Battleship Flammability Test: Gun Oil, Uniforms, and Teak Wood
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 сен 2024
- In this episode we're setting things on fire, for science! We're taking a torch to some uniforms, some teak wood decking, and some oils used with the guns.
To send Ryan a message on Facebook: / ryanszimanski
To support this channel and Battleship New Jersey, go to:
www.battleship...
The goals of all great museums. Preservation, restoration and incineration.
family visiting for a tour, Did you know there is a crazy guy out front burning stuff?.....Oh don't worry that is the just curator of the museum.
If I remember correctly, when the USS Stark was hit by an Iranian Exocet missel, a lot of crew were wearing Corfam shoes that melted to their feet. After that we were told LEATHER only shoes and boots on the ship unless we were in a dress uniform. I always figured the most flammable thing onboard was me, a potential "screaming alfa" fire.
Speaking as a blue collar who works in a weld shop. We are prohibited from having nylon clothing which the newer Uniform tended
to made of. Melted nylon sucks to peel off skin.
Melted nylon's probably pretty good at peeling off skin.
People were sending solders things like Underarmor cool shirts. Nylon, spandex and cotton mix. The military had to ban troops using them in country. I remember the doctor interviewed said they had a harder time patching up troops from the melted nylon then bullets.
@@Ghauster that’s completely true it’s one to have treat GSWs and shrapnel wounds. The explosion sterilizes the wound. But the with burns, they are more complex to treat because the skin acts as another bandage layer. But once the skin is compromised it’s becomes harder to treat
I was admiring the view in the Santa Cruz Mountains taking a break from riding my Triumph motorcycle dressed in leather. Around the bend comes a BMW rider with a synthetic riding suit. He did not know the road ended at an gated installation just past the bend. I ran over to see if he was alright after I heard the crash. He seemed fine except where the suit melted from friction. Don't know how much damage he took. He may have had enough clothes on under to keep the hot melted plastic off him.
Melted nylon is your skin. Depending on how severe that sh1t tacks, you'll have to get under the cutter to get it peeled off. Really nasty stuff.
The old Dungaree uniform which the "blueberries" replaced was cotton. It would burn, but more like the old Blues. When it became common knowledge that the "Blueberries" turned into Napalm and melted into the sailors when exposed to a fire, the unofficial Engineering Uniform of the day went back to the old cotton coveralls. This helps to prevent the class of fire known as a "Screaming Alpha".
The thing with oil-based paints is that they become less flammable with age. They are quite flammable in the can, but become less flammable over time as the volatiles gradually evaporate. This is why cans of paint, cleaning solvents, etc. are stored in spaces specially equipped with CO2 flooding systems, heat sensors, etc.
Key thing to note is that most of the things that you tested produced flame and smoke/fumes as long as the heat is applied. Your heat was direct, but a good fire on the other side of a steel bulkhead will result in the same thing.
Before somebody brings up the Bonhomme Richard fire in San Diego, that was a TOTALLY different situation. That vessel was still under the direct control of the civilian shipyards, NOT the US Navy. Sailors pay attention to things like keeping the trash picked up, storing flammables properly, ensuring that hatches can be closed, making sure that fire suppression equipment is usable, etc. Yard workers tend to toss trash in the corners, stow flammable materials wherever it is convenient to the job, foul hatches with hoses/cables/ducts, and take down firefighting equipment in large regions of the ship.
The stern doors on the BHR were open. The main passageways through the entire ship had the hatches and WTD tied open and fouled as described above. Decks and bulkheads had just been painted with flammable coatings while the fire suppression equipment was still siting in a yard shop somewhere. When a fire started on the Vehicle Deck where literally BARRELS of flammable liquid, wood dunnage, overpack materials, etc. were stored, the stern doors became an open damper, the Vehicle Deck the firebox, and the main passageways the uptake to the smokestack that the forward superstructure became. To get better conditions for an uncontrollable fire, you would have had to design it.
It never ceases to amaze me how someone on the Navy's uniform could have approved the NWU1 as the dungaree replacement when it was made with nylon. It's not like the Navy hasn't known for decades what materials are naturally flame resistant and in more recent decades, what man made materials are highly flame resistant. I also don't quite understand why the Navy didn't simply temporarily halt production and issue of the NEWU1 until they could start making them from cotton or Nomex.
there are modern equivalent synthetic fire-resistant textiles, but they require actually paying attention to this not just taking a cheap cloth that looks good.
both wool and thickly woven cotton are naturally fire resistant since they don't as much burn than simply "crumble" so it doesn't burn as hot as to sustain it's own fire (unless extremely dirty with oils/ fuels) and even then it tends to crumble and fall away taking the fire with it.
There is more, a LOT more, to the BHR fire. One thing, there were no fire fighting water supply connections on the pier, only potable water supplies rated at 400gpm. The responding fire fighters had to lay high capacity hoses from shore connections. Another, the shipyard fire fighters had never even toured a ship to be familiarized with the layout of ships in general much less the BHR's layout. The ship's fire hose connections were not compatible with shore based fire fighting equipment and the ship's hose adaptors & such were not readily, if at all, available.
@@danquigg8311 I believe that a 3" hose for civilian FF agencies is generally used as a "trunk" line to feed manifolds for the 1-1/2" hose used by hose teams.
It's been several decades since I last touched Navy Shipboard FF equipment, but a 3" hose was standard for a hose team.
If all of the above is still true, then the civilians would have had a limited amount of 3" hose available, and lots of 1-1/2" hose.
If they were to try to use the shipboard equipment, they would have found that everything was sized for the 3" that was out on the pier. Trying to pressurize the firemain from the pier would have had the same issues.
400 GPM? Last time I stood an Inport DC Central watch, I would have had 1 firepump online, for 3500 GPM @ 125 PSI. As soon as even a suspected fire was reported, I would have had the S&S Rover running to bring up a second pump for 7000 GPM total at something approaching 130 PSI...Leaving me a 3rd electric pump at 3500 GPM in standby.
That is pretty much what I would expect for the items tested. It is important to note that wool, prior to the modern materials, was the fire resistant material of choice, used in hearth rugs, fireman clothing, etc.
I would suggest trying to ignite vertical surfaces i.e. there is a lot more surface area on the ship that are bulkheads than decking. Plus, the heat that rises up the surface preheats the material and maintains it longer. Proven by Bureau of Standards tests of plastic materials held horizontally would self extinquish after the heat source was removed. Those materials were then used in walls of retails stores. When a fire occurred the fire grew up the walls and produce toxic smoke killing customers. Then the Bureau of Standards tried holding the materials vertically and found out that they did not self extinquish. These tests were in the '60's and '70's if my memory serves.
Oh, traditional clothing for firemen has always been wool!
I worked in a steel plant in the 80's we were issued with heavy wool trousers, and jackets with rubber buttons and no fly! Almost impossible to wear in the heat, but any molten steel sparks etc charred the wool and didn't get through. In a real accident where some one got splashed, the steel would freeze on the wool and a carbon layer formed between the metal and the skin, it probably meant you got 1st degree burns, but the removal of the splash was much easier as it parted at the carbon layer.
Ding! Geometry is important, and less-flammable materials can very well turn out to be more-flammable in a vertical orientation. (Also consider airflow, heat transfer... various factors can make matters worse.)
That, and there's a big difference between trying to light a puddle of oil and trying to light an oil-soaked wick of some sort. Having oil absorbed in a bit of fabric or other porous material can make it much easier to get started (try lighting candle wax vs. lighting a candle's wick).
Well, this guy is obviously NOT and engineer nor has any real science background. Need to understand flash point, auto-ignition temperature, volatiles, surface temperature, . . . .
Urethane foam, as I recall was the big nasty tested in the '70's. There was a big stink over the initial defective testing, as homes and businesses were using that foam as wall coatings, resulting in highly toxic smoky fires that endangered firefighters and killed occupants quickly.
The gun oil doesn't tend to burn as a liquid, just as it doesn't burn as a liquid in an engine, it gets vaporized or atomized, then it can burn.
During training, I was known to remove my blank firing adapter from the rifle, put a drop or two of oil into the barrel, then when someone was coming to attack my position, I'd fire into the air. Gave a couple of foot across bright orange fireball, if you're dark adapted, you ain't any longer and if you had goofy goggles on, you were hating life.
Ryan, thank you for sitting on the jetty in this ludicrous NJ summer heat testing how flammable things are.
It always amazes me how well we had things figured out 80 years ago versus today.
Besides flammability the other risk factor is fume production. Some of that stuff produces some nasty toxins. It like is home and commercial fires, it not usually the flame or heat that causes causalities but the toxic fumes.
Sounds like a future video idea!
@@BattleshipNewJersey Please learn some basics on how and why stuff burns (or not) first.
Two hints: Split the teak into thin sticks (like crushed after a significant hit) and it'll burn just nicely. Oil in liquid form doesn't burn, it's the gases that burns.
And IF you find yourself (or someone else) in the awful position of burnt nylon clothes (or other plastics) on you PLEASE don't try to peal it off. Cool with plenty of water (room to body temp) and let a doctor deal with the issue of cleaning your skin.
@@BattleshipNewJersey In aviation PVC (polyvinylchloride) products are strictly avoided. When they burn they produce hydrochloric acid as a byproduct, the aforementioned nasty toxic fumes. Apparently, only a few parts per million of that stuff in the smoke will cause a person to involuntarily close their eyes. Not good if you're a pilot or aircrew member trying to fly or fight the fire with an extinguisher (and yes commenters....the first thing a pilot does is don their full face oxygen mask, or smoke goggles + oral nasal oxygen mask, and the smoke hood for the flight attendant / air crew member). I'm sure the Navy was pretty strict in avoiding PVC on the ship (wire insulation, for example) during the later refits.
More relevant to the ship, perhaps lay your hands on a pound of smokeless powder, such as is used to reload rifle / pistol / shotgun cartridges (note - NOT true black powder, only smokeless powder, IMR 4064 is one that is good for 30-06, for example, and also in the "correct" form - little tubes, to represent the stuff used in the big guns, vs flake or spherical form). A fraction of an ounce quantity of the stuff ignited in the open will demonstrate the deflagration that happens when a powder magazine goes up - Arizona, Hood, Queen Mary, Indefatigable, Invincible, etc.
@@sharg0 Might be worth sending an email to the Navy's school of damage control; if anyone's got experience of this kind of thing, it'll be them.
@@tokencivilian8507 Not just aviation but Navy and probably Army as well. The navy has strict standards on electrical wire insulation in regards to behavior in a fire. in general PVC is forbidden and the insulation of choice is Low Smoke Zero Halogen . Teflon is also used for its favorable behavior in a fire.
Ryan in this video reminded me of my best friend when I was growing up..... he was always "experimenting" with fire. That kid was lucky he didn't burn the house down.
Gotta love that the difference between science and messing around is whether or not you filmed it.
Wool is often used in clothing for applications where people have a significant risk of getting lit on fire for exactly the reason that you just demonstrated. It's hard to light and doesn't stay lit when you remove the heat source. Also doesn't melt and stick like napalm.
It was layers of oil based paint which were removed at the start of wwii. One layer of paint on primer is not as flammable. The navy used to just add another layer of paint each time the ship was painted (every 4 to 5 years). So Battleships might have as many as 8 layers of paint depending on age. Once lit oil based paint was surprisingly flammable. Just take a trip across the river to USS Olympia to see how paint built up over time.
The paint sitting on metal actually helps to keep it from burning. The steel of the ship acts as a heat sink.
I have some experience painting things for the US Navy as a contractor.
EVERYTHING gets two coats of paint, everytime that it gets painted.
It's the same for all branches of the service. The government likes to have two coats on their stuff.
And the primer coat doesn't count. Two top coats!
Show me a paint that doesn't call for two top coats and I'll show you a fairly rare paint. Paint is cheap. Rust is expensive.
if it dont move paint it, if it moves.. paint it again! old navy saying.
@@straybullitt A layer of paint is however many coats it calls for. He's saying it had multiple applications stacked on top of each other over the years not they only do one coat of primer and paint now.
That’s one of the many magic properties of wool. It’s why I still wear it especially in winter as it’s very warm. But even in summer it’s very breathable so it can keep you very cool. AND ITS FIREPROOF! Even a lot of the new synthetic jackets sold at most stores are no where near as warm or water resistant as wool. Even when it does get wet it’s still warm. I was a boy scout and the amount of times in the winter that kids are freezing after being out side all day in winter even with a new expensive jacket is bewildering. Then there’s me wearing wool and I don’t even had a slight chill
New closing spiel: "Well uh, Battleship New Jersey *WAS* supported by the New Jersey Department of State and from viewers like yourselves"
Point of order, those little propane torches may not be great sources of bulk heat, but they are plenty hot; I once used one to test insulation for a project, and verify that it would resist our operating temperatures. I had the insulation glowing yellow with one of those things. Your oil test showed that a thin coat of oil on the shell deck was not a significant issue... though bulk POL other places would have definitely been one, as you can see, the oil burned cheerfully once vaporized. Of course, if you've got fire on the shell deck you have MUCH BIGGER PROBLEMS than a little oil.
We called the black rubber stuff I used to use to caulk teak decks "Thiakol" because it was made by the Morton Thiakol corp, who also made the black rubber fuel for the space shuttle solid rocket booster engines :) Probably not the same stuff, but not surprised it burned.
Thiokol.
Builders of rocket engines and snowcats. And everything in between!
@@straybullitt I'd watch out for their products in cold temperatures, though. Ask NASA
"Black Rubber Fuel" WTH???.... From NASA: For the SLS boosters, aluminum powder serves as the fuel and a mineral salt, ammonium perchlorate, is the oxidizer. Cheers!
@@Five-O_Reviews The rubber is the binder it has the aluminum and ammonia perchlorate mixed in it
@@Five-O_Reviews Plus about 12% polybutadiene rubber, which serves as some fuel, but mainly as the binder that hold those main ingredients together!
..... You literally live the life all kids dream of. Giant ship of war, guns, explodeys, cool knowledge. You get paid to sit around burning stuff without getting yelled at.
Im not jealous! You are!
(Once again, awesome video. Really enjoying your content!)
I cannot for the life of me figure out how the GMs didn’t slip and fall all over the decks in the 16” gun houses. With the oil all over the decks, how did they keep their footing well enough to do their jobs?
Another great video, Ryan! 👏🏼
I used to work in a factory-sized deep fat frying operation, eventually you get used to skating around on slippery floors.
Then it feels weird when you transition to walking on normal grippy floors.
@@nottiification so one could say experienced workers have earned their "fat legs"?
Char is an insulative material. Once burned on the surface, it will actually stop heat and fire from going through. I don't quite remember the exact recipe, but you can actually make tiles from char and other stuff and at something like 4 mm thick, you won't feel a full burning torch if you hold it in your hand. Quite cool stuff.
Charred bread is a pretty good insulator.
“Today, we’re gonna see just how many ways there are to incinerate a battleship. Luckily for us, we’ve got a battleship!”
😂
One common thing that was very flammable was Old School Brasso that was used daily to polish the aluminum lockers in berthing. The good thing about that stuff was it covered up the "other" smells in berthing. Somewhere along line the formula got changed and it stopped being so fragrant it also stopped working.
Brasso is still plenty fragrant(we've evacuated the building for a large spill on the filling line), but it uses ammonia now
Another thing to consider. All these items are used in confined “machine spaces”. (A ship is one large machine) Therefore, everything will be to some degree covered in oil, grease, and other flammable fluids. The confined space will contain and concentrate any heat buildup as well as any flammable gasses. (Gas burns, liquid and solid do not.) The propellant and HE in ammunition don’t require much outside oxygen.
Conducting this experiment in the open air is telling but one must consider the environmental factors as well.
Fire is a strnge beast. Some materials will not catch fire when you put a torch to it for a few seconds, but if you leave it in an oven for a few minutes it spontaneously combusts. It's all about how much of the flammable parts of a material are released per unit of time.
Smiliarly the paintchip probably doesn't burn that well laying flat on a surface where air can't easily get to it. Remember that crawl-through where you went up a passage that had pant peeling off all around it? Those might burn a lot better being surrounded by air in a drafty place.
Anyhow, Never underestimate the flammability of a meterial.
Also: I cannot begin to imagine the horror of being deep inside a ship when a firealarm goes off. yes there are multiple exits especially for this threat, but still,fire consumes oxygen very quickly, it creates a lot of smoke, I'm gettl claustrophobid just thinking about it.
I remember many sailors saying about getting a working uniform that is fire resistant and does not melt. Dungarees were ok, nearly everything to follow was worse. The engineering coveralls were best, but were not spit shine inspection ready. So we got coveralls that burn and melt, but not as bad as the blueberries. Apparently fire resistant is not cheap or inspection ready. Gotta save money and look good.
A video for pyromaniacs! :D "For science, let's just burn this paint chip up." You are a Real American Hero. I hope you had as much fun burning this stuff as I had watching it.
I have visited several spaces aboard the USS Lexington CV-16 where fires have taken place in recent years. I have noticed a pattern of extensive scorching in these compartments, but little deterioration of materials like paint, decking, tile, or even insulation in many cases. I find this very interesting, given the flammable tendencies of things like paint in particular. It’s quite amazing how well these ships can withstand situations like this, especially given their age.
You are the most awesome curator ever!!!
Sometime in the late 70s the Coast Guard stopped using the cotton corduroy bedspreads and required personnel to use a wool blanket to cover racks when not in use.
Wool insulates, even when wet. Cotton becomes a hypothermia problem when it is wet.
as a welder the best clothing to help keep you from burning is cotten it will burn but won't stick to your skin when it does
The same as wool.
@@tomnewham1269 Welding is hot already don't need the extra heat
Back in the 1970's, polyester double-knit khakis were all the rage with officers. I remember reading about a small flash fire in a engineering space aboard a Navy ship. The enlisted crew all survived because they were wearing cotton dungarees and shirts. Unfortunately, the officer in his spiffy polyester khakis died, because his uniform melted to his skin.
The more recent NWU III uniforms are made in 50/50 Nylon Cotton, which is considered as a flame resistant no melt/no drip fabric. The US Marines also have FROG (Fire Resistant Organizational Gear) gear, and the US Army has FREE (Fire Resistant Environmental Ensemble).
It was not the paint on the ships of WWII but the many layers of paint that was the problem during WWII. To keep their ships looking beautiful and the crew busy they put layer after layer of oil based paint. After the Lexington's fires were uncontrollable due to the large load of flammable paint they started chipping the paint off of them and replacing it with a primer and a single layer of paint..
I absolutely love natural fibers. Especially wool and alpaca.
I did not at all expect the wool uniforms to perform that well. Pretty great.
I wore dungarees for the first half of my career in the Navy, would like to see how those do in a fire.
This was awesome. Thank you, Ryan! The WW2 uniform turns like into fabric ashes, awesome uniforms.
Loving the experimental videos for the extra dimension it adds to my knowledge and enjoyment of BB NJ.
Another great video from the battleship. Thanks
We all hated it when they went to synthetic material for uniforms, cotton dungarees and whites, were the most comfortable. The synthetic was a fire hazard and when it got hot it would stick to your skin and make a burn worse. I wore the blues as little as I could because they made me sweat even in the winter.
Thanks for the demonstration. Science is repeatable, but you do have a convincing demonstration.
Interesting on the teak -- I do structures in heavy timber, and the stuff is very fire resistant -- even modern pine.
Even modern pine what?
It may be fire resistant but enough time and at a really high temperature it will burn just like every other wood will
Our ship, USS Canopus AS34 had a below decks fire in November 1971 while anchored in the Holy Loch. The hull adjacent to the fire blistered outward. A huge amount of smoke poured from the ship's openings. Decks buckled; linoleum burned. Everything in the area burned. Smoke collected on overheads and bulkheads an inch thick in some places. I know, I was on cleanup detail with 409 and paper towels. The cause of the fire was linked to a ruptured hydraulic fluid line in the Chief's baggage storage area, DIRECTLY below the brig. Two sailors in the brig and their guard lost their lives that night. It was never explained exactly how a hydraulic line in a secured storage area managed to break after years of reliable service. An ignition source was not announced. Too many unanswered questions still surround this event. The FBM's alongside at the time cut loose their moorings and the tugs moved them away from the ship.
As a retired ironworker... I know that nylon backed gloves 🔥 really well! It's stressing me out!
Ship coveralls would be an interesting one to test, supposedly those are "fire resistant" and I know that they are made so that if you go overboard you have scoop air into the collar and use the uniform as a makeshift floatation device.
I seem to remember that during the 1982 Falklands war Royal Navy sailors were injured by their then 'modern' uniforms melting on to them when HMS Sheffield was lost.
True. And this experience has led to the Royal Navy changing the materials used in their uniforms to less flammable ones.
Props to the production crew too!!!
I don't know if I can watch this video without hearing Beavis in my head shouting "FIRE FIRE"
One of the more obvious materials I can think of would be bedding - the mattresses, sheets, blankets, and pillows.
I'd also want to look at insulation materials - clading for wires and cables, that sort of thing.
As far as the shoddy fire resistant uniforms I suggest everyone read David Poyers novel "The Gulf" at least the prolong. He starts with a frigate being hit by an anti ship missile in the engineering spaces and then goes from there showing just how bad nylon blend clothing, plastic coated shoes like Corframs, and even rubber soled boots do on a metal or aluminum deck that has been pre-heated by a major fire. There's a reason Chief's hold on to the "unwashed" working uniform made of cotton. They ain't dumb and as nice as fire resistant is when it works it doesn't provide anymore thermal heat injury protection then equal thickness cotton.
Another great video. And what I love about your videos is that I learn just as much from the comment section as I do from the video.
This week on Battleship New Jersey.,.. Ryan sets s#!+ on fire!
As a former officer in charge of the Navy's Clothing and Textile Research Facility in Natick, MA, I can tell you that we went through a lot of testing using a movable, instrumented manikin (and working with Dupont) to find the most cost effective, flame-retardant material available to protect our sailors at sea. No corfam shoes, double knit, Certified Navy Twill, etc was allowed on ships (except for dress uniforms). When I was stationed on the New Jersey, as Assistant Supply Officer, it was part of my responsibility to issue blue cotton coveralls to every crew member and khaki cotton coveralls to every chief and officer. Some sailors still wore the dungarees and some chief and officers still wore cotton khakis, but the coveralls were generally the popular underway uniform. While cotton was not flame-retardant, we found it far less dangerous than anything made of polyester, nylon or other synthetic. Also, as one of two officers on the DCETT (Damage Control Evaluation and Training Team) we were very strict on clothing, equipment and material during evolutions and work to outfit all our repair locker personnel with nomex as quickly as possible. As an additional note to Ryan, I think you are doing a great job keeping the spirit of New Jersey alive and making sure this great ship remains a monument and tribute to the sailors who served on her. Keep up the good work. BZ to you and your whole staff.
I think that the British still issue anti flash hoods and gloves made from untreated (that may not be the right word) wool that still has lanolin oil in it. The garments are surprisingly fireproof. You'll see those hoods in old WW2 era pictures.
I served from 70-74 and our "protective gear" was dungaree pants tucked into our flammable black nylon socks and a chambray shirt with the sleeves rolled down and collar buttoned. Maybe a little protection there as the fabric was cotton, but on the gun line off Vietnam most everybody wore t shirts. The navy did a work uniform change around 1973 and went to a polyester pull over shirt which was at least as flammable as the blue camouflage shown in the video. Stupidity never seems to go away.
I would love to see a chemist consult and find the actual ignition temperature of all these materials. Maybe a good colab opportunity?
Get hold of NileRed
Hydraulic fluid from the gun turrents. In the Iowa turrent explosion and fire the hydraulic oils were part of the fuel load. Also in the 80s, I wore cotton dungarees and firefighting we just added a nomex hood and neck protector, armlets, and gloves. The turnout gear like civilian firefighters wear started appearing mid to late 80s. Also, just for shits and giggles, if you have any, how a single grain of 16 inch propellant burns, and a small amount of 5 inch gun propellant. We already know from WW2 after action reports that the kapok life preservers burned.
All of those things will burn if held in a fire inside the ship for long enough. The steel of the hull reflects radiant heat back into the fire, making it burn much hotter and more efficiently. It’s essentially the principle that a wood stove works on, but in a way that you really don’t want.
Yeah but it beats a wood hull. That's the principle of burning a pile of wood inside another pile of wood.
Try a gunpowder bag. Whether it’s full or not is up to you.
When I was in the US Army from '66 to '68, for duty we wore what was called fatigues. These uniform items were made mostly of cotton. I do not know of what the work dungarees that the swabbies wore were made.
I trained at Ft Eustis, VA as a harbor craft boatswain on LCM-8s, LCUs and tug boats from 45' to 105' in length. Part of training included and introduction both fire prevention and firefighting. Paint lockers were to be always closed when not in use. No oily or paint soaked rags were to be just piled into a corner .
Army fatigues were changed to polyester/cotton for a time. Sad.
A thick wool will char and act as an insulating layer. And not keep burning through the layer of clothing. You will still feel the heat but it could be worse.
When I was in the Navy flame retardant coveralls did exist and were occasionally found. They were not, though, ever completely or even widely distributed to engineering department personnel.
Dungree paints and dungree shirt that enlisted wore for years. I remember a fire retardent dungree issued to me but I did not have to experience it burning. I did have some dungree sleves burnt to my arms but they seperated and no scars.
Ah! dungarees, At muster each morning if you had frayed dungarees, the guy behind you would often set them on fire with his cigarette lighter.
The moral of the story is don't wear a frayed uniform.
Aviation fuel, diesel fuel, bed sheets , books, charts, miles of electrical wiring insulation and maybe some of the many tons of propellant carried on ship might spell bad news if it was exposed to flame. In any case the fumes from any of these things are not good for anybody.
Yeah, those early to mid 2000s uniforms were not great in a fire. That's why a lot of our ground troops were issued flight suits until better uniforms could be made. Of course the new cold weather fleeces are terrible in fire. I've had to burn on me when touched by a small falling hot ember. The last one burned a one inch wide hole in my back and melted to the layer underneath.
I'm really surprised they passed those for use
@@thejohnbeck The people with the purse strings have NO clue.
Might try burning the dungarees just for the heck of it. That would make more sense than the old cracker jack uniform you burned. In almost any instance I could conceive of a shipboard fire, we'd be in working uniforms, not dress blues. More seriously, the Navy went to synthetics and short sleeves roughly the very late 70's into the 80's if my memory serves. I was attached to both shipboard units and more specifically Fleet Training Group, GTMO, and we advocated for the older uniforms, both due to the likelihood of the synthetics either burning or more likely melting and also for the long sleeves for protection from flash burns. Lost the battle then, but the camos and jumpsuits that replaced them addressed both issues.
That's why we get issued FRACU's on deployments.
I still have at least one UCP pair, but my OCP's wore out fast, and basically disintegrated in six months.
Future items to test:
How about a powder bag? 😅
That was a great video. Great subject
Maybe some things you can find in the kitchen would burn more vigorously - like highly heated cooking oils (probably not with a relatively low heat burner). Also all the paper might get a fire going and then ignite other things that catch fire harder. Maybe stuff like shoe polish.
The WWII woolen jumper appears to be felted, where the hair fibers are glued together, and the glue will burn to a degree when exposed to flame, but that degree is limited by the amount of glue in the felt.
Note: flames are always in the gaseous phase, so fuels need to evaporate before they can burn... even metal powders.
The materials being tested, with the exception of the cotton - synthetic blend of the "blueberries", and to some degree the rubber deck sealing compound, lack sufficient volatile compounds to sustain a flame when the open direct flame is withdrawn.
100% cotton fabric will burn quite quickly, leaving a small residue of ash. Nylon fibers blended into the cotton fabric to make rip-stop, and polyester fibers for "permanent press" fabrics have a nasty tendency to melt, as some have already mentioned, leaving a sticky mess of melted plastic stuck to the skin of a burn. Debriding that away is a thoroughly unpleasant situation.
The Navy does have some engineers - both sworn and civilian - on staff who are very aware of these kinds of risks... whether or not BuLog listens to then is a matter of conjecture...
Refined oils don't burn very well unless they are exposed to high heat for prolonged period. If you threw a match into a bucket of diesel it would put the match out. What makes gasoline so flammable are the vapors.
I think you owe Paul Harrell royalties for the caution.
Next time when feeling for heat, use the outside of your hand so that you can still use your hand if it did burn
oops I did not read all comments _ I just stated same with a lot more words and explaining.
That was fascinating. Thank You.
The obvious fuel load on a ship, especially a naval vessel, is the reams of stored paper files...
Of course, everybody knows that paper burns, and the Navy used to be pretty good about fire suppression in offices and file storage spaces.
solid wood usually does not burn well from the top down. that is why you would ignite kindling or split wood at the bottom to heat and ignite solid wood above when starting a log fire.
my experience is grease doesn't tend to burn, it decomposes, it lets off a lot of smoke, but it's got a lot of compounds in it and it's very thick distilates
Some people just like to see the world burn - other just like to set fire to things on a Battleship.
Fires cool, yeah fire fire 🔥!
You should try the life preserver ring behind you or a life jacket. Or you can try wiring.
Nearly all of the new navy issue uniforms are a polyester blends or one hundred percent polyester, it is crazy.
Wouldn't it easier to lookup the mil spec of the liquid's flash point? Good video with a lot of background info. But, giving out the actual specification would help. Thanks for providing this video.
could you please test the dungaree uniform especially with dirt and oil on it. or the flight deck uniforms from the 80s (colored shirt and green pants. ) on that note the tactical uniform scares the heck out of me and I hope no one was injured by the clear oversight by the Department of the Navy.
What about the old wiring insulation? Seems like an electrical fire would be a common source
Modern wire and cable specs for ships address this; there are requirements for the fire behavior of insulation and cables, in particular the burning properties (flame spread and smoke developed)
@@gerry5712 Absolutely agree on modern ships.... I'm curious about the old stuff, cause some of the videos they've done make it look like some of the electrical system is WWII original
7:10 USS New Jersey Damage Control Party: "Well, that was easy."
Test the Nomex and what they used to wear in the turrets when they were at Battlestations
This is my kind of science..... let's hold a torch to stuff and see if it catches on fire 🤣
I was under the impression that the tactical blueberry uniforms were retired in part because the were not fire resistant like their replacements were.
Oil is difficult to set on fire. That's why boilers would have the oil go through a generator tube inside the burner and engines have it sprayed inside the engine in a mist from an injector.
Having something for a wick, it'd then burn, as the oil vaporizes approaching the flame.
Of course, if you shell handling deck is on fire, well, you've got worse problems happening that managed to disturb the oil into a cloud. The last ship something like that happened on was the Arizona, the bigger problem being a bomb detonating the entire magazine.
Not all the blueberries were fire resistant--the label needs to show Aramid fiber content. That was why the Guacamole uniforms relaced the blueberries.
Though the Guac may be fire resistant, what happens when it actually torches off is what I'm wondering. Had a fire resistant uniform at a job once of similar thickness . When I quit we tossed it on a fire to see how long it lasted(about 2 or 3minutes) before it combusted but WOW when it took off it really took off!!! Way more flame then cotton.
Great video. I imagine the aircraft crane was scrapped?
The question in this test is, would you use it as tinder for a camp fire. I know from experience large chunks of wood, other than sappy pine, are terrible fire starters. The 80s wood is a good test, because old, dryer wood is getting there as a camp fire starter, and the deck didn't burn like aged fire wood so it retains moisture for quite a while. The uniform should be somehow fire resistant and it shouldn't torch out like Styrofoam, but with the number of washings any coating probably would be useless. You didn't do the human body test, but touching a leg inside those synthetic pants would be the start of a really bad day. Unless something is designed to protect you from fire, you do not want to get exposed or expect clothing to protect you from fire, you only want to avoid the flash paper or Styrofoam effect from momentary or incidental contact. The burn on the synthetic was not bad for incidental or momentary fire contact, it did not seem to burn through with a very harsh test. It looked rather new and may have coating still functioning, 50 washes later how would it perform.
I suspect the wood was cool enough that it was pulling the temperature back down below the flash / combustion point of the things you had in contact with it (paint, oil, the wood itself, etc.). Also, ash doesn't burn, so once it's past the "charcoal" stage, it's just hot carbon that won't burn.
You could try the tile from the floor and carpet from captain or. Xo quarters. Or matt from the. Bunks
You should have told us the fabric makeup of the “blueberry”. Is is 50-50 cotton/ polyester? Or what?
Probably. It was very popular for a time. Even municipal firefighter uniforms used it. I did a report on it, and research [not mine, actual labs] showed that the polyester would melt as it burned, and be HELD IN PLACE by the cotton fibers ... extending the misery of the wearer.
Electrical wire (the insulation of course, not the wire itself).
Ryan. Is the WW2 era uniform 100% pure wool or is it a wool blend? Do a burn test on a set of dungarees and the work shirt that is seen in photos where the crewman is actually working while underway.
try spilling a cup full of paint flakes onto a lit fire with the cup on a stick in case of a fireball, and try teak splinters. the worst time to have a fire, and the most likely one, is either during a battle or repairs after a battle
It's sad that issue uniforms melt and sustain ignition like that. As a wildland firefighter everything I wore was designed to no sustain ignition once heat was removed. Wool does not sustain ignition.
How about some kapok fiber, with and without a sealed cotton bag containing it? It was popular for flotation devices during the interwar and WW2. Cork is also worth a shot. It was also a historical option for flotation devices, and while I think it had been phased out by the time the Iowa class came along, but a sample is easy to obtain free as waste material (though for all I know the stuff in wine could be an entirely different type/treatment of cork). Oilcloth (pre-rubber rain gear) is another thing that would be common on older ships and and a fire hazard.
Cork will burn with vigor. Kapok as _I_ recall, does not burn as fast.
One of the fallacies of your tests it removing the heat source. I assure you that much of the stuff will burn furiously if the fire heating it does not get removed in a short time. An example would be the teak decking, and especially the rubber base coat. A below deck fire will make for a long day topside for DC teams.
Interesting comparisons. I would suggest fuel oil and air taken from the fuel oil tanks for a future test. The shell handling oil may have been non-combustible like mineral oil.
Not to be nitpicky but I will be anyway. Solid wood is combustible, not flammable. Combustible means it will sustain combustion exposed