In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You can have fire doors which are held open by a electromagnet for a
pre-determined time to allow getting things like large objects
through. And close automatically in event of a fire alarm. All sorts
of ways round it.

All of which can be defeated by a simple wooden wedge

Then you educate the tenants to remove any they come across. Hardly rocket
science.

We had those in the laboratory where I worked with each section having
its own independent fire escape when locked down. I don't recall us ever
having a fire when I was there. Implosions and big bangs but no fires.

Fire alarm tests were fun since on the longest corridor it looked like
the title sequence from "Get Smart" as the fire doors each slammed shut.

--
*Some days you're the dog, some days the hydrant.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in the flat which is of interest since these will always happen,
sadly. But why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so
many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem that things like fire doors would not have helped ....

So just how did the escape staircase get filled with smoke so quickly?

--
*Xerox and Wurlitzer will merge to market reproductive organs.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/06/2017 22:31, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artículo , Martin Brown '''newspam''
escribió:

Raynobond PE has after all on paper got a UK "Class 0" fire rating.

I wonder if that's like "RAID 0" in computing, where RAID0 confers no
redundancy or protection against failure at all, in fact quite the
opposite


I guess so in the sense that it isn't actually against the law to use it
but it offers no protection whatsoever.

I don't see why they are so surprised that contractors will use the
cheapest nastiest product they think they can legally get away with. It
will be very interesting to see if they can make any prosecutions stick.
(I somehow doubt it)

The one thing it might be possible to have them for are the vertical
triangular chimneys that appeared to have been made on the fins of the
building (but only if inspection of the remaining parts can demonstrate
that they had no fire stops in them). The outer cladding was so very
flammable that no realistic fire stop could have stopped it spreading.

Police have just announced they intend to try for manslaughter charges
after both the cladding and the insulation allegedly failed fire tests
with the insulation being the more flammable if the Grauniad is to be
believed. BBC breaking news hasn't caught up yet.

oh yes they have. Second line of lead story on the BBCNews page

Interesting bit on the R4 1300 news is that the insulation is now being
blamed too. Not just that it wasn't protected by the cladding. And was
named on the BBC much earlier as being Celotex. It that available in
different degrees of fire resistance too?

Hope 'they' don't think it is a generic term for insulation - could cost
them a great deal of money if Celotex sue.

--
*Corduroy pillows are making headlines.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 00:25:31 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
The refrigerant used could well be R600a. In the right circumstances
R600a + mains electricity + 21% oxygen = bang + flames + degradation of
blown foam insulation + melting of thermoplastic lining of fridge =
fumes + whole kitchen being taken out. Think you have extinguished the
flames, open window, whole block of flats sets alight, approaching 100
dead.

Ah - all the fault of the fridge then? That will be a relief to whoever
specified/fitted the cladding.

Who said anything about blaming the fridge?

You've not heard the news? Named as being Hotpoint, and as never had a
safety re-call, and the government wanting it investigated. Lots of arse
covering going on.

But someone specified cladding that met BS476 class O, someone purchased
cladding that met BS476 class O, someone fabricated and formed cladding
that met BS476 class O and someone affixed cladding that met BS476 class
O.

If only they had specified the cladding to EN 13501-1 rather than BS476.

Shouldn't there be clear and unambiguous regulations about what sort of
cladding (fire resistant wise) that is allowed on a building like this?

Not left to 'someone' to decide?

--
*We are born naked, wet, and hungry. Then things get worse.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , at 12:39:36 on Fri, 23 Jun
2017, The Natural Philosopher remarked:
But someone specified cladding that met BS476 class O, someone purchased
cladding that met BS476 class O, someone fabricated and formed cladding that met
BS476 class O and someone affixed cladding that met BS476 class O.

Er no. Last I heard they didn't purchase, supply or fix cladding that
had been specified.

But that's what inquiries are for...

Today's breaking news is that the insulation layer is implicated too.

Fridge Freezer was Hotpoint (if only they'd stuck to making tumble
driers).
--
Roland Perry

On 23/06/2017 14:51, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
charles wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/06/2017 22:31, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Martin Brown '''newspam''
escribió:

Raynobond PE has after all on paper got a UK "Class 0" fire rating.

I wonder if that's like "RAID 0" in computing, where RAID0 confers no
redundancy or protection against failure at all, in fact quite the
opposite


I guess so in the sense that it isn't actually against the law to use it
but it offers no protection whatsoever.

I don't see why they are so surprised that contractors will use the
cheapest nastiest product they think they can legally get away with. It
will be very interesting to see if they can make any prosecutions stick.
(I somehow doubt it)

The one thing it might be possible to have them for are the vertical
triangular chimneys that appeared to have been made on the fins of the
building (but only if inspection of the remaining parts can demonstrate
that they had no fire stops in them). The outer cladding was so very
flammable that no realistic fire stop could have stopped it spreading.

Police have just announced they intend to try for manslaughter charges
after both the cladding and the insulation allegedly failed fire tests
with the insulation being the more flammable if the Grauniad is to be
believed. BBC breaking news hasn't caught up yet.

oh yes they have. Second line of lead story on the BBCNews page

Interesting bit on the R4 1300 news is that the insulation is now being
blamed too. Not just that it wasn't protected by the cladding. And was
named on the BBC much earlier as being Celotex. It that available in
different degrees of fire resistance too?

Yes. Although the Celotex used on Grenfell apparently wasn't FR grade.

I'm surprised that basic Celotex fire tested as badly as they claim.

Hope 'they' don't think it is a generic term for insulation - could cost
them a great deal of money if Celotex sue.

Celotex agree that they sold their Celotex insulation slab type RS5000
for Grenfell (about the cheapest they do) - see their website:

https://www.celotex.co.uk/#

Had it been FR5000 the outcome might possibly have been different but we
will have to wait for someone to make a mock up and test it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there any apart
from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my knowledge burning
Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.


The FR5000 version is closer to your ideal but even then I expect it
still gives out some heat but is harder to get alight to start with.

BBC now agrees with Gruniad that the insulation burnt more fiercely than
the outer cladding (like you I find this surprising if it is Celotex).

The BBC is reporting the same source so they would agree.


"Preliminary tests on the samples of insulation showed it burned soon
after the test started, and more quickly than the cladding tiles.
However, they both failed the police's safety tests - which are similar
to those being carried out by the UK government"

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-40380584

mass loss has nothing to do with heat.

It does when you are burning a block of organic fuel in air.

Not everything that gets burnt is fuel.


As can be shown by burning say iron. It gains mass, but is exothermic.

But iron doesn't have gaseous products of combustion.

Thermic lances aren't going to work too well if they don't produce hot gas.

You are being
deliberately perverse to try an win this argument by sophistry.

That's probably true of everything TNP.


Your scientific understanding appears stuck in the age of phlogiston...

Very funny!

On 23/06/2017 12:40, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:30, Martin Brown wrote:
On 22/06/2017 22:31, Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Martin Brown '''newspam''
escribió:

Raynobond PE has after all on paper got a UK "Class 0" fire rating.

I wonder if that's like "RAID 0" in computing, where RAID0 confers no
redundancy or protection against failure at all, in fact quite the
opposite


I guess so in the sense that it isn't actually against the law to use
it but it offers no protection whatsoever.

I don't see why they are so surprised that contractors will use the
cheapest nastiest product they think they can legally get away with.
It will be very interesting to see if they can make any prosecutions
stick.
(I somehow doubt it)

The one thing it might be possible to have them for are the vertical
triangular chimneys that appeared to have been made on the fins of the
building (but only if inspection of the remaining parts can
demonstrate that they had no fire stops in them). The outer cladding
was so very flammable that no realistic fire stop could have stopped
it spreading.

Police have just announced they intend to try for manslaughter charges
after both the cladding and the insulation allegedly failed fire tests
with the insulation being the more flammable if the Grauniad is to be
believed. BBC breaking news hasn't caught up yet.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...ughter-charges


Perhaps we come back to the possibility that the insulation installed
was not actually what was specified. More tests are needed...

I find it hard to believe that Celotex burned so easily (although
originally I thought the stuff shown looked more like rigid PU).

Of course. The guardian is as usual wrong



The TNP is as usual wrong.
Celotex rs5000 is not fire resistant and does burn on its own let alone
in combination with other fuel.

On 23/06/2017 14:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If only they had specified the cladding to EN 13501-1 rather than BS476.

Shouldn't there be clear and unambiguous regulations about what sort of
cladding (fire resistant wise) that is allowed on a building like this?

Not left to 'someone' to decide?


Which someone decides on the regulations?

AIUI the building regs do actually say combustible cladding should not
be used on high rise buildings.

I don't think there is any doubt that it was combustible or that it was
high rise.


As the UK government appears to be unable to make a regulation to stop
this happening maybe the EU can? While they are at it fire retardant is
not adequate and it should be non-combustible.

On 23/06/2017 14:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You can have fire doors which are held open by a electromagnet for a
pre-determined time to allow getting things like large objects
through. And close automatically in event of a fire alarm. All sorts
of ways round it.

All of which can be defeated by a simple wooden wedge

Then you educate the tenants to remove any they come across. Hardly rocket
science.

So big beefy, half drunk or worse tenant puts a wedge in the door and
you expect the OAP living next door to take it out.
You have never lived in social housing have you dave?
Have you even been in a block of council flats?

It appears you are as far removed from "real" people as the Tories you
claim are.

Do you want to offer any evidence that you aren't?

On 23/06/2017 09:05, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 00:36:00 on Fri, 23 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

Since every flat had a self-closing fire door, how did all that
smoke get into the central stairwell anyway ?

The question still is - how did so much smoke find its way into the
stairs so quickly?

Various reasons related to fire doors not working as designed.

The doors are wedged open the closers are removed the doors are removed the
checks are removed or intumescent strips are removed ....



Somebody has dumped a three piece against it (seen that).
Someone has dumped old paint cans next to it on the stair side (seen that).
Someone has stored a motorcycle in the stairwell (seen that too).
Dave has never been in a block of flats, yet!
Maybe he should volunteer as a fire warden to see what happens.

On 6/23/2017 3:36 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there any
apart from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my knowledge
burning Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.

Are you *sure* about that? It certainly has excellent fire retardant
properties, but my recollection is that this is because halogen
free-radicals are for some reason are very good at suppressing flames.
This is the reason the old Halon type fire extinguishers were so effective.

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.

On 23/06/2017 11:27, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Not only the flats, but the stairwell should have fire doors to the
corridors too. So two ways the smoke should have been stopped getting
from the flat to the stairs.

and if you have to pass the kitchen door escaping from a bedroom the
kitchen would require an SCFD as well ........

Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the fire in
the flat which is of interest since these will always happen, sadly. But
why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real problem
that things like fire doors would not have helped ....



That's not really true, they should have saved everyone.
The central core should have been safe for at least a hour.
The fire service should have been able to get everyone out through it.
The external fire should have had no effect on the central core, or any
fire in a flat.

The inquiry will have to find out why it didn't work and its not the
external cladding burning that caused it. People said they couldn't see
or breath shortly after the fire started not an hour later.

On 6/22/2017 10:55 PM, Andrew wrote:
On 22/06/2017 14:00, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:48:17 on Thu, 22 Jun
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:

I've no experience of building a tower block, but do know when doing
some
major works on this house, the BI insisted in seeing some aspects of
things (like RSJ pads) before they were plastered over.

Exactly the same here, when I had an RSJ put in. They want sufficient
engineering bricks on top of the breeze block pillars.

If the pillars are built using 7N+ blocks then there should
be no need to use engineering bricks.

Breeze blocks are only commonly used in Ireland now.

In mainland UK, blocks are more likely to be medium
or lightweight 'celcon' -style blocks. These need
to have suitable padstones.

A column made of old-style concrete 'breeze' blocks
will be strong enough not to need padstones.

+1

A wise BI will also want to check for sufficient overlap!

On Fri, 23 Jun 2017 12:39:36 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/06/17 12:32, The Other Mike wrote:
But someone specified cladding that met BS476 class O, someone purchased
cladding that met BS476 class O, someone fabricated and formed cladding that met
BS476 class O and someone affixed cladding that met BS476 class O.

Er no. Last I heard they didn't purchase, supply or fix cladding that
had been specified.

One council other than Kensington & Co have said that (Camden?)

But that's what inquiries are for...

Indeed, but given the previous statements from the entire supply chain about
what material has been purchased, what the fabricators say has been fabricated
and pre-formed, and what the facade fitters have affixed then the BBA
certificate and the manufacturers declaration of comformance are very revealing:
http://www.bbacerts.co.uk/Certificat.../4510PS1i1.pdf

https://www.arconic.com/aap/europe/p...age_042014.pdf

--

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in the flat which is of interest since these will always happen,
sadly. But why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so
many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem that things like fire doors would not have helped ....

So just how did the escape staircase get filled with smoke so quickly?

almost every flat on every floor on fire.... no surprise .....

"dennis@home" wrote in message
eb.com...
On 23/06/2017 11:27, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Not only the flats, but the stairwell should have fire doors to the
corridors too. So two ways the smoke should have been stopped getting
from the flat to the stairs.

and if you have to pass the kitchen door escaping from a bedroom the
kitchen would require an SCFD as well ........

Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the fire
in
the flat which is of interest since these will always happen, sadly. But
why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem
that things like fire doors would not have helped ....



That's not really true, they should have saved everyone.
The central core should have been safe for at least a hour.
The fire service should have been able to get everyone out through it.
The external fire should have had no effect on the central core, or any
fire in a flat.

The inquiry will have to find out why it didn't work and its not the
external cladding burning that caused it. People said they couldn't see or
breath shortly after the fire started not an hour later.


in theory but nothing could have withstood that fire ......one hour FR in
alb conditions yes but there...no

En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The stairwell and lift shaft are at the core of the building, with flats
surrounding it ...

Um, yes.

Insufficient caffeine.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 14:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You can have fire doors which are held open by a electromagnet for a
pre-determined time to allow getting things like large objects
through. And close automatically in event of a fire alarm. All sorts
of ways round it.

All of which can be defeated by a simple wooden wedge

Then you educate the tenants to remove any they come across. Hardly
rocket science.

So big beefy, half drunk or worse tenant puts a wedge in the door and
you expect the OAP living next door to take it out.

Or the OAP puts that wedge there? And why would a drunk (or worse) go to
the bother of making a wedge and using it?

But yes. I certainly would. And explain why to that drunk when he was
sober.

You have never lived in social housing have you dave?
Have you even been in a block of council flats?

Didn't realise you were such a wimp, dennis. And unable to reason with
people because you're scared of them all.

It appears you are as far removed from "real" people as the Tories you
claim are.

Do you want to offer any evidence that you aren't?

I'd really suggest you go to a few council estates and see for yourself.
Your idea that they are all filled with misfits is as far from reality as
you.

--
*The first rule of holes: If you are in one, stop digging!

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
Somebody has dumped a three piece against it (seen that).

Hope you did something about it then? No?

Someone has dumped old paint cans next to it on the stair side (seen that).

Hope you took them to the bins then. No?

Someone has stored a motorcycle in the stairwell (seen that too).

Keeping any petrol containing vehicle indoors is something I hope you did
something about there and then.

Dave has never been in a block of flats, yet!
Maybe he should volunteer as a fire warden to see what happens.

Just why were you in all these council flats, dennis? Did you live there?
If so why put up with such things?

--
*How does Moses make his tea? Hebrews it.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in the flat which is of interest since these will always happen,
sadly. But why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so
many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem that things like fire doors would not have helped ....

So just how did the escape staircase get filled with smoke so quickly?

almost every flat on every floor on fire.... no surprise .....

People were phoning - crying out for help. Because there was so much smoke
they couldn't leave their flat - which wasn't on fire at that time.

Don't you watch any of the news reports?

--
*Never miss a good chance to shut up *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/06/2017 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 11:27, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Not only the flats, but the stairwell should have fire doors to the
corridors too. So two ways the smoke should have been stopped getting
from the flat to the stairs.

and if you have to pass the kitchen door escaping from a bedroom the
kitchen would require an SCFD as well ........

Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in
the flat which is of interest since these will always happen, sadly. But
why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem
that things like fire doors would not have helped ....



That's not really true, they should have saved everyone.
The central core should have been safe for at least a hour.
The fire service should have been able to get everyone out through it.
The external fire should have had no effect on the central core, or any
fire in a flat.

The inquiry will have to find out why it didn't work and its not the
external cladding burning that caused it. People said they couldn't see
or breath shortly after the fire started not an hour later.


think we will find that all the flats on fire was the result of the
internal gas pipes not the cladding.

"Mike Tomlinson" wrote in message
...
En el artículo , Andy Burns
escribió:

The stairwell and lift shaft are at the core of the building, with flats
surrounding it ...

Um, yes.

Insufficient caffeine.

no...just stupidity ....

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in the flat which is of interest since these will always
happen,
sadly. But why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so
many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem that things like fire doors would not have helped ....

So just how did the escape staircase get filled with smoke so quickly?

almost every flat on every floor on fire.... no surprise .....

People were phoning - crying out for help. Because there was so much smoke
they couldn't leave their flat - which wasn't on fire at that time.

Don't you watch any of the news reports?

are they as wild as the theories on here .....?

On 23/06/2017 17:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article m,
dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 14:43, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You can have fire doors which are held open by a electromagnet for a
pre-determined time to allow getting things like large objects
through. And close automatically in event of a fire alarm. All sorts
of ways round it.

All of which can be defeated by a simple wooden wedge

Then you educate the tenants to remove any they come across. Hardly
rocket science.

So big beefy, half drunk or worse tenant puts a wedge in the door and
you expect the OAP living next door to take it out.

Or the OAP puts that wedge there? And why would a drunk (or worse) go to
the bother of making a wedge and using it?

But yes. I certainly would. And explain why to that drunk when he was
sober.

I would love to see you try.
Assuming you could talk after removing the wedge.


You have never lived in social housing have you dave?
Have you even been in a block of council flats?

Didn't realise you were such a wimp, dennis. And unable to reason with
people because you're scared of them all.

I'm not scared of them but I have known people that were.
I am quite sure that you would be when the big guy shoved you down the
stairs.


It appears you are as far removed from "real" people as the Tories you
claim are.

Do you want to offer any evidence that you aren't?

I'd really suggest you go to a few council estates and see for yourself.
Your idea that they are all filled with misfits is as far from reality as
you.


I spent the last few years delivering drugs for the Birmingham
children's hospital, I can assure you that you do not have a clue! You
have about as much idea of what goes on as the queen does.

I suggest you get out and look before you spout off about stuff you know
nothing of, like life.

On 23/06/2017 19:08, critcher wrote:
On 23/06/2017 16:10, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 11:27, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Not only the flats, but the stairwell should have fire doors to the
corridors too. So two ways the smoke should have been stopped getting
from the flat to the stairs.

and if you have to pass the kitchen door escaping from a bedroom the
kitchen would require an SCFD as well ........

Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in
the flat which is of interest since these will always happen, sadly.
But
why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem
that things like fire doors would not have helped ....



That's not really true, they should have saved everyone.
The central core should have been safe for at least a hour.
The fire service should have been able to get everyone out through it.
The external fire should have had no effect on the central core, or
any fire in a flat.

The inquiry will have to find out why it didn't work and its not the
external cladding burning that caused it. People said they couldn't
see or breath shortly after the fire started not an hour later.


think we will find that all the flats on fire was the result of the
internal gas pipes not the cladding.


also, aluminium is one of the constituents of thermit welding powder.Its
affinity to oxygen allows the thermit welding process to occur.

On 23/06/2017 16:56, Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
Which is normal in this type of flat. However, it's not really the
fire in the flat which is of interest since these will always happen,
sadly. But why it spread so quickly and escape was impossible for so
many.

indeed .....but everybody else had deviated from what was the real
problem that things like fire doors would not have helped ....

So just how did the escape staircase get filled with smoke so quickly?

almost every flat on every floor on fire.... no surprise .....



Still shouldn't have happened.

On Friday, 23 June 2017 14:53:33 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You can have fire doors which are held open by a electromagnet for a
pre-determined time to allow getting things like large objects
through. And close automatically in event of a fire alarm. All sorts
of ways round it.

All of which can be defeated by a simple wooden wedge

Then you educate the tenants to remove any they come across. Hardly rocket
science.

People wedge fire doors because theyr'e such a pita. Put them on electromagnets released by the fire alarm & the incentive to wedge them is 97% gone. But of course it costs.


NT

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

You can have fire doors which are held open by a electromagnet for a
pre-determined time to allow getting things like large objects
through. And close automatically in event of a fire alarm. All sorts
of ways round it.

All of which can be defeated by a simple wooden wedge

Then you educate the tenants to remove any they come across. Hardly rocket
science.

This however is a psychological miracle that has never been achieved
with biological creatures. Robots might comply, if they didn't have to
keep going in and out.

Hospitals (and probably fire stations) are full of ad hoc wooden door
wedges, as, inexplicably, the stores won't supply them.





We had those in the laboratory where I worked with each section having
its own independent fire escape when locked down. I don't recall us ever
having a fire when I was there. Implosions and big bangs but no fires.

Fire alarm tests were fun since on the longest corridor it looked like
the title sequence from "Get Smart" as the fire doors each slammed shut.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Jim GM4DHJ ... wrote:
People were phoning - crying out for help. Because there was so much
smoke they couldn't leave their flat - which wasn't on fire at that
time.

Don't you watch any of the news reports?

are they as wild as the theories on here .....?

When you get reports from several about people inside the flats phoning
and saying they can't get out because of smoke, there's a fair chance they
are accurate.

--
*Organized Crime Is Alive And Well; It's Called Auto Insurance.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 23/06/2017 16:05, newshound wrote:
On 6/23/2017 3:36 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there any
apart from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my knowledge
burning Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.

You are a clueless ****wit. PVC burns with a lot less energy released
per unit mass than polyethylene but it still burns exothermically if
there is sufficient oxygen available or at elevated temperatures.

PVC self ignition in air is at about 450C according to:

http://envorinex.com/web_assets/docs...and%20Fire.pdf

and

http://www.pvc.org/en/p/fire-retardant-properties

HCl emission, free radical quenching and charring helps slow the burn
rate although the resulting fumes are not good to breathe.

Are you *sure* about that? It certainly has excellent fire retardant
properties, but my recollection is that this is because halogen
free-radicals are for some reason are very good at suppressing flames.

Correct.

Even carbon tetrachloride will burn exothermically if you provide it
with enough oxygen but in air at STP it works very well as a far to
toxic to use these days fire extinguisher.

This is the reason the old Halon type fire extinguishers were so effective.

I recall just how impressive a tiny hand held car BCF extinguisher was
from fire training. I think halon is only allowed in aerospace now.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 24/06/2017 09:35, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 16:05, newshound wrote:
On 6/23/2017 3:36 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there any
apart from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my knowledge
burning Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.

You are a clueless ****wit. PVC burns with a lot less energy released
per unit mass than polyethylene but it still burns exothermically if
there is sufficient oxygen available or at elevated temperatures.

You are clueless, its self extinguishing and takes energy to burn.
It may well start to burn at 450C but that is because it is taking the
energy from where ever the heat is coming from.


With wood applying 450c to it will ignite it and it will continue to
burn if you remove the heat source that does not happen with PVC as the
burning is endothermic and it goes out!

You need to think before you post or people will know you are clueless.
Now I think I will put you in the same category as TNP, a waste of space.

On 24/06/2017 10:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/06/2017 09:35, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 16:05, newshound wrote:
On 6/23/2017 3:36 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there any
apart from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my knowledge
burning Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.

You are a clueless ****wit. PVC burns with a lot less energy released
per unit mass than polyethylene but it still burns exothermically if
there is sufficient oxygen available or at elevated temperatures.

You are clueless, its self extinguishing and takes energy to burn.
It may well start to burn at 450C but that is because it is taking the
energy from where ever the heat is coming from.


With wood applying 450c to it will ignite it and it will continue to
burn if you remove the heat source that does not happen with PVC as the
burning is endothermic and it goes out!

You need to think before you post or people will know you are clueless.
Now I think I will put you in the same category as TNP, a waste of space.

"Other advantages of PVC are that it releases less combustion heat than
other plastics - hence contributes less to maintaining and spreading
fire €“ and produces no or very few flaming droplets or debris."

http://www.pvc.org/en/p/fire-retardant-properties

That's the PVC manufacturing industry putting a positive spin on it.
Read that page - and remember who is writing it.

Andy

En el artículo , Martin Brown '''newspam''
escribió:

You are a clueless ****wit.

You're correct, of course, but you mistakenly attributed the quote to
newshound, not dennis.

I recall just how impressive a tiny hand held car BCF extinguisher was
from fire training. I think halon is only allowed in aerospace now.

What about computer server rooms and datacentres?

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

En el artículo , Huge
escribió:

- and remember who is writing it.

FWIW, I once tried to burn some uPVC offcuts on a garden bonfire. They
scorched and melted, but wouldn't burn.

You see that in pics of house fires, where the building has uPVC
windows. The frames sag and blacken, but don't burn away.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) "Between two evils, I always pick
(")_(") the one I never tried before." - Mae West

On 23/06/2017 19:16, dennis@home wrote:

have about as much idea of what goes on as the queen does.

I think you'll find that she is remarkeably well-informed.

She even had the courage to ask why no-one 'saw it coming'
on a visit to the BoE.in 2010

On 24/06/17 11:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/06/2017 10:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/06/2017 09:35, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 16:05, newshound wrote:
On 6/23/2017 3:36 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there any
apart from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my knowledge
burning Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.

You are a clueless ****wit. PVC burns with a lot less energy released
per unit mass than polyethylene but it still burns exothermically if
there is sufficient oxygen available or at elevated temperatures.

You are clueless, its self extinguishing and takes energy to burn.
It may well start to burn at 450C but that is because it is taking the
energy from where ever the heat is coming from.


With wood applying 450c to it will ignite it and it will continue to
burn if you remove the heat source that does not happen with PVC as
the burning is endothermic and it goes out!

You need to think before you post or people will know you are clueless.
Now I think I will put you in the same category as TNP, a waste of space.

"Other advantages of PVC are that it releases less combustion heat than
other plastics - hence contributes less to maintaining and spreading
fire €“ and produces no or very few flaming droplets or debris."

http://www.pvc.org/en/p/fire-retardant-properties

That's the PVC manufacturing industry putting a positive spin on it.
Read that page - and remember who is writing it.

Andy


Effective heat of combustion of PVC is 17.95 MJ/kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride


26MJ for PIR foam

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nurate&f=false


As these are both positive numbers, any claim of either being
endothermic appear to be incorrect.

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.


Yes it DID !!. ITV news did a test at a proper test lab.

First they exposed the foil surface to a 700 centigrade
source of heat (but no flame). The foil surface bubbled
but did not catch fire.

they they repeated the test exposing the cut surface
of the celotex core to the heat source.

It burst into flames *immediately*.

This was surprising, I always thought PIR just charred,
but that wasn't what I saw. Quite worrying.

On 6/24/2017 4:12 PM, Tim Watts wrote:
On 24/06/17 11:45, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 24/06/2017 10:59, dennis@home wrote:
On 24/06/2017 09:35, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 16:05, newshound wrote:
On 6/23/2017 3:36 PM, dennis@home wrote:
On 23/06/2017 13:46, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 12:43, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 11:34, Martin Brown wrote:
On 23/06/2017 09:23, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/06/17 09:09, Martin Brown wrote:


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.

No. Google endothermic reaction

Endothermic oxidation reactions are incredibly rare (are there
any apart from the formation of ozone?). To the best of my
knowledge burning Celotex certainly isn't one of them.

Burning PVC is one as are many other plastics.

You are a clueless ****wit. PVC burns with a lot less energy
released per unit mass than polyethylene but it still burns
exothermically if there is sufficient oxygen available or at
elevated temperatures.

You are clueless, its self extinguishing and takes energy to burn.
It may well start to burn at 450C but that is because it is taking
the energy from where ever the heat is coming from.


With wood applying 450c to it will ignite it and it will continue to
burn if you remove the heat source that does not happen with PVC as
the burning is endothermic and it goes out!

You need to think before you post or people will know you are clueless.
Now I think I will put you in the same category as TNP, a waste of
space.

"Other advantages of PVC are that it releases less combustion heat
than other plastics - hence contributes less to maintaining and
spreading fire €“ and produces no or very few flaming droplets or debris."

http://www.pvc.org/en/p/fire-retardant-properties

That's the PVC manufacturing industry putting a positive spin on it.
Read that page - and remember who is writing it.

Andy


Effective heat of combustion of PVC is 17.95 MJ/kg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyvinyl_chloride


26MJ for PIR foam

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...nurate&f=false



As these are both positive numbers, any claim of either being
endothermic appear to be incorrect.

Data! Something of a novelty in this thread!

:-)