Talk:Gaseous fire suppression

A merge of the two articles would be appropriate, but the top level article should be Automatic Fire Suppression as it talks not only about gaseous methods.

If a separate section on gaseous methods is to be retained, it should be built into a discussion of key characteristics of each broad category of suppressant agent, which will require some filling out of the other categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amh15 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Cancel halon suppression if staff are present?
I see a bit of debate going on amongst commenters for this YouTube video of a suppression system going off.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nibB2c9djCo


 * Is gas suppression intended to be an absolute last resort, if no staff are present to contact emergency services?
 * If any staff are present should it ALWAYS be canceled even if no one is in the affected suppression area?

-- DMahalko (talk) 00:58, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The combination of the articles may be appropriate as long as there is a distinct separation based upon the application of the automatic systems. Typically, an automatic inert gaseous fixed firefighting system is installed to protect expensive electrical/electronic equipment installations. The purpose being is to use a firefighting agent within these areas that can extinguish a fire without damaging uninvolved equipment within the enclosure. This automatic system should be distinct from automatic sprinkler systems which employ water and are not used in these enclosures specifically because of the damage the firefighting agent would have on all equipment within that enclosure. NFPA 12 and NFPA 12A — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B022:8900:4D48:17A1:C222:5A9C (talk) 05:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Somewhat confusing sentence about overall safety
The sentence "During a fire in an essentially closed space, individuals within a closed space during a fire are safer with INERGEN than without given the design of the system" is hard for me to interpret -- what does "given the design of the system" mean? Also, the cited article http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/10581 is highly technical and it is not obvious how it supports the sentence. I'm not doubting that it does support the sentence, but it would be better to find a source that has more of a summary of the safety than all those details.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gaseous fire suppression. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726135345/http://blog.anta.net/2009/04/14/gas-extinguishing-system-may-blow-out-walls-and-windows/ to http://blog.anta.net/2009/04/14/gas-extinguishing-system-may-blow-out-walls-and-windows/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Abort Switch
I added a sentence about how these systems have abort switches, which pause the countdown as long as they are activated, allowing all personnel to exit the area safely. Feel free to edit as you see fit. Trickdog0904 (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)