Comment: Black smoke does not indicate a "cool" fire.

(See in situ)


fireant's picture

Black smoke does not indicate a "cool" fire.

You may want to study this entire article, but here is a snip:
"“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F!"
Taken from "THE ART OF READING SMOKE", by DAVID W. DODSON
http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/print/volume-158/iss...
From another source: "Thick, dark grey smoke “pushing” out of a structure, suggests a larger, more intense fire. A fire involving petroleum products will produce large quantities of black, rolling smoke that rises in a vertical column."
http://www.firefightingincanada.com/content/view/2139/132/

So I will stand partially corrected. Smoke study has evolved since I was trained years ago. Black smoke is not always an indication of petro based material, but it is clearly not an indication of a "cool" fire.

No, I never even insinuated the steel was glowing hot in 7. The fires were extensive, and plenty hot enough to expand and warp the structural members. Watch this FDNY raw video to get an idea of the extensiveness of the fires in 7, and be sure to listen to the firefighters' comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jk5o-zmvMiM&feature=relmfu

Undo what Wilson did