How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?

In article ,
(David Platt) wrote:

I'm pretty sure the amount of cyanide varies widely from one airplane
fire to another, but there is no time to measure it.

as I understand it the HCN is produced when plastics containing
nitrogen burn in an oxygen poor environment. Stuff like synthetic
rubber upholstery, pulyurethane foam insulation and and melamine
tray-tables

As I understand it, this is akin to the major reason you're supposed
to get out of a computer room if the Halon extinguishers are
triggered. The Halon itself isn't particularly hazardous (at the
concentrations used in these systems), but the combustion byproducts
from burning plastics and etc. are really nasty. The Halon suppresses
some of the flame reactions and stops the fire, but it doesn't get rid
of the poisonous partially-combusted plastics and other decomposed
flammables.

The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
"air" part of the old fire triangle).
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On 5/16/2014 8:31 PM, Ann Marie Brest wrote:

It seems, from the references, that 90 seconds is the golden
time period you need to get *out* of the burning aircraft.

So, all it has to do is stay wet for a few minutes to do
the intended job of helping to dissolve HCN gases.


And then discard the cloth, as it's full
of toxins.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 5/17/2014 5:39 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
As I understand it, this is akin to the major reason you're supposed
to get out of a computer room if the Halon extinguishers are
triggered. The Halon itself isn't particularly hazardous (at the
concentrations used in these systems), but the combustion byproducts
from burning plastics and etc. are really nasty. The Halon suppresses
some of the flame reactions and stops the fire, but it doesn't get rid
of the poisonous partially-combusted plastics and other decomposed
flammables.

The reason you want to get heck out of a Halon environment is that is
displaces the oxygen so you have nothing to breathe. (It works on the
"air" part of the old fire triangle).


I've taken some fire training courses. Halon is low
enough levels, that one can remain in the room. I've
seen movies of a test dump. The guy looked a bit
frieked out but was OK at the end of the movie.

There were some system using carbon dioxide, and
those displace oxygen.

Halon works on the fourth side of the triangle,
sustained chemical reaction. Actually fire
tetrahedron.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

In article ,
Stormin Mormon wrote:


I've taken some fire training courses. Halon is low
enough levels, that one can remain in the room. I've
seen movies of a test dump. The guy looked a bit
frieked out but was OK at the end of the movie.


Price I pay for relying on 30+ year old memories.


Halon works on the fourth side of the triangle,
sustained chemical reaction. Actually fire
tetrahedron.

One of my mentors suggested a fire pentahedron.
fuel, heat, oxidation material, chemical reaction, and Chief
Officers. You take any one away and the fire goes out.
--
³Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is suggestive,
but what they conceal is vital.²
‹ Aaron Levenstein

On Sat, 17 May 2014 00:44:27 -0700, micky wrote:

...snip excellent presentation....
So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.


I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to 'cull'
for truth.

Some other real examples: some of the experimental research done during
the Communist era in Russia. Wasn't that experiment where the 'scientists'
took a baby duck out into a submarine, hit it [the duck, not the
submarine] with a hammer, and caused simultneous great distress to the
mother duck all faked? just to continue funding for their 'research'.
Sounded reasonable, too.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 03:44:27 -0400, micky wrote:

So you shouldn't be assuming things because something is missing from
the articles you find, and more important, you should stop saying, WE
can safely assume. Speak for yourself. Not for us.

Again I must have not made myself clear.

Clearly I googled and found plenty of articles which said that hydrogen
cyanide is the killer and that the wet rag dissolved it - but that isn't
my point to you in this post.

Some of those articles I quoted were FAA summaries, others were air-safety
brochures from the likes of Airbus & Boeing, while still others were
peer-reviewed scientific papers (all of which were referenced).

My point, that I must be not saying clearly, is that the alternate
view (which you, and others espouse) has absolutely zero references
backing it up.

Again, I hope I am being clear here. I'm not saying the points that you
and others espouse are wrong. I'm just saying that not one single paper
has been provided in support of that alternate view.

I think it's unfortunate that I said "we can safely assume" since
you keep thinking that I'm assuming something that you don't assume.

Again, trying to be very clear about what my point is, it's simply
that nobody yet has provided a single reference that backs up the
alternate view.

Whether we can safely assume anything about that alternate view
seems to be your point - but it's not mine. My point is that the
alternative view is not supported by any facts which have been
presented in this thread.

Again, to be perfectly clear. I'm not saying that those facts
don't exist. I'm just saying NOBODY can find a paper which
supports those facts.

I apologize for saying 'we can safely assume' because that sentence
seems to throw people into a defensive mode. Remove that and
replace it with something like "I have not seen any references
which back up the view espoused" or something like that which
simply says that the opinion has been stated but not backed up
with anything concrete.

So, I only concluded what I could conclude from the papers
which I found, and referenced.

Is my point clear yet? (If not, I apologize.)

On Sat, 17 May 2014 07:03:04 -0700, RobertMacy wrote:

I HATE the 'expert' syndrome where we all must disavow ourselves of any
knowledge, or input; the concepts are just too lofty for our peasant
brains to fathom; and we must believe everything that has been written.
That stuff is just like 'NEWS', can't always be trusted. One has to 'cull'
for truth.

I think you missed the point, and again, I apologize for misleading you.

It's the LACK OF PROOF that is dominant here.
Not proof taken out of context (which is what your example is portraying).

For the hydrogen-cyanide-wet-cloth theory, I provided oodles of PDFs
(from the FAA, from airplane manufacturers, from Fire Departments, and
from universities) which backed up my statements.

The alternate view has ZERO articles backing it up.

What am I *supposed* to conclude about the fact that the alternative
view has absolutely ZERO references backing it up?

Given your example, it's like something that never happened that
was also never printed in the NEWS.

Since it never happened, and, likewise, since it never made it
into the news, what does that make it (besides an urban myth)?

I'm sorry if I'm not clear - so I repeat.

What am I *supposed* to conclude from the proposed alternative
view which has absolutely ZERO references backing it up?

On Sat, 17 May 2014 06:49:09 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:

And then discard the cloth, as it's full of toxins.

Actually, in one of the references I read (I think it was the OSHA one),
it mentioned how to properly dispose of the hydrogen-cyanide-laced
protective gear after it was used.

On Fri, 16 May 2014 23:16:38 -0800, Guv Bob wrote:

Logically, breathing through a wet cloth would also remove more particulate
matter than through a dry cloth. Try blowing cigarette smoke thru a dry
handkerchief and a wet one and you'll see a big difference.

I have no problem with the logic - but it may also be an urban myth.

What should we conclude from the fact that absolutely ZERO articles have been
posted to this thread coming from the FAA to the airplane manufacturers to the
airline-safety fire departments to the airline-safety research universities
which back up this hypothesis?

To repeat clearly, absolutely ZERO articles have been posted to this thread
that report that smoke particles are a life-threatening danger to your
breathing in an airplane cabin fire and that a wet towel can ameliorate
that danger.

The purpose of this thread is stated in the subject line:
How does a wet cloth really help (scientifically) to survive an airplane crash?

To be clear here, I'd be *glad* to believe that a wet cloth helps save your
life by filtering out particles, but it's hard to believe that supposition
when not a single one of us (me included) can find a single reliable industry
reference that says so.

On Sat, 17 May 2014 02:06:44 -0400, micky wrote:

Why do you think all that
matters is if something is *immediately* dangerous?

You're joking right?

We're talking about an airplane crash cabin fire.

And, you're saying all our conclusions are wrong because your
aunt got cancer 30 years after moving downwind from a factory?

I apologize, but I don't get the connection at all.