use of a flow meter calibrated in front of the class using a smoothbore and pitot gauge. Anyways, the instructor set up a test to simulate a standpipe scenario that was underpressured due to a flow restrictor. The setup was 2 1/2" line to a wye then 100 feet of 1 3/4". The wye had a pressure gauge and was pumped to 45 psi at the gauge. This simulated a real incident that the instructor was aware of. The dual pressure nozzle at regular setting flowed 13gpm. We all eagerly awaited the trememndous increase in flow we perceived would occur by the change to low pressure "emergency" mode. The nozzle was switched and the flow meter checked again. The stream had gained exactly 1gpm and flowed 14 gpm. The wye was closed and a 15/16" smooth bore replaced the auto. Again the wye was pumped to 45 psi. The smoothbore flowed 118gpm with a reach of about 40 feet. While the auto's reach was roughly twice that I'll take reduced range for almost 10 times the water anyday.

    Jim Cottrel? Last big nozzle article I read from him was in Fire Rescue where he was praising the low pressure combo nozzles. I knew he used to be a big auto nozzle guy. How long ago did you have him as an instructor?

    Yes Capt this is a good non-insulting debate. And it is actually kind of fun.

    FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • captstanm1
    replied
    fyredup....partially true..... yes if you buy the break-a-part you get a ball valve....but the automatic slide valve is then in the twist off tip...so in that case the stream may be reduced in gpm but if the pressure to the tip is adequate you will have a better flow than one would anticipate with an object in the nozzle.(the gasket grabber screen is still there)...and...if you find a reduced pressure and you have a dual pressure tip then simply adjust the setting to low pressure and WAH LAH....better flow...... Trust me...I was not much on all this until I got education and behavior modification from Mr. Jim Cottrell.....

    Nice to know we can carry on a debate on this subject (again) and not be hostile.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    Exactly...in fact that particular manufacturer only includes slide valves with it's one piece auto nozzle. If you buy a break apart nozzle from them, with or without a slug tip, you get a ball valve.

    It would be interesting to see how a smoothbore would function with a slide valve.

    FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • captstanm1
    replied
    I have never seen a smooth bore with a slide valve...........

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    CaptStan....

    Then the slide valve which is used as a throttling device on only one manufacturer's nozzle is the determining factor.

    If a rock is in the screen it will reduce the flow. Irregardless of the nozzle design. If in fact what you are saying is true, you should get similar results from a smoothbore with a slide valve. Perhaps not as stunning as with the auto, but similar if the slide valve did not limit flow.

    FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • captstanm1
    replied
    FYREDUP.....

    No....I should have been more specific. During the comparison we used a pressure gauge and flow meter. With the nozzle pressure at the required pressure (100 or 50 PSI depending on nozzle) the automatic still had a good pattern and the GPM difference with and without the rock was negligble. The GPM was affected, but not significantly and the stream still had good quality and reach. The results here are a result of the slide valve configuration in this nozzle.

    In the smooth bore, the gpm dropped significantly after the rock was added and the reach/quality of the stream was drastically changed. So, by quality of the stream...I meant the reach and GPM were diminished.

    Leave a comment:


  • FyredUp
    replied
    CaptStan...

    I need to ask you a few questions.

    Regarding putting the rock in the nozzle. You say with the auto you barely notice a difference in the stream, and with the smoothbore you had major deflection.

    Are you saying that because the stream looks better in the auto it is better than the stream that is obviously partially blocked in the smoothbore?

    Are you suggesting that the rock will have no effect on gpm flow in the auto even though it is in the path of the water? Isn't the rock in effect acting like partially closing the bale of the nozzle?

    Why is a good looking inadequate flow better than a bad looking flow that let's you know there is blockage in the stream?

    Just wondering...

    By the way use what ever nozzle you choose, I'm not trying to change your mind.

    FyredUp

    Leave a comment:


  • Dalmatian90
    replied
    Great mention of the Fire Engineering article!

    Here's some quotes:
    Akin to the police evolving from the 38-caliber revolver to the 40-caliber automatic,

    Huh, I always thought a revolver was much more reliable than those pesky new-fangled automatics you gotta keep clean, watch what ammo you're using, etc...

    In his brilliant treatise on the art and science of applying water on fire ("Little Drops of Water: 50 Years Later," Parts 1 and 2, Fire Engineering, February and March 2000), Andrew Fredericks, the foremost expert on engine company operations

    Andrew was a good writer and knew his subjects, but with all due respect, the hyperbole of that sentence really is a bit much and some editor was really not doing their job. I didn't agree with his opinions then, I don't now that he is no longer with us after the attacks of 9-11. Fire Engineering on this topic has done a lot a self-referring, not necessarily a bad thing but it's getting kinda old.

    ============
    And with apologies to everyone, the following is a work of fiction and resemblance to persons living or dead is purely coincidental:

    1. Buy bigger hose. It's a flow rate thing!
    2. Put a new team on the nozzle, those guys just don't know how to use it!
    3. Threaten a side-by-side comparison.
    4. Appointing a committee to study the nozzle.
    5. Arranging to visit other sites to see how they use their nozzles.
    6. Lowering the standards so that any nozzle can be included.
    7. Appointing an NIOSH team to conclude the fireground commanders had their heads up their donkeys.
    8. Creating a training session on the physics of the fire tetrahedron in relation to the modern fire loading of buildings with those new-fangled (only in use for the last 35 years) energy efficient windows.
    9. Reclassifying the Fire Engine as an EMS delivery appliance.
    10. Change the form so that it reads: "Nozzle, who needs a stinkin' nozzle? Anybody got a hangnail who needs a trip to the hospital?"
    11. Hire outside ISO consultants to improve your rural rating.
    12. Harness three 1-3/4" lines together on the theory three smoothbores on them must be better than one automatic on a deuce-and-a-half.
    13. Donate the old nozzles to Helping Our Own, thereby ensuring the Captain who gets elected next year doesn't change nozzles on us. Again.
    14. Providing additional funding so you can buy a vest for the "Nozzle Selection Sector Commander" to wear
    15. Do a time management study to see if anyone really gives a rats rear end as long as wet stuff comes out the end.
    16. CAF it!.
    17. Declare that a nozzle has lower risk of hitting overhead electric wires and therefore performs in a more OSHA acceptable manner.
    18. Form a quality focus group to find profitable to sell your old nozzles at the next firematic flea market.
    19. Rewrite the expected performance requirements so you no longer need handlines, but handle all fires with either a 2-1/2 gallon can, or wait till the deck gun can be used in a safe and efficient manner.
    20. Promote the people arguing over nozzles to a supervisory position. Then hope they take their wisdom, become consultants, and leave your department!

    Leave a comment:


  • Fire304
    replied
    OMG! I'm forwarding this to everyone I know who works in an FD or any other civic org.! Thank you Jay!

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X