Water Mist Fire Demonstration

This test scenario involved a simulated office work station under an open ceiling at 5 metres in height. A low pressure water mist fire protection system was installed above the fire. The system operated at ~12 bar pressure with 4 sealed automatically operating nozzles on a 2.5 metre spacing (providing a nominal coverage of ~5 mm/min with all 4 heads operating).

The office work station scenario had been developed by BRE Global under a programme of research funded by the BRE Trust. The test protocol has been included in British Standard Draft for Development 'Fixed fire protection systems -- Industrial and commercial watermist systems -- Part 7: Tests and requirements for watermist systems for the protection of
low hazard occupancies', DD 8489-7 (2011).

[@pandacrotch]

I like the "you weren't supposed to see that" hose at the end

[@horscategorie]

The purpose of a fire suppression system like this is not to extinguish, but to contain the fire. It worked as designed. The comments about water doing more damage than the fire have not seen fires grow to full potential... Sprinklers work. I say this as a firefighter with 20 years of experience in a mixed industrial, urban and suburban region. They contain the fire until the fire department can locate and extinguish the contained fire.

[@firesprinks]

Mike Goyette well said. It is the first line in nfpa automatic fire sprinkler code book. Fire sprinklers are not designed to extinguish the fire but contain it in its ambient stage. Also they send a signal to monitoring center to send fire dept the sprinkler prevents the fire from getting out of control allowing fire crews to extinguish safely and quickly

[@BenjaminEsposti]

Yep, they contain and slow fire spread. That's why even if you have a small fire at a home, say a deck/porch fire, you can help save your home by hitting it with the garden hose. It may not completely extinguish the fire, but it can slow it down. Of course, I don't recommend fighting fires in enclosed spaces with a garden hose, as you're more likely to be overcome with smoke or heat ... outside the house, you can just walk further back...

[@ironmatic1]

Automatic sprinklers aren’t really “suppression systems”. A true suppression system is separate from the sprinklers and normally floods or douses with a special agent with the intent to completely extinguisher.

[@joeymanny]

agree to you the water damage done here is not costly, you needs dried it up and it will work fine

[@the_expidition427]

@@ironmatic1 Correct such as a halon or halon type agent in a data center

[@PappiChullo99]

I'm a lieutenant fireman and this video is a great learning fundamental. Water mist is to reduce the probability of flashover and to control the temperatures to the lowest possible. Also reducing smoke produced from the fire, encouraging escape probability. Excellent video and god bless you!!

[@brandonwilson4281]

🔥📞🔑🔪🔌💰🎥🔫👧🔥

[@brandonwilson4281]

B288281

[@lightofthedark]

I'm late by 6 years, nice

[@nazaa999]

also note that, water mist came when the fire was already stabilished. in reality, if water mist came just when the fire started, there would've been no fire at all what do you think?

[@julienlormant]

@@nazaa999 hello, you are right, but those systems rely on heat detection, they are fail proof but somehow slower then fire detection operated systems. You might be interested to look at the Vortex System by Victaulic.

[@portablebbq]

Great demonstration, this is even more effective when you have lower ceilings and smaller spaces, like in a hallway or office.

[@gunnarkaestle]

The smaller the droplet, the easier and faster the vaporisation, which down the flames. Besides, water vapor expands to a factor of more than 1000 and displaces oxygen rich air. Water from sprinklers collecting in a pond at the floor does this not. BTW, water mist should be ideal with ships, as too much water in the bilge is fatal.

[@AFTLtd]

Watermist systems use less water and have to at minimum suppress fires, standard sprinklers use more water & have to at minimum control fires. This test was created to test the effectiveness of watermist systems in an office environment and now forms part of DD8489-7. To help create the pass/fail criteria the test was completed with sprinklers. For watermist systems to pass they have to perform better than sprinklers ie damage & heat reduction. A split comparison video would be good viewing.

[@AM-gx2ur]

Fun fact: The majority of suppression systems (excluding industrial deluge) are designed so that most of the time no water even hits the actual flame. It evaporates before it can reach it. The sprinklers are just to control temperature from reaching flashover until the fire department arrives, not put the fire out. (Source: formerly a system designer)

[@missing1person]

what is the best system for underground utility tunnels ? tunnels that contain power lines and internet fiber

[@Firebuggroup1]

Great video demonstrating a fully fledged fire underway, and hard to reach areas which the mist does extinguish. Of course this is not a real life situation as the system would no doubt be closer to source and extinguish sooner when the temperate gets to a set point, but the idea behind showing so much fire means the fire is at it's most optimum / hottest and their low pressure system still extinguishes with mist, successfully. Not crazy about the hose extinguishing at the end but maybe it was to clear the air so you could see.. We have come across many people and situations who say mist cannot extinguish underneath, which is untrue as demonstrated here. Wonder how much water was used? We love water mist!

[@eddysiswanto9399]

That is good protection, fire could not expansion to the onther location so we can fighting the fire immidiately.

[@RonWylie-gk5lc]

Wow this is so educational, who would have thought a fire could even survive with all that water mist around it. The comments below are great instrustion of the nature of fire, smoke and flashpoint control, they say you lears something every day

[@wancancer]

great demo mate! even though the intention is to contain the blaze and cool the surroundings. Extinguished it will not, but control fire really well. Ample time for fire responders to withdraw hose reels to mitigate the situation.

[@b.yourselfstudio9069]

Thank you for sharing these videos

[@pajita1182]

As a firefighter I find it interesting since it may help disrupt the formation of a Flashover, but it doens't exactly extinguish the fire, it maybe contains it and keep temperature low...

[@aidenlui2056]

That’s what they are designed to do. They contain it until the firefighters come to extinguish it.

[@Ts6451]

There are many types of wheels, though their purpose is generally the same, they may not all be equally good for all situations. The same holds for fire suppression, a water mist suppression system will prevent spreading of the fire and cool down the area while causing much less water damage than the traditional sprinkler. It isn't the right choice for all applications, of course. By the way, water mist systems are classed as a type of fire sprinkler.

[@AhmedAdly11]

Very professional!

[@WorBlux]

5mm/min is about about 1/2 a mL per cm^2 per min or 5L per min per square meter. on a 2.5 m spacing, each nozzle is covering 6.25 m^2. So each nozzle is putting out 31.25 L/min or about 8Gal/min.

[@bouffant-girl]

Connecting a fire engine to a fire department sprinkler sandpiper, and charging the sprinkler sandpiper is a well accepted fire suppression tactic in high-rise and high-risk buildings.

[@WackyTheWhaleysaurus]

The water mist systems aren't so much to put the fire out as they are to clear the smoke and heat from the air, making escape easier for people inside the structure.

[@ericerock1000]

Sprinkler systems are very effective. In this case, the sprinkler(s) above the fire were too high up. In order for them to put the fire out, it has to be much closer to the ground then where it is now. It would have taken it a few mins. probably if it were closer to the fire in order to activate sooner.

[@Sara-L]

It would not fully extinguish a real fire, but keep it down enough that people could have a chance in escaping a sizeable blaze.

[@DavidKnowles0]

I suppose that depends on where the first started. It me it look like the system put out the fire everywhere but under the desk, where the water couldn't get directly on to the source of the fire.

[@drayerz]

The issue to me seems to be trying to use a low pressure water mist system with a 16+ foot ceiling height. Low pressure water mists are good use in homes with limited water supply, and you want to limit water damage. Office type situations with higher ceilings should be in the higher pressure ranges for water mist systems.

[@altahadisecurityandsafetyf8577]

GOOD JOB ,

[@abassmohamed4933]

A law pressure water mist fire protection system is nice system .

[@LukeL007]

Is the 5mm/min per square centimeter? I read a typical sprinkler can put out anyhwere from 20-40 gallons per minute.

[@MikeTrieu]

Eh, the droplet size of the mist needs to be much smaller in order to properly swirl around objects. Clearly, they need to use atomizer nozzles rather than just misting nozzles. Needs to be lighter than air when it comes out so it fills the entire volume of the room.

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

Would infrared sensor detect faster

[@Tjita1]

Can mist sprinklers work at mains pressure, or do the always require a pump or pressurized gas cylinders?

[@Dally_Sparkles]

it's a good life saver.. sure everything is now water damaged but that small family had enough time to gather their kids and get out of the house instead of dying in 2mins

[@haneefpasha772]

Is this the same experiment which kalpana chawla did in space...?

[@cilva7able]

I don't like how in the end he was spraying it out and then skipped like 10 minutes of the film to the point where all the steam had cleared.

[@Ts6451]

It isn't really useless, it just has a different approach than the more traditional sprinkler system, it will prevent the fire from spreading and eventually put it out, it will also cool down the area and cause less water damage, but it isn't the best choice for all applications.

[@ironmatic1]

A fixed water mist suppression system in an office? I think that’s what the building sprinklers are for...

[@NIMBUSFIREEU]

And still the fire services and the Governments advisor have not looked at water mist for serious fire fighting. Pity that we do all these tests and we still try and throw loads of water at the problem.

[@nicholaslandolina]

How much water does it consume

[@SuperToyotaLexus]

In an office workplace, the fire would spread out to other workstations.

[@gimmieanamestupid]

i can understand why this is used, but i really don't see the point in using this if it takes 16+ minutes to extinguish the flames, obviously this is not putting out a good quantity of water to extinguish, granted it does prevent spreading, but in the event access is restricted i would rather see no flames due to a properly installed fire sprinkler system rather than flames that are being fought with mist from what seems to be less than my garden hose....

[@shiferawengdawork]

its amazing video of fire extinguishing

[@EricPham-gr8pg]

Too slow because of sensor add on floor spray nozzle may help in case table block. It is not the technique but the arrangement of applications of technique not fully explored

[@pattycarljackson]

no they are effective if it was a house or something all the surounding furniture would get wet and slowly stop it from spreading and put out the fire and uses a lot less water

[@wcresponder]

show the same effect with coldfire. just for shiggles

[@hebneh]

Hmm...well, the fire is suppressed, but it's obviously not put out.

[@antonellas575]

Questo tra gli altri,è un esempio di incendio NON doloso

[@ukickmeikicku]

more water damage than fire damage?

[@peterdurana6519]

Čo vytvára pohotovostný tlak v potrubnom systéme po elektormagnetické vevtile, pokiaľ nenaskočí čerpadlová jednotka .

[@xclimatexcoldxx]

I could take a dump and when I go back to the kitchen it would be fire everywhere.

[@daimyo2]

doesnt seem very effective to me...

[@Thomas-be2lz]

by the time the system turns on you already have a few thousand dollars of damage. maybe a gas system is better for a room with computers.

[@DavidKnowles0]

may be but that probably more expensive as you need to have large bottles of gas somewhere and have them regularly recheck, possibly refilled. Where this just hooks directly into the existing water system in the building.

[@booth2710]

i was just thinking that

[@TheMailman011]

that water bill though :)

[@DieselRamcharger]

its actually a lower volume of water than regular sprinklers

[@TheMailman011]

Diesel Ramcharger interesting so it doesnt cost much

[@DieselRamcharger]

shaquille weaver less water means less water damage, less smoke. All you really need is for the temp of the room to stay low enough so you don't have flash over. the lower volume of water increases visibility and ease of egress. The whole point of the system is stopping the spread of fire and allowing people time to get out.

[@TheMailman011]

Diesel Ramcharger oh ok thx man

[@ScubaShark--8964]

Would you rather: Casualities and loss of Property OR Water Bill

[@iceman977th]

Yes, because we all keep blocks of wood under our desk, this is a perfect demonstration.

[@djo9c1]

But you most likely have similar combustible items. Books, boxes, papers, carpet, wastebasket full of trash, plastic-case computer?

[@napkil]

use FM200 will be better

[@kemlyc]

The "Water Mist" head looks exactly like a K5.6...

[@dowhite75]

Chris, it is the Tyco AM 29 Aquamist nozzle. Tyco are a Fire Sprinkler manufacturer that make Watermist, so their watermist heads look like sprinklers.

[@gamingmatrix7644]

I Would rather have water damage stuff than the fire killing a person or a pet. But these Cheap Components needed for the system are Marked Way to Expensive for a home owner to be able to install. Unless work is done yourself. Company will charge you 70$ per 8$ Pipe just because its "Special equiptment" and then rape you on the installation process by charging you 1,000-3,000 dollars for only 6-8 hours of Labor that other jobs where people do much harder labor only get 8-12$ a hour. The country is ran on money. Not saving your life........Just like when you go to a mechanic shop to change your breaks which is extremely easy to to yourself. They will charge you 300-350$ Labor to change your pads. When a backyard mechanic will easily do it for 30-40$ Labor because it takes no time at all to do it and very minimum work involved. The Mechanic Shop will also charge you 90$ for 35$ Brake pads.

[@BenjaminEsposti]

Tss, reminds me of hospitals ... studies have been done that show they overbill as much as 1000% or more! (1000% is 10x more) But yes I agree - it seems like the money is disappearing. There is plenty of it, but it is not quite where it should be.

[@svampebob007]

In general if it sounds fancy you can overcharge like crazy and people will pay for it because they don't know anything better... though there's always that random dude that can do it for cheap yet he probably feels like he's still overcharging you, and a few people smart enough not to get fooled by the lingo or price. Although the healthcare industry is in another league, I would not go to the backyard doctor or go to the "alternative doctors", I'd rather get fucked by a medical professional then save a few (hundred thousands of) pennies. I went to the doctor once and felt like a cheap slut because I knew I got ripped off (I seriously could and did already google what he just told me), but I did not feel like a sucker.

[@niniitread8691]

bill doal wow🙉 i need my break pads replaced now.. They sliding and wrinkling up from all the flooding here in baton rouge.. Go back home 2cali??????

[@narcacola7854]

It’s 3 am man I need to get some sleep

[@dannyboy4521]

Drop a branch line down there..that didn't save a life.

[@cellwood2296]

Hmm, air travels in droplets when pressurised so I dont think this is the best method. It is feeding the fire sometimes

[@valentinmendoza5155]

I don't like how the system work..

[@BenjaminEsposti]

But, you can't deny the fact that it's better than having no sprinklers at all! :)

[@pumpkin6429]

Not as hot as my mixtape. Git gud!

[@scuffieduffie]

Lol without the dude with the hose the whole building would burn down.

[@TurkiTots]

At 4 minutes I coulda already made marshmallow s'mores with a fire extinguisher ready. That fire was tiny

[@lightofthedark]

Anyone here? No? I guess I'm the only viewer here

[@sercan199313]

Bence yetersiz. Baya geç kontrol altına aldı. Soğutma için uygun evet fakat söndürmede zayıf. Masa altında ki alevler sönmedi.

[@Recovering_Californian]

Water does as much (sometimes more) damage as the fire. A better system is needed.

[@FeelingShred]

Californians need to shut their mouths down. The real america is the one in the farm zones which produce stuff. You californians live in a fucking desert, being shipped food and water, along with your damn air conditioners, which allow you to sit down all day and think stupid shit like stated above.

[@Recovering_Californian]

You need to go back to school buddy. Only about 1/3 of CA is a desert. That and CA's agricultural economy produces tens of billions of dollars of produce every year. North of Los Angeles is mostly farmland. CA probably ships YOU food. Because of CA's mild weather it can grow nearly year around.

[@gndmaui]

Thats because water puts the fire out dumbass. If left unchecked, the fire would consume the whole structure. If people are willing to pay for it, they can get a better system. but the only reason people put in fire protection systems is because they have to for insurance and legal reasons, because they really don't give a shit about the people in the building.

[@spartanlambda1884]

So if you don't fry well you'll drown instead

[@jaison1146]

Novec 1230 will and can do a better job!!!

[@chimallier]

wtf?

[@RaisedLetter]

FM-200 is better

[@mykvelasco8494]

not satisfying

[@JackSmith-zs4nk]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa frir

[@dotsontom]

This test is not very convincing on it's own. If they could do a comparison with automatic sprinklers of various densities, it would help to show if it is better or just as effective as sprinklers.

[@uke67]

@theirryxxtheirry nice try to get sum likes...

[@zahedihossain5984]

What if your expensive and loved car got fired, then ?? Try Dafo fire suppression system for vehicles. The most reliable, effective, long active, and worthy system. Save your car and your loving family for unexpected fire. See our demonstration videos on KZbin. Dafo Fire suppression system.

[@MegaObamasux]

I wouldnt consider this an accuratre test, the fire seems "suppressed" but not extinguished. Stop trying to re-invent the wheel....fire sprinkler are the real answer.

[@robinmccoy9461]

Totally unrealistic demonstration. Try it with the heat trapped in the room.

[@bandit012339]

well tht didnt work so well did it? by the time the fire started the sprinkler system the flames were almost to big to be put out. there wasnt enough water to overwhelm the flames. imagine if that were carpet like in an office building. that would be way worse because it would have spread. PLUS most cubicle dividers are made of fabric not wood so this shows how ineffective this suppression system really is. it didnt put out any of the stuff under the desk. thats a problem. because once the water in the sprinkler system runs out, there a lot of shit still burning that can now begin to spread again. I Guess the moral of the story is dont set stuff on fire...

[@yosefmacgruber1920]

+bandit012339 Why would the sprinkler water run out? It is connected to the water feeds into the building. So your question should be, whether the fire suppression system is adequate to suppress the fire, and to extend the amount of time available to evacuate? Sprinklers also reduce property damage losses, and make the job easier for fire fighters, if there is even any residual fire left. And I think most commercial sprinkler systems have water flow sensors in them, so the heat-triggered opening of just one sprinkler head, triggers the fire alarm, even if nobody is in the building.

[@ironmatic1]

Building sprinkler systems aren’t designed to activate on a smaller fire and stop it. They activate on extreme heat and will help control a fire. The water is connected to the city system and will not “run out” or stop until the valve is turned off. And yeah, they have flow switches to activate the building fire alarm system. I’m pretty sure what’s shown in the video isn’t even a sprinkler system, it’s a fixed water mist suppression system. It’s a British video and I’m Texan so I’m not sure about that.

[@benjamin050389]

That is a very ineffective system.

[@mehistaimsaar1323]

It's better than having to see the business or home go up in smoke.

[@glynn36]

Fail

[@gamingmatrix7644]

What is more effective is not being a jew and take care of your buildings maintenance. Old wires. Replace them. Rotted Wood. Replace it. Old Coffee makers or electronics. Replace it. Doing all that will prevent 95% of fires caused.

[@BenjaminEsposti]

Well, rotted wood doesn't start fires (that I know of...), but I agree with you 100%. A little investment can go a long way. And of course, I don't support doing DIY stuff unless you know what you are doing, but I think a lot of people these days could save some money by doing things themselves ... like, painting, etc... Hey, you'll get more exercise too, as a bonus! ;D

[@Corzayy]

Crap!

[@OfficialIMVUMusicVid]

awful

[@motorola222]

what a waste of time, what the point, quicker to let it burn itself out!

[@Fun-hz8ep]

Cheating