On 6/23/2017 11:34 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/06/2017 22:48, Andrew wrote:
On 21/06/2017 10:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Te problem is inflammable decorative cladding applied over the
(fireproof) insulation
The insulation is not fireproof, it is fire resistant, but
even the technical notes say once the temperature exceeds
a certain value, then even the fire-resistant nature of
this type of celotex will be overwhelmed.
It will contribute to the available fuel load if there is enough hot
flame played on it
No, it wont.
That's the difference between combustion and thermal degradation.
It takes up oxygen and it decomposes but it does not add to the fire
thermally.
If it is decomposing and oxidising it produces heat at a rate that is
determined by the mass loss per unit time and how completely it is
oxidised. That adds to the fuel load if there is already something else
providing the flame to decompose it and/or a draft.
According to latest reports the insulation burnt better than the
exterior cladding if the Grauniad report is to be believed.
Instinctively I found that surprising, but I guess the howling gale up
the chimney makes a lot of difference
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ughter-charges
but it doesn't continue to burn on its own. It may well have been in
a strong updraft of hot air too which will make the surface char burn
away hotter and quicker. There was plenty of unburnt surface charred
Celotex on the building and on the ground afterwards.
Exactly. It chars, it may give off noxious fumes although the
temperature to char it is enough to break down most cyanide type
products easily.
The cyanide risk is being overplayed. I'd be more worried by the hot
soot and carbon monoxide in the smoke.
+1
The toxic smoke is moire indicative of other plastics found inside the
flats.
Incomplete combustion is more likely internally and soft furnishings can
produce some seriously noxious smoke when they finally burn.