Fire Extinguisher?
#26

My Feedback: (57)
hmmm, I use Halon and have had hot starts I had to put out. Engine would run great afetrwards. Never an issue.
Issue is, I'm low on Halon and they want $220 to refill a 10lb unit.
I now make sure I drink plenty of fluids everytime I go to the field, just in case.
Issue is, I'm low on Halon and they want $220 to refill a 10lb unit.
I now make sure I drink plenty of fluids everytime I go to the field, just in case.
#27
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: East Falmouth, MA,
MA
Here's my recollection when this topic was dicussed years ago after it was suggested (BVM?) that we have onboard extinguishers. Halon 1211(?) was, at the time, the only feasible material (small container volume vs effectiveness, etc.).
This same toxicity issue was raised. Turned out, Halon was being discontinued/prohibited in diesel-powered boat applications because the gas could possibly be 'availible' to a running diesel engines...and their higher operating temps could turn 1211 to phosgene and possibly exhaust it at toxic levels. Any blowing back into enclosed spaces would be lethal.
Recollection only...don't hold me to it! But, impression/conclusions were, that this just would not/could not happen in extinguishing a typical outdoor model turbine fire w/ it. Any concentration would be immediatly dissipated, regardless.
Ray
This same toxicity issue was raised. Turned out, Halon was being discontinued/prohibited in diesel-powered boat applications because the gas could possibly be 'availible' to a running diesel engines...and their higher operating temps could turn 1211 to phosgene and possibly exhaust it at toxic levels. Any blowing back into enclosed spaces would be lethal.
Recollection only...don't hold me to it! But, impression/conclusions were, that this just would not/could not happen in extinguishing a typical outdoor model turbine fire w/ it. Any concentration would be immediatly dissipated, regardless.
Ray
#28

My Feedback: (2)
ORIGINAL: Harley Condra
Highhorse,
Here we go again. I just Googled "halatron fire extinguishers" and found the following, just one of many entries.
(The actual spelling is Halotron....sorry about that, but it still comes up misspelled but adds the spelling correction promt)
Supporting statements to my claim that you quoted can be found at www.halotron-inc.com/halotron1.php and many other places.
Quote: "Halotron I is a safe, effective environmentally acceptable chemicall blend based on raw material HCFC-123. It was originally introduced in 1992 to replace severe ozone depleting halon 1211, or bromochlorodifluoromethane (BFC)"
"Halotron I is approved as environmentally acceptable under the U.S. EPA's SNAP program and has undergone the most extensive testing of any halogenated clean agent for portable fire extinguishers since 1992. There are more than 30 seperate UL listings for Halotron I portable extingueshers, which is more than twice the number available with any other halocarbon-based clean agent."
Halon 1211 is still in use, but is falling out of favor because of its environmentally unfavorable characteristics.
Highhorse,
Here we go again. I just Googled "halatron fire extinguishers" and found the following, just one of many entries.
(The actual spelling is Halotron....sorry about that, but it still comes up misspelled but adds the spelling correction promt)
Supporting statements to my claim that you quoted can be found at www.halotron-inc.com/halotron1.php and many other places.
Quote: "Halotron I is a safe, effective environmentally acceptable chemicall blend based on raw material HCFC-123. It was originally introduced in 1992 to replace severe ozone depleting halon 1211, or bromochlorodifluoromethane (BFC)"
"Halotron I is approved as environmentally acceptable under the U.S. EPA's SNAP program and has undergone the most extensive testing of any halogenated clean agent for portable fire extinguishers since 1992. There are more than 30 seperate UL listings for Halotron I portable extingueshers, which is more than twice the number available with any other halocarbon-based clean agent."
Halon 1211 is still in use, but is falling out of favor because of its environmentally unfavorable characteristics.
Your challenge was to "google it", so I did.
Your blanket statement that "Halon has been REPLACED by Halotron" is not claimed even by the manufacturer, Halotron inc.. That would be a bit like Wren saying that the P-60 has been REPLACED by the MW54, no? Halotron inc simply claims to have a better mouse trap. Perhaps they do. Don't know. Don't care. I'm only paid and trained to use the stuff. Evaluating and purchasing it happens elsewhere in the company.
Far from having been "replaced" Halon is still being manufactured, distributed, and sold. (Here in the U.S. tho, "new" halon is actually reclaimed.)
Neither does Halotron have, as your omission of other brands seems to imply, a monopoly in the Halon alternative market. Other alternatives available (as per the EPA, not Harley Condra) include but are not limited to: Dupont's FM-200, Pyrogen, and Ansul's Inergen.
Harley, I'm not trying to fight with you, dude. But because these forums are populated by intelligent and curious folks, posters will sometimes be politely challenged if the information they post contradicts others' personal training and experience.
Bottom line: 1) Halon is still available, and 2) Halotron is only one alternative in the marketplace.
Peace, out.

#29

My Feedback: (2)
ORIGINAL: MLaCoste
The one thing I didn't see mentioned here is.....
If you have a small(ish) fire on startup (hot start), abort the startup procedure and hit it with CO2, you CAN (after checking everything over carefully) perform another start and go fly if everything is okay.
However, if you hit your engine with Halon, Halotron, or any other liquid or chemical extinguisher, YOU ARE DONE. You have to send the engine and components in for service, and most likely strip the airplane down and clean everything.
So, which route would you rather take?
Just food for thought.
Brg,
Mark
The one thing I didn't see mentioned here is.....
If you have a small(ish) fire on startup (hot start), abort the startup procedure and hit it with CO2, you CAN (after checking everything over carefully) perform another start and go fly if everything is okay.
However, if you hit your engine with Halon, Halotron, or any other liquid or chemical extinguisher, YOU ARE DONE. You have to send the engine and components in for service, and most likely strip the airplane down and clean everything.
So, which route would you rather take?
Just food for thought.
Brg,
Mark
#30
Thread Starter
Senior Member
My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bowling Green,
KY
Geesh, you guys are way more knolwdgeable about fire ext's than I am... I was just worried about any ill affects on the turbine or equipment.
Now after all the banter....anyone wanna trad me a CO2 for the HALON I have...haha!!!
Now after all the banter....anyone wanna trad me a CO2 for the HALON I have...haha!!!
#33

My Feedback: (1)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Knoxville,
TN
Go with halotron rather than halon. You can get halotron refilled, and it hasn't been outlawed like halon. You won't find halotron fire extinguishers at places like Home Depot, but you will find it at stores that specialize in fire-fighting equipment.
#34

My Feedback: (2)
ORIGINAL: Harley Condra
What a sorehead!
Get off your high horse!
What does "to replace ozone depleting Halon 1211 mean?
Just what it says.....to replace.................
What a sorehead!
Get off your high horse!
What does "to replace ozone depleting Halon 1211 mean?
Just what it says.....to replace.................
I'm sorry that you have so much trouble with this concept. Since you yourself asked "What does "to replace ozone depleting Halon 1211 mean?", I will try to help you out.
The manufacturere's statement "TO replace" is future tense. It reflects the manufacturer's BUSINESS MODEL and DESIRE to capture some share of the Halon replacement market.
YOUR ill-informed and under-researched statement "HAS BEEN replaced by Halotron" is past tense and implies that the event has already ocurred. This is simply untrue.
In fact, while I have found documentation that Halotron is approved for replacement of hand-held units on airliners, for example, said replacement is not mandatory. I personally have found NO, repeat NO reference stating that Halotron has been approved for onboard suppression of engine fires. Although I'm more than happy to be referred to a reference stating such.
Either way, Halon is STILL being manufactured, sold, refilled, and used (present tense). Even if you could make all of THAT untrue tomorrow morning, Harley, Halotron will be but ONE of the manufacturers competeing to fill the void.
Your statement "has been replaced by Halotron' is just quite simply untrue. It was YOUR idea that readers "google it".
If you're not diggin' being contradicted by the facts then you should be more careful what you ask for.ROTFLMAO
#35
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
C02 does not 'remove heat'. It simply smothers a fire by eliminating oxygen which is required for fire to burn. There is no cooling being done by the C02.
The only way you could even make an argument for it removing heat is that it does so by putting out the fire and eliminating the heat source. It has no cooling effect otherwise.
The only way you could even make an argument for it removing heat is that it does so by putting out the fire and eliminating the heat source. It has no cooling effect otherwise.
#36
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Bend,
OR
ORIGINAL: MLaCoste
The one thing I didn't see mentioned here is.....
If you have a small(ish) fire on startup (hot start), abort the startup procedure and hit it with CO2, you CAN (after checking everything over carefully) perform another start and go fly if everything is okay.
However, if you hit your engine with Halon, Halotron, or any other liquid or chemical extinguisher, YOU ARE DONE. You have to send the engine and components in for service, and most likely strip the airplane down and clean everything.
So, which route would you rather take?
Just food for thought.
Brg,
Mark
The one thing I didn't see mentioned here is.....
If you have a small(ish) fire on startup (hot start), abort the startup procedure and hit it with CO2, you CAN (after checking everything over carefully) perform another start and go fly if everything is okay.
However, if you hit your engine with Halon, Halotron, or any other liquid or chemical extinguisher, YOU ARE DONE. You have to send the engine and components in for service, and most likely strip the airplane down and clean everything.
So, which route would you rather take?
Just food for thought.
Brg,
Mark



