[AT] yes, it may catch on fire.

[Steve W.]

charliehill wrote:
> Steve, the shed fire I was talking about was at a shed beside the farm shop 
> and behind the houses of the two brothers that own the farm.  They spotted 
> the fire pretty early on.  There is a hydrant right in front of their houses 
> and they have a big well for their center pivot system right out behind the 
> shop.  Believe me water was not a problem.  For that matter the river is 
> less than 1/4 mile away.  It was just a very hot fire.  The FD couldn't 
> really get close enough to it to effectively fight it.  They pretty much had 
> to stand back, keep the shop cooled down,  blow in as much water as possible 
> and watch it burn.
> 
> Charlie

If the shed was close to other buildings then I can understand them just
controlling the heat and letting it burn.

One of the things that hasn't really worked through the fire service in
the past few years is that many of the old tactics are VERY outdated.

The old image of running into the fire and putting it out is becoming a
lot harder to do because of the heat modern materials puts out and how
fast current construction burns. The old rule of thumb that a fire
doubles in size every 3 minutes while generating temperatures under 1000
degrees is VERY wrong today. Currently the rule is that fire doubles in
size in modern construction in less than a minute and generally the
temps run well over 1800 degrees with spikes running over 2000!
Add in the toxic fumes generated from all the synthetics, adhesives and
electronics in a modern home and you get an area that is far deadlier
than it ever was.

I do some of the training in our department and some of the current
numbers from testing of R&C fires is terrifying. One of the recent tests
actually had a problem when the thermocouples they used to measure the
temps failed and melted, and they were rated for 2500 degrees!!

-- 
Steve W.
(\___/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")