No announcement yet.


This topic is closed.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • F-500

    My department currently does not use any type of additive or foam other than for class B fires. I am looking into class A foams and a product called F-500 that is a additive to use on class A and B fires. Any information on the use of Class A foam both good and bad as well as type of induction and rate would be appreciated. Also if anyone is using the F-500 additive please give your comments

  • #2
    F-500 - Formally Fuel Busters.

    I cant tell you what it does....only what it cant do!

    1500 Tires / 12.5 - 5 gallon pales of product used and the tire fire could not be put out.

    The final extinquishment was done with plain water.

    A duplicate fire was put out with 1000 gallons of water with a single handline.

    Needless to say, I was not impressed with the product, esspecially after all the claims of how well it would work on tires.

    Just my opinion based on first hand testing.

    [ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: KEA ]

    [ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: KEA ]
    Kirk Allen
    First Strike Technologies, Inc


    • #3
      Thanks Kirk. I have heard that F-500 works excellent and also not very well. Any advice on Class A foam. Would really be interested in Compressed Air Foam but budget won't allow it at this time.


      • #4
        Anthony remember F-500 does not carry a foam rating, yet. F-500 is classified as a wetting agent. We carry it on some of our apparatus. It has several good features such as converting gas from a flammable hazard to a non-flammable hazard. But water is cheap and does many things they say F-500 will do.


        • #5

          A. It works very well, I have over 24 years of fire service and have use F-500 for the last four. If you can't put a tire fire out with F-500 your doing something wrong... This is NOT FOAM!!!! It is NOT FOAM... If you fight a fire and use it like foam it will not work right...

          B. It is still NOT FOAM
          C. F-500 Works
          D. F-500 is NOT Corrosive
          E. ISO 9001
          F. Rapid Heat Reuction
          G. increase viibility
          H. and so much more
          See there Web Site www.

          web page

          and KEA if you call Hazard Control Tech. they will be happy to train you and your dept. corectly on the use of F500. They will do this at no Charge... We are a very small dept in South Fl and they were happy to spend the time with us... There staff is very helpfull and willing to help you. Unlike many other salesmen that never talk to you again after the sale...

          Mark Conn Captain

          FROM edit I am sorry I was not aware that KEA was not a Firefighter. but a compeditor to F-500 with his Vidicator Nozzels he sells for First strike Tech. as Pres.

          I am not a SALESMAN just a firefighter

          [ 08-01-2001: Message edited by: Captain 12 ]


          • #6
            keep it coming, from talk to others about F-500 it seems it is a god send to the fireservice or not worth a nickle. Anyone using class A foam for structure and auto fire attack. Do you use it all the time, at what rate induction and how is it inducted, by a eductor or is it injected?


            • #7
              Capt 12:

              So there is no confusion: F500 is not a competitor in any fasion. Yes we sell a fire nozzle, but that in no way competes with any water additive product. Truth of the matter, we are of the opinion that our product enhances any additives.

              As far as being trained by the company you can rest assured that is not neccesary. I very much understand the product and its use.

              I also know that the sales rep using it on tire fires made several claims that only hurt him and his product since they could not do what they said they could.

              I am indifferent to what additives people use. What I do know though is this product does not meet the Mil spec testing for the AF and considering I retired from that orginazation I think I will trust their testing above what I have seen and heard to date.

              Dont get me wrong, I am open to new stuff but this product has not impressed me to date. When their test tire fire couldnt be put out with this product and plain water finished what they couldnt, that speaks volumes to me, as it did to the rest of the people present for the testing. IF your wondering, the testing was done in 1997 by the California State Fire Marshals office. Rodney Slaughter was the point of contact, although I heard he was retired now.

              If the product is working for you and your department thats great. Considering it does act as a wetting agent it will help reduce the surface area of the water allowing it to soak in better on typicall wood/fiber prducts.

              When it comes to a Class B fire, on a big scale, I simply prefer to stick to products that meet the Mil spec testing for such a fire. This one does not!
              Kirk Allen
              First Strike Technologies, Inc


              • #8
                Capt 12:/If you can't put a tire fire out with F-500 your doing something wrong../

                What is the largest tire fire you have put out with this product? What about with plain water?

                With the proper flow rate it is not a problem to put out 150+ tires with plain water in a couple of minutes. We have done so on several occasions.

                The tire fire that could not be put out was done so by their own sales person. Could they have done things different? Yes in my opinion but we stayed out of how they did there testing.

                The biggest mistake that I saw, which could have been a contributing factor in my opinion was that they INSISTED on using a 95-gpm eductor for a 1500 BUNDLED tire fire.

                The thermal column was over 100 feet in the air and this flow rate was simply to low, yet they insisted that the product was so great that it would not be a problem.

                Once they ran out of product, we were asked by the Safety Officer to put it out, considering we had just done so on a previous test. We finished off their fire with plain water.

                I'm confident that had they used a higher flow rate they would have gotten a better outcome, but how much better is unknown.

                Most of the demonstrations I have seen of this product have been on what I call a small scale fire and they are impressive. I have also duplicated some of those tests using over the counter soap prodcuts and got very similar results. The only LARGE scale demonstration I have seen was a complete failure.

                As I have said in the past, TEST, TEST, TEST and after that, TEST some more. If it meets your requirements without jepordizing safety then GOD Bless it! If it doesnt, dont let our desire to insist it works get in the way of our safety!
                Kirk Allen
                First Strike Technologies, Inc


                • #9
                  You wanted to know if anyone used Class A foam for structural firefighting and car fires. We use foam for everything.

                  I will give you a little background first.

                  Our Engine has an Akron foam system that works as an eductor right on the pump. It allows us .1 to 5% of foam. The only problem is that it is an eduction system and needs to be run a 200 psi. This system works alright, but its days are numbered in favour of a Foam Pro 1600 series.

                  Our Rapid Attack unit has a Scotty "All around the pump" foam system. It allows mixtures of .1 to 5% as well. This system, unlike our Engine's system, does not need to be run at 200 psi. Good foam comes out at any psi.

                  Our thrid system is portable inline eductors. They work good, but the manufacturers say to run at 200 psi as well. I have run them at our standard 100 psi and still seen good foam.

                  Another major impact on Foam performace is nozzle sellection. On our Engine, we have a Akron Combination Fog nozzle. It will be cycled out soon for a proper Akron foam nozzle. This is because the nozzle actually reduces the ability of the foam.

                  On our Rapid Attack truck, we use an old Elkart combination fog nozzle. This nozzle combination works great. Exellent foam. Both of these nozzles are set to 95 gpm.

                  In addition, we carry meduim expansion and high expansion foam nozzles. These nozzles can only be used for brush fires or during exterior structure attacks. They are not like regualar nozzles, so they can't be used inside a structure and I wouldn't use them on a car fire either.

                  The meduim expansion nozzle works great during brush fires because it has great reach and really allows the foam to work. The high expansion nozzle works great as well. The foam goes through a number of adjitators and comes out very thick. However, its rang is very limited and is best used for laying firebreaks or for smothering spot fires.

                  Ok, now for your question about use at fires. As I said above, we use Class A foam for everything. I have only been able to use it at practice structural burns. From this experience, I have see that it works very will with the celling "pulsing" method. For some applicatons, like burning furniture, it really helps get them out. For kitchen fires, a few quick hits with foam and everything is said and done. Chiminey fires are common around here. I have seen firefighters pop the cap and give a couple of hits down the chimieny. This works very well, and very little water is used, so clean-up is easy.

                  I have used it many times at car fires, it really knocks them down fast. Our Rapid Attack unit carries 150 gallons of water. Just two weeks ago, I was nozzle on a fully involved Ford Ranger, with a canopy. 15 foot flames from bumper to bumper, as well as heavy extension into the grass and brush next to the highway. At .5% foam we didn't even drain the tank on the attack. According to our dispatch records, it took about 2-3 minutes to have the fire out. That includes time needed to get into BAs and lay the lines. Just a note, there where only three of us on the truck, two were probies with about 1 year each (I was the third, and have 4 years). We only needed the Engine's lines (it was about 2 minutes behind us) for clean up and to wet down the extension into the bushes. Even then, we still some water left when we flsuhed the system. We switched over when the fire was out so that if anything went wrong we wouldn't be caught off guard.

                  As I said above, we will be getting a FoamPro 1600 system in the next year or so. I don't have the numbers with me, but I do know it was a very good system that has an electrical motor that injects the foam into the lines rather then using an eductor. The system reads how much water your moving and at what pressue and adjusts injections as needed in order to keep the percentage the same.

                  Now that I look back at what I wrote, I realize I must have rambled of for a while. If anyone wants any more information on the systems that we use, or how we used them in more detail, just drop me an E-mail. Thanks for listening to by endless ramblings.....
                  "No one ever called the Fire Department for doing something smart..."


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by KEA:

                    The biggest mistake that I saw, which could have been a contributing factor in my opinion was that they INSISTED on using a 95-gpm eductor for a 1500 BUNDLED tire fire.
                    Why on Earth were they using an eductor with a wetting agent??? It has been my understanding that this product is mixed into the water in your booster tank and is not mixed in the hose line.

                    I saw this product demonstrated on some tires in June. They mixed 5 gallons of F-500 in a 1000 gallon booster tank. The product had no trouble extinguishing the tires, nor the wooden pallets that were set on fire as well. Heck, it even put out the Fire Chief that accidently spilled deisel fuel on himself while trying to start the fires!

                    Richard Nester
                    Orrville (OH) Fire Dept.

                    "People don't care what you know... until they know that you care." - Scott Bolleter


                    • #11
                      Metal Medic: Great Question. One that we asked as well. We were politely told "I know what I'm doing and I know my products capablity"!

                      We disagreed with the tactics used for that specific fire but again, they wanted to do it the way they were comfortable.

                      We suggested batch mixing the 4000 gal Tender and increasing his application rate but that suggestion was futal.

                      One thing I have noticed over the years is that in most cases, departments are not flowing what they think they are. Then they see an additive perform better than the low flows (Typicall) they are used to and now the additive is a miracle worker.

                      Had they tried the same type fires with a higher flow rate they would have found the results to be just as impressive in most cases.
                      Kirk Allen
                      First Strike Technologies, Inc


                      • #12
                        We use class A foam for most structure/car fire it works well for most things. We apply it via a foam pro 2001 proportioner system. Class a foam works very well but is not a cure all, wetting agents work well also such as this F-500. We have not had anyone in the area use it yet although many departments have used the product "cold fire" and like it for many purposes.
                        May we ride into the darkness only to return as safe as we started!!


                        • #13
                          I went back and read the SOG's for the F-500 product and yes it can be used with an eductor system, balanced pressure proportioning sytem, or premixed. This information comes from page 24 of the SOG's HCT puts put for the product.


                          300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)


                          Upper 300x250