Está en la página 1de 2

Smoke Density Allowed at UL

! ! ! ! ! ! ! From: David Isaac <david.isaac@rest.com.au>!


Date: 19 April 2014 12:03! Subject: Re: SMOKE DENSITY ALLOWED AT UL! To: Richard Patton <rmpatton7@gmail.com>! Cc: <sent to over 40 recipients>!

! Just to add a little further explanation and support to what Richard has stated below where he
referred to the UL smouldering test blowing a fan over a smouldering wick; he is referring to the UL 'smoke box' test.!

! The 'smoke box' test is a calibration test and I allege the most deceptive of all. It is used often by

ionisation alarm manufacturers to justify the use of ionisation alarms for smouldering res, by placing ionisation alarms that have been returned for testing following situations where they have not activated in a real smouldering re to show they do activate in the 'smoke box' test. So on what basis do I make the deceptive allegation ...!

! The smoke box test is carried out in a specically dimensioned box where in one compartment of the ! This is where the relationship of sub micron particles (MIC-X) to visible smoke is important to

box a cotton wick is utilised to create an alleged 'smouldering re'. A fan is utilised to force air over the wick once it is smouldering to blow the resulting particles of combustion into the adjacent chamber of the box where a light obscuration meter is placed along with the smoke alarm under test. Sounds like a good idea because a smouldering cotton wick gives off lots of visible smoke and in these tests ionisation alarms typically activate around 2 to 4% obscuration per foot. So if this is the case, why don't ionisation alarms activate in real smouldering res?! understand. The smoke box test misrepresents the real life performance of ionisation smoke alarms because the smouldering cotton wick is fan forced to introduce more oxygen into the smoulder and when that happens it is no longer a smouldering test but what we refer to as a 'glowing ember' test. A glowing ember re is a much hotter re (like a blacksmiths re when he introduces forced air into the re to signicantly raise the temperature, it glows brighter). Even though it still appears to be smouldering, when the cotton wick is glowing it emits millions more sub-micron particles into the chamber along with all the much larger visible particles of smoke and that is enough to activate the ionisation alarm at the lower visible obscuration value. The fan forced particles of combustion are constrained within a small space by the very nature of the box design and forced into the ionisation alarm chamber. This test is specically designed to favour an ionisation alarm response.!

! Remember as I have said before, ionisation alarms DO NOT respond to light obscuration per foot or

metre, they respond only to a MIC-X value (sub-micron particulate) and you need millions of these sub-micron particles in the ionisation alarm chamber in order to block the ow of current and activate them. That is why people become so easily confused when ionisation alarms appear to respond to different light obscuration levels and why various smoke tests world wide that record light obscuration levels of ionisation alarms record so many different levels and why I allege the UL 'smoke box' test is so fraudulently deceptive.!

! It is critical that we understand the relationship of MIC-X to light obscuration is constant for any given

material, but it has a VERY different ratio to visible smoke across varying materials and as you move from natural materials towards synthetic materials the ratio drops off to the extent that even in aming synthetics ionisation alarms are very ineffective. The ratio also increases as the temperature of the smouldering re increases and therein lies a key to both the UL and Australian smoke alarm tests. The aquarium test where an ionisation alarm is placed within 12 to 18 inches of the smouldering synthetic re and sealed within the aquarium yet fails to operate when the obscuration is somewhere around 90+ % per metre is absolute proof of what I am attempting to explain.!
DavidIsaac-SmokeDensityAllowedAtUL-22April14.pdf" Last Updated: 22 April 14 | Check for Latest Version: www.Scribd.com/doc/219478606

1 of 2

! The reason that ionisation alarms are dangerously ineffective in residential res is based on well
known scientic behaviour. It is NOT rocket science, it is just that the engineers who are paid to defend ionisation alarms are masters at what I allege is scientic misconduct. It appears sometimes they are so disconnected from the real world that they may not be able to get their mind out of the laboratory and their test res to understand that test res such as aming Heptane in a steel tray are completely irrelevant in residential res.!

Smoke Density Allowed at UL

! The ght we have is ultimately based on the perceived 'seal of approval' that UL, Australian and other
listing authorities give ionisation alarms. The perception is 'if it is listed it is safe' and regrettably that is so far from the truth I allege it is criminal in every sense of the word.!

! Regards,!

David Isaac.! Sent from my iPad!

! - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - ! ! On 19 Apr 2014, at 10:19, "Richard Patton" <rmpatton7@gmail.com> wrote:! ! There has been some discussion regarding the testing of smoke detectors at the UL facility. I believe
the attached report from the Business Week article sheds much light on the subject. Keep in mind the aming re tests are being discussed in this report, not the smoldering re testing. Richard Bright claimed the max smoke density allowed was 27 percent but for many years it has been 37 percent. I cannot say for certain it was 37 percent when Bright claimed it was 27 percent but I'm pretty sure he gave the wrong number.!

! The most important aspect of this report is it proves that the rep from UL agreed the testing was wrong and promised it would be corrected. It wasn't.! ! As for the testing at UL regarding the smoldering res, that was with a blower blowing across a wick,
agitating it to apparently to near aming and then delivering smoke directly into the detection device. They came up with 2 and 4 percent smoke density but it was a scam. In the eld it was completely different. Then, nally UL created the phony test with Ponderous Pine on a hot plate; even more phony.!

! RMP! ! > <BUSINESS WEEK REPT 1977.pdf>! ! - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - -! ! More Information:! ! - Court Case where U.L.are being sued for alleged fraudulent testing of ionisation smoke alarms:" www.theWFSF.org/ulsued" ! - Open Letters and other documents about ULs awed smoke alarm tests:" ! www.theWFSF.org/ul!

DavidIsaac-SmokeDensityAllowedAtUL-22April14.pdf" Last Updated: 22 April 14 | Check for Latest Version: www.Scribd.com/doc/219478606

2 of 2

También podría gustarte