[BC] Fire suppression

[Dave Dunsmoor]

> With due repect Dave...

Thanks,

> ...While the non-chemical O-2 depletion may not
> remove ALL the O-2, the fire as is burns out will eventually do that.
> Leaving none for you at the end

Well, I won't be there at the end, so no worries, mate.

But we're talking about two different scenarios, I see. The big
room-flooding systems or the handheld units. I've used the handheld type
once, and it worked immediately, and extremely effectively. Further, I don't
want chemical or water used in a building full of equipment. I'd like to be
able to rescue as much of it as possible for quick return to service. Water
and dry chemical mostly prevent that from happening.

However, Rich's scenario with doors clanging shut in a room room being
fiilled with Halon would leave one with the heebie-jeenies, even if there
were an emergency "open here" button on the wall.

I also suspect that in any fire situation, it matters not what is used if
the oxygen is replaced quick enought to put the fire out.

That's what I know (and think).

Dave Dunsmoor
>
> After dealing with the Chicago fire code and how they address these types
> of rooms, there is a point where sprinkler water will cost less both in
> terms of intitial cost AND clean up/repairs than all the issues of dealing
> with something as sinle as a CO-2 system.
>
> MM
>
> > To parahrase my grandpa ("wish in one hand, spit in the other - see
which
> > gets full first"), deal with fire or deal with slight oxygen depletion.
In
> > a
> > room large enough to hold me and equipment, there wouldn't be enough
> > oxygen
> > depletion to be remotely concerned about..... which leads us to your
next
> > comment.
> >
> > Good point.
> >
> > Dave
>
>