The Offshore Voyaging Reference Site

Maus Fire Extinguishers—A Breakthrough?

For years now we have had six fire extinguishers on Morgan’s Cloud located as follows:

  • Forward cabin
  • Salon next to the companionway
  • Aft cabin
  • Lazarette (in case we get trapped on deck by a fire)
  • Engine room (large and activated by a temperature sensor)
  • Galley

And, while I don’t claim to be any sort of expert on fire suppression or, more to the point, fire suppression at sea, Phyllis and I have always felt that this gave us some good options to deal with most fires we could imagine.

All but one of the extinguishers are of the clean agent type—halocarbon gas, purchased in the USA in 2004—to avoid the mess and damage that the use of other agents such as foam or powder result in.

The exception is the galley extinguisher, which is dry powder, in keeping with the recommendation we received from the fire suppression salesperson, who advised that the chance of a grease fire reigniting after a clean agent disperses, disqualified the latter type.

And therein lies a problem. Human nature being what it is, I just know that in the event of a grease fire in the galley we would hesitate to use the dry powder extinguisher because of the mess it would create.

And said hesitation could be the end of our boat, and maybe even us, since speed of action is the number one contributor to a successful outcome in firefighting.

By the way, if you have never let one of these dry chemical extinguishers off—I did in a long-ago course—don’t underestimate the mess. It’s bad enough that you may regret that the boat didn’t burn to the waterline!

That Was Then…This Is Now

But then, last year, member Peter Mannerstråle left a comment telling us about a new type of extinguisher from Maus, made in Sweden, which packs a huge punch in a small package—equivalent to a 1-kg dry powder extinguisher, at least (see video)—leaves no residue, and is suitable for grease fires.

I was so intrigued that I wrote to the company, and they kindly sent us four units for evaluation.

I’m not going to go into a long dissertation on how they work. Rather, here’s a video on just that. Have a watch and then I will detail what I think the benefits are for cruising boats:

What We Like

No Hesitation

I mentioned it above, but I think it bears repeating: To me, the biggest single benefit is that, since we know that using the Maus will not cause any mess or damage, we will use it instantly on even the smallest fire, rather than being tempted to try and “manage” the fire with other methods, such as our fire blanket.

Reduced Re-ignition?

It would seem that, at least in an enclosed space, the chances of the fire re-igniting are low for as long as the retardant agent is smothering the area. Now that’s probably true of halocarbon agents too, but the Maus agent is visible, so we will be able to see if it’s dissipating, while we stand by with another fire extinguisher in hand, probably the dry powder.

Fast Deployment

One of the problems with conventional extinguishers on a boat is that they can become dangerous projectiles in a knockdown, or even just a violent sea state. Of course, the answer is a massive retaining mount, like the the ones we installed (see picture at the start of the post).

But that solution reduces the effectiveness of the extinguisher, since getting it out of the mount will cost precious seconds if a fire does flare up.

In contrast, the Maus is so small and light that we are happy to use the simple plastic clip mount it comes with, which allows deployment with a quick and intuitive grab.

Sure, the Maus might fly out of the mount in a really bad knockdown, but it’s so small and relatively light that I think that risk is worth taking in exchange for fast deployment.

By the way, while thinking about speed of use, it’s important that all crew are aware of the need to pull the black ring in the base to activate the unit before using the yellow button to actually set it off.

Non-Toxic

As I understand it, many gas-type (all but CO2?) clean agents produce poisonous gasses when used on an open flame. Apparently, this is not a problem with the Maus, although I really wouldn’t want to breathe in a lot of the stuff. But here again the visibility of the agent is an advantage, particularly in enclosed spaces. Here’s some more detailed information.

Availability

Andreas Norlin, marketing guy at Maus, who has been very responsive in answering all my questions, tells me that they already have distribution in place all over Europe and are in the final stages of appointing North American and Australian distributors. So sourcing should be a solved problem very soon.

Cost and Options

Maus have just announced a larger Grand model, which looks to be three of the original Klein models in one package.

The Klein goes for Euro 70 including VAT, therefore I’m guessing a price in the USA of a bit less than $100, and the Grand is Euro 200, so probably a bit over $200.

Therefore the Maus units are expensive when compared to small dry powder extinguishers, but certainly competitive with other clean agent units like Halotron.

And, when thinking about value, we also need to think about lifetime. Andreas tells me that, after 5 years, the Maus units should be let off (for practice), and then disposed of as a standard metal spray can.

Maus have also announced a nozzle that fits the Klein to use in cases where the fire is in an enclosed space that has a fire port.

Summary

Of course, I’m basing all of this on claims made by Maus themselves. But given that this unit is from Sweden where safety regulation is taken very seriously, and the unit has been around for a while now, I think we are reasonably safe in believing their claims.

So would I equip a boat with just Maus fire extinguishers? No, not until they have been readily available for longer and some real world experience using them for fire fighting in boats has been accumulated.

It seems that even Maus agree with this approach, since Andreas wrote:

We are positioned as a complement to existing fire extinguishers.

Also, it may be some time before agencies outside of Europe, such as the US Coast Guard, certify the Maus units, although Andreas tells me that they have hired a company to at least start that process.

So the question becomes, are the Maus units worth the money on top of a full inventory of other extinguishers?

Given the advantages I listed earlier in the post, I would say yes. To me, adding at least a couple of Maus Klein units and replacing them every five years makes good sense.

And to answer my own question in the title, though probably not a breakthrough for us in the offshore cruising world yet, who knows how far this technology will go in the future? I hear from Andreas that they are nearly ready to release a large automated system using the same agent that might work well for a larger yacht’s engine room.

Further Reading

Comments

I believe that several of our members have extensive fire fighting experience, so I would be interested in your thoughts. Please leave a comment. Ditto if you have a question.

97 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Steve Hodges

Hi John,

As I’ve been involved with fire protection for too many years, I’ll take the bait.

Note that aerosol extinguishers have been around a while and have been offered by major fire protection companies, though reviews have not been completely favorable…. For example see this 2013 Consumer Report regarding two (non-pyrotechnic) aerosol spray extinguishers, which concludes “Don’t Buy: Performance Problem”: https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/04/an-aerosol-fire-spray-is-no-substitute-for-a-fire-extinguisher/index.htm

But the above cited report did not consider the Maus product or a similar pyrotechnically generated aerosol (PGA) technology. I am not familiar with Maus products (yet) but have worked with many different types of extinguishers and fire suppression agents. So I couldn’t resist reading the literature on Maus’ website to get a better detailed understanding of this product; the following are my current thoughts. Their demonstration video is pretty impressive. The following are my current thoughts.

The main items to consider for any extinguisher are 1) chemicals involved, 2) potential combustion byproducts, 3) fire protection category (ABCDK), 4) clean up, and 5) life cycle cost (useful life, maintenance, etc). Based on my experience with pyrotechnically actuated extinguishers, I’d add, 6) temperature of exposed surface and effluent.

1. The 1st thing I looked for was the chemical used in Maus’ PGA extinguisher. The chemical used is important in understanding both fire-fighting effectiveness, and safety of use. The best I could find on the Maus website was “potassium compound.” Potassium-based is a good thing as potassium compounds, for example the dry chemical potassium bicarbonate (KHCO3), trade name, “purple-K,” are generally the most effective agents by weight (except for solids, aka class A, fires), with only minor safety issues (eye and lung irritation). However, the PGAs are more complicated than a dry chemical extinguisher, and the Maus product is no exception. The Swedish paper referred to (https://rib.msb.se/Filer/pdf%5C24709.pdf) has this to say about potential PGA health effects (note the final sentence):

“The size of particles generated by PGA’s was measured and the distribution of size showed that the particles have the optimal size for depositing in our lungs. A study of related literature showed that rats had been exposed to a similar PGA’s, but with higher concentration levels and a long exposure time. There were no fatalities amongst the exposed rats and a few of them showed symptoms of pneumonia. Further studies of this subject are required to reach a conclusion on if and how dangerous the particles are to humans. The conclusion of this report is that a PGA-system should not be installed in enclosures normally used by people.”

Note that common dry chemical extinguishers (sodium or potassium bicarbonate, ammonium phosphate) are safe to use in occupied spaces (but you may cough).

2. Byproducts. When a fire suppression agent encounters a flame it extinguishes the fire by a combination of thermal quenching, smothering, and chemical action. For example, the extinguishing action of water is purely quenching. CO2 and sand prevent oxygen from getting to the fuel thereby smothering the fire. Most dry chemical, Halons and clean agents (eg, FM200) both quench and attack the fire chemically (the effect of Halon 1301 is 70% chemical and 30% thermal, while FM200 has roughly the reverse ratios). I think it is a safe guess that the Maus PGA has both chemical and quenching action. Any agent that acts chemically by definition produces byproduct, and that byproduct may be toxic. This is obviously a concern if the intended use in is a confined, occupied space, such as a boat cabin. The Swedish paper referred to (https://rib.msb.se/Filer/pdf%5C24709.pdf) has this to say about PGA byproduct (again, note the final sentence):

“An analysis of the compounds produced when PGA’s are activated showed that the level of CO2 is far below the IDLH-value. The CO levels are just below the IDLH-value and should be taken under consideration when installing a PGA-system. The NH3 levels ended up at double the IDLH-value and therefore should be a factor taken unto consideration when a PGA-system is installed. The recommendation will be that a PGA-system should not be installed in enclosures normally used by people.”

Note that common dry chemical extinguishers (sodium or potassium bicarbonate, ammonium phosphate) are safe to use in occupied spaces (but you may cough).

3. Fire Protection Category. I could not find the rating on the Maus website, so requested what that is, or is expected to be, from their contact page. Most potassium-based fire suppression agents are rated BC which means they are effective against fuel-type fires (grease, petroleum), and safe to sue on energized electrical systems. The missing A in the BC rating means the agent is not effective against fires fueled by solids (trash, plastic, wood).

4. Clean-up. This is important as pointed out in the article. While there seems to be little doubt that PGAs produce less of a mess than typical dry chemical extinguishers (and they are a mess!), the PGA is not a clean agent. The aerosol is, after all, a cloud of “potassium compound” particles; the small size of the particles makes them more effective than larger particles used in dry chemical extinguishers, so less is needed for the same firefighting effectiveness wrt the latter. So some clean-up will most likely be required in order to prevent corrosion damage, staining, etc. The Swedish paper referred to (https://rib.msb.se/Filer/pdf%5C24709.pdf) has this to say about clean-up after a PGA discharge:

“A fast clean up of enclosures exposed to PGA is important, if left untouched the PGA will bind moisture and create a sticky paste. According to professionals in the decontamination field, such clean up is fairly easy and is best done by vacuuming or wiping the exposed areas with a damp cloth. However PGA’s are new on the market and no such cleaning has never been done, studies on how to clean up decontaminate is therefore required.”

5. Life-cycle cost. Since the Maus extinguisher is based on a pyrotechnic, it has a defined useful life, similar to pyrotechnic flares. According to Maus, the life of their extinguisher is 5 years (6 years maximum). So about every 5 years, they must be discarded and replaced. In contrast, single-use (aka disposable) dry chemical extinguishers are allowed (in the US) a 12 year life (ref. NFPA 10, or OSHA 29CFR1910.157). For the frugal, this tradeoff may be an important issue since the Maus extinguisher is more expensive than a dry chemical extinguisher: if it is 2X more expensive initially, its life-cycle cost will be about 4X more after 10 or 12 years. Depending on the clean-up required (see above) the extra cost may or may not be a wise investment. The good news is that there appears to be no maintenance requirement for the Maus, whereas, it is standard practice (and required by most applicable regulations) to perform a routine visual inspection of dry chemical extinguishers (gauge, cylinder condition).

6. How hot is it? All pyrotechnics produce heat after they are activated. The pyrotechnic shell gets hot, and the effluent (ie, aerosol) may be hot. The Maus extinguisher is no exception, but I didn’t find anything specific on this in the website, for example, what is the safe distance from the discharge port? It appears they have packaged the device so that thermal effects are not an issue – as long as their shielding and quenching mechanisms remain reliable throughout the life of the product. This is probably a safe bet, but something to keep in mind. That said, I would want to understand the temperature of the discharge before releasing the device, especially near someone I liked!

Bottom line: The Maus PGA looks like a promising product but there are significant caveats regarding safety-of-use in normally occupied (especially confined) spaces, clean-up required, and life-cycle cost. Some of these concerns may be mitigated when additional information is available. In any case, until it has the requisite approvals applicable to your vessel, the Maus extinguisher should, as you point out, be considered a complement to approved extinguishers.

Steve

PS. In case anyone has an insomnia problem, here’re some extra credit references:

a) This is an overview of my view of important sailboat fire protection issues and approaches: http://sfbaysss.org/resource/doc/Yacht_Fire_Safety_Steve_Hodges_20150603.pdf

b) As an example of the effort that may be involved with developing extinguisher systems, this is a study of fire suppression agents for potential use in a specialized application, military ground vehicles: https://www.nfpa.org/-/media/Files/News-and-Research/Resources/Research-Foundation/foundation-proceedings/fire_extinguishing_agents_for_protection_of_occupied_spaces_.ashx?la=en

Lars Erik Karlsen

Hi Steve
I wonder if You also know something about Bontel.
A 300×60 mm container to place in the engineroom or in the galley.
If a fire takes place it will explode and kill the fire when temperature go over 90 dgr celcius.
No cleaning and no damage afterwards.
Any comments?

Dick Stevenson

Hi John,
You mention Nest detectors. A quick search indicates they are “smart” in that they can alert a phone. I am a firm believer in smoke/CO detectors in the engine room and other strategic locations but have always used well-reviewed household battery operated ones.
Are there advantages to the Nest that I should be aware of besides the “smart” feature?
Thanks, Dick Stevenson, s/v Alchemy

Nikolas

> ..it will explode and kill..

Quote slightly out of context, but I still don’t like the sound of that in the galley.. 🙂

Steve Hodges

Hi John,

I agree with your conclusion and comments regarding clean-up’s possible contribution to life-cycle cost differences. But I think there are also safety issues (inhalation effects) that are also TBD. Until the new certification and rating of the new extinguisher is complete, detailed conclusions are speculative.

As I said in my original post, I haven’t any 1st-hand experience with the Maus product so can’t comment on what they’re like authoritatively and specifically; my comments are general. That said, I think clean-up could be a real problem due to the chemical used (which we don’t know), and the fineness of the discharged particles (which means it will get in all nooks). The video shows that the Maus discharge into an open computer enclosure doesn’t cause immediate electronic problems, whereas the dry chemical they used did. But what about after days or weeks, especially in a humid environment? That appears to be TBD.

I have no reason to suspect Maus is doing anything but their best to offer a safe and effective product, and I am not implying that they are trying to mislead (more than any marketing does), but even very large companies make honest mistakes. For example, Honeywell recently developed a new agent (HFO-1233zd) that appeared to be a breakthrough, and they went to the trouble of getting the US’ EPA to list it as a Halon alternative (not an inexpensive process), and it was on the verge of being included in NFPA 2001 (Standard on Clean Agents). But after all that ground work Honeywell discovered that even though the new agent seemed to work well in basic tests, there were scenarios when the agent could actually burn! So they withdrew it from the fire suppression market (it’s still a good, environmentally-friendly blowing agent, and listed for that use).

You are correct that chemically active clean agents can produce toxic byproducts. Many clean agents are fluorinated and pose two inhalation risks: the neat agent itself can be a problem if the concentration is too high, and when applied against a fire, toxic byproduct is a possibility. The inhalation risk of the neat agent from a handheld extinguisher is generally not a problem because typically the volume of the protected area is large enough that the concentration doesn’t reach unsafe levels (defined in NFPA 2001), and there is some air flow. However, when a fluorinated agent is exposed to a fire some hydrofluoric acid and carbonyl fluoride byproduct is produced, and these are toxic gases. Fortunately very little is produced – well within safe limits – when the fire is put out promptly. But near the limit of the fire extinguishing capability – for example, against a large, fast-growing fire, or against a fire in a very cluttered area – more byproduct is produced, and that could be a problem, especially in a confined space with little air flow.

Sodium and potassium bicarb dry chemical extinguishers do not produce toxic byproduct and pose very few health risks. The particles are too large to get deep into ones lungs so, though breathing the powder may be irritating, no long-term effects are likely. On the other hand, aerosols are by definition very tiny particles, much smaller than typical dry chemical powder, and they are small enough to go deep into the lungs so the health risks are potentially greater. And, according to the Swedish report, PGAs can generate ammonia at high-enough levels to be a concern, especially in a confined space with little air flow. I don’t know if, or how much, these issues apply to the Maus product.

As is so often the case, the devil is in the details, and there isn’t much detailed info on the new Maus product. Their marketing video is enticing and I think it’s worth watching the progress of the new product. By the time Maus completes the certification tests and gets their PGA extinguisher listed by government (eg, EPA, EN-3) and 3rd party (eg, UL) agencies, we will know much more.

As you have made clear in several posts in the context of electronics, it’s not generally wise to be a beta tester. And that’s the phase the Maus PGA appears to be in – beta. Caveat emptor!

Steve

Tobias

Hi John,

After reading your primary article on the Maus extinguishers, I contacted their Portuguese reps and bought two small ones.
We sailed this August from Barcelona to Sardinia on our lovely Sunbeam 44 cc which we have been constantly refitting for a cast off date of 2020, including a professionally rewired electrical panel and entire boat.
Motoring back towards Menorca after a problem free passage, our new electric winch began to smoke. I thought that that was very strange and upon investigating, opened the engine access panel to discover a small conflagration of burning wires. I grabbed the Maus, activated it, and with one small squirt the flames were out! The smoke produced was insane and we activated a pan pan and prepared for the worst. The coastguard actually upgraded us to a mayday until I called them and said that the flames were out.
After changing my shorts, I investigated the damage and decided to attempt to repare the damage. Stripping some 60 -70 burnt wires and rewrapping them with elctricians and self amalgamating tape. I advised the coastguard that we would attempt a restart, just in case things went sideways. We fired up the engine and the elctrics were looking good only to discover a huge fuel leak. We quickly killed the engine, and discovered that the electrical fire had burned a hole in the fuel feed tube going to the primary fuel pump and that fuel was being pumped directly onto the flames! After changing my shorts again, I repaired the fuel hose, tied the wiring well away from the pump and proceeded homeward.

thank god that we discovered the fired quickly, and that the Maus lived up to its claims. there was absolutely no residue to clean up besides the smoke damage and burnt wiring and tubing. Thanks again for sharing your wisdom with us.

Marc Dacey

That’s what I like about AAC, John. You write an article and the first comment goes twice as deep!

Ted Scharf

I agree that a way to put out a galley fire and minimize the mess is important. I like the fire blanket. The one I have is make in Maine by firefighters. And there are others. At one time it was a requirement for the Bermuda race. Although when I looked at their requirements for this year it was not there. But it still is in the OSR requirements. “A fire blanket adjacent to every cooking device with an open flame”. Just another option. And one that doesn’t cost a lot.

Marc Dacey

I’ve learned recently that part of the issue with fire blankets is related to technique. You have to essentially raise the blanket to eye level and drape it fully over (for instance) the burning pot on the stove. Just chucking it could indeed overturn the pot. This sums up the approach, and it seems safe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLvnAe6-DLg

Marc Dacey

I don’t disagree, John. But you need to have a fire blanket and also the proper way to use it before you can decide it’s not appropriate depending on conditions. My takeaway from that video is to hold it high and use it as a shield so that it fully covers the stove top. If you have to walk uphill to do, I agree, perhaps not the best choice.

Drew Frye

Coming from a career in oil refineries and labs, let me speak to fire blankets. I have fought many incipient fires in many circumstances, most relating either to welding or lab accidents. I’ve used all of the tools and never had one get away from me.

A fire extinguisher can be the right answer. But it should not be the first thing that crosses your mind. The first thing is consider everything that is involved in the fire and pick the best course of action. What is the fuel. Where is it going. What needs to be cut off.

As others have mentioned, once you set an extinguisher off inside a cabin you have to leave. They are ALL inconsistent with breathing in a confined space. This is a strong reason to consider other actions first; if the extinguisher does not get it, if it re-lights, or if a little fire gets in a hidden space, you can’t go into the fight the fire. Thus, I like fire extinguishers mostly for engine spaces and hidden spaces; not general use in the cabin.

Regarding cooking there should never be so much oil in the pan that you can’t place a lid on the pan. The lid should be on the counter, next to the pan. The cook should never leave a hot frying pan. The cook cannot break these rules. Finally, even if you are going to use a blanket (the best answer for 95% of galley fires) , put the lid on the pan FIRST. In Europe the instruction caution that the fire can soak right through a blanket and spread. I’ve seen this happen in refineries. Put the lid on first.

Folding. The blanket MUST be folded so that it falls open when you grab the top corners; think Z-fold, like a map. It should open instantly or it is wrong. Do NOT fold like linens. In fact, most blankets are packed wrong from the factory; open the package and re-fold it correctly.

Finally, a wool fire blanket and be used for personal protection and to limit the spread. Getting it wet first is a big help. If it is not on grease, consider throwing water on the blanket. And don’t forget buckets of water! Finally, remember that fire extinguishers do not cool the embers; the fire can re-light. Water is generally best for this. Get your clothes wet (bucket over head) and wear gloves.

Fire off-shore can be a real fight to the death. It is dead serious in refineries too. You have to fight hard and fast, using all of the available tools and keeping a clear head. The raft is not much of an option, so fight to win. This does not mean you should seriously endanger yourself, but you may need to get in there and act without hesitation.

Drew Frye

I agree, once fiberglass gets going you are done. Get out. That is a good reason to have a raft. But depending on where you are, the raft is the “best bad option.” And even so, the ability to fight a safe delaying action will make departure safer. No, it is not about the value of the boat. It’s insured.

Without question, my background and experience encourages me be more aggressive, but I am still talking about incipient fires. That is the whole point–to attack aggressively and fast while you have a chance. My concern with fire extinguishers is that they drive you out of the cabin. You may not have put the fire out. You may have hit the wrong spots. I have seen MANY fires rekindle from hot spots because extinguishers do not cool. But since you have been chased out of the cabin, you won’t know until it flares back up, which it probably will. I’ve seen a LOT of fires that were out with an extinguisher re-light. Very common. Thus, unless liquid fuel is involved, a bucket of water may be a much better choice, and you won’t run out. Water is also needed after the extinguisher to KEEP the fire out. Thus, one or several buckets in a cockpit locker are key tools.

Common sense and a clear head is required, and that’s asking a lot in an area where few people get meaningful practice. I’ve watched people do stupid things in a panic, and I’ve pulled people out of the way so I could do it properly. Different situation require different approaches.

We had one incipient fire on a boat caused by a PO wiring stupid. It was easily handled by ripping off the covering and using a wet towel. After that I did a wire-by-wire inspection.

Ben

Pot full of oil? Is deep frying food on a boat galley stove ever a good idea? Just sayin!

But I do agree with you that trying to put out a fire with a blanket seems pretty tricky on a boat. Next to a campfire? Sure. But on a boat I’m not going to hesitate to knock it out with as much fire extinguisher as I need.

I spent 9 years in the US Navy on board submarines. We were all intensely trained on firefighting because, just like on a sailboat, there’s no fire department to save you. Unlike a sailboat, there’s the added complication of not being able to abandon ship.

Steve Hodges

I completely agree that having a fire blanket on hand is very wise. They are cheap, light, small and effective.

A correction on life cycle cost statement above, I made an arithmetic error! My statement “if it is 2X more expensive initially, its life-cycle cost will be about 4X more after 10 or 12 years” should read “if it is 2X more expensive initially, its life-cycle cost will be about 3X more after 10 or 12 years.” Generally, if the ratio of aerosol/pressurized extinguisher purchase prices is R, then after the 5-yr lifetime of the pyrotechnic, the aerosol will require 2*R more money. At the end of the 12-yr handheld dry chem extinguisher’s life, the aerosol will require 1.5*R more expenditure.

Also, ammonia byproduct mentioned in the Swedish paper, if it us part of the Maus PGA effluent or byproduct, could add to any clean-up issues.

Gardiner L Schneider

As an Off Shore Safety at Sea seminar Coordinator for the Cruising Club of America, I have been at a number of hands on fire training sessions. The speed of the enlargement of a fire on a plastic boat, which most now are, is phenomenally fast, often doubling in size in less than a minute. Losing the meal on the stove or grill is a cheap price to pay for saving the boat and the lives of the crew. In most cases, a five pound class ABC dry powder extinguisher is a good first choice. Yes, they only last for about ten seconds, which is why John is wise to have several on hand, especially as any fire may reflash even though it appears to have been knocked out.
CO 2 is great, we use them in our practice sessions on the fire pan. One of the main reasons we use the CO 2 is that repetitive use of the dry chemical type makes it almost impossible to relight the fire for the next person in line. Think about that for a minute: the CO2 smothers the hot oil and cools it minimally, but it rapidly disperses into the atmosphere and allows us to immediately relight the fire pan. The dry chemical powder floats on the hot oil and makes it hard to relight unless we add a splash of a new oil and diesel mix.
For me, the same argument holds for electronics fires. The “C” in ABC can be thought of as standing for “Computer”, i.e. “electronics”. I have heard it argued by participants in our classes that one should only use CO2 on an electrical fire as the dry chemical will eventually attract moisture and form compounds that corrode the wires and circuit boards. If I can put out the fire with dry chemical and save the boat and the crew, I will buy all the new electronics with a smile.
Garry Schneider