Wonder what they use? They say "fire suppressant" but they don't say what it is, can't be Halon anymore, maybe just CO2? But that would inflame the Greenies who think CO2 is destroying the planet.[/quotehttp://www.iflss.net/Guardian%20300-B%20Specs.pdf
Potassium carbonate based
Some cities are requiring them in apartment unitsWell, that's an expensive way to replace a wet towel. I wonder if people that buy that really know what they're in for when it detonates.
Brent.
Under what code or justification?Some cities are requiring them in apartment units
People with kidney disease can not take any potassium in their diets, it gets from the alimentary tract into the blood stream and is filtered through the kidneys. I have no idea if potassium inhaled gets into the kidneys. Sounds like it might be worth the risk if homes with it installed could eliminate the water sprinkler requirement.Wonder what they use? They say "fire suppressant" but they don't say what it is, can't be Halon anymore, maybe just CO2? But that would inflame the Greenies who think CO2 is destroying the planet.[/quotehttp://www.iflss.net/Guardian%20300-B%20Specs.pdf
Potassium carbonate based
Why would it need to be chemical based' date=' why not detergent based? Soap[/quote']To clean......LOL
I don't think that's the case at all. They maybe required by the municipal ordinances and rule, but I doubt they extend beyond their intent which appears to be range top suppression. Can't see it having any effect on true sprinkler requirements.People with kidney disease can not take any potassium in their diets, it gets from the alimentary tract into the blood stream and is filtered through the kidneys. I have no idea if potassium inhaled gets into the kidneys. Sounds like it might be worth the risk if homes with it installed could eliminate the water sprinkler requirement.
Since home fires and deaths are way down, and the vast majority of home fires start in cooking, my thinking is that this system could eliminate the sprinkler requirement. The leading causes of death are heart related, cancer, and medical malpractice with up to 440,000 per year, the last I saw home fires were under 2,000 per year, the money spent on fire sprinklers could be better spent on better medical training. If these stove top suppression systems could cut the home fire deaths in half that would leave less than a 1,000 deaths per year from home fires, negligible compared to medical malpractice.I don't think that's the case at all. They maybe required by the municipal ordinances and rule, but I doubt they extend beyond their intent which appears to be range top suppression. Can't see it having any effect on true sprinkler requirements.
it is certainly the leading cause of fires with the time frame for most fires being in the 5-6pm range based on NFPA studies, but this is also when the least number of deaths occur. Most deaths occur at 3am. So are the sprinklers to prevent fires or deaths? The problem is not in suppression and never has been. Houses are designed to burn to the ground once the occupants safely get out. This really requires proper smoke alarm systems that we see in more modern construction. The problem in recent years has been the owners not properly maintaining and in some cases crippling the alarm system. The new sealed ten year units are a big step forward though.Since home fires and deaths are way down, and the vast majority of home fires start in cooking, my thinking is that this system could eliminate the sprinkler requirement. The leading causes of death are heart related, cancer, and medical malpractice with up to 440,000 per year, the last I saw home fires were under 2,000 per year, the money spent on fire sprinklers could be better spent on better medical training. If these stove top suppression systems could cut the home fire deaths in half that would leave less than a 1,000 deaths per year from home fires, negligible compared to medical malpractice.
Won't ever happen and would be a large step in the wrong direction. New homes are built to burn, fires are burning hotter, faster and engineered wood products are failing in short times. As more new house become old and the overall housing stock transitions from tradition legacy construction to the newer lightweight you'll see a rise or resurgence in fire deaths unless we proactively provide the protection a sprinkler system brings. We should focus on bring down the cost of these life saving systems, widespread adoption of all section of any of the major code sets would bring commodity prices lower in regions and breed competition lower costs.Since home fires and deaths are way down, and the vast majority of home fires start in cooking, my thinking is that this system could eliminate the sprinkler requirement.
While sprinklers are designed to protect the occupants they are extremely effective in suppressing fires. It will be nearly impossible to get an sprinkler design to cover property protection in one and two family or residential homes where there is very little enforcement of how the dwelling unit is maintained. The issue that makes smoke alarms less effective than they could be is humans. The detectors are not fool proof and false alarms result in either removal or silencing them until it's too late. We responded to a multiple apartment building fire last Thursday where at least three occupied apartments ignored/disregarded their alarms sounding once they saw it was not an issue in their unit, only to find 15 minutes later a significant fire was raging in a first floor unit. By the time everyone realized the severity of the situation some had to escape through heavy smoke conditions. Sprinklers do not make poor decisions.it is certainly the leading cause of fires with the time frame for most fires being in the 5-6pm range based on NFPA studies, but this is also when the least number of deaths occur. Most deaths occur at 3am. So are the sprinklers to prevent fires or deaths? The problem is not in suppression and never has been. Houses are designed to burn to the ground once the occupants safely get out. This really requires proper smoke alarm systems that we see in more modern construction. The problem in recent years has been the owners not properly maintaining and in some cases crippling the alarm system. The new sealed ten year units are a big step forward though.
The problem with residential sprinklers is going to be the same thing as smoke alarms though. After only ten years of mandatory sprinklers, Vancouver found only 95% still working. The National Research Council of Canada found that the number could fall to as much as 60% over the life span of the buildings. If people can't get something as basic as smoke alarms working well; replace it every 10 years and test it at least twice a year, they aren't going to maintain a sprinkler system.While sprinklers are designed to protect the occupants they are extremely effective in suppressing fires. It will be nearly impossible to get an sprinkler design to cover property protection in one and two family or residential homes where there is very little enforcement of how the dwelling unit is maintained. The issue that makes smoke alarms less effective than they could be is humans. The detectors are not fool proof and false alarms result in either removal or silencing them until it's too late. We responded to a multiple apartment building fire last Thursday where at least three occupied apartments ignored/disregarded their alarms sounding once they saw it was not an issue in their unit, only to find 15 minutes later a significant fire was raging in a first floor unit. By the time everyone realized the severity of the situation some had to escape through heavy smoke conditions. Sprinklers do not make poor decisions.
Meant to be on fire? Damn your kitchen must be different than mine! Don't have the stats in front of me, and in all honestly, don't see the point in wasting time trying to convince those not willing to listen. I doubt you'll see the requirements go away, Slowly more places are adopting the regulations as they're in all the major code sets, the stats support their use. Sprinkler requirements are not in place to control only kitchen fires, so I don't see the kitchen only system being a viable alternative. Maybe they have potential to be whole house and cheaper?How many cooking fires resulted in injuries, death, or property damage. Just saying they are a leading cause of fires doesn't tell us much as they occur in a place pretty much meant to be on fire.Brent.
My kitchen is the same as everybody else's. Fire comes right out of the top of the stove. If not actual fire, then red hot coils the same temp as fire.Meant to be on fire? Damn your kitchen must be different than mine! Don't have the stats in front of me, and in all honestly, don't see the point in wasting time trying to convince those not willing to listen. I doubt you'll see the requirements go away, Slowly more places are adopting the regulations as they're in all the major code sets, the stats support their use. Sprinkler requirements are not in place to control only kitchen fires, so I don't see the kitchen only system being a viable alternative. Maybe they have potential to be whole house and cheaper?