Integral fire alarms in electronic goods?

In alt.firefighters Gel <barclayhomes@ukgateway.net> wrote:
Yes they do show up in UK stats, as do Tumble Driers/wsashing machines

Look here at links page~
www.smoke-alarms.co.uk
and you can get access to pdf's of Government stats on sources of
fires in home & general useful info on site too.
Click to expand...
Where would I see stats on domestic fires starting in TV sets?

You've GOT to be kidding. Smoke alarms cause too many false alarms. The
last thing we need when the wife burns the pot roast is to have to search
for three hours for the manual to our TV to learn how to turn off the smoke
alarm. -Dave
Click to expand...
What alarms do you have which can be stopped from sounding before the smoke
clears? Yes, I see you keep them within arm's reach and take out the battery?

We need to discuss thermal/ionizing/optical and/or combination alarms.

In a TV maybe I would go for thermal. So my aritcle on sci.electronics.repair
about improvising around the failing Onwa TV voltage regulator may need
caution. Is the regulator switch-off an intended function?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5uv000t9kampd3f1rh8cgt5ac2bjdm4lcr@4ax.com...
"Dave C." <spammersdie@ahorribledeath.now> wrote:

..., but I've never seen (or even heard of) a computer or
TV causing a fire on its own.
Click to expand...
In Germany we had many fires causing by TV in stand-by over night. The most
people don't use the main switch on the TV. The TV imploded and causes a
fire inside, next to the TV is often a curtain and in less then 5 minutes
there is a fire with a lot of smoke.



Wolfgang
 
Brian Sandle <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote in
news:1073800777.390638@cobalt.caverock.co.nz:

What alarms do you have which can be stopped from sounding before the
smoke clears?
Click to expand...
None of this will matter. The lawyers will never let this happen. If I
make a tv with a smoke detector in it, and there's ever a fire, I'll be
sued for every last penny because I *HAD* to know it would start a fire,
otherwise why would I put a detector in it? And if for some reason I was
forced to place detectors in them, I'd up the cost enough for the new
insurance premiums against lawsuits. Ionization Detectors are 5 bucks
and less at the hardware, can be mounted to the ceiling of the home, and
protect all appliances in it, not just one. Why reinvent the wheel? Or
is this for those po inner city folks who's landlord wont inspect their
smokes, but their new big screen tv will save the day?

john
 
In article <Di2Mb.19895$I06.144992@attbi_s01>,
William R. Walsh <newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:

question--what to do with the small amount of radioactive material it would
require to build such a circuit into a device?
Click to expand...
Unless optical methods were used for detecting smoke, which would take away
the radioactive hazard.

I recall something years back on TV about building fire detectors into
devices that would automatically dump an extinguishing agent into the set.
IIRC, that was a "fire detector", not a "smoke detector". There is a
difference ... maybe the OP was talking about detecting the rate of change
of heat or IR emissions from a fire, rather than the smoke?
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
 
Mike <mjb@posie.local.dom> wrote:
In article <Di2Mb.19895$I06.144992@attbi_s01>,
William R. Walsh <newsgroups1@idontwantjunqueemail.walshcomptech.com> wrote:

question--what to do with the small amount of radioactive material it would
require to build such a circuit into a device?

Unless optical methods were used for detecting smoke, which would take away
the radioactive hazard.

I recall something years back on TV about building fire detectors into
devices that would automatically dump an extinguishing agent into the set.
Click to expand...
On this thread, probably on alt.firefighters, that was stated in regard to
some (early?) Xerox photocopiers.

IIRC, that was a "fire detector", not a "smoke detector". There is a
difference ... maybe the OP was talking about detecting the rate of change
of heat or IR emissions from a fire, rather than the smoke?
Click to expand...
Sprinkler systems are IR detectors in that as they operate when heat melts
the fusible stop in the sprayer.

There has been something alernative to rate of change detection for smoke
detectors which signal the fire brigade to come. Before dialling the
brigade the equipment must experience coincident smoke at two detectors
for more than a few seconds. That was a system at least back around 1980
here. Would such a system with a connection between two smoke alarms allow
alarms in the house of the person who doesn't like cooking to make the
alarm sound?

But the rate of heat change seems an idea worth investigating. Is it used?


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
Brian Sandle <bsandle@shell.caverock.net.nz> wrote:

I put 2 AA NiMH cells in a torch and it wouldn't work, but I got a hot
smell. I found that when the bulb was a little loose then the batteries
were shorted. And the torch was switched on a varied in focus by a
screwing action, which would tend to loosen the bulb. Those batteries can
supply rather a high current. Anyone else noticed any potential fire
trouble from rechargeable batteries?
Click to expand...
Uh, most batteries will briefly source a pretty high current. Short a
battery with a piece of steel wool and watch the fun.

--
Joe Bramblett, KD5NRH
 
What are the thoughts about installing fire alarms in consumer electronics
goods?
Click to expand...
I think they ought to install fire alarms in *STUFF THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO START OR USE FIRE*. Like, say, matches. Cigarettes. Gas cans
(kinda tough to put the fire alarm in gasoline itself). Space
heaters. Furnaces. Water heaters. Ovens and ranges. Any gas
appliance. Candles. Christmas trees (well, you're not supposed
to use real candles in Christmas trees, but some people do anyway).
Sparklers. Rocket-propelled grenades. Bottle rockets. Flamethrowers.
Missiles. Jet engines. Explosives and ammunition.


Gordon L. Burditt
 
In alt.firefighters Gordon Burditt <gordonb.pvwv2@sneaky.lerctr.org> wrote:
What are the thoughts about installing fire alarms in consumer electronics
goods?

I think they ought to install fire alarms in *STUFF THAT IS SUPPOSED
TO START OR USE FIRE*. Like, say, matches. Cigarettes. Gas cans
(kinda tough to put the fire alarm in gasoline itself). Space
heaters. Furnaces. Water heaters. Ovens and ranges. Any gas
appliance. Candles. Christmas trees (well, you're not supposed
to use real candles in Christmas trees, but some people do anyway).
Sparklers. Rocket-propelled grenades. Bottle rockets. Flamethrowers.
Missiles. Jet engines. Explosives and ammunition.
Click to expand...
Things that happen while you are asleep:
Water leaking into house wiring I have heard of. Also more
recently what was said to be a fire caused by a TV - then secondary
explosion - possibly gas cylinder.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
 
"Gordon Burditt" <gordonb.pvwv2@sneaky.lerctr.org> wrote in message
news:bu1vdo$rrm@library2.airnews.net...
What are the thoughts about installing fire alarms in consumer
electronics
goods?
Click to expand...
Forgetting all the dispensation of mostly irrelevant knowledge on this post:

1. If it is difficult to get working smoke detectors (especially battery
powered) into the average home and maintained over its lifecycle -- now
estimated at about seven years -- then there ought to be some good ideas to
find an "involuntary" way to get the job done (like fluoridated water to
arrest tooth decay).

2. Putting a powered smoke detector with a long life rechargeable battery
(or better, a lithium ion battery with almost unlimited shelf life) into
any common consumer appliance would be *a* way to get it in the house.

3. Then one has to ask, how will the device notify anyone when it detects
smoke AND how can false alarms be prevented? This will be both a design
challenge and systems challenge because the average owner will need to both
know what it means and how to temporarily shut it off if there is no fire.
Having more than one detector activate might be the minimum requirement to
cause an alarm -- see below for how they wirelessly accomplish this.

4. Since most appliances are slated to be wireless communications capable
with the next 5-10 years, this would seem to be the way to get all devices
working within the home network to detect a range of undesirable
conditions -- heat, water, CO, extreme cold, smoke -- whatever. And
communicate with each other via BlueTooth or some other common protocol. The
detectors are cheap, the chips will be cheap, and the whole thing will just
be ancillary to controlling and monitoring all appliances on the network.

So yes, it's a good idea. Automotive engineers are adding GPS and AVL to car
so you don't have to take your laptop to navigate. So adding multiple
functions to appliances is just another step -- maybe expensive at first,
but before the next five years you average washing machine will be smarter
than today's best PDA.
 
"fire1" <fire1@gru.net> wrote:

2. Putting a powered smoke detector with a long life rechargeable battery
(or better, a lithium ion battery with almost unlimited shelf life) into
any common consumer appliance would be *a* way to get it in the house.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would. But does the cost/benefit equation work out? How about the
complexity factor?

Frankly, I doubt it. Appliances are not intended to be life-safety devices
and shouldn't pretend otherwise. Forcing the public to pay for "cheap"
built-in detectors on every appliance, plus a complex wireless network on
which they all "talk" and "agree" if a hazard exists sounds like technology
run amuck to me. No matter how inexpensive the chip, and no matter how
common wireless communications become, all this stuff still needs to be
designed and manufactured, and it will still break and require diagnosis
and repair.

On a global scale, such a grand technological scheme will vastly exceed the
cost of simpler solution such as cheap smoke/CO detectors, building codes,
and public education. Those approaches have already proven themselves
highly effective. So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.....
 
"Carey Gregory" <tiredofspam123@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ksub00hk69lqqim6fccirk5vjr8l3ptl3l@4ax.com...
"fire1" <fire1@gru.net> wrote:

2. Putting a powered smoke detector with a long life rechargeable battery
(or better, a lithium ion battery with almost unlimited shelf life) into
any common consumer appliance would be *a* way to get it in the house.

Yes, it would. But does the cost/benefit equation work out? How about
the
complexity factor?
Click to expand...
Don't know. Depends partially on cost, doesn't it? The radio on a chip that
identifies the CD at the point-of-sale cost $5 about a year ago -- today
$0.19 in quantities.

Complexity factor? 5 years ago the average consumer couldn't program a
VCR -- today they still can't, but TiVo can, and does.


Frankly, I doubt it. Appliances are not intended to be life-safety
devices
and shouldn't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...
Computers are not intended as entertainment centers -- or at least they
weren't until entertainment got digital. Pregnancy testing used to require
the sacrifice of a rabbit.

Forcing the public to pay for "cheap"
built-in detectors on every appliance, plus a complex wireless network on
which they all "talk" and "agree" if a hazard exists sounds like
technology
run amuck to me. No matter how inexpensive the chip, and no matter how
common wireless communications become, all this stuff still needs to be
designed and manufactured, and it will still break and require diagnosis
and repair.
Click to expand...
And your point?

I am already forced to pay for a V-chip in my television for which I have no
conceivable use. If I buy a car (or truck) I get a whole host of computer
chips that record every event in which the car is involved -- and there will
be many more in the future. The lawyers already subpoena downloads of the
memory from GM cars so they can see what was happening at the moment of the
accident.

Technology has already run amok. Computers can read EKG's with 95% accuracy.
If I can train a medic on a multi-million dollar patient simulator, how long
before the computer can work on an actual patient? Fire trucks and
ambulances are pretty low tech, but they require repairs all the time.
Repair (or discard) is the penalty for low inflation and cheap technology.
There are appliances already using "fuzzy logic" to wash dishes to the right
degree of cleanliness and cook food the right amount of time. Since that
"brainpower" is not in constant use, why not give it another job? I haven't
done it yet, but it does bother me that my home PC sits there all day when
I'm not home and does nothing except consume electricity.

On a global scale, such a grand technological scheme will vastly exceed
the
cost of simpler solution such as cheap smoke/CO detectors, building codes,
and public education. Those approaches have already proven themselves
highly effective.
Click to expand...
Only in new, upscale neighborhoods. Survey says 2/3 of smoke detectors
installed in the fabulous cowboy years (RR1) are inoperable or defective.
Within two years of installation in low income neighbohoods 1/2 the smoke
detectors are disabled by battery death, removal, or physical damage to the
detector. Poor folks die in residential fires, usually in old, delapidated,
non-code conforming, sub-standard housing (or mobile homes, where our
government has refused to require, or allow, the states to mandate
residential sprinklers (unit cost of $400 each or about $15 a year over the
lifecycle). Public education has its place, but it too is subject to the law
of diminishing returns.

So if it ain't broke, don't fix it.....
Click to expand...
It is broke, and yon pilgrim asked us, as a group, to tell him whether it
was feasible to fix it through more modern technology mixed with a little
stealth.. I say is, you say isn't. 'Nuff said.
 
On 13 Jan 2004 23:02:45 GMT, kd5nrh@yahoo.com wrote:

I put 2 AA NiMH cells in a torch and it wouldn't work, but I got a hot
smell. I found that when the bulb was a little loose then the batteries
were shorted. And the torch was switched on a varied in focus by a
screwing action, which would tend to loosen the bulb. Those batteries can
supply rather a high current. Anyone else noticed any potential fire
trouble from rechargeable batteries?
Click to expand...
Not a fire issue, but an exploding battery.
I was using a cheapy Skill battery operated 9V Drill.
I was trying to drill out a broken off 1/4" bolt from the leg on my
wood burner in my living room. Halfway thru the bolt (using a 1/8"
drill bit), the battery pack literally exploded. There was a very
loud bang, and a huge chunk of plastic blown out of the bottom of the
pack, the plastic shatterred and pieces flew all over the room. One
small piece of the plastic ripped a small cut in my arm, and I found
several pieces stuck in the panelling on the wall, not to mention all
over the carpet. It could have been much worse if I had my face
closer and gotten a piece in my eye.

I was not severely hurt, nor was there severe damage (except to the
battery). Skil said they would replace it, when I filed a complaint,
but I had thrown the whole drill away by then. After that incident, I
was afraid to ever use it again, and refused to use another battery
operated drill for 3 years after that. I finally got another GOOD
brand, but still wrap the batteries with duct tape for safety.
 
Carey Gregory wrote:

but I've never seen (or even heard of) a computer or
TV causing a fire on its own.
Click to expand...
In the 50's and 60's, defective flyback transformers in
TVs were a common source of fires. They'd overheat
and the dripping wax would burn. The CPSC and the
California State Electronics Association -- CSEA -- (if
it sell exists) would have data.
 
"firechief" <firechief@jjfpd.gov> wrote:

Carey Gregory wrote:

but I've never seen (or even heard of) a computer or
TV causing a fire on its own.

In the 50's and 60's, defective flyback transformers in
TVs were a common source of fires. They'd overheat
and the dripping wax would burn. The CPSC and the
California State Electronics Association -- CSEA -- (if
it sell exists) would have data.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be surprised if old vacuum tube TVs, stereos, etc. caused fires,
but I would be if anything made in the last 20 years did.
 
In article <l10f00l1adqrnotgc6ni8dg598abf5na64@4ax.com>,
<none@none.com> wrote:

operated drill for 3 years after that. I finally got another GOOD
brand, but still wrap the batteries with duct tape for safety.
Click to expand...
You have amazing faith in duct tape! :)


--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[at]pootle.demon.co.uk | http://www.pootle.demon.co.uk/
 
Hi!

Unless optical methods were used for detecting smoke, which would take
away
the radioactive hazard.
Click to expand...
Optical is far from foolproof. Perhaps radioactive detection is too, I don't
know for sure. But I've worked with some optical detectors that either would
not detect smoke reliably or false alarmed on even heavy dust in the air.

I recall something years back on TV about building fire detectors into
devices that would automatically dump an extinguishing agent into the set.
Click to expand...
Seems silly to have even thought of such a thing. I could just see where
some little thing goes wrong and suddenly instead of fixing a short, you're
fixing a short and removing nasty fire extinguishing stuff from the insides
of the set.

William
 
Hi!

How about automobiles? <g> It would cut down on smoking in the car and it
sure as heck might keep the driver from falling asleep...or at least wake
them up after the crash... :-D

William
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top