Pyrolance

[x635 4,066]

Just saw an apparatus delivered with Pyrolance technology. Seems pretty neat, has or does anyone use it locally?

More on the Pyrolance technology: http://www.pyrolance.com/

DFW Airport Has 2 new 2013 Pierce/International Rapid Intervention Vehicles numbered EZ19 and EZ29, featuring 500G water, 60G foam, 500 dry chem, PyroLance, too many cameras to count, pump-and-roll turret, FLIR, and more.

Photo of DFW's unit: http://www.bensware.com/firetrucks/DFWAirportEZ19-3465.jpg

Photo and Info Credit: Ben Saladino DFW Fire Equpment News

[Bnechis 3,961]

Just saw an apparatus delivered with Pyrolance technology. Seems pretty neat, has or does anyone use it locally?

Interesting concept, but I think it would be very dangerious in most municipal depts.

But for ARFF, Shipboard, Industrial it might be an excellent tool

[mstrang1 213]

If it can break through a wall, I can't imagine what it would do to someone who accidentally walks in front of your nozzle.

Way back when I was a student at John Jay I wrote a paper on high pressure vapor nozzles that were being used in Europe. They couldn't be used for cutting, but the heat absorption was many times higher than a conventional nozzle.

[CFFD117 19]

Coming from a maritime background, I can definitely see the benefit in having this for shipboard use. One major concern with shipboard fires is the amount of water and its impact on the displacement of the vessel. It can get to a point where the amount of water used and its weight in the bilge causes the vessel to become unstable and/or sink. Watertight compartments on ships also present another issue, being sealed and that the steel would not self vent as say a building would, the heat/gasses are held inside the fire room. Which as you could imagine leads to a greater chance of a back draft upon opening of the water tight door. having the ability to pierce the steel bulkhead and cool the room would be invaluable and absolutely reduce the risk a lot. Aside from industrial, ARFF and shipboard, depending on portability I could see a potential use for this in high rise firefighting. being able to get water in without exposure to the fire would make it that much safer.

[firemoose827 324]

I like this concept for a small rural volunteer fire dept with minimal manpower and no municipal water sources. The informational video did specify that it takes less water to extinguish and it showed one man using it. In my department we roll with 3000 gallons and 2 firefighters for the first few minutes. Deploying a pyrolance to either gain a quick effective knock down from outside, or at least until other manpower arrives to safely make the attack (with the 2-in-2-out rule) cooling the interior and halting the spread of fire is a bonus in my book.

It would take long hours of training and practical evolutions to make sure the dept and our mutual aid as well become familiar with it enough to use it in their sleep, and would only be used for the first few minutes, sort of like a blitz attack but instead of the deck gun we would use the Pyrolance, then shut it down and advance the attack lines. Could be used in backdraft situations in some of our newer air-tight construction we see today with the energy efficient windows and doors. Much safer than traditional coordiantion of vent and attack, especially when you dont have the manpower to do both at the same time. I was thinking of re-training with the piercing nozzle for this, but the pyrolance makes the hole for you, and you wouldnt get the regular piercing nozzle through exterior siding, you would need to get inside and pierce the sheetrock which could be dangerous.

Im just brainstorming here though, throwing out ideas for discussion.

[wraftery 1,275]

Do some research before you jump on the pyrolance bandwagon. The guy in the infomercial sounds a lot like an old film by Lloyd Layman touting the water absorption rate of fog lines. That started the greatest debate ever among fire people. And, I think it was Hahn who had a 700psi fog system for brush fires and places without adequate water supplies.

All these items (High pressure systems, Fog lines, and now Pyrolance) work well in confined spaces because the steam doesn't leave the space and is able to absorb its full amount of btu's.

All these boons to the fire service last a little while and then become museum pieces, never to be used again.

Only a combination of two things has consistently proven itself to be an effective firefighting system over the course of time: Firefighters and Water.

The powers that be are already taking away our firefighters. Watch out boys, the next thing they will want to get rid of are our fire hydrants, selling them for scrap.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

I like this concept for a small rural volunteer fire dept with minimal manpower and no municipal water sources. The informational video did specify that it takes less water to extinguish and it showed one man using it. In my department we roll with 3000 gallons and 2 firefighters for the first few minutes. Deploying a pyrolance to either gain a quick effective knock down from outside, or at least until other manpower arrives to safely make the attack (with the 2-in-2-out rule) cooling the interior and halting the spread of fire is a bonus in my book.

Good idea on paper, until we end up steaming a victim to death because we just "lanced" it from the outside without conducting a search of the building first. Even for small departments with minimum manpower, there's no way around the need for a coordinated fire attack.

[firemoose827 324]

Do some research before you jump on the pyrolance bandwagon. The guy in the infomercial sounds a lot like an old film by Lloyd Layman touting the water absorption rate of fog lines. That started the greatest debate ever among fire people. And, I think it was Hahn who had a 700psi fog system for brush fires and places without adequate water supplies.

All these items (High pressure systems, Fog lines, and now Pyrolance) work well in confined spaces because the steam doesn't leave the space and is able to absorb its full amount of btu's.

All these boons to the fire service last a little while and then become museum pieces, never to be used again.

Only a combination of two things has consistently proven itself to be an effective firefighting system over the course of time: Firefighters and Water.

The powers that be are already taking away our firefighters. Watch out boys, the next thing they will want to get rid of are our fire hydrants, selling them for scrap.

I agree with what you say chief, but I also believe that with the fire service growing so rapidly, and new innovations and techniques being born daily, the "older" tools get forgotten because of the newer tools. Officers forget that they are still in the tool box.

I read a great article recently, and I just spent the past 30 minutes looking for it on countless magazine web sites but was unable to locate it unfortunately. It was a great piece on the re-invention of older tools, and the writer discussed specifically the use of the cellar nozzle, piercing nozzle and the hose clamp. Simple, older tools that have been "forgotten" about, yet they can still play a major role in today's fire scenes with a little imagination and creativity.

I was seriously thinking about using the piercing nozzle a lot more for different applications in my area.

The cellar nozzle is still a great oldie, and can be used for more then cellar fires.

I believe this Pyrolance is worth a good look, maybe even a demo at the station, but would never go into any major purchase without looking at it from every angle first and discussing it with members and mutual aid departments as well. Still just a good idea to look at for my situation; large coverage area, no municipal water source, a few large ponds scattered over the area with only 2 working dry hydrants to use, and very minimal manpower for the initial attack. This tool could help us if used the right way, and that comes with training and practical use.

Very good points though and I agree.

[firemoose827 324]

Good idea on paper, until we end up steaming a victim to death because we just "lanced" it from the outside without conducting a search of the building first. Even for small departments with minimum manpower, there's no way around the need for a coordinated fire attack.

Good point. But I speak from "Small Town USA" where everyone knows everybody. I am used to rolling up to a house fire and knowing right away, either from the people living there or neighbors, that everyone is out, not home, on vacation etc etc. We dont have vagrant issues or squatters, we can do a quick search relatively quickly too in most of our typical "ranch" style houses through windows and doors and using our TIC. I was merely throwing it out for discussion. The age old "Another tool in the tool box when used appropriately" discussion.

[SageVigiles 1,194]

Absolutely Chief, but we both know there's some yard-breathers and politicians out there thinking they can make the job easier (IE: cut training and/or manpower) with something like this.

[JM15 386]

Guys hate to burst your bubble but the portable version is deemed an "assault rifle" in NYS and thus illegal... It has a scary looking pistol grip... Can anyone see a bayonnet lug on there?

Edited June 24, 2013 by JM15

[firemoose827 324]

Guys hate to burst your bubble but the portable version is deemed an "assault rifle" in NYS and thus illegal... It has a scary looking pistol grip... Can anyone see a bayonnet lug on there?

Gotta admit, with this picture, it looks like an assault rifle. Anyone got any good info for the old piercing nozzle then??? LOL