tudorsailor
Well-known member
These sticks Fire Safety Stick - Fire Extinguishing for the 21st Century are on sale through Force4. The video is encouraging but what is the truth? Anyone know?
TudorSailor
TudorSailor
Anyone used Fire Safety Stick as an alternative to a fire extinguisher?
- Thread starter tudorsailor
- Start date
Sandy
Well-known member
Is this the one Jimmy Green has just emailed me about?
MoodySabre
Well-known member
I haven't used one but these look good too Firetool
Stemar
Well-known member
I'd never heard of it but, if it's as good as it claims, it could be the end of powder extinguishers - in fact, most extinguishers.
I'll wait until it's been proven a few times and the price comes down a bit, though.
I'll wait until it's been proven a few times and the price comes down a bit, though.
Concerto
Well-known member
In the boat fire video, I loved their confidence in the fires stick to put out the fire. In the guy's back pocket at 14 seconds in there is another fire stick!
MoodySabre
Well-known member
I regard these like small extinguishers - they are in the boat so you can get out. I have the large extinguisher in the cockpit locker for putting out a fire.
capnsensible
Well-known member
Looks just the job for boats and cars. Would like to hear a pro view? It's a while since I completed any firefighting training so this kinda stuff is new to me.
maby
Well-known member
The one minute run-time version would seem to have more extinguishing capacity than most large cylinder extinguishers.
thinwater
Well-known member
I have used similar products with the same chemistry.
I have mixed feelings. They seem great for first responders to car fires. Beyond that, I'm less certain.
- They do put out fires.
- You arn't going to believe the density of the cloud in a confined space. Also, you can't turn it off so you have to carry it out of the cabin.
- Google the health effects of photogenically generated aerosols. There is considerable debate re. long term effects and people have died. They are not approved in the US, for what ever that is worth (could be many reasons).
I have mixed feelings. They seem great for first responders to car fires. Beyond that, I'm less certain.
vyv_cox
Well-known member
I bought two of these after watching the videos. Fortunately never needed to use one.
Graham376
Well-known member
All the videos are outdoors, I may be more convinced if demonstrated in a confined environment such as the Boat Test did with dry powder. They state not toxic, CO2 are not toxic but will kill you if too much oxygen displaced.
pvb
Well-known member
They are sold in the US under the "Element" brand (Element - Fire Extinguishers). The Element website explains that "In North America, Underwriters Laboratories (UL) is responsible for the certification of fire extinguishers. UL does their testing to a standard that contains a form (physical shape) component followed by a performance component. Because Element's form does not fit inside of UL's guidelines of what a traditional fire extinguisher looks like (i.e. compressed gas cylinder with a hose and measurement gauge) it is immediately passed over for performance testing. At present UL is being campaigned to update its standards to recognize the different form offered by Element and allow it an opportunity to be tested and certified. Until the standards are updated Element cannot be used to substitute extinguishers in regulated environments that require a UL (or UL endorsed) certification. Element can however be freely used as an supplement to the extinguishers used where regulation exists. There are no restrictions in non-regulated environments (car, home, personal garage, etc.) allowing Element to be used freely."
Concerto
Well-known member
In the boat video
ltcom
Well-known member
A 10 minute look made me think they were not as good as co2. Person had to get quite close to put out fires compared to co2. Expensive. My co2 one's are cheap to check by professionals. Pressure dial never drops anyway. This video showed fire fighters killing fires more quickly with co2 I thought. Co2 is cheap. Foam extinguishers are cheap too and cheap to have checked. Is anyone worried about mess? In a kitchen in a house they may be worth a try first of all, but have large co2 as backup imho. Co2 cools as well as keeping o2 out.looks like a lot of effort and marketing for a expensive product that is not even 50% better than co2
sarabande
Well-known member
It seems that the active agent is ultra-fine (1-2 micron) particles of potassium compounds.
I wonder how an engine would react to those ? And what effect on electronic circuitry ?
Till I see more information and approvals from industry, I'll stick with my water mist kit.
I wonder how an engine would react to those ? And what effect on electronic circuitry ?
Till I see more information and approvals from industry, I'll stick with my water mist kit.
Roberto
Well-known member
They have been available (possibly invented?) in Italy for over 10years now, first trade name "Mangiafuoco"; their web site said they adapted the fire extinguishing system of the Soyuz (?). I can't read the price on the Fire safety stick web wite but simlilar products are available say at Leroy Merlin for 35-45euro depending on duration 50-100sec.
I bought a couple for the engine, the engine locker has a hole where one can insert the extinguisher spout, and mine is too little to consider fitting a CO2 automatic inside. I think it better try this product before possibly destroying a running engine with the powder ones.
JumbleDuck
Well-known member
Are you sure you mean "photogenically"? Because you are the only person in the entire world ever who, as far as google knows, has ever used that phrase.
greeny
Well-known member
They look very interesting to me and probably fill the gap in the market vacated by the halon extinguishers some time ago.
They will not negate the need to carry conventional equipment until the statutory requirements are changed to include them so they will be an extra cost for most boat owners.
Commonly available systems include:-
Dry powder very effective but leaves a terrible mess and causes damage to engines if running at the time. Causes a dense cloud which can disorientate you and hinder escape.
Foam is also effective and lays down a blanket to help prevent re combustion. Not uncommon in engine, diesel, oil, chip pan fire situations. They do tend to large and heavy compared to other options.
CO2 is effective and works by removing the oxygen from the triangle of fire. Fire = heat +oxidising agent+fuel.
I would not have, or release a CO2 in any confined space, example boat cabin, unless I was firing it into the space from the outside and no one was in there.
Golden rule is get out of the cabin and fight the fire from a place of safety or at least a place with an escape route available. Have a look round your own boat and work out your plan should a fire happen. You may find things don't hang together too well. For instance, fire blankets fixed to the bulkhead next to the stove which would be inaccessible with a galley fire. Fire extinguishers in cabins when they would be more useful to be mounted outside the cabin to fight a fire from outside the door, extinguisher in the cockpit locker which is normally kept locked for security making it inaccessible.
Well worth the time.
I'll be sticking to dry powder and fire blankets although I may purchase one of these as a first shot. It would save all the mess if it works.
They will not negate the need to carry conventional equipment until the statutory requirements are changed to include them so they will be an extra cost for most boat owners.
Commonly available systems include:-
Dry powder very effective but leaves a terrible mess and causes damage to engines if running at the time. Causes a dense cloud which can disorientate you and hinder escape.
Foam is also effective and lays down a blanket to help prevent re combustion. Not uncommon in engine, diesel, oil, chip pan fire situations. They do tend to large and heavy compared to other options.
CO2 is effective and works by removing the oxygen from the triangle of fire. Fire = heat +oxidising agent+fuel.
I would not have, or release a CO2 in any confined space, example boat cabin, unless I was firing it into the space from the outside and no one was in there.
Golden rule is get out of the cabin and fight the fire from a place of safety or at least a place with an escape route available. Have a look round your own boat and work out your plan should a fire happen. You may find things don't hang together too well. For instance, fire blankets fixed to the bulkhead next to the stove which would be inaccessible with a galley fire. Fire extinguishers in cabins when they would be more useful to be mounted outside the cabin to fight a fire from outside the door, extinguisher in the cockpit locker which is normally kept locked for security making it inaccessible.
Well worth the time.
I'll be sticking to dry powder and fire blankets although I may purchase one of these as a first shot. It would save all the mess if it works.
Joker
Active member
From their website:
"This process allows the stick to extinguish all types of fires through saturation, while its slow bio-degradation in the environment, further prevents the likelihood of subsequent fires.
The extinguishing process involves two different reactions: one is physical and the other, chemical. The physical reaction relates to potassium’s tendency to oxidise rapidly in air. When in contact with air, alkaline salts consume great quantities of oxygen, thus depriving fires of oxygen. Then the chemical reaction is created through the stable link between potassium particles and the fire’s combustion particles.
Through the two reactions, a quick oxidation process takes place, immediately transforming the jet from a solid state into a gaseous state freeing the potassium particles. These atoms are able to intercept and interrupt any other free particles produced by the fire’s natural chain reaction combustion process.
Potassium has strong inhibitor qualities due to its weak ionization energies. The extinguishing agent being used is composed of Potassium Nitrate, organic oxidizer, and plasticizer resin.
When Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) discharges from the extinguisher it vaporizes in the environment followed by the condensation of its extinguishing substance. When it reacts (inside the body of the extinguisher) it breaks down and the aerosol that is formed is made up primarily of free radicals of Potassium K+, of Nitrogen N (an inert gas), and water vapour.
The aerosol that comes out of the unit reacts with the fire. Potassium radicals (K+) capture the Oxygen of the combustion thereby extinguishing it.
At the end of the extinguishing process the following is discharged to the atmosphere:
As a solid: particles of Potassium (that have reacted with the Oxygen of the fire) having a size between 3-4 microns. These particles are invisible at sight and heavier than air. They disperse in the atmosphere and tend to deposit on the ground in no appreciable amounts.
As a gas: As Nitrogen; an inert gas already present in the air we breathe at more or less 78%.
As water vapour (and lastly) extremely minimal toxic by-products that are a result of the combustion process."
Sorry, but this looks a total load of garbage to me. It would disgrace a GCSE chemistry student.
"This process allows the stick to extinguish all types of fires through saturation, while its slow bio-degradation in the environment, further prevents the likelihood of subsequent fires.
The extinguishing process involves two different reactions: one is physical and the other, chemical. The physical reaction relates to potassium’s tendency to oxidise rapidly in air. When in contact with air, alkaline salts consume great quantities of oxygen, thus depriving fires of oxygen. Then the chemical reaction is created through the stable link between potassium particles and the fire’s combustion particles.
Through the two reactions, a quick oxidation process takes place, immediately transforming the jet from a solid state into a gaseous state freeing the potassium particles. These atoms are able to intercept and interrupt any other free particles produced by the fire’s natural chain reaction combustion process.
Potassium has strong inhibitor qualities due to its weak ionization energies. The extinguishing agent being used is composed of Potassium Nitrate, organic oxidizer, and plasticizer resin.
When Potassium Nitrate (KNO3) discharges from the extinguisher it vaporizes in the environment followed by the condensation of its extinguishing substance. When it reacts (inside the body of the extinguisher) it breaks down and the aerosol that is formed is made up primarily of free radicals of Potassium K+, of Nitrogen N (an inert gas), and water vapour.
The aerosol that comes out of the unit reacts with the fire. Potassium radicals (K+) capture the Oxygen of the combustion thereby extinguishing it.
At the end of the extinguishing process the following is discharged to the atmosphere:
As a solid: particles of Potassium (that have reacted with the Oxygen of the fire) having a size between 3-4 microns. These particles are invisible at sight and heavier than air. They disperse in the atmosphere and tend to deposit on the ground in no appreciable amounts.
As a gas: As Nitrogen; an inert gas already present in the air we breathe at more or less 78%.
As water vapour (and lastly) extremely minimal toxic by-products that are a result of the combustion process."
Sorry, but this looks a total load of garbage to me. It would disgrace a GCSE chemistry student.
oldmanofthehills
Well-known member
Potassium Nitrate is saltpetre, the oxidant used in making gunpowder. Hardly useful in putting out fire - quite the reverse. Indeed any oxidiser is bad to add to fires.
I understand explosive dispersal of retardants but their words are complete b***s. Your certainly would not end up with metallic potassium anywhere and woe betide you if you did as it would catch fire