CHOICE membership

Fire One - potassium based fire extinguishers

Any thoughts? Searched high & low for reviews, scams, hoax for their apparent innovative products. Can’t really find anything solid. We are up for a few new fire extinguisher for home & car so pretty keen on these things on face value.

The stickers look like a very … cool idea too

Cheers

5 Likes

I’ve had a good poke around on the website - looks good. I would prefer more detail on “The Science” though…

3 Likes

Science - yes. The only thing I’ve come across with a Potassium agent is Purple K ie. dry powder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple-K Mostly for Class B eh. I have had dry powder for car/s in the past but tongue in cheek, think I’d be best to just let the car burn to the rims than try & clean up afterwards. The FO is like pressurised mist or gas from the looks of it, rather than the gluggg that comes out of a Purple K.

2 Likes

It’s curious that the Fire One product is being promoted if it does not have a classification and rating to the Australian Standard. I’ll just note the promotional link you provided mixes talk about fire safety and extinguishers (fireman John?) with a product labelled ‘First Response’ and branded cleverly ‘Fire One’. At no time do they call the product a fire extinguisher. Legally in Australia it may not be a fire extinguisher?

Yes, there is a science to dry chemical fire suppressants, (including potassium derived salts). That does not guarantee a particular product Is effective or fit for purpose. It needs to be tested to the standard by a laboratory certified for testing fire protection equipment.

Misleading and deceptive, shonky etc I’d leave to the ACCC and a court room.

Background:
Australia uses a classification and rating system for fire extinguishers. Generally per Standard AS2444. There is no need to access the standard. Major safety suppliers, fire services, govt departments all provide interpretative guides. See endnote for some examples.

The first question to ask re the product you are considering. What is the certified performance to AS2444?

Until the new product you referred to has been tested and classified to the standard I’d not buy one. It may provide protection as described, it may not. Buyer beware!

Note: Colour coding of the extinguisher is part of the standard. A plain red body says to me only use this extinguisher on ‘Class A’ type fires EG wood, paper and timber fires.

The AS classifies extinguishers according to the type of fire/fuel (class) and size of fire (rating). Fire Blankets may also be suitable or more effective for some fires EG cooking stove top oil/fat fires, personal clothing fires.

It’s worth discussing with your local fire brigade officers, what your needs are and seeking their professional advice.

EG Qld Fire and Emergency Service, on line guides and link to book a home safe visit.

https://www.qfes.qld.gov.au/community-safety/home/Pages/default.aspx

End note:
Examples of other resources. There are many available on line. Choose local resources that you can rely on.

P.S. edit added - ACCC consultation and review proposal for more background on mandatory labelling and standards compliance.

8 Likes

A bit of a song and dance on their web site, but here is their text.


Do they have Australian Standard certification?
Open tab

There is no Australian Standard for portable condensed aerosol fire extinguishers. As there is no Australian Standard for they are not required to be Certified and sold with the AS mark. Confirmation of Fire One extinguishers quality and performance is achieved by various international Certifications and the Enterprise Standard.

Fire One extinguishers are subject of the following certifications

ISO9001:2015 – Quality systems and records: issued by Intertek Certificate number 111802007CE: Portable Aerosol Fire Extinguisher – Issued by AVT (1067) Certificate number: GB 1067/1863/09/ issue 1CE: Pressure Equipment Directive – Issued by HPI Verification Services (1521) Certificate number: HPiVS/ P1002-112-I-01 rev 1RINA: Extinguishing device – Rules for testing and certification of Marine Materials and Equipment Certificate number: FPE264314WS/001SGS - Heavy Metal Detection Test – Test number TSNEC1100084105CTI - Ozone Depleting Substances – Test number XAR10090227520101 –AS per US EPA 8260C:2006CTI – CO/ CO2 test report –Test Number XAR10082412261Ea – as per GB/T 10410-2008SGS – Electrical Conductivity Test – Ref SP110301524 – As per AS/ NZS 1850: 1994EPA – US Significant New Alternatives Policy (SNAP) program –Submission response. Approval to import to US as Halon alternative

Not sure if it is a waltz, quickstep, salsa, or rap dance. Daunting enough to avoid putting fire extinguisher related facts up front? The last one (SNAP) is about air pollution. If the Fire One doesn’t pollute, what about the fire it might or might not extinguish?

7 Likes

‘Portable Aerosol’ there is a standard for manufacture and supply. ‘Portable Condensed Aerosol’ there is no standard, correct statement.

So they can’t be marketed and sold in Australia as ‘Fire Extinguishers’?

Per the ACCC the last line vs the ‘Fire One’ product description may appear to be semantics?

In it’s consultation paper the ACCC makes a very direct statement without qualification on the type of Aerosol extinguishers acceptable in the market place. Mandatory compliance is the proposal.

Whether or not the ‘Fire One’ products are effective, safe and acceptable to insurers, the ‘Fire One’ FAQ’s answer some common questions re suitability of their product for insurance purposes. My take is they are not accepted. With the standard 500gm product listed at $99, perhaps it is just another nice to have, just in case. History also suggests the ACCC may not take any steps to prevent the sale of the ‘Fire One’ product, although the promotional material is open to criticism.

Comment:
The opportunity exists for the manufacturer and importer of the ‘Fire One’ product to submit their product for testing. And if necessary to request an amendment to the Australian Standard for the manufacture and supply of Portable Aerosol Fire Extinguishers, AS/NZS 4353. The standards applicable to performance testing would determine if the ‘Fire One’ product can be classified within the existing standards or requires an amended classification. There is also the option for the ACCC to offer a clarification by exemption from regulation, conditions applicable?

There are larger potassium salt based fire protection systems promoted for fixed installations, as an alternative to halon. These are commonly installed in plant, electrical areas which are non occupied work spaces. Both systems rely on depriving the fire of oxygen and providing cooling effects to reduce heating and reigniting.

5 Likes

Their product seems most likely a quickstep and blessed by the ACCC by omission since it is not a fire extinguisher it cannot fail to be one :roll_eyes:

Want to punt whether that proposal evolves into another voluntary Code?

5 Likes

Something to consider is Workplace Health and Safety Legislation if used in a workplace and insurances if used in homes or workplaces.

Having a non-AS extinguisher for fire control may not satisfy these requirements.

4 Likes

To their credit they address such concerns. ‘No’ without saying ‘no’ …

At Fire One we are not privy to the PDS for your insurance policy. However, we would recommend that before you buy any safety equipment your should check your policy to determine if there are any specific requirements.

They also essentially say ‘no’ to business environments with similar text and are pretty clear not to use one in an airplane. Their FAQ page…

6 Likes

Thanks @theBBG, I wouldn’t touch them with a barge pole until they can demonstrate compliance to an acceptable standard. Their word is worth a grain of salt until the products can be independently proven.

Either they can’t get the necessary approvals or have prematurely released the products before approvals have been sought. Either way, spending hard earned cash on them is a risk at this stage… especially when it involves potentially live saving products

7 Likes

Reading section 13 if their terms of service is also concerning and appears it is trying to remove any obligation under the Australian Consumer Law. The concerning wording includes…

We do not warrant that the results that may be obtained from the use of the service will be accurate or reliable.
You expressly agree that your use of, or inability to use, the service is at your sole risk. The service and all products and services delivered to you through the service are (except as expressly stated by us) provided ‘as is’ and ‘as available’ for your use, without any representation, warranties or conditions of any kind, either express or implied, including all implied warranties or conditions of merchantability, merchantable quality, fitness for a particular purpose, durability, title, and non-infringement.
In no case shall Fire One, our directors, officers, employees, affiliates, agents, contractors, interns, suppliers, service providers or licensors be liable for any injury, loss, claim, or any direct, indirect, incidental, punitive, special, or consequential damages of any kind, including, without limitation lost profits, lost revenue, lost savings, loss of data, replacement costs, or any similar damages, whether based in contract, tort (including negligence), strict liability or otherwise, arising from your use of any of the service or any products procured using the service, or for any other claim related in any way to your use of the service or any product, including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in any content, or any loss or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of the service or any content (or product) posted, transmitted, or otherwise made available via the service, even if advised of their possibility. Because some states or jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or the limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, in such states or jurisdictions, our liability shall be limited to the maximum extent permitted by law.

I wonder if the bolded text is inconsistent with the legal rights under the Australian Consumer Law? It appears they are selling products and services and trying to remove any obligations or warranties or responsibilities associated with their products and services.

Some of this page may also be inconsistent with Australian Consumer Law…

While this is not a legal interpretation, it appears from the above is that they don’t offer warranties on their product or services, they don’t accept responsibility for information provided on their products and services and they only accept refunds if the product if a purchased product is returned in original packaging and intact (assuming to they can sell it again). If the product doesn’t work and its failure causes damage/loss, they also are trying to remove any responsibilities they have.

I suspect the ACCC may be interested in this company and this reinforces my earlier view to avoid them as it doesn’t give a high level of trust when it apoears on face value they are trying, through fine print to bluff their customers by trying to avoid their obligations under the ACL.

7 Likes

Interestingly I’ve found what appears to be a competitor, a product sold as Firestryker. Available from ARB and possibly a few other 4x4 retailers. It’s not listed with their range of Fire Extinguishers. It is listed as a different product in a unique category.

https://www.arb.com.au/general-accessories/other-accessories/

Is the product being promoted as a fire extinguisher? It’s been presented on ‘Creek to Coast’ as a fire extinguishing device. The importer’s website presents the product in the same way a fire extinguisher would be promoted. It is described as a fire suppression system.

And this detail from MR4x4 suggests it has been tested to Australian Standards, for class ABE. That’s how I read the markings on the cartridge.

The FireStryker Aussie web site offers some further information.

There is much to sift through here. Between what has actually been certified and what is implied.
I’ve noted elsewhere that the device which is activated similar to a flare and relies on a chemical reaction to generate a stream of material should not be pointed at people when in use.

6 Likes

Hi evanstrish3,

I’m john, Fire Ones founder, I appreciate your comments as I clearly missed something in trying to explain the product.

What additional info on ‘the science” would you have found useful?

There is a section which attempts to explain in layman’s terms followed by a more detailed description which breaks down the process to an elemental level in addition to an explainer video…

Appreciate your thoughts

1 Like

Someozi…

May I suggest you search ‘condensed aerosol extinguisher’, there is considerable research papers dating back to the 1990s.

The agent utilised is neither a gas or mist.

A chemical reaction process changes the agent from its stored state as a solid to an aerosol propellant suspending nano particles. The chemical reaction process generates the propellant as part of the process

1 Like

A post was merged into an existing topic: Spotlight and others requiring keeping the packaging ro return faulty goods in

Hi Phb,

Not the intent at all…

attempting to extinguish a fire is inherently dangerous and should only be undertaken by someone who can assess the situation and can competently operate the device. My stance which is reinforced to our customers via email and video is to ensure you know how to operate and apply the device, it’s capabilities and limitations. Demonstration (video) is part of our post sale process. I am confident we are the only supplier providing post sale education as part of the process. Priority is always life over property and environment.

There are considerable variables involved in attempting to extinguish a fire, I aim to minimise risk through ensuring the product is a match to applications described on our site and promoting education.

Duty of care is a priority of our business and I am happy for any ideas to be brought to my attention to increase fire safety for people at home and on recreation.

A side note: Traditional extinguishers are a valuable tool also when fit for purpose, an interesting point is that all traditional extinguishers available in Australia are required to be maintained by a qualified person every 6 months. This is to cover off on points of potential failure (design mechanisms not within our products).

How many mums, dads, brothers, sisters etc have traditional extinguishers at home, in the car, boat etc that are unmaintained? Most.

How many were advised by the checkout person at the major retailer how to operate it and look after it to ensure it works when needed? Most likely none…

Regards clause 13. We want fire safe customers, but we don’t take ownership of is if the product is misused or used not for its intended purpose.

I like your comments and encourage more discussion as this in itself creates more awareness and safer communities…

John