F-500

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Chad Vesely on May 4, 2008 at 6:34pm

I work part-time as an instructor for our local power company who has fire brigades at the coal power plants. They use F-500 on the coal fires and still use AFFF on all flammable liquid fires. The F-500 soaks down into the deep seated fires that are hard to reach. Hope this helps.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wayne Benner Jr on May 4, 2008 at 7:40pm

Dan,

Our department has been using F-500 for 6years now. I love it. Unlike the AFFF this stuff penitrates. We carry it in our tanks all the time. We add 1/2 jug per tank and seems to work well. Its used every fire. Soak it once and that should be good. If you want a thicker application then simply add more to tank. I have no compliants of the stuff. I was told its jsut some type of protien? what i dont know. And not as messy as the AFFF. Works great on Car fires, House, even ship fires..

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Becknell on May 5, 2008 at 3:45pm

I am not very familiar with the F-500 I have had some salesmen try to sale me on it but like you, I was unable to find very much information. My department uses some AFFF but for fuel spills/fires the best thing I have seen/used is MicroBlaze Out it chemically breaks down the hydrocarbons in fuels with micro-organisms and leaves a biodegradable substance. This means no re-ignition if the foam blanket is broken. We have used on it diesel spills and gasoline spills some of which have been inspected by DHEC and required almost no extra cleanup after the intial treatment. MicroBlaze has a website with some good videos of the product in action. I am really not sure why more people don't use it, although it may be the price $27/ gallon. But with an all volunteer FD time is money to many of our members so the less time spent on scene the sooner everyone can back to work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Ryan on May 6, 2008 at 8:02am

We have recently done some testing with F-500 and found that it would not put out a gasoline fire. We are going to make a video and document all this. would you like a copy of the video?

i suspect that this product should only be used on a class A fire but we are still testing it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Ryan on May 6, 2008 at 8:04am

I think that is the best approach, we have found that this product will not put out a gasoline fire.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Ryan on May 6, 2008 at 8:05am

27$ a gallon is less than we pay for f-500 or AFF AR. I have not heard of the Micro-blaze but I will look into it.

Thanks

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ron Becknell on May 6, 2008 at 10:07am

Dan,
I would love to have a copy of this video. I have had many salesmen try to tell me that the F-500 is the same as the MoicroBlaze, which I didn't think was true.
And if you are looking for just an AFFF that is reasonably priced I got a good deal on Buckeye Foam last year.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rick Miller on May 6, 2008 at 6:22pm

F-500 is a Micelle Encapsulator Fire Suppression Agent. F-500 is a multi-purpose agent used worldwide for various applications. The fire suppression mechanics and technology utilized by F-500 are vastly different than conventional foam. F-500 forms and maintains micelles, "chemical cocoons," around the hydrocarbon fuel neutralizing the fuel leg of the fire tetrahedron rather than forming a blanket depriving the fire of oxygen.

For fire suppression, F-500 is UL listed for Class A and Class B fires at 1%, 3% and 6%. Typically, 1% is used for Class A fires, with 3% and 6% used for Class B fires. For Class D fires a more concentrated solution is required.

What F-500 Can Do For You:

Fire Suppressant
- F-500 is listed for use on Class A and Class B fires at 1%, 3%, and 6%.
- It can be used to extinguish Class D metal fires.Flammable Hydrocarbon Spill Control Agent
- F-500 can be used to render flammable hydrocarbons nonflammable without the formation of a fragile foam blanket.
Vapor Mitigation Agent
- F-500 can be used to rapidly lower flammable and noxious vapors to below the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL).
Tank / Pipeline Cleaning
- F-500 can be used to clean oil well production tanks, pipelines, petroleum storage tanks, and sludge.
Surface Washing
- While not endorsed or recommended, the US EPA has listed F-500 on the NCP product schedule for use as a surface washing agent for use on oil spills.
Remediation Agent
- F-500 has been successfully used to clean and remediate areas of ground that have been contaminated with gasoline, diesel fuel, benzene, cyclohexane and heavy oils.


Technical Specifications:
Model #:

F500

Some of the features and benefits of F-500 Multipurpose Agent are:
Is nontoxic, non-corrosive, fully biodegradable
Is an effective firefighting agent for Class A and Class B fires
Has no blanket to break as with foam
Can be used through existing equipment via proportioning, eduction, or can be pre-mixed and delivered through a standard fire hose
Can be pre-mixed and applied using a 2.5-gallon pressurized water extinguisher
Utilizes new micelle encapsulator technology to eliminate the combustibility of the fuel leg of the fire tetrahedron. By removing the fuel leg of the fire tetrahedron, F-500 can effectively eliminate the danger created by the spill of Class B liquids.
Significantly reduces heat and interrupts the free radical chain reaction For flammable material spills, where an ignition source could lead to fire if the fuel is not neutralized, F-500 is a superior spill control agent.

http://www.hct-world.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&produ...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim Williams on May 7, 2008 at 10:37am

My department has been using F500 for some years and it works great. We use it on class A fires and fuel spills and the claims the salesman make are correct. It does suppress the vapor given off and seperates it from the liquid. You can walk through it and it does seal the h*** created by your feet. It has seved us well.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shawn Oke on June 25, 2008 at 3:39pm

On Friday, June 20th 2008 several manufacturers got together at Washington State Patrol Fire Academy in North Bend, WA (about 35 miles east of Seattle, WA) to test and to prove their claims with the latest and greatest fire fighting foams. The manufacturers were Ansul with alcohol resistant AFFF 3x3, Novacool with the UEF 0.4% and Fire Blockade. There were also representatives from F500 but after seeing the props, pools, etc. they decided not to participate in that little contest and after the first fire they simply disappeared. Attendees were Kent Fire Department, Renton Fire Department, Seattle Fire Department, Bellevue Fire Department, Vashon Island Fire Department, Surrey British Columbia and many more. My understanding is that the ethanol for the tests was donated by BP.

The first test was the ethanol fire test. Ansul went first and 3 minutes 24 seconds, after extinguishment the fire reflared and the additional time was not measured. The reading obtained form Foam Pro showed 325 gallons of water used, 8 gallons of foam and there was another 115 gallons used to put the reflash. Novacool UEF 0.4% put out identical fire in 1 minute 46 seconds, Foam Pro reading showed 157 gallons of water used and 2 gallons of foam, no reflash. Third was Fire Blockade, 3 minutes and 28 seconds, the Foam Pro showed 350 gallons of water used and 16 gallons of foam.

The second test was a pool fire using a blend of gas and diesel. Only Novacool and Fire Blockade participated in this test. Novacool UEF put it out in 38 seconds flowing 90-95 GPM. The Foam Pro showed 80 gallons of water used and < 1 gallon of foam with no reflash. When the turn came for Fire Blockade, the pool was not completely on fire and it was announced by one of the captains that Novacool is still present in the pool preventing full ignition. It was agreed by the Novacool guy to give the Fire Blockade people the "go ahead" and the Blockade time was 58 seconds with Foam Pro showing 90 gallons of water and 3 gallons of foam.
The third test was a magnesium test using 8 engine blocks for each manufacturer. Fire Blockade time was 12 minutes and 20 seconds, Foam Pro showed 480 gallons of water used and 18 gallons of foam concentrate. Novacool time was 1 minute 20 seconds, Foam Pro showed 105 gallons of water used and < than 1 gallon of foam.
At the end of the day it was clear that Novacool (www.novacoolfire.com) outperformed everything even though the official scorer from one of the neighboring fire departments was trying very hard to improve the image of Fire Blockade by simply trying to kink the times and throwing difficulties at the Novacool tests. The Novacool did what the product claims to do without any "help" and last second adjustments. There were times that were altered and this was proven because most everybody was keeping track of the times.
The foam totals for the day were: Ansul 3x3 used 440 gallons of water and 8 gallons of foam concentrate. Fire Blockade used 920 gallons of water and 37 gallons of foam concentrate. Novacool used 342 gallons of water and only 4 gallons of concentrate. In addition Novacool is UL tested and listed and Fire Blockade is not. Well, here it is. As we saw it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bruce Green on June 26, 2008 at 8:15am

We just had another demo of F500 at our department.I wasn't able to attend but was told that it handled ethanol well.We have used it for approx.6 years...with no problems.We've used it in our water cans and have a 30 gallon tank of it on our newest engine which is prepiped to our front bumper pre-connect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Shawn Oke on June 26, 2008 at 8:30am

I am not knocking their product. Just be sure when you look at any product that you control the testing and you examine other products. When you test a product with E85 make sure you have enough E85 to make a good test. I can take a gallon of E85 and put enough water in it to extinguish it. The other thing I have seen done is such a small amount of fuel is used for the test that the fuel is actually consumed and that is how the fire is extinguished. If you are doing the testing with a sales rep don't let them control the tests. Throw several different, unplanned tests at them and see how they handle those. If the product is truly a good product the sales rep should have no problem with trying different tests. If the rep won't do your tests, beware.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page