http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/news/04132004_bb_sapphire.html
Got this article this morning. Anyone know the chemical formula for this stuff? How is it different than regular water? For that matter, what, physically speaking, is happening when something gets wet?
CF3CF2C(o)CF(CF3)2
So as you can see it isn’t water ! In fact I think that at room temp it’s a gas which may help explain why it doesn’t get things wet.
http://www.fs-world.com/Show.asp?ID=3998&Form=5
I really, really doubt that it’s a gas, although it probably dries quickly. Wetting is the adhesion of a fluid to a surface; most fluorochemicals display odd wetting properties, but I’d have to see the stuff before saying more.
Just found out that it requires 25 times less energy than water to evaporate
Well, it’s basically just water sticking to things. Caplillary action means that it will seep its way into tiny crevices and pores in the surface of materials.
Sapphire appears to be a perfluorinated ketone (the “(o)” in Ponster’s formula should be an (O), or in other words:
F F O F F
| | " | |
F---C---C---C---C---C---F
| | | |
F F F-C-F F
|
F
(excuse shoddy ASCII art… that quote mark is a double bond, mm’kay?)
Fluorinated carbon compounds are inert, and have low intermolecular attraction. Teflon is a case in point, and this stuff has similar “slippery” properties - it won’t stick to stuff, so it won’t wet them. It’s also non-conductive of electricity.
“Just found out that it requires 25 times less energy than water to evaporate.”
Which means that it requires 25 times as much “Saphire” to put out a fire as water would.
The cost of “Saphire” would prohibit its use for ordinary firefighting, thus restricting it to those applications where it would be cost effective.
Other than fighting fires, what other applications might this stuff have? Also, do you think they set out to make a better fire fighting agent, or was this acidentally invented?
How do you figure that? Even once it’s evaporated, it’ll still act as an asphyxiant and keep oxygen away from the fire. Halon is already a gas, so requires precisely sod-all energy to evaporate, and that puts out fires pretty well. You don’t need a liquid to put out a fire; simply something that takes away at least one part of the fire triangle (Fuel - Heat - Oxygen).
Whereas water has the potential to attack at two parts of the triangle?? (absorbing heat and blocking oxygen.)
Not a dig at sapphire, just an observation.
Halon® suppression agents are very effective, but have a negative impact on the environment, just as CFC and HCFC refrigerant gases. Given the Montreal Protocol, manufacturers have been actively working to develop replacements for the most widely used products identified to ozone-layer injurious, such as R-12, R-22, and Halon® fire suppressants.
[Nitpick] The fire triangle was replaced with a tetrahedron many years ago. By removing either (a) heat, (b) oxygen, or (c) fuel, or interrupting (d) chemical reaction, combustion ceases.[/Nitpick]
nitpicking a nitpick: Why does it have to be a tetrahedron? 
It’s not like all possible pairs of that foursome have to interact with each other on an equal footing in some way. They just all have to be present. Why not make it a fire square??
IF and only IF it is in an enclosed area or a pit where the asphixiant is trapped to exclude the oxygen(air)!
But what happens if you drink it?
Get a sample, ingest it, call 911, tell them, ask if they have the data sheet, and what to do.
Alternatively call “Poison Control.”
IF you survive you can testify, first hand, from experience.
Well a terahedron is to a triangle what a square is to an equilateral triangle. So they are just keeping their terminology consistent. 
I thought a tetrahedron was a three dimensional shape like a dodecahedron or an icosahedron and a ‘rectangle’ was the generic term for a four sided two dimensional polygon.
I also always thought that a tetrahedron looks rather like a pyramid with a triangular base. Am I wrong?
Yikes! My bad! I was thinking of a quadrilateral. Which is the generic term for a four sided 2D polgon. So a fire triangle is to a… fire quadrilateral… or a fire tetrahedron…or …someone help me out here
good evening friends,
i work as a technician for a fire alarm and suppression company. i have instaled quite a few halon systems over the years. one of our competitors is now putting the first sapphire system in our area into service.
the tech doing the install says that, as a demonstration for the customer, they plan on dropping a running laptop into a container of the agent to prove it will not harm the equipment. i plan to be there when it happens, but will not volunteer my laptop for the experiment.
we install fire suppression systems using dupont fe-227, commonly called fm-200. like halon, it is a liquid under pressure, but converts to a gas almost instantly. a predetermined concentration of the gas in a closed space breaks the chemical chain reaction of the fire.
Umm… has this notebook into “Sapphire” test been done before? Because if this stuff has any kind of insulating properties it better be an old laptop with a slow CPU, or a cool running notebook, or that CPU is going to fry once the liquid insulates it unless the dip is only for a few seconds.
Comparison of Key Physical Properties of Water and 3M™ Novec™ 1230 Fire Protection Fluid
Property Unit Water
Boiling Point °C 100
Feezing Point °C 0
Vapor Pressure @ 25°C kPa 3.2
Heat of Vaporization @ 25°C kJ/kg 2442
Property Unit Novec 1230 fluid
Boiling Point °C 49
Freezing Point °C -108
Vapor Pressure @ 25°C kPa 40.4
Heat of Vaporization @ 25°C kJ/kg 95