FireNet Community
FIRE SAFETY => Portable Firefighting Equipment => Topic started by: lancsfirepro on December 24, 2012, 11:14:56 AM
-
Carried out a service on Friday where we installed 9 Thomas Glover 2kg CO2 extinguishers in Feb 2012. All 9 were leaking from the neck. Called our supplier who confirmed that TG did have a small problem with their 2kg CO2s dated 11/2011 where they leak. Knightmare. If you haven't come across this, look for signs of a brown tacky liquid (assuming grease or sealant) around the neck seal and you may notice small bubbles. They seem to be losing about 200g a year and need replacing. ::)
-
I'll keep my eyes open!
2010 Jactone 2 kg CO2 have had the same problem for being empty, not interested in honouring their 5 year warranty either!
-
Jactone are good at that....that's why I haven't dealt with them for 6 years.
Thanks for the tip....will make engineers aware.
John
-
Don't suppose there's any official notification from TG is there?
Thought not.
John
-
Have rattled a few cages. Let's see what happens.
-
Apparently it's something to do with the wrong o-rings being used where the valve meets the cylinder. Allegedly the o-rings absorbed CO2, swelled and sealed up. The absorbed CO2 then leaches from the O ring over time giving an appearance of bubbling which could be confused with leakage. They maintain that there is no leaking issue which strikes me as strange as the ones we've found are clearly still bubbling and are down on weight. Will try and take a video when I get my hands on them.
-
Just issuing instructions to engineers.....to clarify, these are Firepower units not Gloria units correct?
BTW....TG's explanation sounds a load of old twaddle. Any that we find with ANY weight loss will be returned, never mind the 10% of contents tolerance.
Reminds me of the Gloria CO2 problem from 2001. Unloading a delivery and thought some of the boxes were a bit light. Turns out they had a massive problem involving contents loss which took me years to get somebody to acknowledge....still don't know what it was and no official announcement was made.
John
-
Yes as far as I know it's limited to Firepower and the first lot we've come across are clearly still leaking.
I'm just dreading the next few months servicing when I just know we're going to find these all over the place. Never any mention of compensation for the fire companies that need to traipse back and forth swapping these over. ::)
-
Another one found today; we didn't supply this one last year. Client was happy I just changed it under the manufacturer's warranty.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o529/lancsfirepro/bubbles_zpsca4a0c33.jpg)
-
No question there of leakage ! Good photo too!
-
I've found a few of these recently, had some of the Jactone 2010 problem too. I haven't had any problems returning faulty items to Jactone.
-
UPDATE: Yesterday I found a Chubb 2kg CO2 with the exact same problem. The date on the cylinder was 03/2012. Not sure how big of a problem this is going to be but remember where you heard it first! ;)
I'm no Steven Spielberg but I've uploaded a video here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWhA72MOI6U
-
I wonder if the Chinese factory knew production for Chubb & TG was being taken off them to move to Europe so they stopped QCing as well as before (not that it was perfect to start with what with all the poly linings not lasting 5 years on wets)
-
I wonder if the Chinese factory knew production for Chubb & TG was being taken off them to move to Europe so they stopped QCing as well as before (not that it was perfect to start with what with all the poly linings not lasting 5 years on wets)
I was speaking to one of our suppliers yesterday; he told me that the CO2s are assembled at Hams Hall, Birmingham. So you can't blame the Chinese Anthony. Made in England mate. Oh the shame!
-
I wonder which one that was.......
Assembled of course isn't the same as made, the cylinders, valves, O-rings and horn could all have been on a slow boat from China.
-
Hi,
Talking to a local fire extinguisher supplier today who gets supplies from TG Firepower. Apparently they have moved production to Poland recently. He received an order in the last week of the new extinguishers. when we checked one of the 9L waters I noticed a new delivery hose assembly. It has a larger diameter threaded connection than previously. That was the beauty of working with Firepower extinguishers, most of the spares were interchangeable across the range. Not any more. you will now require hoses for the old range and for the new range including O rings of differing sizes. The new hose looks cheap and cheerful!!
-
Hi,
Talking to a local fire extinguisher supplier today who gets supplies from TG Firepower. Apparently they have moved production to Poland recently. He received an order in the last week of the new extinguishers. when we checked one of the 9L waters I noticed a new delivery hose assembly. It has a larger diameter threaded connection than previously. That was the beauty of working with Firepower extinguishers, most of the spares were interchangeable across the range. Not any more. you will now require hoses for the old range and for the new range including O rings of differing sizes. The new hose looks cheap and cheerful!!
Yeah the new ones are made at UTC in Poland. Where the Gloria stuff is made. http://www.kiddeglobal.com/utcfs/Templates/Pages/Template-79/0,11708,pageId%3D27317%26siteId%3D70,00.html
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o529/lancsfirepro/IMG_20130320_120703_zps9d7d2eb6.jpg) (http://s1146.photobucket.com/user/lancsfirepro/media/IMG_20130320_120703_zps9d7d2eb6.jpg.html)
-
Hi,
Talking to a local fire extinguisher supplier today who gets supplies from TG Firepower. Apparently they have moved production to Poland recently. He received an order in the last week of the new extinguishers. when we checked one of the 9L waters I noticed a new delivery hose assembly. It has a larger diameter threaded connection than previously. That was the beauty of working with Firepower extinguishers, most of the spares were interchangeable across the range. Not any more. you will now require hoses for the old range and for the new range including O rings of differing sizes. The new hose looks cheap and cheerful!!
The change is because the Firepower units now appear to use Gloria hoses and nozzles (after all it's their factory), the Chubb FX range uses a lot of Gloria tooling for components, the plastic shrouding on the valves being used to allow the use of the new O clip .
The question is,is it better than the Chinese Firepower models?
-
They're using a different cylinder now also - this one has a smaller diameter. Also, I believe the headcap o-rings are going to be a different size. I think I was given some of the newer o-rings and they're much thinner than the old ones. Use them on an older FirePower and the valve shoulder hits the top of the cylinder neck before the o-ring seals.
-
I've seen one up close today and everything is Gloria tooling, can, base, hose & nozzle, handles, the only different thing seems to be the valve.
-
And so it continues, now on PJ Fire kit! Found 3 like this today on a fire risk assessment. Date stamped: 2011/10. Worryingly, they were serviced in November 2011 by a BAFE registered company (name omitted to protect the guilty!) Tut tut.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o529/lancsfirepro/IMAG01191_zpsca6da017.jpg) (http://s1146.photobucket.com/user/lancsfirepro/media/IMAG01191_zpsca6da017.jpg.html)
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o529/lancsfirepro/IMAG0120_11_zps36034c6c.jpg) (http://s1146.photobucket.com/user/lancsfirepro/media/IMAG0120_11_zps36034c6c.jpg.html)
-
Have you told PJ Fire - if no-one knows they can't look into it. As they refurb and assemble new just down the road from me rather than the other side of the world it's easier for them to deal with it.
Found another dodgy Jactone CO2 last week as empty as it could be and still sealed.
Not the best time for CO2's really!
-
Have you told PJ Fire
Why didn't I think of that?! Nope, I've informed the FIA. They have procedures in place (so they tell me) to contact the manufacturer and alert their members. Let's see if that happens.... hasn't happened yet with the Chubb model I reported. ::)
-
I'm noticing this more and more on CO2's these days but as yet, haven't had one that's lost any weight.
Is it a new type of lubricant the manufacturers/assemblers are using, are they being slapdash in how they apply it?
Also seen it on JSP units.
John
-
From what I've been told, it's to do with the wrong type of o-ring used. Apparently the CO2 is supposed to in some way attack or permeate the o-ring and cause it to leak out. It's usually a tiny leak but you can't really leave an extinguisher in service with a known leak because you don't know whether it's going to get worse. I didn't notice any oily marks on the extinguishers when they were new; it seems they appear over time and therefore allow you to see the leak clearly.
-
So are you withdrawing all of these from service, even though they haven't lost weight, and getting replacements from the manufacturer????
John
-
You don't consider visible signs of leaks a reason to remove them from service? As far as I know, the leak could have just started a few hours before I turned up to do the service - you have no way of knowing if it'll be empty in a few days. This is not something you can just say, "oh well, as of today, it hasn't lost more than 10% of the contents so I'll let it go until next year". A visible leak is a defect in a piece of potentially life saving equipment and I want to sleep at night thank you.
Any TG cans we find on our service visits are removed from service and replaced under manufacturer's warranty at no cost to the customer.
Any leaking extinguishers spotted at a fire risk assessment are brought to the attention of the site staff so they can arrange their service company to swap them over.
-
Gareth, my question is....are the manufacturers replacing them?
If the manufacturers are happy to replace them, then they are admitting a problem exists and I would be happy to remove them from service. But isn't an annual service a bit like an MOT.....OK on the day? If it actually hasn't lost weight and the manufacturer won't admit a problem, how can we legitimately condemn them?
And how much "gunk show" will the manufacturers accept as a problem?
I'm not saying you're wrong......I just want to be right!!!!
John
-
You legitimately condemn them as you have seen a defect that you know will lead to leakage and non function, ignoring it would be negligent, imagine what it would look like in court! It's a defect on a pressure bearing part that could cause a uncontrolled release of pressure
At the very least if you dare not remove it mark the known issue on the service label and report warning that you can't guarantee the extinguisher will remain charged and put the onus on the customer.
-
Thomas Glover are issuing replacements FOC via one of the suppliers we use; they are well aware of the issue.
I have heard nothing about the Chubb one - the client asked me to remove it from site as it was a spare.
The FIA have put me in touch with PJ Fire and I am in dialogue with them at the moment. All seems positive to indicate that they are keen to deal with the situation. I'll keep you posted.
-
How are you getting on with PJ? They're our sole supplier of refurb Co2's too so it would be helpful to know of any issues. They provide good quality kit, so good our trained and qualified engineers lot put them in as "New" ??? ??? ??? I've not noticed any problems but I've only been back doing cans for a month now but no ones mentioned anything.
-
Have to wait for my client to contact the extinguisher maintenance company, who will need to attend site to swap over the cans and then approach PJ with them. Just keep an eye out for oily gummy stains around the neck seal and have a close look; if you see bubbles you've got a problem.
-
I found a PJ 2Kg Co2 yesterday with the same issues. Couldn't photograph it though it was on one of those "may we take you're mobile please sir?" sites. Anyway I was thinking, you probably saw the smoke on the M62 Eastbound yesterday, caused a bit of a queue apparently;
Is the brown material merely exposed threading grease used during installation? We've all seen PFTE in the past on refurbs, so why not a grease. I used it on Ansul pipework threading before jumping ship to assist threading the stainless steel pipe it's the same principal when applying a valve to the cylinder neck. Heat is generated therefore threads may not form correctly thus a threading material is required. This becomes liquefied in the process and then cools down perhaps leaving bubbles on the neck of a can.
Maybe observing specific Co2's is the answer. If they continue to bubble, they're leaking. If the threading material is solidified and does not increase then there's no issue.
The next question is therefore what is allowed to be used during valve installation? I've not took any courses for a while so don't have any up to date paperwork to refer to.
-
The extinguishers in question are Aluminium cylinders - the extinguishers you have seen with PTFE tape around the threads are steel cylinders. Steel cylinders have valves with tapered threads and may use a sealing liquid or as you suggest, PTFE. The actual sealing point of the valve to the cylinder is on the thread. (You can see threads on the valves of steel cylinders.) Extinguishers with Aluminium cylinders have valves with parallel threads and so require an o-ring to seal (you can't see valve threads fitted to an Aluminium cylinder). See below, steel on the left.
(http://i1146.photobucket.com/albums/o529/lancsfirepro/steelandaluminiumco2_zpsb97342b2.jpg) (http://s1146.photobucket.com/user/lancsfirepro/media/steelandaluminiumco2_zpsb97342b2.jpg.html)
Any cutting fluid that may have been used should be removed in the degreasing operation prior to powder coating.
Just to be clear, any CO2's I've mentioned as leaking were visibly producing bubbles. Confirmation from TG suggest the o-ring is at fault and they have since been changed.
-
Different metals and threading types eh? thanks for that. That's why I like these forums, they're a great source of information.
Seriously though, is there still a limitation the maximum threads visible above the neck - on the steel units obviously? Last I heard it was less than the number in the example i.e. any more than two were not allowed.
Cutting fluid/grease is not a sealant and unknown to many, neither is PTFE never was and never will be. It melts under combined heat and pressure on the threads. Forms fluid and aids the reduction in friction or as in this case, by not allowing either valve nor unit threads to be damaged. The PTFE we see has not been subjected to these pressures and remains therefore a solid white tape that we all know.
I only offered a suggestion that the brown stuff could be a threading fluid. I'm as open to any suggestion or confirmation by the companies involved as anyone else.
Do we replace guilty units off site as a precaution until we get the all clear? Who will give written instructions for this?
:)
ps I've a theory but physical problems, certainly not chemical. Co2 reacting with o rings??
-
CO2 reacting with certain types of rubber is a fact, not theory. ;)
For the avoidance of doubt, PTFE tape reduces friction when mating threaded parts together. It's not a sealant by design (although it helps to a degree), but aids sealing by allowing greater forces to be exerted on the threads which in turns creates the seal.
You can leave CO2 extinguishers with visible leaks in service if you wish; our clients will have them changed under manufacturer's warranty. I'm not really sure why this is causing too much confusion... it's pretty simple; faulty extinguishers get replaced under warranty.
-
What is the manufacturers current angle on this Gareth? Their stance seems to have softened during the life of the thread, do we have any idea how widespread the problem is?
-
TG knew they had a problem, changed the o-ring and are exchanging leakers with new ones. Heard nothing from the FIA about the issue with Chubb. Still waiting to hear what PJ have to say but their MD is away on hols.
-
U.I.G. CO2 MSDS:
Incompatible substances:
Alkali metals.
Chromium.
Metal acetylides.
Alkaline earth metals.
Titanium above 550°C.
Uranium above 750°C.
Oh, and now to save certain extinguisher manufacturers embarrassment for reducing the quality of their procucts : rubber o' rings. :-\
-
What's your point?
-
I think pseudonyms point is that o rings cannot possibly react adversely with CO2 and lists those products that do react with CO2.
I understand that PJ have their own factory so how can TG/Chubb have the same problem?
And what's changed? Why now? Its not a problem that's been about for years.
John
-
Sorry I wasn't clearer guys, thanks John.
On the same subject, I serviced one site today with 14 2007 TG parallel thread 2Kg co2's.
All serviced since 2007 by 4 differing companies, all responsible companies whose standard of work I've been aware of for years and would trust.
Each extinguisher weighed exactly the same today (digital scales) since the install date and the stamped weight and the same weight on each years' service.
Importantly, each extinguisher had the same brown substance around the neck of the unit below the valve.
So...my point to this post is, despite the substance, there appears to be no weight loss i.e. content loss from the units based upon reports from competent engineers continued servicing and thus this material is only overflow from the unit production.
So the kit stayed in situ as no fault was found.
Now then, if a manufacturer say they are aware of a fault and have now rectified it yet not issued a previous product recall and thus have knowingly sold faulty kit and left faulty fire protection products without recalling (which I seriously doubt as the company in question strives for global quality company/product perception) : That's a problem.
-
Hmmm, it seems that you are having a hard time believing what I am putting forward. For what reason, I am unsure.
Surely the list of incompatible materials is a list of what materials (and conditions - high temps) that the substance is unsafe at/with? Not what it may react with slowly over time? As in Material SAFETY data sheet.
Have a look at a data sheet for an o-ring here - note point 10 (Hazardous decomposition) http://www.edwardsvacuum.com/uploadedFiles/Resource/MSDS/O%20Rings%20-%20Nitrile%20&%20Rubber%20Tubing.pdf
It is a fact that carbon dioxide will attack certain rubbers.
The explanation that TG have put forward to certain trade bodies is that the o-rings they have used absorbed CO2 but then sealed; they state that the absorbed CO2 leaches out over time which may give the appearance of leaking. Their stance is that they insist that any initial leak should very soon after stop and so there is no issue. They have also said that they have looked into a number of returned extinguishers and found them not to be leaking, but that any client may return their extinguishers for investigation. They say they have since changed the offending o-ring to one that does not absorb CO2.
None of this I am buying; they state the problem affects extinguishers dated the end of 2011 and early 2012. This short window strongly suggests the wrong o-ring has been used and the o-ring continues to be attacked - why should it stop being attacked once started?
I wish to add that when I suggested looking for the brown oily substance around the valve to identify these extinguishers, this is the easy way to identify a potential leaking extinguisher - you would further need to determine whether signs of leaking are evident - i.e. bubbles.
-
Gareth.....this is not a case of suggesting that lancsfirepro talking rubbish. I believe what you're saying, I've seen the evidence. I can see the problem. I just don't understand why its happening now all of a sudden.
We as a company survive by providing a quality service at competitive rates without the pressure selling that many of the brand names seem to earn millions from. I'm currently advising customers that, in accordance with the latest 5306 Part 8, they should be replacing their powder extinguishers because of visibility/contamination problems, that they should be having an extra wet chemical extinguisher because somebody has decided that the surface area of a deep fryer is more relevant than the quantity in it and now I've got to tell them that they've got to replace their CO2's because of some gunk round the neck.
I just need to understand what the problem is exactly, why its happening all of a sudden and what the manufacturers are doing about it so I can say "look Mr Customer, its not me ripping you off all the time".
Why are they leaking all of a sudden? Are the manufacturers trying to save a penny per product by using an inferior seal? Will the manufacturers replace the unit FOC?
John
-
It is odd that we have had aluminium CO2 extinguishers in the UK since Kidde introduced them in the 60's, rapidly followed by the founder companies that became Chubb and not had a problem like this before. Cracked necks were all the rage at one time, now it's O-rings.
There must be a connection, it can't be coincidence - 2010 saw the Jactone leakers, shortly followed by the TG/Chubb gunky leakers and even PJ.
Manufacture and assembly for these was both in China and UK dependant on company, but where did they all get their O-rings from?
Perhaps it could be traced as far back as a certain batch of rubber used by a certain handful of o ring manufacturers?
Without a consistent industry wide statement from all the relevant players it's going to be a pain.
I can see the issue with dealing with the Customer as a lot of the latest BS5306-8 seems very purely sales driven as oppose to scientific (about the only bit I agree with is the powder clause)
-
Visible signs of leaking (not 'gunk') is a viable reason to withdraw an extinguisher from service. Most extinguishers come with a 5 year warranty unless you buy the cheapo ones. The manufacturer should exchange any leaking extinguisher under warranty then. It really is that simple. Take the extinguishers back to your supplier and if they won't arrange replacements under warranty, contact your trade body.
If they are extinguishers from a manufacturer you do not deal with (but you know they would be under warranty) I would immediately contact the manufacturer and ask if they are prepared to offer replacements if faulty and leave temporary cover on site. If they won't (which should be unlikely) you'll have to explain to the customer and show them the leak. If they won't pay for replacements, just note it on the inspection certificate that the client has been made aware of the situation. The extinguisher should be marked as 'not maintained'.
Manufacturers not prepared to assist in rectifying the situation should be reported to your trade body.
-
No product recall - no fault.
No offence but I change units that have has lost weight (i.e. any amount not a percentage) before removing simply because of substance around the neck.
Then I've got proof not speculation.
-
You seem to be concentrating on the substance around the neck rather than the visible leak that is present in that substance. I'm not talking about a few static bubbles, I'm talking about seeing bubbles forming before my eyes, surely that isn't 'speculation' it is evidence of a fault. You have no idea that the leak will not increase before the next time you have chance to examine it.
Would be interested to know which company you work at Psuedonym.
-
Forgive me LFP but I have obviously misunderstood this post.
I was not aware of the fact that you were concerned having actually witnessed "bubbling".
Obviously if you see that, it's leaking and requires removing ASAP.
Regardless to where I or anyone else works, that's bloody common sense.
ps approx. 20 years in the game ::)
-
I was not aware of the fact that you were concerned having actually witnessed "bubbling".
You didn't watch the video I posted in reply 11? I'm hurt!
Obviously if you see that, it's leaking and requires removing ASAP.
Phew!
Regardless to where I or anyone else works, that's bloody common sense.
Was curious because you too are in Preston. ;)
-
Sorry mate i don't have a huge amount of time to get online so didn't see the clip.
Maybe if I'd bothered to, I'd have understood the problem a bit better !!! ;D ;D
-
I found 10 actively leaking FirePower CO2's on Friday (I installed them last year) - stamped 06/2012; so this is not limited to late 2011 and early 2012 as first suggested. I asked our supplier and they admitted they do not know when TG stopped using the faulty o-ring. This is becoming a bit of a pain now.