Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: New F-500 Foam

  1. #1
    MembersZone Subscriber dsblev's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    62

    Default New F-500 Foam

    Has anybody out there tried the new F-500 Foam for fire suppression activities. I was just checking to see if it does all the video says it does and works as quickly and effectivly as it says it does?

    Also if you have tried it, how much does it cost and is there a "shelf life" to this product?

    David
    ----------------------------
    David S. Blevins

    "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

    ~Abraham Lincoln


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    314

    Default

    From what I've heard regarding F-500:

    1. It is very expensive.

    2. It works very well.

    3. It doesn't really produce a "foamy appearance" unless it is cranked up really high. This has caused many drivers to use the foam too excessively because they couldn't see it.

    Eric

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.
    Posts
    72

    Default

    Military testing proved that it could not pass the standard Mil spec test for class B fires.

    Have some bases baught it? Maybe, however not for use as a primary class B agent from what I have been told. Some use it as an expensive imulsifire to wash down small spills.

    From what I have been able to gather it is Fuel Busters reformulated. The Canadian person selling it REFUSED to provide any technical information for a period of 9 months. He also claims to have used the product as a chief in the Atlanta area. When questioned on which department he REFUSED to provide that information.

    I have a challenge with orginazations that refuse to provide answers to questions. If you going to claim you used it while chief of a department, let us know which department!

    Dont be fooled by the demos. They are to small to offer adequate evaluation of the pros or cons of the product in my opinion.

    When they get US Air Force approval or US Navy approval then they will have my attention.
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber sconfire's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Summerville, SC
    Posts
    836

    Default

    F-500 is
    1.) a little more expensive than a comparible 5gals of AFFF.
    2.) is not a foam, but a micelle encapsulator. This means is locks up the hydrocarbon molecule to does not burn. It can be dumped in a tank and stay mixed for a year (How many of us have our tank water last a day?!) It should be run out of foam eductors on trucks so the tendency is not to use it on grass fires or such when it is not needed.
    3.) is a VERY good product. I have personnaly used it and find it FANTASTIC. However my department still believes in large amounts of water for a job (CAFS is even taboo).

    I guess when you have multiple engines to outfit with the stuff I can see where it gets expensive. It takes a different mind set when using it.

    The website for the company is http://www.hazcon.com/

    There is also a section on there dealing with the "Fuelbuster" situation. the link is http://www.hazcon.com/hct_vs_thames_litigation.htm

    I think this will explain the mis-representation of the product.

    all I know is that I have used it personnaly and have seen independent video of it being used with ARFF trucks in a large fuel burn pit. It worked real well on the fuel as well as on tires. I just know what I have seen.
    Last edited by sconfire; 03-17-2003 at 09:15 PM.
    Always remember the CHARLESTON 9

    Captain Grant Mishoe, Curator of History
    North Charleston and American LaFrance Fire Museum
    "You'll never know where you're going until you remember where you came from"
    www.legacyofheroes.org
    www.firehistory.org
    www.sconfire.com

  5. #5
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Location
    First Strike Technologies, Inc.
    Posts
    72

    Default

    SCONFIRE: Interesting web site address. The one they gave me was http://www.mi-cell.com/. They are out of Canada though. I wonder why the diffent web page?

    I have seen plain water from a crash truck put out a floating pit fire and have done it myself on several ocasions so doing so with F-500 does not impress me. IT DOES NOT MEET THE MIL Spec test for CLASS B fires! They list it as a wetting agent but thats where the buck stops.

    As far as their on going litigation, you will notice they do not say that Fuel Busters is not F-500. I was told by the Canadian outfit that Fuel Busters is the Grandfather of F500. In fact, they are trying to protect the selling of other products under three names, which one is FuelBusters! Looks like a duck, walks like a duck, QUACKS like a duck, Must be a DUCK

    I to have seen it on tire fires in controled testing. Over 13 5-gallon pales were used for 1500 tires. They could not put it out! We finished it off with WATER! Lots of it! 250-gpm from a single line did the trick.

    My hats off to your department for believing in large amounts of water!

    I am confident that if you try other Class A agents you will find comparable results to what you have seen with F-500 at a greatly reduced cost.

    Controled INDEPENDENT testing will one day either confirm or disprove company claims.

    Thanks for allowing me to give my 2 cents worth
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts