Explosions fires rescue at sea

[Checkswrecks]

Originally Posted by JDGreenlee

Am OP. Thanks to everyone for the sentiments. Re: my terminology...Maybe not supersonic but I characterize them as explosions - in increasing intensity separated by a minute or two (just enough for some smoke to clear and tempt you to reach for it). Granted, deflagration might be technically correct. The 3rd one sent hot metal pieces flying through the cabin - maybe not technically shrapnel but that's how I characterized it. In addition, the "sudden releases of energy" threw molten plastic "lava" (for lack of a better phrase) all over the ceiling walls and cushions. I am not in disagreement with the more technical and professional contributor - I am just saying the damn thing blew up repeatedly and had no respect for fire extinguishers. And I should say further, IMHO, there are many cases where cordless tools are safer than corded ones - and they are very useful convenient and versatile. Just be very careful taking them cruising - if at all.

JDGreenlee -

Re-reading what I wrote which led to this post, I'd like to apologize for the tone of how it could have been read. I was in no way trying to diminish what it would have been like to have lived through your harrowing experience or loss. I've heard many others use similar terms like exploded, gun shots, and blew up. Having burned, punctured, and tested literally millions of dollars of batteries and cells and from investigations, I've seen and personally heard them come apart in all sorts of ways and totally understand where the descriptions are from. The reason for my wording was there are engineering definitions for things which can sound pretty unsympathetic. Obviously, nothing negative toward you was intended, and as I wrote at the beginning of the thread, your sharing is immensely positive for others to learn from, so thank you again.

On a lighter note, about now folks can probably use the following oldie about us engineers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8vHhgh6oM0

Bob

[Checkswrecks]

I got a question whether I knew of any publicly accessible links to flight attendant training and I do not know of anything in the public domain. Plus, each airline's training is considered proprietary because each is a bit different with their own techniques in how they want things done.

That said, they generally come down to what I wrote before and the guidance was reflected in a Royal Aeronautic Society guidance of 2018. The FAA publishes similar info, I just happened to know where to get the RAS reference quickly. Hope this helps for the training question. See Section 13 which begins on page 18 in the second to last paragraph:
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2670.pdf

[Checkswrecks]

A couple of folks wrote about keeping batteries in steel cases and that is generally a good idea, with one important thing to remember. You want to contain the heat and fire as much as possible and to guide where it goes as it comes out of the container. However, it is important to NOT use an air tight box which can pressurize.

I've seen cells with stainless casings develop nearly a hundred psi extremely fast before blowing out a vent for a controlled release of the pressure. An air tight box without the ability to control the pressure release will be able to burst and cause injuries.

[freegeek]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

???

Electric car fires are common enough that I'm on an SAE standards committee concerned with firefighting for EVs. I've investigated EVs which have re-ignited multiple times and more than a week after the initial fire. A number of European cities now have what are essentially dumpsters to put a burning car in because that may be the only way to firmly extinguish an EV. Adding salt to the water also provides the ability to deplete the electric charge in what we call "trapped energy" if the crash isolated battery modules. The following page on my website has a spreadsheet with a list of 104 electric vehicle fires, the set of slides shown on the page break down the subject, and the paper about water shows the Euro dumpsters. https://howitbroke.com/downloads All that said, I do see owning an EV in my future before too long.

yes, that's what Belgian fire dept have been using. In one case they had to leave the car for almost a week in a dumpster because it was reigniting

[Cpt Pat]

Originally Posted by Checkswrecks

That said, they generally come down to what I wrote before and the guidance was reflected in a Royal Aeronautic Society guidance of 2018. The FAA publishes similar info, I just happened to know where to get the RAS reference quickly. Hope this helps for the training question. See Section 13 which begins on page 18 in the second to last paragraph:
https://www.skybrary.aero/bookshelf/books/2670.pdf

Very interesting. I've spoken to a few ATP friends, and they told me they were still advised to use burn bags.

As I picture the scenario in my mind, ideally, if I were flight crew, I'd want at least one fire glove with a long sleeve, eye protection, a long set of steel tongs -- and a compartment into which I could drop any portable device, with an ejection mechanism using ambient cabin pressure to jettison it. Yes, naturally, it's a hazard to people on the ground, but the likelihood it would harm anyone there seems remote to me.

That's in a perfect world. The real world will resist modifying airframes for a burning object jettisoning contraption. At least... until there's a clear need for "graveyard progress."

Startrek Enterprise had them. They tossed an overloading phaser into one at least once. The problem with a burning laptop seems about the same to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbN02JG-QGE

[Montanan]

I have learned recently about a fire extinguishing agent that several of the electric vehicle manufacturers and battery manufacturers have adopted for use in their battery charging and assembly facilities. The agent is added to water in ratio of 3% of less and is used in a pressurized fire extinguisher or pumped hose distribution. A 10-ounce bottle of F-500 EA provides a 3% solution, when mixed with 2 ½ gallons of water. The head assembly is re-attached and the extinguisher unit is charged to 100 psi with a standard air chuck used for filling tires. The refilling procedure is quick, inexpensive and simple.

http://www.hct-world.com/wp-content/...guisher_V4.pdf

F-500 ENCAPSULATOR AGENT (EA)
F-500 EA is the answer to many of today’s firefighting challenges. In a world where fires have become hotter and more difficult to extinguish, F-500 Encapsulator Agent’s unique capabilities meet those challenges. First, F-500 EA has a remarkable ability to cool a fire and surrounding structures, with the ability to absorb 6-10 times more heat energy than plain water. Instead of scalding steam, F-500 EA releases a warm vapor. Secondly, F-500 EA encapsulates fuels forming micelles or “chemical cocoons” that render the fuel nonflammable and nonignitable. Finally, F-500 EA interrupts the free radical chain reaction. Free radicals are unburned gases produced during the combustion process that turn into smoke and soot. Inhibiting the chain reaction results in less smoke and toxins and increases visibility.

Rapid cooling
Encapsulates the fuel
Interrupts the free radical chain reaction
Eliminates almost all cancer-causing toxins in smoke
Contains no fluorines (PFOS/PFOA)
Produces no scalding steam
F-500 Encapsulator Agent is not a foam, so it contains no fluorines, such as perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). F-500 EA is 100% biodegradable and is non-hazardous, containing no ingredients reportable under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Section 313 or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Shelf life is 15 years and it can be discarded as a non-hazardous waste under RCRA CFR261.

These unique properties make F-500 Encapsulator Agent the most versatile firefighting agent available. Where foam has to form and maintain a perfect blanket to separate a fire from oxygen, F-500 EA merely needs to contact the fuel and vapors. F-500 EA is perfect for three-dimensional fires, plus F-500 EA is recommended for Class A, Class B (polar and nonpolar), Class K and Class D fires. There’s no need to inventory Class A, AFFF and AR-AFFF foams and specialized agents for Class D fires. F-500 EA can do it all!

F-500 ENCAPSULATOR AGENT (EA)
What is “Encapsulator Technology?”
No other firefighting agent can perform like F-500 Encapsulator Agent due to “Encapsulator Technology.” To understand this technology, you have to begin with the F-500 EA molecule. F-500 EA has a large, amphipathic molecule, meaning it has a polar head that is attracted to water and a nonpolar tail that is attracted to hydrocarbons.

As the F-500 EA mixes with water, it reduces the surface tension of the water. This makes the droplets smaller. A smaller droplet can better penetrate Class A fuels and cover a larger surface area. The smaller drops actually have more surface area than plain water drops, so there is more surface area to absorb the heat.

Coming out of the nozzle, these tiny droplets form. The nonpolar tails of the F-500 EA molecules move to the surface of the drops. These molecules form a protective skin around the drops that improve the heat absorbing properties of the drops. Instead of evaporating like water, the newly formed F-500 EA droplets absorb 6-10 time more heat energy than plain water. Whereas water cools by creating scalding steam, these F-500 EA droplets slowly release a warm vapor. Foam forms a blanket that traps in the heat, but F-500 EA reduces temperatures so quickly, it can be used to extinguish Class D, high-temperature, combustible metals.

When the F-500 EA nonpolar tails protruding from the droplets find hydrocarbon vapors or liquid, they attach themselves, forming micelles or “chemical cocoons” around the hydrocarbon molecules. Because the hydrocarbons are enveloped, the hydrocarbons become nonflammable and nonignitable.

The fire tetrahedron explains the four elements required to make a fire: heat, oxygen, fuel and free radicals. Eliminating any one of these elements will extinguish a fire. F-500 EA removes three elements. F-500 EA removes the heat. Without the heat, there is no fire. F-500 EA encapsulates the fuel, leaving nothing to burn. Finally, F-500 EA also interrupts the free radical chain reaction. Free radicals are unburned gases released during combustion that intensify the fire. F-500 EA prevents this chain reaction from occurring.

[KP44]

Originally Posted by tkeithlu

Meanwhile, the USCG is just about as poorly funded as the National Park Service; both deserve our saying we are willing to pay more taxes for these uses.

The US Coast Guard is always excellent and deserves whatever support we can give.


Our Park Service is considerably less-than-stellar and needs mentoring and education. Enough said.

[sanibel sailor]

Sounds interesting, if a little excess hyperbole.

Polar head, hydrophilic tail- that’s basically plain soap if I recall college chem classes.

Water already has a greater heat capacity than most everything else. Increase by 6-10x? Sounds hard to believe. And there’s no fundamental difference to my understanding between steam and “warm water vapor”, just a matter of relative temperature.

[slcsail]

This has been an excellent and much needed discussion about Li-Ion batteries on board vessels. Sometimes the best use of an accident is the after action report to warn others of what could go wrong. Thanks to Montanan and Checkswrecks for some knowledgeable discussion. Having led a military program using such batteries and performing tests, I would really heed the advice from Checkswrecks. Keep such batteries in a fireproof vented steel case. The advice on quick response is extremely useful.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by sanibel sailor

Sounds interesting, if a little excess hyperbole.

Polar head, hydrophilic tail- that’s basically plain soap if I recall college chem classes.

Water already has a greater heat capacity than most everything else. Increase by 6-10x? Sounds hard to believe. And there’s no fundamental difference to my understanding between steam and “warm water vapor”, just a matter of relative temperature.

I believe the encapsulant is not increasing the heat capacity of water rather it is increasing the heat conductivity, the absorption rate. It draws the heat into the tiny water droplet thereby reducing the flash steaming. When the surface steams it looses it ability to conduct energy as the water has phase changed from a liquid to a gas.

[Capdave360]

Safety at the materials level

https://ionicmaterials.com/

[bobatkins]

To the original poster. Glad you and your crew are all OK. What a harrowing experience that must have been. I must admit that I never really gave much thought to the potential dangers of portable device batteries and your experience has been a real eye opener. Suffice it to say that the tragic loss of life on the dive boat, MV Conception last year was likely due to the failure of portable device lithium batteries however, I have always assumed that the fire was started by a battery that was being charged. I hadn't considered that a battery in storage could be a potential fire hazard as well.

This thread also provided a really good fire suppression option - fire blankets which I intend to get at least one or two for my boat as they could obviously be helpful for fires involving other ignition/fuel sources - of which cooking is the most likely cause of a fire.

As for house batteries. I have been studying LiFePO4 (LFP) batteries for the last 3+ years in the interest of using them to replace my 800Ah AGM (4x 4D Lifeline) house bank. I have read and seen much regarding the differences in the safety aspects of LFP and other Lithium chemistries (NMC) (Cobalt). Suffice it to say the safety of Lithium batteries is a great concern to me.

I also researched construction of large battery packs and found all of them to be built into plastic cases and I was not happy with what I saw when the packs were torn apart and inspected for internal workmanship. I really wanted to have a metal cased battery pack and be able to inspect the internal build quality myself for an extra layer of safety. I know that I could build my own battery pack but that would be a major project that I really didn't want to get into.

After what seemed like endless research I finally found a battery supplier that builds what I consider to be the safest possible LFP battery pack for a boat application. Each pack is built into a stainless steel case that can easily be opened for inspection. The cells are are properly held in place with internal stainless steel supports and the BMS is in a separate compartment attached to the exterior wall of the stainless case to provide maximum heat dissipation.

So, I recently pulled the trigger and purchased two (2) 400Ah LFP batteries each with a bluetooth BMS(my specification). I received the batteries within 2 weeks of my placing the order which was over the Christmas holiday. Overall price was $1550/ea and that included the customization of having the Bluetooth BMS installed.

Each pack weighs 80 lbs and is 9.5" x 10" x 15" - several inches shorter than a full 8D battery case and they will easily fit in the same place that I have 2x 4D AGM batteries. I have confirmed that the stainless case is actually high quality stainless, totally non-magnetic and much better than that found in most so-called stainless BBQs and home appliances. The only non-stainless parts are the handles and the screws that are used. Overall I feel the internal build quality is good but it could be better. My testing showed no issues with any internal components, no rise in cell-cell connections or internal wiring that would give me any cause for concern during maximum (120A, limited by the BMS) discharge rate.

My testing (you can see some pictures of my test rig below) demonstrated that each battery can deliver 355-360Ah at a .2C (90A) discharge rate which is pretty decent. Each battery will accept up to 100A charge rate - also limited by the BMS. I will be paralleling the 2 batteries on my boat so they will easily provide all the discharge and charge capacity that I will need.

As a safety feature, I really like the fact that I can turn each battery off via the bluetooth app. The app provides a wealth of info about the battery, the internal cells and maintains logs as to charge and discharge data as well as charts.

The seller provided excellent pre and post sales support. When I mentioned that my test results showed that the batteries were only able to deliver 355-360Ah of capacity the seller offered a credit based on the cost per Ah which ended up being $275. The final amount was $405 because of tariff/tax credits - I just don't understand how the tariff/tax credits added so much more to the base credit but I'm not complaining at all.

This is the BMS that I spec'd for each battery. It is a model SP04S020 that is made by JaiBaida "http://www.jiabaida.com/home-pp2-index-catId-26.html?page=1]" although annoyingly, it isn't listed on the JaiBaida website - although other modes are.

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32858179124.html

[Sundancer268]

Originally Posted by Montanan

I have learned recently about a fire extinguishing agent that several of the electric vehicle manufacturers and battery manufacturers have adopted for use in their battery charging and assembly facilities. The agent is added to water in ratio of 3% of less and is used in a pressurized fire extinguisher or pumped hose distribution. A 10-ounce bottle of F-500 EA provides a 3% solution, when mixed with 2 ½ gallons of water. The head assembly is re-attached and the extinguisher unit is charged to 100 psi with a standard air chuck used for filling tires. The refilling procedure is quick, inexpensive and simple.

http://www.hct-world.com/wp-content/...guisher_V4.pdf

F-500 ENCAPSULATOR AGENT (EA)
F-500 EA is the answer to many of today’s firefighting challenges. In a world where fires have become hotter and more difficult to extinguish, F-500 Encapsulator Agent’s unique capabilities meet those challenges. First, F-500 EA has a remarkable ability to cool a fire and surrounding structures, with the ability to absorb 6-10 times more heat energy than plain water. Instead of scalding steam, F-500 EA releases a warm vapor. Secondly, F-500 EA encapsulates fuels forming micelles or “chemical cocoons” that render the fuel nonflammable and nonignitable. Finally, F-500 EA interrupts the free radical chain reaction. Free radicals are unburned gases produced during the combustion process that turn into smoke and soot. Inhibiting the chain reaction results in less smoke and toxins and increases visibility.

Rapid cooling
Encapsulates the fuel
Interrupts the free radical chain reaction
Eliminates almost all cancer-causing toxins in smoke
Contains no fluorines (PFOS/PFOA)
Produces no scalding steam
F-500 Encapsulator Agent is not a foam, so it contains no fluorines, such as perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). F-500 EA is 100% biodegradable and is non-hazardous, containing no ingredients reportable under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) Title III, Section 313 or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Shelf life is 15 years and it can be discarded as a non-hazardous waste under RCRA CFR261.

These unique properties make F-500 Encapsulator Agent the most versatile firefighting agent available. Where foam has to form and maintain a perfect blanket to separate a fire from oxygen, F-500 EA merely needs to contact the fuel and vapors. F-500 EA is perfect for three-dimensional fires, plus F-500 EA is recommended for Class A, Class B (polar and nonpolar), Class K and Class D fires. There’s no need to inventory Class A, AFFF and AR-AFFF foams and specialized agents for Class D fires. F-500 EA can do it all!

F-500 ENCAPSULATOR AGENT (EA)
What is “Encapsulator Technology?”
No other firefighting agent can perform like F-500 Encapsulator Agent due to “Encapsulator Technology.” To understand this technology, you have to begin with the F-500 EA molecule. F-500 EA has a large, amphipathic molecule, meaning it has a polar head that is attracted to water and a nonpolar tail that is attracted to hydrocarbons.

As the F-500 EA mixes with water, it reduces the surface tension of the water. This makes the droplets smaller. A smaller droplet can better penetrate Class A fuels and cover a larger surface area. The smaller drops actually have more surface area than plain water drops, so there is more surface area to absorb the heat.

Coming out of the nozzle, these tiny droplets form. The nonpolar tails of the F-500 EA molecules move to the surface of the drops. These molecules form a protective skin around the drops that improve the heat absorbing properties of the drops. Instead of evaporating like water, the newly formed F-500 EA droplets absorb 6-10 time more heat energy than plain water. Whereas water cools by creating scalding steam, these F-500 EA droplets slowly release a warm vapor. Foam forms a blanket that traps in the heat, but F-500 EA reduces temperatures so quickly, it can be used to extinguish Class D, high-temperature, combustible metals.

When the F-500 EA nonpolar tails protruding from the droplets find hydrocarbon vapors or liquid, they attach themselves, forming micelles or “chemical cocoons” around the hydrocarbon molecules. Because the hydrocarbons are enveloped, the hydrocarbons become nonflammable and nonignitable.

The fire tetrahedron explains the four elements required to make a fire: heat, oxygen, fuel and free radicals. Eliminating any one of these elements will extinguish a fire. F-500 EA removes three elements. F-500 EA removes the heat. Without the heat, there is no fire. F-500 EA encapsulates the fuel, leaving nothing to burn. Finally, F-500 EA also interrupts the free radical chain reaction. Free radicals are unburned gases released during combustion that intensify the fire. F-500 EA prevents this chain reaction from occurring.

Any idea if anyone is making Fire Extinguishers with the F-500 ENCAPSULATOR AGENT (EA) already installed? All I can find using Google Search is bulk concentrate and I am not capable of mixing and making my own Fire Extinguishers. Thanks, Ed

[GrowleyMonster]

This has been a very sobering and informative thread. Thanks to all who contributed! It has caused me to do some rethinking, for sure. I don't have any cordless tools on my boats simply because I hate them and hate the business model that causes a tool to be obsolete after only 10 or 20 years. I am 60 and many of my Grandfather's old B&D, Craftsman, Skil, etc tools are still going strong 70 and even 80 years after he bought them. But anyway I never really thought that I was also avoiding a VERY deadly fire hazard. All I have to worry about is my spare phone, sat phone, (iridium go, actually) oh and laptop and spare laptop, Holey Cow! And I was just thinking about what epirb to get for my Roberts. Obviously I am going to have to do some thinking about containing and jettisoning these things should the unthinkable (or formerly unthinkable) should occur. Is it paranoid, does anyone think, to keep all that stuff tied under the dinghy davits when not in use? LOL! I am thinking if something "out there" were to catch fire then it might melt itself free and fall in the water and not in the boat. Maybe have redundancy, some stuff tied under the port davit and some under the starboard davit so one fire wouldn't cost me all my portable electronics at once. My phone is my chart plotter, BTW, a Samsung Note 3. I would only ever use the laptop for maybe route planning. I may end up using a laptop as a RTTY/WEFAX/NAVTEX/AMTOR/SITOR terminal or else I would consider not even keeping a laptop aboard at all.



I haven't heard of too many laptops spontaneously bursting into flames, to be fair about it. Phones are probably a lot more dangerous but they are mighty handy to carry around and the GPS is self contained.


For the celestial haters, it is nice to know that I can do a fair job of navigating without the electronic gizmos if I have to, and I do practice on the rare occasions that I have the opportunity. Sextants don't burst into flames. Then again, neither do hardwired chartplotters I guess.



I am very surprised that the rolling and slamming of the boat was enough to cause a power tool battery from a reputable maker (I AM curious about brand and model, but I understand the reluctance to spill the beans). It is enough to know that a big name in the industry is no insurance against disaster. We need to be more aware of the hazards implied by having these very useful and even some would say essential gadgets onboard, and think ahead of time about how we might deal with them if they go critical.



One thing about fire management... drills are great, but an awful lot of real incidents don't behave like the scenarios and you have to be ready to instantly rethink the battle plan. Which, it is said, never survives intact at first contact with the enemy.


I am getting a couple of fire blankets this week, I think. And a couple of steel buckets and some tongs. Obviously they could possibly save the boat one day.

[Capt. Mike Maurice]

The boat fire on the "Conception" out of Santa Barbara on Sept. 2, 2020 is suspected to have been caused by a lithium battery fire, it killed 34 people.

I see three major issues for the rest of us.
1. Cell phones and tablet batteries.
2. Loose cylindricals used in flashlights etc. Falling into a place where they can short.
3. Power tool batteries.

Fire caused by:
1. Shorting of terminals
2. Punctures
3. Interior shorts

Any device that can get activated and stalled, like a cordless drill, then overheat.

Any small batteries that are leaking or bulging are suspect.

Loose batteries should be in cases where they can't short or be punctured. The puncture issue applies to batteries attached ready for use.

Smoke detectors at home and on the boat, tested on some routine basis.

In other words, prevention instead of firefighting.
Detection before out of control.

Firefighting if all else fails.