Table 10. - - "t" test for length of drying time 





Dryness 



Rate of spread 



Radiation : 



Weight loss 



Runs 

 compared 



condition 

 amount 

 retardant 



Average 

 rate of 

 spread 



: Significance 



. Ul X die Ul 



: spread 



Average j 

 radiation 



Significance " 

 of radiation ' 



Rate of 

 weight loss 



: Significance 

 i of rate of 

 : weight loss 











Ft . /min . 



Percent 



BTU/sq.ft./hr. 



Percent 



Lbs. /min. 



Percent 



1 



1/3 



I 



2 ST 







0.4/ 





n i a 

 U. 10 





7 



2/3 



I 



2 ST 



.349 



97.5 



10.29 



95 



.23 



95 



3 



1/3 



11 



2 ST 







1 1 AO 









10 



2/3 



11 



2 ST 



.405 



99.5 



7.69 



* 1 95 



.27 



95 



11 



2/3 



I 



2 LT 



. 10V 





J. 1U 





1 A 





17 



F 



I 



2 LT 



.205 



2 80 



5.75 



90 



.14 



2 N.S. 



12 



2/3 



I 



1 LT 



. Zoo 





o . OZ 





• 10 





18 



F 



I 



1 LT 



.444 



99.5 



9.21 



90 



.28 



95 



13 



2/3 



U 



2 LT 



.216 





6.82 





.19 





19 



F 



n 



2 LT 



.231 



2 70 



6.53 



* 2 60 



.17 



*a 70 



14 



2/3 



ii 



1 LT 



.418 





9.31 





.25 





20 



F 



ii 



1 LT 



.515 



90 



12.33 



90 



.32 



70 



15 



2/3 



in 



2 LT 



.290 





7.28 





.16 





21 



F 



in 



2 LT 



.320 



2 60 



6.35 



* 2 70 



.19 



2 80 



16 



2/3 



m 



1 LT 



1.208 





17.21 





.42 





22 



F 



in 



1 LT 



1.711 



97.5 



15.33 



* 3 60 



.42 



3 N.S. 



* Significance in the reverse direction. 



1 Same as for 3 on conditions -- run 10 had very little afterburning. Flame front had not reached the 5- to 7-foot 



area during the time the rate of spread showed it to be there, thus causing a low radiation measure. 



2 The effect of dryness with this long-term retardant of 2N amount is not significant. The 2/3 dry seems to be 

 as effective as the fully dry, as shown in comparisons of runs 11 and 17, 13 and 19, and 15 and 21 . 



3 These low significant differences are probably due to the large amount of variation within run 16. 



Table 11. — "t" test for type of retardant- -long-term or short-term 





Dryness 



Rate of spread 



Radiation 



Weight loss 



Runs 

 compared 



condition 

 amount 

 retardant 



Average 

 rate of 

 spread 



Significance 

 ' of rate of 

 spread 



Average : 

 radiation : 



Significance 

 of radiation 



Rate of 

 weight loss 



_ Significance 



of rate of 

 [ weight loss 







Ft . /min. 



Percent 



BTU/sq.ft./hr 



Percent 



Lbs. /min. 



Percent 



7 



2/3 I 2 ST 



0.349 





10.29 





0.23 





11 



2/3 I 2 LT 



.169 



97.5 



5.10 



97.5 



.14 



97.5 



10 



2/3 II 2 ST 



.405 





7.69 





.27 





13 



2/3 II 2 LT 



.216 



99.5 



6.82 



60 



.19 



80 



31 



