If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:
On Fri, 23 Nov 2018 23:38:31 -0500, "Mayayana" wrote: Also, CO is carbon monoxide. It's not flammable. CO is not the chemical formula for propane. Houses don't blow up from high CO levels. But it does displace oxygen in the bloodstream, so it can kill quickly in high concentrations. We have a CO detector in our house. It was free from British Gas years ago. It did nothing for year but went off a few nights ago. The alarm sound got very annoying. It was impossible to stop the noise. Even when all the doors and windows were open to reduce the CO it wouldn't stop. When I called the emergency phone number I got a message to do what I'd already done. The day after I managed to get through a real human. She said the alarms could not be reset and were disposable. I smashed it to bits and threw it away. That stopped the noise! Steve That's the seven year expiry behavior. The ten year battery operated ones, are supposed to expire after seven years. One reason for having a sealed battery, is so the user won't reset the unit for another seven years of operation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_monoxide_detector Some of the early ones were "not recommended" for active testing. Releasing a cloud of CO next to the unit, to test that it alarms, would basically ruin it. It's possible that type would be the "opto-chemical" entry in the article. I prefer the ones with a LED readout, if available. Not a big fan of this sealed battery crap. I noticed in the product reviews for one item, the users had no idea what the unit was supposed to do. Two users complained "they could smell gas, and the CO detector didn't go off". They were smelling mercaptans in the natural gas, indicative of a natural gas leak, and expecting the CO detector to alarm. No, it doesn't do that. And if you do decide to buy a combo unit, that does detect CO as well as combustible gas, those are flaky pastry and don't work well. If you need a CO detector, just buy a CO detector. Paul |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | She said the alarms could not be reset and were disposable. I | smashed it to bits and threw it away. That stopped the noise! Maddening, isn't it? They're doing similar in the US. I had one expire a few months ago. Built-in battery... Non-replaceable... People are too stupid to be trusted with replacing batteries. ....So I had to buy a new one! the one i have lasts 10 years on its battery, or just get one that plugs in the wall. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | [There was a darkly humorous example awhile back. | A couple of undisputable winners were flying their | private plane to a private luxury cabin getaway, for | a private, luxury, hunting cabin weekend. The | cabin owner turned on the heat via his iPhone | during the trip, so the cabin would be toasty when | they arrived. Very slick. These are winners, after all. | Their whole life is slick.They arrived at the | cabin. Both were dead within minutes. A squirrel had | set up house in the furnace vent and the CO alarm | wasn't working. The two men were suffocated by | high CO levels when they walked into the house, | probably passing out before they even had time to | think.] | | that story does not add up. | | Nor had the house blown up, which it probably would have if it had a | running furnace inside with as high a level of atmospheric CO as | implied by the story. https://www.houstonchronicle.com/new...-s-defense-in- 2-deaths-animal-5603194.php the problem was due to faulty repairs by an unlicensed contractor, not that someone had a smart thermostat and remotely turned on the heat. another problem was the lack of a co detector, which would have alerted them to the high co levels. I'm not sure if this is the same story, but it looks like it. In any case, it's very similar and other such stories can be found. It would have been easy enough for you to check. But you'd rather heckle from the peanut gallery. there are very few such stories, none of which are due to smart thermostats or other smart devices. Also, CO is carbon monoxide. It's not flammable. CO is not the chemical formula for propane. Houses don't blow up from high CO levels. But it does displace oxygen in the bloodstream, so it can kill quickly in high concentrations. http://www.iapa.ca/pdf/carbon_monoxide_feb2003.pdf Carbon monoxide is flammable. Mixtures of carbon monoxide and air in the flammable range will ignite if a flame or a spark is present. Flammable mixtures containing carbon monoxide and other gases can be ignited easily by heated surfaces, open flames and even by the burning tip of a cigarette. The serious nature of the flammability hazard is reflected in the extensive flammable range of carbon monoxide in air (see Table 1, below). https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chem...arbon_monoxide. html What are fire hazards and extinguishing media for carbon monoxide? Flammable Properties: EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE GAS. Can easily ignite. Can readily form explosive mixture with air at room temperature. There were several factors involved in this story. One factor may have been a faulty furnace repair. One factor was apparently squirrels nesting in the vent pipe that blocked exhaust gas. the cause was the faulty repair. everything else was a result of that. But the point of the story was the absurdity of unnecessary "smart" devices. nope. that was not the point at all. in fact, the story did not even mention a smart thermostat, or any thermostat for that matter. the problem was that there was a faulty repair for which the contractor refused to accept responsibility and tried to blame it on an animal. it did not matter how they turned on the heat. The men died in part because they turned on the furnace remotely via cellphone. They thought that was clever. But they were dead before they were in the house long enough to ralize the furnace wasn't working right. nope. the smart thermostat had absolutely nothing to do with it. if they had a standard thermostat and turned on the furnace after arrival, the cabin would still have filled with carbon monoxide due to the faulty repair, likely killing them while they slept. however, if they had a co detector, they'd have known of the danger. if they had a smart co detector which pushed an alert to a smartphone, they'd have known in advance that there was a dangerous problem at the cabin, possibly even early enough that they could have called someone to investigate well before they departed to go there. in other words, smart devices would have *prevented* the tragedy. They might have still died if they hadn't been such technophiliacs. But there's a good chance they wouldn't have. By the time they arrived at the cabin the CO levels were so high that they were dead before they had a chance to feel sick and get out. not true at all. no matter what type of thermostat they had, the cabin would have filled with co. the only difference is it would have happened while they were there rather than upon arrival. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
"Wolf K" wrote
| Nor had the house blown up, which it probably would have if it had a | running furnace inside with as high a level of atmospheric CO as | implied by the story. | | I have a few collections of these stories, confess that when I was much | younger I believed some of them. | There seems to be an epidemic of people who think CO is an explosive gas... Did you not see my link? You willingly accept that CO is explosive on Eric's say-so, but believe newspaper articles are mainly urban legends? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance PS
"Wolf K" wrote
| It's surprising but true that newspapers are sometimes taken in by these | tales, especially if the purveyor has added plausible names and dates, etc. | Before you embarass yourself further with your glib cynicism and even more glib dismissals of others as being liars or idiots, do a search on this: Albert Senzatimore carbon monoxide Numerous newspapers reported the story. The American Bar Association also did a piece because there was a somewhat unusual lawsuit involved. http://www.abajournal.com/news/artic...onoxide_death/ Oddly, so far I haven't found a story about homes being destroyed by exploding CO gas. Maybe you or Eric could post a link to that one. Was it the case of Elmer Fudd vs Daffy Duck, by any chance? |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
In article , Mayayana
wrote: | Nor had the house blown up, which it probably would have if it had a | running furnace inside with as high a level of atmospheric CO as | implied by the story. | | I have a few collections of these stories, confess that when I was much | younger I believed some of them. There seems to be an epidemic of people who think CO is an explosive gas... perhaps that's because it *is* explosive... https://nj.gov/health/eoh/rtkweb/documents/fs/0345.pdf Carbon Monoxide is a FLAMMABLE GAS and a DANGEROUS FIRE HAZARD. http://www.iapa.ca/pdf/carbon_monoxide_feb2003.pdf Carbon monoxide is flammable. Mixtures of carbon monoxide and air in the flammable range will ignite if a flame or a spark is present. Flammable mixtures containing carbon monoxide and other gases can be ignited easily by heated surfaces, open flames and even by the burning tip of a cigarette. The serious nature of the flammability hazard is reflected in the extensive flammable range of carbon monoxide in air (see Table 1, below). https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chem...arbon_monoxide. html What are fire hazards and extinguishing media for carbon monoxide? Flammable Properties: EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE GAS. Can easily ignite. Can readily form explosive mixture with air at room temperature. Did you not see my link? your link described a faulty repair by an incompetent contractor. You willingly accept that CO is explosive on Eric's say-so, but believe newspaper articles are mainly urban legends? it *is* explosive, and not because eric said so. see above. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
nospam wrote:
http://www.iapa.ca/pdf/carbon_monoxide_feb2003.pdf Carbon monoxide is flammable. Mixtures of carbon monoxide and air in the flammable range will ignite if a flame or a spark is present. Flammable mixtures containing carbon monoxide and other gases can be ignited easily by heated surfaces, open flames and even by the burning tip of a cigarette. The serious nature of the flammability hazard is reflected in the extensive flammable range of carbon monoxide in air (see Table 1, below). https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/carbon_monoxide.html What are fire hazards and extinguishing media for carbon monoxide? Flammable Properties: EXTREMELY FLAMMABLE GAS. Can easily ignite. Can readily form explosive mixture with air at room temperature. But this is well outside the domain of use expected. The range of danger to humans is measured in ppm. On devices where CO is a byproduct of regular combustion, and not the principle reason for running the device. Normal combustion processes don't produce pure CO. The percentage is much lower. If you run certain kinds of chemical reactions, you could probably manage to make CO in a range suitable for flammability or exploding it by mixing with O2. This is a pretty stupid demo to be putting on, but it shows a lab way of making CO at sufficient concentration to support a flame. Even done in a fume hood, this isn't very clever. This definitely isn't "Here, hold my beer" material. https://eic.rsc.org/exhibition-chemi...020038.article Paul |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
SilverSlimer wrote:
Whereas *I* brought up that there is overwhelming evidence that the "more than half" that voted for Hillary, in the popular vote, were not even people who were allowed to vote in the country in the first place. Which is nothing more than a persistent right-wing LIE. There is no evidence for such a thing. -- Tim Slattery tim at risingdove dot com |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
"Wolf K" wrote
| There seems to be an epidemic of people who | think CO is an explosive gas... Did you not see | my link? You willingly accept that CO is explosive | on Eric's say-so, but believe newspaper articles | are mainly urban legends? | | I accepted nothing, I merely commented. | Yes, you commented implying that myself and even the news media were either liars or idiots. It seems common courtesy, and common sense, to check the details for yourself before making accusations. | BTW, here's a link that gives lower and upper explosive limits for CO: | | https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/e...its-d_423.html | | CO is certainly flammable (gas generated from coal has a large | percentage of CO, which is one of the reasons gas stoves were handy | suicide tools basck in the day). | Interesting. I didn't know about the flammability. But gas stoves were used in suicide without the flame on. (One of my grandmothers did that. The gas never lit. In other words, she was killing herself with gas, not CO. My grandfather discovered her with her head in the oven. Even natural gas needs a high concentration to ignite.) And the sources I find say CO is only explosive at concentrations above 12%. It kills at 4+% and it's given off by fires. So the chance of blowing up a house are higher than I realized, but they're still slim. But I would be interested if you manage to find a case. I suspect it requires a very specific scenario. Something like a very faulty furnace venting for a long period into an enclosed space, followed by a door suddenly opened by a smoker. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
Mayayana wrote:
"Wolf K" wrote | There seems to be an epidemic of people who | think CO is an explosive gas... Did you not see | my link? You willingly accept that CO is explosive | on Eric's say-so, but believe newspaper articles | are mainly urban legends? | | I accepted nothing, I merely commented. | Yes, you commented implying that myself and even the news media were either liars or idiots. It seems common courtesy, and common sense, to check the details for yourself before making accusations. | BTW, here's a link that gives lower and upper explosive limits for CO: | | https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/e...its-d_423.html | | CO is certainly flammable (gas generated from coal has a large | percentage of CO, which is one of the reasons gas stoves were handy | suicide tools basck in the day). | Interesting. I didn't know about the flammability. But gas stoves were used in suicide without the flame on. (One of my grandmothers did that. The gas never lit. In other words, she was killing herself with gas, not CO. My grandfather discovered her with her head in the oven. Even natural gas needs a high concentration to ignite.) And the sources I find say CO is only explosive at concentrations above 12%. It kills at 4+% and it's given off by fires. So the chance of blowing up a house are higher than I realized, but they're still slim. But I would be interested if you manage to find a case. I suspect it requires a very specific scenario. Something like a very faulty furnace venting for a long period into an enclosed space, followed by a door suddenly opened by a smoker. How does the combustion process only run partially, without filling the house with natural gas ? I don't see how you get to 12% CO this way ? There's likely a house-full of natural gas which would explode nicely for you. https://www.cpsc.gov/s3fs-public/pdf...s_furnace4.pdf "The current ANSI Z21.47 standard (1998) requires that an air-free flue gas sample of CO not exceed a maximum of 400 ppm (0.04 percent) when a furnace vent is either partially or completely blocked. When Furnace #4 was operated continuously, the air-free flue gas sample of CO increased from 59 ppm to more than 3400 ppm, exceeding the measurement range of the CO analyzer, as the firing rate increased from 100,000 Btu/hr to 128,000 Btu/hr. Many of the air-free CO concentrations exceeded the 400 ppm maximum limit specified in the ANSI Z21.47.2 standard (1998) when the furnace was operated *above* the manufacturer’s specified input rate. " Apparently this is adjustable. http://www.whirlpoolcomfort.com/Upload/46924D003.pdf "Adjust the Furnace Input Rate (if required) For altitudes 4,500 to 7,500 feet above sea level... " So it is possible for the installer to foul up. On the first document, their measurement instrument couldn't measure CO properly above 3.4%. So it's not clear how a blocked furnace with too much gas entering, what limit it would have on CO. Paul |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
On 11/24/18 7:38 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] But the alarms were designed to beep about every 3 minutes when the battery got low. Only a dead person wouldn't have known to replace the battery. If you have multiple such devices (that beep like that). It can take a good while to find the one beeping. The beep is very short and I need several to locate the source. Same thing with a phone (lost cell phone with missed call beep every 5 minutes). [snip] -- 31 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." [Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica] |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
On 11/24/18 10:16 AM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] Interesting. I didn't know about the flammability. But gas stoves were used in suicide without the flame on. (One of my grandmothers did that. The gas never lit. In other words, she was killing herself with gas, not CO. My grandfather discovered her with her head in the oven. Even natural gas needs a high concentration to ignite.) Also, natural gas is not poisonous. The problem with a gas-filled space is lack of oxygen. [snip] -- 31 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1 day). Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more abundantly they are permitted to see the punishment of the damned in hell." [Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), Summa Theologica] |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
"Paul" wrote
| How does the combustion process only run partially, | without filling the house with natural gas ? I don't see | how you get to 12% CO this way ? There's likely a house-full | of natural gas which would explode nicely for you. Good question. I don't know. In the case we're talking about, it was running for 2 hours before the men arrived. But the article(s) seem to say that the high CO output was caused in part by bad combustion due to blocked intake. I'm guessing that means the gas burned but didn't burn well. Which would be different from gas just not lighting. Just as a poorly tuned car makes for nasty exhaust, but not spilled gasoline. It's an odd case. The animal nest. The bad contractor. Faulty or lacking CO detectors. Faulty or lacking furnace sensors. And a man turning on his furnace remotely via cellphone. All were possible factors in the deaths. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| Interesting. I didn't know about the flammability. | But gas stoves were used in suicide without the | flame on. (One of my grandmothers did that. The | gas never lit. In other words, she was killing herself | with gas, not CO. My grandfather discovered her with | her head in the oven. Even natural gas needs a high | concentration to ignite.) | Also, natural gas is not poisonous. The problem with a gas-filled space | is lack of oxygen. | Grandma must have timed it well to be gone just around the time Grandpa came home. He was a heavy cigar smoker. I always wondered whether she understood the risk she was imposing on others. But she had late-stage breast cancer and in those days there was nothing to be done. I assume she *thought* she was saving everyone a lot of trouble. Maybe natural gas is an easy way to pass out without struggle? I don't know. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
I ask out of ignorance
In article , Mayayana
wrote: It's an odd case. The animal nest. The bad contractor. Faulty or lacking CO detectors. Faulty or lacking furnace sensors. And a man turning on his furnace remotely via cellphone. All were possible factors in the deaths. all but the last one are factors. the smart thermostat had absolutely nothing to do with it. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|