There are two parts for such a system to be effective. First, the system would have to activate quickly enough to establish a water mist throughout the region of interest (i.e., region occupied by a flammable gas mixture) before it could be ignited. This is challenging in terms of timing, and the impact of spraying water inside an enclosure filled with equipment not designed to get wet can be…

Explosion testing with hydrogen should be utilized only where there is not an established alternative and then only by personnel experienced in such testing. 
Testing with hydrogen is always a challenge and needs to be approached carefully due to significant differences in properties between hydrogen and propane. Hydrogen can develop significantly higher overpressures and preliminary…

The Panel has not received such inquiries. Section 14.2 of NFPA 69 Standard for Explosion Prevention Systems covers foam and mesh requirements. NFPA 69 states in 14.3.4 that the tests shall be conducted with a flammable gas/air mixture with a fundamental burning velocity representative of the burning velocities of flammable vapors expected in the intended applications.

I am communicating with a company that is exploring this technology for an application involving a mixture of flammable gases, including hydrogen.

No, but it is always necessary to determine the possibility of an adverse chemical reaction with the particular material being used for the mesh.

There is limited published research on the effect of water sprays on hydrogen deflagrations and deflagration-to-detonation transition, and more extensive data on water spray effects on hydrocarbon gas explosions. The results show the benefits, where there are benefits, to be highly scenario dependent. For example, Carlson et al. (Atomics International report, 1973) described hydrogen…

The lesson learned (LL) article referenced in the question cites an incident that occurred in December 1969. While there may have been other accidents, the HSP does not have any other LL articles on alkaline water electrolysis explosions. In the LL article that was updated in 2017, the technology described employs a potassium hydroxide (KOH) electrolyte solution. The KOH electrolyte is held by…

Previous versions of NFPA 55 listed overhead power lines within the separation distance tables with no voltage distinction. The separation distances were 15 ft for GH2 and 25 ft for LH2 for all overhead electrical lines. The current edition of NFPA 2 includes these in overhead utilities; the distance for GH2 and LH2 will vary with pressure and diameter of the hydrogen piping. In practice, high…

The Global Asset Protection Services (GAPS) standard was written 20 years ago for property loss prevention at crowded chemical plants and is intended for existing and new oil and chemical facilities to limit explosion over-pressure and fire exposure damage; thus, the purpose is different than NFPA 2. NFPA distances were based on studies from the 1960s as well as qualitative factors that were…

There is technically no upper limit for GH2 storage listed within the separation distance tables within Chapter 7 of NFPA 2. For LH2, there is a 75000-gallon upper limit for the LH2 storage separation distance tables within Chapter 8 for LH2. 
It’s important to note that many facilities have site specific issues such as large quantities, confinement, and congestion, so it may be…