Talk:Perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone)

Untitled
Novec is a brand name for fluorinated compounds produced by 3M Corporation. The code "1230" is one product of a family of product codes used under the Novec brand used exclusively in fire suppression. 3M solely owns the rights to the brand name Novec, the product known as 3M Novec 1230 Fire Protection Fluid and 3M controls the distribution rights of the product to select fire suppression system manufacturers. The fluid is seperate from the system when it is described. For instance, there is no such thing as a Novec 1230 System. There are systems that use Novec 1230 fluid. There are also systems that use the numerals 1230 to describe the system. However, the fluid can only be referred to as Novec 1230, when referenced the commercial name or by its chemical name or Ashrae description used in NFPA 2001 as FK-5-1-12. Sapphire is a brand name owned by Tyco Corporation. Sapphire is a system and it is not the fluid or liquid used in the system. I will be working to correct the article titled Novec 1230 to assure accuracy in the way that it is described. I am employed by no one to do this and I have several years of experience in fire suppression, to include working with Novec 1230 fluid from the day it was invented as a fire suppression fluid. If there are questions related to how I have interpreted this material, it is suggested that 3M Marketing be contacted for clarification. It is my understanding that misuse of the Novec brand name and the products associated with it is justification for actions against those who misuse it to include cancellation of supply contracts with system manufacturers who misuse the brand name. Previous changes to this article removed certain references to companies that manufacture systems useing Novec 1230 fluid. These references will be reinserted into this article by reference.63.226.152.55 15:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Superficially water-like?
Novec 1230 fluid really hit the spotlight a few years ago using the press angle not comparing it so much to Halon as a fire suppression measure, but more comparing it to the layman's standard, water. Novec 1230 is colorless and odorless, with a viscosity similar to that of water. In short; it looks like water and it's non toxic.. it's even a better fire suppressant.. and the talk shows made bones over dunking running electronic equipment and frail paper books into aquariums full of the stuff. Geeks were impressed at the time and interested in the substance as an electronic coolant.

Since I feel these properties and interests are noteworthy, but they are now missing from the Wikipedia article.. what is their status? Have newly toxic properties been discovered in Novec 1230? Is it unfit for electronic coolant? (maybe just unreasonably priced? ;) Jesset77 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This molecule is toxic especially when it interacts with water. The fact it is a low GWP is a double edged sword where that same ability to degrade quickly in the atmosphere means that it is unstable. When it mixes with water it forms the toxic fluoropropionic acid almost immediately which can corrode steel (not good for our moist lungs and throat).
 * It is a good fire suppressant it goes for about $20lb, if that is expensive I feel is totally arbitrary. Smootheater (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Safety
I've added a paragraph discussing the safety implications of Novec 1230 use over halon, since safety is a key characteristic of these systems. Jonathanstade (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Should there also be a note about electrical safety vs. water? Jonathanstade (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Environmentally friendly?
"Environmentally friendly" is a pretty vague and broad term for a chemical description. I'm tempted to remove the phrase all together, but I simply added the citation needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pshmell (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this a typo?
"a heat of vaporization of 88.1 kJ/kga and low vapor pressure" Or is it a new unit I haven't heard of? I'm changing it to kJ/kg in the mean time. -- Glubbdrubb ( talk ) 17:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Time for a total overhaul
This page is fully dedicated to a specific brand of product. This molecule no longer has any patents globally and now there are about 8 companies who manufacture this molecule. This page domain should be changed to FK-5-1-12 and the novec 649/1230 page should be the redirect to FK-5-1-12.

WIkipedia should be about the molecule and chemistry not used as a sales tool for one company. Smootheater (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. As originally proposed. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 03:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Novec 649/1230 → Perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone) – The chemical name is a more appropriate title than a pair of brand names for products that contain the chemical. In the section above, User:Smootheater has suggested the title FK-5-1-12. I'm not sure of the provenance of that name, but if it is a neutral name or identifier not specific to any company or brand, I'd be fine with that name too. Reba16 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support move to Perfluoro(2-methyl-3-pentanone). Generally common chemical names are preferred as article titles over brand names, especially when it's no longer primarily from a single manufacturer. Also, while there appears to be some non-wiki use of the combined term "Novec 649/1230", these are separate names, and the current title is really a case of WP:AND that should be improved upon if a single collective title exists, which the proposed move accomplishes. I oppose a move to FK-5-1-12 as a non-descriptive, uncommon term. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)