Are fog nozzles not the answer?
Layman’s prediction certainly has come true, and it is still true 50 years later. So is it time to end this revolution in the art of fire fighting and go back to the “gross inefficiency” of the solid stream form of application?
Fredericks thinks so, and he bases his argument upon supposed changes in the fire environment that have happened within the past 50 years. These changes must be radical indeed to nullify the progressive advance obtained by using “little drops of water”, and at the same time somehow overcome the “gross inefficiency” of solid stream nozzles. Are we suddenly confronted with a strange new world of fire fighting in which what was grossly inefficient now becomes more efficient? That would be a strange new world indeed.
So let’s see how Fredericks argument proceeds. Part One outlines the history of the development of the use of fog nozzles including Chief Layman’s new indirect method of attack. The role of the Exploratory Committee on the Application of Water is briefly discussed. Then Fredericks continues with a presentation of the research done at Iowa State University beginning in 1951 by Bill Nelson and Keith Royer. Included is a statement of the Iowa Rate-of-Flow Formula plus the combination attack.
Part One is marred by numerous errors in describing the work of Layman, Nelson and Royer. Unfortunately, Part One is marred by numerous errors in describing the work of Layman, Nelson and Royer. Apparently Fredericks has read all the articles and books published by these three men. At least they are referenced., so that is not the source of the errors. Perhaps the errors occur because Fredericks does not really understand the theory and practice of the use of fog nozzles.
He even advocated a slight, brisk, and continuous manipulation of the nozzle. One error, for example, occurs when Fredericks states that the “fog nozzle must be held in a fixed position”. It is puzzling how such an error could occur. Chief Layman clearly did not advocate this. (See p. 48, ATTACKING AND EXTINGUISHING INTERIOR FIRES.) In fact Layman stated just the opposite. He advocated a high degree of dispersion within the upper stratum. He wanted the high velocity cone elevated upward at a gradual angle to avoid the stream hitting the ceiling before dispersing. He even advocated a slight, brisk, and continuous manipulation of the nozzle.
One of the fundamental principles of a fog attack is that a wide dispersion of the “little drops of water” is required for an effective fog attack. Apparently Fredericks does not understand this principle.
Fredericks asserts that turnout clothing “lacked the thermal protective qualities of modern fabrics” Second, Fredericks contends that a major change in the fire environment is the difference in the turnout clothing and the lack of breathing equipment in the 50s and 60s. These differences, he claims, restricted fire fighting largely to exterior attacks compared to the interior attacks more commonly used today. Fredericks asserts that turnout clothing “lacked the thermal protective qualities of modern fabrics”, and that “many fire departments had few, if any, self-contained breathing masks available.”
