U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-25-2011, 02:39 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,446 posts, read 5,770,132 times
Reputation: 1570

Advertisements

Here is a video that proves my point:

YouTube - ‪WTHR aquarium test‬‏
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-25-2011, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
15,039 posts, read 44,830,424 times
Reputation: 21713
You must like beating dead horses.

A tv reporter puts upholstery foam and a soldering iron in an aquarium to generate smoke.

In the aquarium, he places a carbon monoxide detector and an ionization type smoke alarm and seals the lid.

The carbon monoxide detector goes off at a certain point.

The ionization detector sits on the BOTTOM in the smoke for over 20 minutes and doesn't go off.

At the END of the test, he opens the aquarium and tosses a photoelectric detector directly through the smoke, and after a brief pause it goes off.

The reporter then asks his viewers "Which one would you want, the one that didn't go off for twenty minutes or the one that went off immediately?"

He then goes on to say that ionization detectors are discouraged around kitchens because of false alarms, and then shows how a toaster can set it off.

I'm going to go through this for you v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.

1. Heat rises. Show me where ANY detector other than a propane detector is suggested to be at floor level.

2. Fire safety pamphlets comment specifically that areas close to the floor are you best chance at AVOIDING smoke and hazardous by-products of combustion.

3. In a still atmosphere, pockets of air can remain untainted for significant periods.

4. The photoelectric detector was tossed in AFTER the smoke had been fully generated, and by being tossed in, it was insured that smoke would quickly penetrate the case and set the detector off.

5. SIGNIFICANTLY - the photoelectric detector was NOT placed in at the same time as the ionization detector, nor was it in an equal environment. More on this in a minute.

6. The reporter made a bald faced lie in his comparison. He claimed the detector went off immediately. Sure, it went off immediately in an EXTREME environment. We now have to ask WHY wasn't that detector ALSO placed in the aquarium at the same time as the ionization one.

What your video displayed was exactly the junk science that our media loves. It was in no way intended to be a valid comparative test (in fact, he calls it a "dramatic" test), but a biased pseudo-scientific experiment that would promote a particular point of view. The claim of the one detector going off immediately cinches it, that the test was designed so that the reporter could say what he wanted to say for the greatest audience effect. He was in a position where he HAD to back up claims the station had made over months. Failure was not an option.

Had the photoelectric detector been placed in at the same time, and in a similar position, my bet is that the CO detector would have gone off first. In fact, I'm wondering if this was the first test, or one was made before it, where that did happen, and that video was tossed out.

As I have repeatedly said, each tool has its uses. In the rigged dramatic test, the ionization type failed. Other than making me wonder how a REAL comparative test would work out, I can see how if I have smoldering upholstery foam, I want a CO detector and maybe a photoelectric type detector.

If I am working in my shop, where there can be a lot of sawdust in the air, I DON'T want a photoelectric detector because of the false alarms.

Over the stove, I have an ionization one mounted with velcro. When I leave a covered pot simmering on the gas flame, I can leave it with assurance that the moment the water is boiled out and food begins to char, that ionization detector will sound. Since our primary possibility of fire is at the stove, the few extra seconds there is a major part of what I want in a detector. Since neither of us smoke, burning foam is an unlikely hazard for us.

Tools. Purposes. Common sense. A ban is not common sense.

I've realized over many years of usenet and internet posts that one cannot change the mind of a religious, political, sports, or eco-zealot, even if facts and reasons are placed on a platter. If you want to attempt a nationwide ban on ionization detectors, expect to see me across the table keeping you honest and working to stop the ban. At the same time, I may request a ban on bans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 06:01 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $99,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: San Antonio
15,761 posts, read 29,583,680 times
Reputation: 11549
When I was in 8th grade a couple of decades ago, I did a science fair project on the two types of smoke detectors. Even back then, ionization detectors were in the strong majority. They don't detect smoke so much as they detect the specific radiation given off by a fire.

IMO, anyone who is troubled by this can easily have BOTH types of detectors installed in their home. With both types in operation, their home will be covered with the maximum amount of protection that technology has to offer today.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 06:06 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,446 posts, read 5,770,132 times
Reputation: 1570
Quote:
Originally Posted by harry chickpea View Post
You must like beating dead horses.

A tv reporter puts upholstery foam and a soldering iron in an aquarium to generate smoke.

In the aquarium, he places a carbon monoxide detector and an ionization type smoke alarm and seals the lid.

The carbon monoxide detector goes off at a certain point.

The ionization detector sits on the BOTTOM in the smoke for over 20 minutes and doesn't go off.

At the END of the test, he opens the aquarium and tosses a photoelectric detector directly through the smoke, and after a brief pause it goes off.

The reporter then asks his viewers "Which one would you want, the one that didn't go off for twenty minutes or the one that went off immediately?"

He then goes on to say that ionization detectors are discouraged around kitchens because of false alarms, and then shows how a toaster can set it off.

I'm going to go through this for you v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y.

1. Heat rises. Show me where ANY detector other than a propane detector is suggested to be at floor level.

2. Fire safety pamphlets comment specifically that areas close to the floor are you best chance at AVOIDING smoke and hazardous by-products of combustion.

3. In a still atmosphere, pockets of air can remain untainted for significant periods.

4. The photoelectric detector was tossed in AFTER the smoke had been fully generated, and by being tossed in, it was insured that smoke would quickly penetrate the case and set the detector off.

5. SIGNIFICANTLY - the photoelectric detector was NOT placed in at the same time as the ionization detector, nor was it in an equal environment. More on this in a minute.

6. The reporter made a bald faced lie in his comparison. He claimed the detector went off immediately. Sure, it went off immediately in an EXTREME environment. We now have to ask WHY wasn't that detector ALSO placed in the aquarium at the same time as the ionization one.

What your video displayed was exactly the junk science that our media loves. It was in no way intended to be a valid comparative test (in fact, he calls it a "dramatic" test), but a biased pseudo-scientific experiment that would promote a particular point of view. The claim of the one detector going off immediately cinches it, that the test was designed so that the reporter could say what he wanted to say for the greatest audience effect. He was in a position where he HAD to back up claims the station had made over months. Failure was not an option.

Had the photoelectric detector been placed in at the same time, and in a similar position, my bet is that the CO detector would have gone off first. In fact, I'm wondering if this was the first test, or one was made before it, where that did happen, and that video was tossed out.

As I have repeatedly said, each tool has its uses. In the rigged dramatic test, the ionization type failed. Other than making me wonder how a REAL comparative test would work out, I can see how if I have smoldering upholstery foam, I want a CO detector and maybe a photoelectric type detector.

If I am working in my shop, where there can be a lot of sawdust in the air, I DON'T want a photoelectric detector because of the false alarms.

Over the stove, I have an ionization one mounted with velcro. When I leave a covered pot simmering on the gas flame, I can leave it with assurance that the moment the water is boiled out and food begins to char, that ionization detector will sound. Since our primary possibility of fire is at the stove, the few extra seconds there is a major part of what I want in a detector. Since neither of us smoke, burning foam is an unlikely hazard for us.

Tools. Purposes. Common sense. A ban is not common sense.

I've realized over many years of usenet and internet posts that one cannot change the mind of a religious, political, sports, or eco-zealot, even if facts and reasons are placed on a platter. If you want to attempt a nationwide ban on ionization detectors, expect to see me across the table keeping you honest and working to stop the ban. At the same time, I may request a ban on bans.
Okay, you have crossed the line. God knows there is nothing rigged about this test, yet you fabricate your own arguments why ionization is better. We don't need any of your BS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2011, 09:32 PM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
15,039 posts, read 44,830,424 times
Reputation: 21713
Is that the regal "We"? I really find such responses fascinating and educational. I challenge anyone to find where I did not report what the video showed. I challenge anyone to show that I did not admit that in the case of smoldering foam that a CO detector showed the issue before the ionization detector, I challenge anyone to show that the optical detector was dropped in at any time other than the last minute of the "experiment."

I really have less of an issue with whether one is better than the other under certain conditions than whether the information is factual and accurate. If I have "crossed the line" it is one that I have crossed many many times before. It is a line where I REFUSE to accept the insanities of extremists.

As for God, I leave his judgments to him (or her). Or would you "ban" God?

Last edited by harry chickpea; 05-25-2011 at 09:40 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2011, 10:23 PM
 
2 posts, read 3,522 times
Reputation: 10
Andros 1337, get in contact with me, you have a grasp of the issue while others just want to argue personal rights at the expense of lives. There are a handful of us trying to make a difference. Please get in contact ddennis1111@gmail,com.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2011, 10:26 PM
 
2 posts, read 3,522 times
Reputation: 10
Andros1337, my corrected email is [email]ddennis1111@gmail.com[/email]

I give power point presentations on this topic. I'm guessing that we may know each other and you might be from Barre, Vt., where the ultimate tragedy occurred.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-29-2011, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Not where you ever lived
11,544 posts, read 22,731,416 times
Reputation: 6067
Default Here is another perspective

My state requires a smoke and a radon detector to be installed within 8" of a bedroom. Invariably they are mounted on a wall above a doorway. I had a discussion with a state level fire chief. His opinion was shocking.

Heat rises; so does smoke. A heat detector and a smoke detector should be placed close to the floor where it will do the most good and there is a better survial rate because the warning is sooner rather than later.

He had no opinion on smoke detectors. He says the best is the one that saves lives.

Its an interesting discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2012, 10:20 PM
 
1 posts, read 1,504 times
Reputation: 10
Hi Guys

Interesting debate. However, please check out the latest facts. Underwriters Laboratories (UL) was sued in December, 2011 alleged fraudulent testing of ionization smoke alarms. Here in Australia our Standards organisation (equivalent of UL), has acknowledged our testing of ionization alarms, since the Standard was written in 1993, is flawed.

Consider is this:
"Given the increasing awareness of the fact that,
"ionization smoke alarms may NOT operate in time to alert occupants early enough to escape from smouldering fires",
do you think the public has a right to be warned about the ionization alarms in almost every American home?"

For the record, the above quote is the official position of the IAFF and the AFAC. For more information visit The World Fire Safety Foundation's website:
[url=http://www.TheWorldFireSafetyFoundation.org/positions]positions[/url]

Also, one of the two main people behind Vermont's mandatory photoelectric-only legislation is coming to Australia in a three months to help launch the WFSF's Smoke Alarm TV campaign:
[url=http://www.TheWorldFireSafetyFoundation.org/ashetour]ashetour[/url]

Please check these links out.

Thank you.

Adrian Butler
Chairman, Former Fire Fighter
The World Fire Safety Foundation
NSW, Australia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2012, 10:37 AM
 
Location: Somewhere in northern Alabama
15,039 posts, read 44,830,424 times
Reputation: 21713
There was another thread on this subject, where a combination detector was shown that provided the benefits of both types of detection without the false alarms. If the subject interests you or you are concerned, do the legwork to find that thread as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $99,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top