Experiments were conducted to assess the performance of various residential smoke alarms to kitchen fires and nuisance alarm cooking scenarios. A structure representing a kitchen, living room and hallway was constructed to conduct the experiments. Eight different residential smoke alarms types, two photoelectric models (P1 and P2), two ionization models (I1 and I2), two dual sensor photoelectric/ionization models(D1 and D2), and two multi-sensor, intelligent models (M1 and M2) were used in this study. The data gathered provided insight into the susceptibility of alarm activation from exposures to typical cooking events and alarm times for actual kitchen fires. The effects of alarm technology and installation location on the propensity of an alarm to activate were examined. In the kitchen fire experiments, all smoke alarms responded before hazardous conditions developed. An ionization alarm (I1) tended to respond first compared to other co-located alarms. Results show smoke alarms placed greater than 6 m from the kitchen range may provide less than 120 s of available safe egress time, which suggests the importance of a more central alarm location closer to the kitchen for this configuration. Experiments were conducted to determine an alarm’s propensity to activate when exposed to particulates generated from eight typical cooking activities including toasting, frying, baking and broiling. In most cases, the propensity to nuisance alarm decreased as the distance from the cooking source increased. Two alarms, I1 and D2, experienced more nuisance alarm activations across the eight cooking activities than the other alarms. The remaining alarms experienced about the same combined nuisance alarm frequency by averaging all cooking events for installation locations outside the kitchen. Experiments showed combustible materials typically found on a counter top can spread flames to overhead cabinets, and a single empty 0.6 m wide 1.0 m tall wood-framed, pressboard cabinet can produce a peak heat release rate nearly sufficient to flashover a small room. Alternatively, protective metal barrier on the bottom and side facing the range tended to limit the spread of flames to the cabinet and reduce the heat release rate.
Access the full paper here .
Kim Warner got the scare of her life behind the wheel of her Jeep Wrangler. "I saw a flash under the hood," she remembers. She says she was driving at a low speed when her brakes went out and the shifter jammed. "I had both feet on the brake and my tires were spinning. I noticed flames coming out the passenger side," she says.
Her boyfriend who was nearby ran, jumped in, and pulled her out of the SUV before it got worse. "As I pulled her out that is when the flames came thru the dash," he said.
Chrysler sent an inspector, but the automaker said in a statement: "The cause of the fire was deemed inconclusive by the investigator."
Loose engine cover could cause fire
Fiat Chrysler is recalling 350,000 Dodge Journey crossovers due to a problem with the vehicle’s engine cover that could lead to a fire.
The covers can become dislodged and come in contact with exhaust components preventing them from moving. If that happens, it could cause a fire. The company has reports of three fires in Chile, involving one injury and no deaths.
This recall involves battery-operated night lights with an AC adapter included. The night light collection includes a pink hedgehog, a blue bird, a yellow rocket, an orange dino egg, a white soccer ball and a green shark. The model numbers are printed on the bottom side of the night lights.
This recall involves Polaris Youth RZR® 170 EFI recreational off-highway vehicles with model number R15YAV17AA/AF and VINs between RF3YAV170FT000076 and RF3YAV17XFT005141. To see the complete list, visit the firm’s website. The VIN is on the left-hand front frame tube. They were sold in both blue and red. The blue models have a “170 EFI” decal on the right and left side of the hood and an “RZR” decal on the right and left front fenders. The red models have a “170 EFI” decal on the right and left front fenders and a “RZR” decal on the right and left rear fenders.
See the full details at the Polaris website.
This recall involves GreenWorks 12 amp electric blower/vacs. The blower/vacs have a green motor housing and a black blower tube and restrictor nozzle. They measure 12 inches high and 34 inches long. Recalled blower/vacs have model number 24022 with a serial number between GWS0350001 through GWS2280500 or model number 24072 with a serial number between GWR1310001 through GWS2281100. The model number, serial number, “greenworks” and “ELECTRIC BLOWER/MULCHER WITH BAG” are printed on the side of the motor housing. Model 24022 has a two-speed switch. Model 24072 has a variable speed switch.
Read the full details at CPSC
Trivia Questions of the Month
The trivia questions are not only fun but informative. Who doesn't like learning something new, right?
Trivia question for August
The first propulsion means for fire pumps, whether they were hand or steamed powered, consisted of human beings pulling the pump. Fire crews from the early 1900s were carried around by people, the apparatus had little room for personnel, they moved slowly and when they arrived at the scene, the firefighters were often too tired to do anything. Luckily, in most cases, the fires died out before they even arrived, so there was little left for them to do.
Towards mid-1800s, and the age of steam, the introduction of the paid firefighters made room for horses to be largely put to use and pull the fire pumps. This improved the response time of the fire brigades, but still didn't solve the firefighter transport issue. People literally ran to the fires and, despite the fact that the pump was already there; they had some resting to do before getting to it. The introduction of running boards and back steps, tail boards, later solved this problem as well.
The continuing development in fire-fighting technologies and equipment made life a lot harder for the horses. The increase in weight of the fire engine slowly turned the horses as ineffective as the people were before them. Often, after half a mile or so, the travel speed would decrease dramatically. This called for a new means of propelling the engines.
Enter the self-propelled fire equipment. The first self-propelled, steam powered fire engine in the US came to be in 1841 and it was built in New York. Strangely enough, it didn't catch on. Firefighters considered such a propulsion solution dangerous and unreliable. It took decades before the steam powered fire engines really caught on.
However, the reign of the steam didn't last long. Despite the fact that steam powered fire engines were still in use, here and there, up until the 1920’s, motorized fire trucks became more and more common by the early 1900’s. Horse-drawn or steam powered engines started being turned into motorized fire engines. By 1913, Ahrens-Fox Manufacturing Company from Cincinnati was the leading company when it came to the conversion. From 1911, Mack Trucks began producing fire trucks, slowly becoming the most famous manufacturer in this field.
Many take the motorized fire equipment we use today for granted. Yes it is big and shiny and very impressive, BUT, when was the first motorized fire engine used and where was it used? What was the first fire department in California to become motorized?
I could ask that you trust to memory, but I know many will go to their computer for help. Good luck.
Copyright© 2010. California Conference of Arson Investigators. SiteAdmin. Web Design by Todd Lando