Was there any mention of the radiated heat from these fires? After personally experiencing a major fire in a building adjacent to our home, I learned to apprecaite that aspect. For certain, a wet cloth over the head would help shield. To see the potential shielding just envision sticking your head into a barbecue pit with, and without, the wet towel. The air into your lungs gets cooled so won't sear as much and at least your corneas should remain intact.
If I'm in a burning about to crash plane, I think the last thing I would worry about would be the smoke ;)
Something to keep the father occupied and out of the way.
Yes.
We noted that this flight safety PDF, which was all about protecting your airways in a cabin fire, explicitly said that the dry heat of a cabin fire isn't a major concern when it comes to protecting your breathing airways:
As already noted, they said, verbatim: "the human body?s upper airway naturally provides significant protection to the lower airway and lungs against extreme heat from hot, dry air."
Absolutely none of the air-safety PDFs yet mentioned *anything* about the wet cloth having anything to do with cooling hot air, so, we can safely assume the only *safety* purpose of the wet cloth is to trap some of the hydrogen cyanide gas.
I used to think that jumping up into the air when an elevator crashes to the ground, would stop me from crashing along with it. It's not supported by the facts.
Neither is the theory that the wet cloth is there to protect us from the heat of the air during a cabin fire supported by
*any* of the flight-safety references we have so far been able to find.Sounds good. I'd believe it myself, if I was just guessing.
But, there's *nothing* in those flight-safety PDFs that says that the wet cloth protects against heat in a cabin fire.
Now that's not to say that a cabin fire isn't *hot*. For example, this previously listed PDF shows the temperatures that can be reached in the cabin during a fuel-fed fire are extremely *HOT!*.
That article mentions that the wet cloth might filter out smoke particles (which don't seem to be an immediate danger), but it doesn't even hint at that wet cloth cooling down the air.
So, unless someone comes up with a good reference, I think we can safely say that the *assumption* that the wet cloth is there to cool down the air breathed in a cabin fire is a false assumption (however good it seems to "sound" to most of us).
Are you serious? (real question, no exasperation intended)
They poured the hot water in her to dilate the cervix?????? What do they do when they're not in a farm house in 1920? Same thing?
It's frequently reported that people die of heartbreak also. And that Vikings wore horns on their helmets. And that Moses parted the water of the Red Sea. Or that George Washington had wooden teeth. Or that Benjamin Franklin publicly proposed the wild turkey be used (instead of the bald eagle) as the symbol of the US. Or that Napoleon Bonaparte was shorter than the average Frenchman of his time. etc.
Lots of things are "frequently reported" and just as frequently untrue. That's why I had asked for "scientific" answers.
Anyone can guess wrong.
Nothing I found, so far, says that the particles are life threatening.
The HCN gas can kill you in a couple of minutes, for example.
There was one reference which did say the wet cloth trapped particulate matter:
So, we can safetly assume that a wet cloth does trap particles, but, nobody has reported any real evidence that "smoke inhalation" (presumably that means particulate inhalation) is either immediately dangerous, or the *reason* for the wet cloth.
Based on the evidence repoted to date, the reason for the wet rag seems to be to trap water soluble gases, of which HCN is the most dangerous in a cabin fire (according to all the references).
If nobody can show *any* reasonable evidence of what they're supposing (i.e., guessing), what does *that* constitute?
You appear to have completely misread my actions, so I must not have been clear enough in the purpose of this thread.
I apologize.
The question is one of survivability science.
It's about how a wet cloth helps someone *survive* during the time it takes to get out of an airplane during a cabin fire.
I started with zero assumptions.
The only assumptions "I" have made during this thread are those that are stated in the aforementioned flight safety references.
Other people made a whole bunch of assumptions, some of which are supported in the references, but some are not supported in *any* of the references.
If someone makes a supposition that is actually supported by a reasonable reference that they provide, I'd be *glad* to listen to their assumption and to read their reference!
That's the whole reason for asking the question in the first place!
This article lumps all the toxic gases and particulates plus the irritant gases into a single word "smoke", but it also lists at what temperature some of these synthetics melt at:
Bingo
As the airspeed would 'fan' the fires it would also take all the smoke away for the few seconds you'd have to live
Well, as soon as (or maybe before) the water in the towel evaporates/boils/steams, it will become impossible to survive.
If you are the driver and can't see through the smoke, would you worry about the smoke then or relax and resign yourself to your fate?
I believe you meant to type 'pilot' and I'd be doing everything within my power to fly the aircraft and survive
In WWI, early in the gas warfare stage before there were gas masks, soldiers wet cloth with urine, which apparently absorbed chlorine and phosgene and stuff pretty well. It's better than dying, I suppose.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com http://www.highlandtechnology.com
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.
Looking up what "smoke inhalation" means, I find it's a catch-all phrase, sort of like "germ" or "headache" or "homicide" or "drugs".
In and of itself, it tells us little of the actual cause of death, according to information in this Firefighter document all about SMOKE:
"Typically, when someone dies in a fire, it?s attributed to the nebulous cause of ?smoke inhalation.? In truth, it?s more complicated than that."
"[the] potential cause of death in smoke inhalation victims - [is] cyanide poisoning."
Voided urine is sterile unless you have a urinary tract infection, but, given the excretionary purpose of the kidneys, I'd look up the composition, just in case salt isn't a major component.
As for what "smoke inhalation" really means, it seems that this short summary indicates the twin dangers of so-called "smoke inhalation", only one of which a wet cloth will help ameliorate:
Toxic Twins of Smoke Inhalation i. Cyanide ? Mechanism of Action - Cyanide Kills Organs ii. Carbon Monoxide ? Mechanism of Action - CO Kills the Blood
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.