Reloading Fire Extinguisher

[Apparently he helped himself to a few drinks at my bar before starting the electrical work. Between his wife and the burns I think he got punished for his stupidity.
/QUOTE]

Count the FAIL on this.

I wonder if this could be used as a manual for how not to go through life...this is the kind of dumb*ss you see in a pickup truck on a logging road in November with a loaded 300 mag inside the cab and a half bottle of crown royal left at 1 in the afternoon.
Click to expand...
 
Ganderite said:
After the electrian fire, his wife called the next day to ask if there would be any point in sending a bill. "no"

She asked if he could come back for his tools. i said i would leave them on the front steps, but i did not want to see or talk to him.

Apparently he helped himself to a few drinks at my bar before starting the electrical work. Between his wife and the burns I think he got punished for his stupidity.

Before he started the job I told him "Don't smoke in the loading room. I don't want you to blow up my house." I wonder what part of that he did not understand??
Click to expand...


Was this a licensed electrician? Even if not he is clearly liable for your damages as he disregarded your clear instructions. He should make a claim against his business insurance to cover your damages. Potentially your whole house could need to be cleaned at the very least to get rid of the odor. It would also cover the damage to your personal property as well. I am not sure about Canadian law but here in the U.S. his insurance would cover at least the depreciated value of the repairs and contents replacement. I also would not give his tools back until he provides his insurance information.
 
Cerdan said:
You guys are starting to worry me. Makin' it sound like powder fires are super common.

How much of a risk is it, really, if you don't smoke around your reloading bench? Have these fires even spontaneously happened, or been caused by static electricity?
Click to expand...

If this can make you feel a bit merrier, I had this article saved on my computer:

The question was: Can a static spark set off black powder?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question of whether a static electric spark can set of black powder has been debated for a while, and I recall hearing of some previous experiments showing that it could not. Since I am involved in the design of a BP breechloader which is to be electrically fired, I resolved to put the matter to test in two experiments.

The Test Setup:
First, I placed a piece of white writing paper on top of a grounded block of metal and placed a small pile of Swiss 4F powder on the paper; I find that this powder ignites near instantaneously in my flinter. I then placed a wire from a ceramic torch igniter 1/4" over the top of the powder. The igniter generates a pulse of electricity of about 10,000 volts, which is about the most static charge that can be built up on a person. I used a combination of flash and time exposure to capture the image, where I sparked the igniter about 10 times during the course of the exposure.

As you can see, the powder did not ignite. I repeated this several times, and the results were the same. I also tried various BP substitutes, and they did not ignite either

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the second experiment, I used an Oudin coil, which is used for testing glass neon fixtures for leaks. It produces pulses in excess of 40,000 volts and will give you quite a burn (and shock) if you let it hit you

This was impressive! The pile of powder was hit dozens of times, and again, it never ignited. You can see little flashes where the sparks strike; these are caused by vaporization of material from the surface. Although I couldn't get a picture of it, the paper had hundreds of tiny holes punched in it where the sparks burned through.

The next picture shows a similar test set-up, except this time the black powder was ground into dust-like consistency. Again, no ignition, even though the sparks striking the middle of the pile blew powder clear from the areas where they struck.


Unique smokeless powder was also tried, this time with even more sparks - again, no ignition



For those skeptics who might not believe that the sparks actually got near the powder granules, in this experiment, the photo shows sparks passing around and over the individual granules as the spark travels between two electrodes.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So - Why wouldn't all of the sparks set off the powder?

The answer comes from the fact that black powder, and other carbon-containing propellants, are fair conductors of electricity. When a material conducts well, it takes a lot more current to heat it up. This is why the lamp wire stays cool and the filament in your light bulb gets white hot. The same current passes through both, but because the light filament has a much higher resistance to the passage of electric current, most of the heat ends up there rather than in the wire. In the experiment here, the air has a very high resistance, while the powder conducts fairly well. The passage of the spark heats the air white-hot, but the powder stays cool. A very high-current spark (like lightning!) would, of course, heat everything and cause ignition, but this would take much more current than could be provided from a static-like source.
Click to expand...
 
Reading this over, I guess the new home SWMBO and I are contemplating will have my loading room with a painted concrete floor, a floor drain and a sprinkler installed.
Any other suggestions?
 
A garden hose with a good high volume nozzle, attached to a dedicated inline tap(self installed for around $15.00). That combined with a couple of good sized fire-extingushers, sound's like a great plan, even if you don't load in the basement.

Just my $.02
 
Tomorrow, we can once again ##### about NRCAN making up new reloading regulations and where they get their ideas from.....:rolleyes:
 
Insurance - The physical damage was minimal. The smell cleared quickly. I doubt very, very much he had any laibility insurance.

If my wife had not been home, we would have lost the house (and a few hundred prized guns).

In the winter we store all the garden hoses indoors. One of them is connected to a tap in the furnace room. A 5 minute investment, so why not?
 
agite12 said:
I am not a fire expert, but I had a 3 week training in puting out fire as I used to be a sailor and actually had to use it twice in real time life threathening situations.

Some notions:

Fire triangle: to burn a fire need 3 things :
1-A combustible (fuel, wood, paper, smokless powder)
2-An oxidizing agent (Oxygen)
3-Heat

A fire spread because the heat form the original fire turn more and more material into combustible. That mean the heat from the fire will turn otherwise inert material into combustible (by heating it and thus turning it in gaz) and thus feed the fire wich will grow bigger and hotter and this will in turn turn more inert material into more combustible... pretty much until someone break this reaction or until there's not much more left of your house than the concrete foundation.

So there are basically 3 ways to put out a fire, wich is taking out anyone of the 3 part of the triangle.

In your case smokeless powder does contain it's own oxidizing agent and it's own combustible so the only thing you can use is the heat element.

So in case of a smokeless powder what you need to do is reduce the heat.

Now about the extinguiser:

They are taylor to the type of fire you can fight, but are not created equals...

They are classified A, B, C, D and K for the type of fire they can effectively fight, let's take out D and K wich are respectively for metal fire (D) and kitchen/fat/oil fire (K)

A: Ordinary solid fire (aka paper, wood, etc..)

B: flamable liquid and gas

C: electrical fire (meaning A, but you can't use water since it would result in electrocution...)

Now most household extinguisher are rated ABC, meaning you can effectively use them against any fire of the A, B or C type. That being said they are usually made of Dry chemical meaning that the basic principle is that on a molecular level it separate the fuel from the oxygen therefore breaking the fire triangle (combustible-Oxidizing agent aka oxygen-heat). Now this is your all-purpose extinguisher, it can do pretty much anything but is definatly better for some than others. In this case the dry chemical is usally better for B and C fire than for A, but it will still fight A fire quite effectivelly.

CO2 extinguisher won't work since the principle is to deprive the fire from oxidizing agent (oxygen) by replacing normal air with CO2 this mean that it won't work in well ventilated area (hello foam extinguisher) and that it certainly won't work with smokeless powder wich is by definition a mix of Combustible and oxidizing agent so depriving it of oxygen is not gonna do anygthing (although it MIGHT help put out subsequent fire, but still non conclusive...)

Water extinguisher (A) is just water with presure, it will trow water on the fire and thus reduce it's temperature. Water extinguisher are also quite easy to operate and recharge. Usually recharging it is just a matter of filling it with water and putting pressure in it with a compressor.

So my (uneducated guess) would be an ABC because it's handy in all sorts of situation and mostly a Water extinguiser, beause althought I never fought a smokless powder fire, it appers to me that heat is the weakest link in this fire and thus water would be the most appropriate response.

Then again I am no specialist.

Etienne
Click to expand...

You got it ALMOST right! A fire actually requires a tetrahedron, meaning four. The fire tetrahedron requires a fuel, an oxidizer, a source of ignition AND a chemical reaction to ignite. There are fire suppression gasses that do not stop fuel, oxygen, or heat but rather interfere with the chemical reaction taking place putting out the fire. You will usually find this in server room or hazmat storage releasing systems and it can get quite pricey. I also work in the fire prevention business for the last 8 years as an inspector/technician, did not realise how many others were on the board in a related field.
 
RiverCitySlicker said:
You got it ALMOST right! A fire actually requires a tetrahedron, meaning four. The fire tetrahedron requires a fuel, an oxidizer, a source of ignition AND a chemical reaction to ignite. There are fire suppression gasses that do not stop fuel, oxygen, or heat but rather interfere with the chemical reaction taking place putting out the fire. You will usually find this in server room or hazmat storage releasing systems and it can get quite pricey. I also work in the fire prevention business for the last 8 years as an inspector/technician, did not realise how many others were on the board in a related field.
Click to expand...

Hey me too.

Is the Canadian Fire Alarm Association making all the fire alarm techs in Manitoba go through a standards update exam?

In Ontario we have to take an exam because in the last couple years Ontario has released a new building code, fire code, and ULC has also updated their standards for installation, inspection, testing verification ect.

I figure it's going to cost me about $800.00!
 
Not at this time no, The course material I went over in my CFAA was written in 89, and re-written in 91 and I got my ticket only 7 years ago. LOL although I am up to date on my NBC and ULC standards as well as NFC and local amendments. Its one thing that has kept me in the upper ranks is progressive education and constant upgrading. I've received noticed about Ontario's refresher course though, think it's a good idea but really there should be an exam to challenge for those who didn't say F' it to keeping up to date rather than a compulsory money grab for the course if it's not required.
 
Oh an ULC the standards have been updated consistently every 4 years as far as I can remember. As soon as the new standards books are released I pick them up and look over them, because it will only take 3 - 4 years for my AHJ to adopt them here in MB
 
I am employed in the fire service with a large metropolotan service. My advice would be to first of all not have a fire. Good housekeeping and proper storage of powder..which is a flammable solid...is a must. Store powder away from open flame such as hot water tanks and furnaces, electronics, cigarettes and such and never lock it in an airtight vessel. In the unlikely event of a powder fire occuring then get you ass and others out of the structure asap. Do not attempt to fight the fire and put your life at risk plus waste precious seconds. Phone 911 tell them what you have but be advised that if powder and ammunition is mentioned the Fire Department will attack the fire in a defensive mode as not to put any of their members in a dangerous situation.
 
Cummins4x4 said:
Very informative thread, thanks for all the input. Definatly going to keep the powder out of the carpet, hook up a hose in the basement and get a halon extinguisher.
Click to expand...

Halon production and use (and Halon blends like halon 1211 and 1301) was banned in 1987 by the Montreal protocol. An exemption was granted for the aviation industry.

Look for one of its "clean agent" replacements like Halotron 1 or FE-36.
 
Last edited:
RiverCitySlicker said:
Not at this time no, The course material I went over in my CFAA was written in 89, and re-written in 91 and I got my ticket only 7 years ago. LOL although I am up to date on my NBC and ULC standards as well as NFC and local amendments. Its one thing that has kept me in the upper ranks is progressive education and constant upgrading. I've received noticed about Ontario's refresher course though, think it's a good idea but really there should be an exam to challenge for those who didn't say F' it to keeping up to date rather than a compulsory money grab for the course if it's not required.
Click to expand...

Well, the one thing the CFAA did for us was enter into an agreement with the ULC so the standards "only" cost us $250 instead of the over $600.00 they normally cost.
 
You may also want to locate fire extinguishers where accessible – i.e. where you can get at it while moving away from the fire rather than where you would have to move through / into the fire to get at it.
 
Cummins4x4 said:
Very informative thread, thanks for all the input. Definatly going to keep the powder out of the carpet, hook up a hose in the basement and get a halon extinguisher.
Click to expand...

For anyone getting/using a Halon extinguisher, please remember Halon is an inert gas, containing no oxygen. It works by depriving the fire of O2 and that's what you breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom