Talk:Fire extinguisher
|
|
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:Fire extinguisher]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Fire_extinguisher&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Fire_extinguisher/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Fire_extinguisher/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:Fire_extinguisher&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
Stirlingda added this text, which Anome deleted.
Premier Extinguisher: Cold fire® is an extinguisher solution manufactured by [Fire Freeze Worldwide, inc. (http://www.firefreeze.com)] that has been demonstrated to effectively put out fires of all types. It is non-toxic and biodegradable. It is a plant-based substance that works by pulling the heat out of a fire via an endothermic reaction. It also encapusulates the fuel, which has the effect of also separating the fuel from oxygen. One or two 2 1/2-gallon extinguishers with 10% Cold Fire® solution with water can quench a fully-engulfed car, including tires burning, in less than two minutes. (See also Cold fire.)
- Relevant press release: [Cold Fire® is a Hot Fire Extinguisher (http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2003/12/prweb91828.htm)]
I'm guessing that Stirling's contribution looked as much like an advertisement to the Anome, as it does to me. Perhaps we could revise the text above so it reads less like a press release and more like an encyclopedia entry.
I'm intrigued by the concept of "pulling the heat out of a fire". Please try again, Stirling. --Uncle Ed 14:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I had a look at the manufacturer's website. It was indeed rather annoying with the excess of advertising buzzwords and lack of technical information. However, one solid tidbit is that UL classifies it simply as a wetting agent. And indeed, it is supposed to be used as an aqueous solution (as low as 1% concentration for some types of fires), and most of its properties are actually pretty similar to water (including "pulling the heat out of a fire"). The main exception being the claim that it is suitable "for fires of all types" which I frankly do not believe for an agent consisting of 90 - 99% water - electrical fires, anybody? (Incidentally their own MSDS does not support the claim that it is nontoxic; the LCt50 for juvenile rainbow trout is 105 ppm & times; 96 hours, which is not severely toxic but hardly harmless.)
- Wetting agents can increase the effectiveness of water in fighting fires, and the article probably should indicate this - but I think it is more important to add some information on foams, and expand the information on dry powders. I'll tack it onto my todo list... In any case I don't think there's any need to mention particular brands. Securiger 09:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
There's a descrepency between the articles for Halon and for fire extinguishers. In the fire extinguisher article it states:
"Halon is the universal extinguisher. It will extinguish any type of fire and is highly effective. It works by breaking the chemical reaction of the fire. Halon is a chlorofluorocarbon and is being phased out for more environmentally-friendly alternatives. Halon fire extinguishers may cost upwards of 800 USD due to production and import restrictions."
and on the article for Halon:
"Halons are very effective on Class A (organic solids), B (flammable liquids and gases) and C (electrical) fires, but they are totally unsuitable for Class D (metal) fires, as they will not only produce toxic gas and fail to halt the fire, but in some cases pose a risk of explosion."
This seems like an important detail.
- This article is wrong; they mean "any type of fire (except class D)". I will make the correction, and expand the class D material to explain why. Securiger 09:11, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
OK, I not only made the correction, but also a heap of expansion. Plenty to do though, so I added a ToDo list! Securiger 12:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)