I suspect that a conflagration of a 2M aircraft is much less of a concern to the Navy than a fire on a (what) 40 Billion dollar aircraft carrier. Remember the Forrestal?
formatting link
for those of you who don't)
Not much. The Navy apparently still has some Beech T-44 King Airs. I don't know which exact models these are, but some civilian models can be picked up for about $2 million. You won't see one on an aircraft carrier, though.
Frank Stutzman (someday I'll be able to know enough about woodworking to write about something that isn't OT in this group)
Yeah, well...in 1960, at Kaneohe Bay, my Marine Corps squadron got new HUS-1 helicopters. They were incredibly expensive compred to the ones we were getting rid of (Korean War relics with patched bullet holes included): $750,000 per unit.
Charlie Self "Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half." Gore Vidal
One of my employees recently had to extinguish a tar kettle fire with our equipment, (4) 20 LB. Halon extinguishers.
The roofers had placed both of their HUGE extinguishers right up against the kettle, making them useless once the fire started. The kettle cover jammed, so it couldn't be shut.
It took FOUR Halon bottles because the wind kept carrying the Halon away. A small dry chem would have stopped things in no time.
In absence of language prohibiting it, it is allowed. It's clear from the text and the rest of the FAQ that using Halon for its intended purpose is perfectly legal so long as the Halon is reclaimed/recycled or was manufactured prior to the ban.
Facts on HALON -- Halon is a brand name for a whole family of flourocarbon compounds. Just like 'Freon', for air-conditioner working fluid. In fact, 'Halon' and 'Freon' are cousins, as chemical compounds go. As with Freon, the number after the name identifies a specific compound. *MANY* Halon compounds are quite hazardous to breathe. There is, however, at least one that _will_ maintain a 'breathable' atmosphere, while failing to support open-flame combustion. Interestingly, Halon fire-suppression seems to work by a different mechanism than other 'extinguisher' systems. 'Traditional' systems put out a fire by either separating the fuel from the oxygen in the air, or by pulling the heat away, so that combustion is not self-sustaining. Halon seems to actually 'interrupt' the combustion process -- calling it a 'negative effect catalyst' is not too far off the mark.
The 'breathable' Halon compound _was_ more expensive than some of the other fire-suppression Halons -- which variant was deployed in any given computer facility was a choice made by that operator. Systems with the 'bad stuff' worked on a delayed-action basis -- you hit the dump switch, and the alarm went off =immediately=, telling everybody to evacuate. Then, after an 'appropriate' delay, the dump valves opened. 'Breathable' systems did _not_ have any 'evacuation' delay. Either kind of system may have had a 'warning' interval -- to allow for an abort on a false-alarm trigger.
I've been in a computer room equipped with the breathable system, when the alarm went off. Impressive! Particularly since somebody (read some idjiot :) had replaced a couple of the grid floor tiles over dump points with solid ones. They blew about 3 feet straight up in the air. Anyway, the temp in the room plummeted probably 25 degrees F, nearly instantaneously -- providing another 'good excuse' to get the h*ll out of there. That particular stuff really _is_ breathable, although it is not terribly pleasant to do so.
Grow up. Halon and other CFCs do, without a doubt, wreck the ozone layer. The ozone layer protects _you_ from skin cancer, among other things. The ozone layer protects oceanic phytoplankton, which produce oxygen for _you_ to breathe. Stop whining about the people who are trying to keep you alive.
It's been quite well known for nearly thirty years that halogenated hydrocarbons (CFCs) can and do break down ozone, returning it to normal oxygen. The CFCs unfortunately act as catalysts in this reaction, not as reagents, and one CFC molecule can break down many ozone molecules.
-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
It's a question of rates: Once the destruction rate is bigger than the ozone formation rate the amount of ozone diminuishes, as seen over both poles (where of course the formation rate is lower because there is light is less)
CFCs participate in a catalytic cycle which breaks down ozone. The catalytic aspect is why it is so important to stop putting CFCs into the atmosphere. Remember, CFCs are wholly artificial. Natural processes, vulcanism, for example, can contribute chlorine compounds to the atmosphere. The naturally occurring chlorinated molecules have a much smaller effect on upper-atmosphere ozone levels than do the artificial CFCs.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.