KSC develops Earth-friendly fire suppression agent

wrote in message
news:20031105224328.QPKE2463.amsfep12-

NASA-KSC has filed a patent application for the dry powder substance that
combines the best properties of water and Halon fire extinguishing agents.
The agent is made of microencapsulated water, which means it's not
evaporated into the atmosphere making it a more powerful suppressant that's
also appropriate for the environment.

Sounds impressive. I wonder what the microcapsules that hold the water are
made of, though. If they're made of some petroleum product, are they better
than Halon?

rgds
Neil

"Neil Gerace" wrote in message
u...

wrote in message
news:20031105224328.QPKE2463.amsfep12-

NASA-KSC has filed a patent application for the dry powder substance
that
combines the best properties of water and Halon fire extinguishing agents.
The agent is made of microencapsulated water, which means it's not
evaporated into the atmosphere making it a more powerful suppressant
that's
also appropriate for the environment.

Sounds impressive. I wonder what the microcapsules that hold the water are
made of, though. If they're made of some petroleum product, are they
better
than Halon?

Considering Halon is banned now, yes. :-)

Actually I can see a real call for this in data centers. They've been
moving away from dry suppressants in some places simply because the room is
so large that any people in it would risk suffocation before they could
evacuate. (not to mention the clean-up cost of triggering such a system.)

The solution has been a dry pipe system with separate sprinklers over each
rack and flooding the system in the event of a fire and then only releasing
water over specific racks, ideally isolating the damage the suppressant
might cause.



rgds
Neil

wow, powdered water! Like the Steven Wright joke; "I bought some powdered
water, but I don't know what to add".

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Actually I can see a real call for this in data centers. They've been
moving away from dry suppressants in some places simply because the room is
so large that any people in it would risk suffocation before they could
evacuate. (not to mention the clean-up cost of triggering such a system.)

Why not compartmentalize the data center, making multiple smaller
rooms?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Actually I can see a real call for this in data centers. They've been
moving away from dry suppressants in some places simply because the room
is
so large that any people in it would risk suffocation before they could
evacuate. (not to mention the clean-up cost of triggering such a
system.)

Why not compartmentalize the data center, making multiple smaller
rooms?

Cost.



D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Actually I can see a real call for this in data centers. They've been
moving away from dry suppressants in some places simply because the room is
so large that any people in it would risk suffocation before they could
evacuate. (not to mention the clean-up cost of triggering such a system.)

Why not compartmentalize the data center, making multiple smaller
rooms?

Each partition needs its own environmental control system
and fire suppression system (redundant, preferably).
And the multiplicity of control systems introduces
headaches and costs; larger A/C units and more bottles
for the basic system are a lot cheaper than more systems...


-george william herbert

(George William Herbert) wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
Actually I can see a real call for this in data centers. They've been
moving away from dry suppressants in some places simply because the room is
so large that any people in it would risk suffocation before they could
evacuate. (not to mention the clean-up cost of triggering such a system.)

Why not compartmentalize the data center, making multiple smaller
rooms?

Each partition needs its own environmental control system
and fire suppression system (redundant, preferably).
And the multiplicity of control systems introduces
headaches and costs; larger A/C units and more bottles
for the basic system are a lot cheaper than more systems...

Do civil architects and engineers lack knowledge of isolation flappers
and valves? They guys that build naval facilities certainly do, as
*one* environmental control system, and *one* fire suppression
system, suffices for many thousand square feet with multiple labs,
data centers, offices, etc in that zone.

Yes, compartmentalization is more expensive than One Big Room, but n
rooms in the same space won't cost n times as much, but somewhat less.
(And if the equipment is mission critical, or vital, you'll save money
and heartache.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.