There seems to be a lot of field discussion regarding the quantitative data available regarding CAF. It is well known
that there is documented testing on the effectiveness of CAF. The Salem test proved scientifically that CAF absorbs heat at 20.5 degrees per second verses
water at 3.5 degrees per second. Personally, I don’t know what more you need to know than that. And the LA County Palmdale burns confirmed this and proved that a well involved fire can be
extinguished in as little as 30 seconds using as little as 40 gallons of solution. There have been undocumented field tests showing that CAF
can be pumped horizontally 3500 ft or more will still providing an adequate CAF stream.

One issue seems to stem from the lack of technology revolving around CAF nozzle pressures. A pitot guage measures flow pressure of a solid stream of water.
It can not measure a fog stream or a bubble stream. The only current way to measure a long distance (long hose lay) CAF stream is by visually comparing the stream
to a short lay stream. Subjective at best.

Another issue is the exact dollar savings using CAF. While many departments estimate that the normal damage by water is 50% of the total damage (CAF virtually eliminates
water damage) there has been no “university” type study proving this.

So here it is folks, a discussion board for the science of CAF. Let’s start with your specific science related experiences and let’s also discuss what scientific data to you
feel is warranted.

• This reply was modified 241 days ago by  CAF.