Need for new sophisticated technology of detection ?

[Benzerari]

Guys;

The spray of solo issue lets me think about the need to look for more reliable technologies of detections, in regards more to optical and ionization technologies.

Both technologies are based on counting the percentage of obscuration in some how or in two different manners, any sort of particles infiltrated in to the outer chamber can cause the variation in current or voltage to reach the threshold triggering level, and thus alarm condition takes place…

This means then, the detector itself does not distinguish between particles of C, CO and CO2 normally generated from a genuine fire, and other sort of particles, generated from solo tester and so on…

Why not the technology of detection shouldn’t be based on detecting the molecules of C, CO and CO2 or their spectrums …. Rather then detecting the percentage of obscurations resulted from infiltrations of any sort of particles?

The actual detector seems to be working just like the lift monitoring system, if it detects any equivalent weight of 16 persons or above, it generates an over weight warning signal, it doesn’t care about what sort of weight: humans, goods, animals… I think the fire detector has to be more sophisticated and clever then just a lift monitoring system …

Sorry Guys, if I am late to think about that, it may has been though about by others, but I do not know why things are not going that way then?

Thank you

[Allen Higginson]

Guys;

The spray of solo issue lets me think about the need to look for more reliable technologies of detections, in regards more to optical and ionization technologies.

Both technologies are based on counting the percentage of obscuration in some how or in two different manners, any sort of particles infiltrated in to the outer chamber can cause the variation in current or voltage to reach the threshold triggering level, and thus alarm condition takes place…

This means then, the detector itself does not distinguish between particles of C, CO and CO2 normally generated from a genuine fire, and other sort of particles, generated from solo tester and so on…

Why not the technology of detection shouldn’t be based on detecting the molecules of C, CO and CO2 or their spectrums …. Rather then detecting the percentage of obscurations resulted from infiltrations of any sort of particles?

The actual detector seems to be working just like the lift monitoring system, if it detects any equivalent weight of 16 persons or above, it generates an over weight warning signal, it doesn’t care about what sort of weight: humans, goods, animals… I think the fire detector has to be more sophisticated and clever then just a lift monitoring system …

Sorry Guys, if I am late to think about that, it may has been though about by others, but I do not know why things are not going that way then?

Thank you

Well,in fairness,smoke detector technology has gone beyond being,what was in effect,an automatic switch whenever a particular fixed state was reached.With the use of algorythmns and taking into account other factors (temperature of smoke and normal enviromental conditions in which they are installed)  they can be used in areas now which would have been unthinkable before.We have installed ours in welding bays and in kitchens where deep fat fryers are in operation.

[Benzerari]

Guys;

The spray of solo issue lets me think about the need to look for more reliable technologies of detections, in regards more to optical and ionization technologies.

Both technologies are based on counting the percentage of obscuration in some how or in two different manners, any sort of particles infiltrated in to the outer chamber can cause the variation in current or voltage to reach the threshold triggering level, and thus alarm condition takes place…

This means then, the detector itself does not distinguish between particles of C, CO and CO2 normally generated from a genuine fire, and other sort of particles, generated from solo tester and so on…

Why not the technology of detection shouldn’t be based on detecting the molecules of C, CO and CO2 or their spectrums …. Rather then detecting the percentage of obscurations resulted from infiltrations of any sort of particles?

The actual detector seems to be working just like the lift monitoring system, if it detects any equivalent weight of 16 persons or above, it generates an over weight warning signal, it doesn’t care about what sort of weight: humans, goods, animals… I think the fire detector has to be more sophisticated and clever then just a lift monitoring system …

Sorry Guys, if I am late to think about that, it may has been though about by others, but I do not know why things are not going that way then?

Thank you

Well,in fairness,smoke detector technology has gone beyond being,what was in effect,an automatic switch whenever a particular fixed state was reached.With the use of algorythmns and taking into account other factors (temperature of smoke and normal enviromental conditions in which they are installed)  they can be used in areas now which would have been unthinkable before.We have installed ours in welding bays and in kitchens where deep fat fryers are in operation.

In my understanding, Algorithms come at the second stage for improvement, after applying the right technology, the algorithm are more about sensitivities and quantities of many parameters and factors...

More then 10 years ago I used to work for American Oil Company, and we used to test pipe's joint with a special tester called 'Mass-Spectrometer' which detects the helium Gas. Helium Gas found to be that days very thin Gas and so efficient in detecting the leak, which can confirm the joint is perfectly done with no damage to the threads and so on...

However, the same technology can be applied to detect C, CO, and CO2 and so on ... and the algorithms part, can just improve the cleverness of the system in terms of  quantities of each Gas detected, including other parameters like temperature and so on... to set different warning levels… But the only thing is that 'Mass spectrometer system' used to be very expensive tool that days.

Yeah; cost effective is the bottom of the line ... what's a shame! :/

[Allen Higginson]

You have it in one - cost dictates the end result.
The first smoke detectors where...well,read it yourself!!

The ionization chamber smoke detector was invented in the early 1940s in Switzerland , and introduced into the U.S. in 1951.

While American inventors upgraded burglary protection, Europeans improved the art of fire detection with the ionization smoke detector. The technology was invented in Nazi Germany to protect munitions plants in the late 1930s. Thereafter, Swiss scientists working for the firm Cerberus refined the German model. In the mid-1950s, Cerberus (now owned by Siemens) began marketing smoke detectors in America through the company Pyrene, which was owned by Baker Industries.
We like to claim this bit of history (well,without mentioning the actual initial reason for the invention!!!!).

Maybe a combined CO/Optical should be the next step as there have been studies to show that CO detection alone is not sufficient as a smoke detector.

[Benzerari]

You have it in one - cost dictates the end result.
The first smoke detectors where...well,read it yourself!!

The ionization chamber smoke detector was invented in the early 1940s in Switzerland , and introduced into the U.S. in 1951.

While American inventors upgraded burglary protection, Europeans improved the art of fire detection with the ionization smoke detector. The technology was invented in Nazi Germany to protect munitions plants in the late 1930s. Thereafter, Swiss scientists working for the firm Cerberus refined the German model. In the mid-1950s, Cerberus (now owned by Siemens) began marketing smoke detectors in America through the company Pyrene, which was owned by Baker Industries.
We like to claim this bit of history (well,without mentioning the actual initial reason for the invention!!!!).

Maybe a combined CO/Optical should be the next step as there have been studies to show that CO detection alone is not sufficient as a smoke detector.

Thank you for this 'Brief History' Buzz, The Mass Spectrometer is a German Design and it was so efficient, it is NOT American any way. But by the way the studing showing that CO detector on its own is not efficient, I need the reference for this claim please, if you don't mind?

CO are nearly 50% of the Gas produced by any sort of fires according to 'V. Babrauskas'

Ref:  (  The generation of CO in bench-scale fire tests and the prediction for real-scale fires, Fire and Materials, Volume 19, Issue 5, p: 205-213, September/October 1995. V. Babrauskas, Flam length under ceilings, fire and material, volume 4 no, 1990.  )

Also I agree inventions started in Europe before America and Before that else where..., technology does not belong to any nation, all nations are just colaborators, every one has his turn, to try to do his bit.

With all my respect to 'Siemens' and others obviously

[Allen Higginson]

You have it in one - cost dictates the end result.
The first smoke detectors where...well,read it yourself!!

The ionization chamber smoke detector was invented in the early 1940s in Switzerland , and introduced into the U.S. in 1951.

While American inventors upgraded burglary protection, Europeans improved the art of fire detection with the ionization smoke detector. The technology was invented in Nazi Germany to protect munitions plants in the late 1930s. Thereafter, Swiss scientists working for the firm Cerberus refined the German model. In the mid-1950s, Cerberus (now owned by Siemens) began marketing smoke detectors in America through the company Pyrene, which was owned by Baker Industries.
We like to claim this bit of history (well,without mentioning the actual initial reason for the invention!!!!).

Maybe a combined CO/Optical should be the next step as there have been studies to show that CO detection alone is not sufficient as a smoke detector.

The Mass Spectrometer is a German Design and it was so efficient, it is not American anay way, by the way the studing showing that CO detector on its own is not efficient, I need the reference for this claim please.

CO are nearly 50% of the Gas produced by any sort of fires according to 'V. Babrauskas'

(  The generation of CO in bench-scale fire tests and the prediction for real-scale fires, Fire and Materials, Volume 19, Issue 5, p: 205-213, September/October 1995. V. Babrauskas, Flam length under ceilings, fire and material, volume 4 no, 1990.  )

I need your ref please to confirm

I'll see where I've saved it - here's an item from Apollo but I have something a bit more technical somewhere!

http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/editpics/277-1.pdf

[Benzerari]

You have it in one - cost dictates the end result.
The first smoke detectors where...well,read it yourself!!

The ionization chamber smoke detector was invented in the early 1940s in Switzerland , and introduced into the U.S. in 1951.

While American inventors upgraded burglary protection, Europeans improved the art of fire detection with the ionization smoke detector. The technology was invented in Nazi Germany to protect munitions plants in the late 1930s. Thereafter, Swiss scientists working for the firm Cerberus refined the German model. In the mid-1950s, Cerberus (now owned by Siemens) began marketing smoke detectors in America through the company Pyrene, which was owned by Baker Industries.
We like to claim this bit of history (well,without mentioning the actual initial reason for the invention!!!!).

Maybe a combined CO/Optical should be the next step as there have been studies to show that CO detection alone is not sufficient as a smoke detector.

The Mass Spectrometer is a German Design and it was so efficient, it is not American anay way, by the way the studing showing that CO detector on its own is not efficient, I need the reference for this claim please.

CO are nearly 50% of the Gas produced by any sort of fires according to 'V. Babrauskas'

(  The generation of CO in bench-scale fire tests and the prediction for real-scale fires, Fire and Materials, Volume 19, Issue 5, p: 205-213, September/October 1995. V. Babrauskas, Flam length under ceilings, fire and material, volume 4 no, 1990.  )

I need your ref please to confirm

I'll see where I've saved it - here's an item from Apollo but I have something a bit more technical somewhere!

http://www.apollo-fire.co.uk/editpics/277-1.pdf

Thanks for this link, Please send me the one more technical and any thing related to this issue.

[Allen Higginson]

Below are the nasty gases given of from fire depending on the source so there's a lot more going on than just CO.

Carbon monoxide & Carbon dioxide  - All combustibles containing carbon.
Nitrogen dioxide - Cellulose, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile.
Hydrogen chloride - Chlorinated polymers, e.g. polyvinylchloride;
Hydrogen cyanide - wool, silk, nylons, polyurethanes, N-containing plastics.
Aldehydes - wool, cotton, paper, plasters, phenol-formaldehyde, wood, nylon, polyester resin.
Benzene - petroleum, plastics, polystyrene.
Ammonia - melamine, nylon, urea-formaldehyde; Sulphur dioxide - rubber, thiokols; Phenol - phenol-formaldehyde.
Acrolein  - wood, paper

I have used gas detection in situations other than fire (methane in cable entry pits) and the equipment is (a) expensive and (b) delicate!

[Benzerari]

Below are the nasty gases given of from fire depending on the source so there's a lot more going on than just CO.

Carbon monoxide & Carbon dioxide  - All combustibles containing carbon.
Nitrogen dioxide - Cellulose, polyurethanes, acrylonitrile.
Hydrogen chloride - Chlorinated polymers, e.g. polyvinylchloride;
Hydrogen cyanide - wool, silk, nylons, polyurethanes, N-containing plastics.
Aldehydes - wool, cotton, paper, plasters, phenol-formaldehyde, wood, nylon, polyester resin.
Benzene - petroleum, plastics, polystyrene.
Ammonia - melamine, nylon, urea-formaldehyde; Sulphur dioxide - rubber, thiokols; Phenol - phenol-formaldehyde.
Acrolein  - wood, paper !

Thanks for these infos buzz