USCA Sidecar Forum

For some extra information about navigating the forum you can go to Forum Tips

WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR GIFT CARDS. IF YOU RECEIVE AN EMAIL TO THAT EFFECT, IT DID NOT COME FROM THE USCA. IT IS A PHISHING SCAM. DO NOT REPLY!

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

Carrying a fire extinguisher

I am not sure of how to link to Youtube video clips and post them here without getting my own account there included. However, if you check YouTube and enter in the below listings into the search there, you can see a motorcycle fire that has many, many things to not do when encountering a fire. Basic stupidity on the part of the teens, but probably many people would do something as dumb and dangerous in a similar situation. Maybe someone else can actually link the clips here for view, but I couldn't make it work properly.

Russian Motorcycle Fire - PT 1
Russian Motorcycle Fire - Pt 2

The first Jawa Rig I ever met was brand new from the shop in 1984(85?). At 340km on the same weekend it went up in flames because of a leaking tank valve on top of the wiring. Carbs and tank valves are still not up to date and free of leaking, electricity isn't the best yet neither, but on mine I have now 19.000km, so I hope I will not need my estinguiusher.

Knock on wood (or my stubburn head)
Sven

Just a funny oddity, since the thread is on extinguishers. I was watching an episode of Mythbusters last night. The oddity was that they were trying to dispel a myth about a fire extinguisher bursting from the heat of a flame and thus, putting out the fire. They put a few into various fires and each did explode with great force. Although they confirmed that it could be plausable for a fire extinguisher to explode in a fire and put it out, their results actually showed the force of the explosion actually shooting debris and flaming or smouldering pieces out in all directions. This leade me to believe that the fire could just as easily be spread, as opposed to putting out the original fire, as in the myth.

(I don't recall if the extinguishers were of various types, dry-filled or liquid-filled).

It was sort of a funny or odd piece to view, as it brought back memories of this thread. I don't think I'd put my faith in a fire extinguisher bursting and putting out a hack fire though. But they did rule the myth plausable.

Originally written by Pat Huey on 1/15/2009 10:23 AM

Just a funny oddity, since the thread is on extinguishers. I was watching an episode of Mythbusters last night. The oddity was that they were trying to dispel a myth about a fire extinguisher bursting from the heat of a flame and thus, putting out the fire. They put a few into various fires and each did explode with great force. Although they confirmed that it could be plausable for a fire extinguisher to explode in a fire and put it out, their results actually showed the force of the explosion actually shooting debris and flaming or smouldering pieces out in all directions. This leade me to believe that the fire could just as easily be spread, as opposed to putting out the original fire, as in the myth.

(I don't recall if the extinguishers were of various types, dry-filled or liquid-filled).

It was sort of a funny or odd piece to view, as it brought back memories of this thread. I don't think I'd put my faith in a fire extinguisher bursting and putting out a hack fire though. But they did rule the myth plausable.

Wasn't that the theory behind the old Carbon Tetrachloride glass bulbs? I remember buying an old 1938 Cadillac that had a bracket under the hood, holding a red glass bulb about the size of a softball. It was encased in the bracket, not removeable, so I assumed it was meant to explode if the temp got too high.

Not sure if that was the theory on them or not, but I know that the CDC banned the use of such as it ruled the product contained as a possible carcinogen. You may be correct on the theory, but I don't know for sure.

Yes, carbon tetrachloride was banned for general sale many years ago. Besides formerly being used in fire extinghuishers, it made a great spot remover. You can still purchase it at a chemical warehouse, I believe.

For the most part, the "authorities" have taken away all of the "good stuff" and left us with ecologically "safe" items that don't work as well.

Remember asbestos? Yeah, I know, it's dangerous. It sure made nice gaskets and brake linings. It's also the most common mineral in the earth's crust. How about real high octane gasoline with tetraethyl lead. Yeah, I know, it's dangerous, too. It was sure nice for those high compression motorcycle engines though, wasn't it?

We now live in a world where everyone is protected both from themselves and from the environment. Progress. LOL,

The glass bulbs were to be thrown at the base of the fire. Ideally the thin bulb would break and spread the carbon tet to suffocate the fire.

The "environmentalists" efforts have caused the banning of very many useful products at great cost to humanity when a bit of common sense control would have them still available to benefit mankind.
For instance DDT: Overt prolonged widespread use caused a huge decimation of some species of wildlife so it was banned (like lead shot). Controlled usage of DDT today would save millions of human lives lost in Africa from malaria.
As with most things like asbestos, carbon tetrachloride, tetraethyl lead, 24D, etc, prudent usage and moderation would be a better answer than abolition.

Lonnie

Originally written by Hack'n on 1/16/2009 9:21 AM

The glass bulbs were to be thrown at the base of the fire. Ideally the thin bulb would break and spread the carbon tet to suffocate the fire.

The "environmentalists" efforts have caused the banning of very many useful products at great cost to humanity when a bit of common sense control would have them still available to benefit mankind.
For instance DDT: Overt prolonged widespread use caused a huge decimation of some species of wildlife so it was banned (like lead shot). Controlled usage of DDT today would save millions of human lives lost in Africa from malaria.
As with most things like asbestos, carbon tetrachloride, tetraethyl lead, 24D, etc, prudent usage and moderation would be a better answer than abolition.

Lonnie

Wow ... good to see somebody with a pragmatic and like minded sense for the world. I agree with you 100%.

I have to say that your post struck a chord with me as I live in the land of environmental activism (Portland Oregon) and go to Lewis and Clark Law school who's big claim to fame is that it has ... wait for it ... the NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM in the country.

Ugh ... it's painful to watch.

Somebody I go to school with prides himself on telling folks that he "lives in a tree house."

To each his own I guess. Silly me. I just try to work hard and take care of my kids.

Ok, sorry about the rant.

Originally written by geek_law on 1/16/2009 10:47 AM

Originally written by Hack'n on 1/16/2009 9:21 AM

The glass bulbs were to be thrown at the base of the fire. Ideally the thin bulb would break and spread the carbon tet to suffocate the fire.

The "environmentalists" efforts have caused the banning of very many useful products at great cost to humanity when a bit of common sense control would have them still available to benefit mankind.
For instance DDT: Overt prolonged widespread use caused a huge decimation of some species of wildlife so it was banned (like lead shot). Controlled usage of DDT today would save millions of human lives lost in Africa from malaria.
As with most things like asbestos, carbon tetrachloride, tetraethyl lead, 24D, etc, prudent usage and moderation would be a better answer than abolition.

Lonnie

Wow ... good to see somebody with a pragmatic and like minded sense for the world. I agree with you 100%.

I have to say that your post struck a chord with me as I live in the land of environmental activism (Portland Oregon) and go to Lewis and Clark Law school who's big claim to fame is that it has ... wait for it ... the NUMBER ONE ENVIRONMENTAL LAW PROGRAM in the country.

Ugh ... it's painful to watch.

Somebody I go to school with prides himself on telling folks that he "lives in a tree house."

To each his own I guess. Silly me. I just try to work hard and take care of my kids.

Ok, sorry about the rant.

Hopefully you won't have to pass a test on the level of your liberalism when you are finished with Law School. When I went to law school some 25 years ago, they didn't bother with such tests but nowadays, it's germanine to the teaching method.

Happy Trails.

We lived in Portland when Reed College was the epitomy of liberal and Governer Hatfield out Gored fat AL for fooling the public before moving east and further f****ng things up in general.

Lonnie