Talk:Purple-K
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Purple-K article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
 | It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
"Some fire extinguishers are capable of operation in temperatures down to -54 °C or up to +49 °C." This sentence seems thrown in the intro paragraph. It seems not to apply -- my instinct was to delete it, and the paragraph would have made perfect sense. However, it may have meant that this type of extinguisher can do that. Any ideas? Mathwhiz90601 02:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think it means that while the PKP agent may work in these temperatures the the temperature range of operation for the different extinguishers containing the agent may vary. I haven't looked into the effective temperature range of the agent or extinguishers so I can't speak as to the accuracy of the information. KubalaC (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
- This talks about the chemical. For a Purple-K Fire extinguisher, a compressed gas cartridge is used as a propellant to move the powder. Should also add for cross reference some might refer to this as PKP. 24.245.105.83 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Standardizing Fire Suppression Agents edit
May I suggest that we take this overall topic (Fire Suppression Chemicals or Fire Fighting Agents, or whatever) and try to standardize the presentations? It seems like each entry should follow a template that would include chemistry, toxicity, effectiveness on what classes of fires?, how packaged, etc. I so appreciate the effort that has gone into the various articles, but they vary widely in format and completeness.
Many thanks,
Chuck Hawley (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
- Go for it! --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)