New Fine Woodworking magazin almost made me ill

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:11:56 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>alexy wrote:
>
>> I would have thought you would get shortness of breath. But I
>> understand hypoxia due to altitude works much as you describe.
>> People's judgment and mental capacity decreases, but they do not
>> recognize it.
>
>A friend of mine climbed Mt. McKinley in Alaska in 1978. I wanted to go but
>couldn't get all the $$ together. His description of insuffient oxygen was
>interesting: "It's not like being high, it's like being stupid." All the
>members of the expedition had an altitude at which they "became stupid." My
>friend Jon made it higher than most but he was "out of it" near the peak and
>has few memories of the last part of the climb. He has photos, and these
>are the basis of his "reconstructed recollections" of the last part of the
>climb. ;-)
>
>By his description as they walked back down the mountain people "snapped
>out" of their IQ-65 mode back to normal at the same altiudes they lost it on
>the way up.

Just for one of those "for what it's worth" points, during the First
World War the working ceiling for airplanes was between 20,000 and
25,000 feet. Those guys would fly up there, patrol for between 1 and 4
hours then descend, all in an open-cockpit plane w/o oxygen. Many
reported that their entire body would tingle for hours after a flight.
Of course the fact that the outside temperature was usually at least
-30f and maybe as cold as -50f had something to do with that. Still,
it is amazing to me that they not only could fly that high without
oxygen, but could function and fight under those conditions.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

Thanks, Robert -- good explanation. I never knew any of that before.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>HALON is *strange* stuff. 'Traditional' fire-extinguisher techniques revolve
>around removing one of the three components needed to sustain combustion:
>the fuel, the oxidizer, and 'heat'. e.g. CO2 extinguishers work by driving
>away the oxygen; a fire hose (water) works by absorbing the heat, etc.
>
>HALON works _differently_ -- it 'interferes with' the combustion process.
>Sort-of like a catalyst that _slows_down_ a chemical reaction. A concentration
>of a few percentage points in the 'atmosphere' is sufficient to inhibit
>combustion.
>
>This 'different' functionality is a significant part of why HALON is referred
>to as a 'fire *suppression*' system, rather than a 'fire extinguisher'.
>
>At fire-suppression concentrations, HALON 1301 (gas) _is_ safe to breathe.
>HALON 1211 (liquid) is also 'breathable', *but* is generally "pushed out"
>by high pressure Nitrogen -- which adds a possible 'oxygen starvation'
>component to the situation. A few systems use HALON 1211 to push out the
>HALON 1301. There are other forms of HALON that also suppress combustion,
>but are moderately poisonous to animals, including humans, in the required
>concentrations. The health hazard is/was tolerated because of the other
>characteristics -- it 'suppresses' combustion *quickly*. it dissipates
>rapidly, and it doesn't leave any "mess" behind. In 'high value' installations
>that last characteristic is *important* -- it means you can get the site
>back in operation (at least the parts that didn't actually catch fire)
>almost immediately.
>
>HALON's fire-suppression capabilities were discovered 'by accident' -- it
>was years later that the 'mechanism' of _how_ it "did it's thing" was
>figured out.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 20:11:56 GMT, "Mark Jerde"
<[email protected]> calmly ranted:

>alexy wrote:
>
>> I would have thought you would get shortness of breath. But I
>> understand hypoxia due to altitude works much as you describe.
>> People's judgment and mental capacity decreases, but they do not
>> recognize it.
>
>A friend of mine climbed Mt. McKinley in Alaska in 1978. I wanted to go but
>couldn't get all the $$ together. His description of insuffient oxygen was
>interesting: "It's not like being high, it's like being stupid." All the
>members of the expedition had an altitude at which they "became stupid." My
>friend Jon made it higher than most but he was "out of it" near the peak and
>has few memories of the last part of the climb. He has photos, and these
>are the basis of his "reconstructed recollections" of the last part of the
>climb. ;-)
>
>By his description as they walked back down the mountain people "snapped
>out" of their IQ-65 mode back to normal at the same altiudes they lost it on
>the way up.

I dunno. Anyone who'd climb a frosty peak must have started in the
IQ-65 mode at the bottom. And since they didn't have oxygen, they
all -missed- the actual experience they meant to achieve by being
in that dumb mode. How much bette would the trip have been if they
had carried oxy? Ditto the pictures when NOT taken by a braindead guy?

Climbers' IQs just dropped in my estimation.


--
Strong like ox, smart like tractor.
----------------------------------
www.diversify.com Oxen-free Website Design

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> > >
> Well, they're still selling them, and IIRC that's the type that was
pictured
> in the article in FWW. My biggest concern with those would be protecting
the
> glass vials from physical damage -- maybe a welded wire cage?
>
> --


I have seen sprinkler heads protected by a wire cage, so they are available.
Greg

Yeah, my shop light switch also engages all the outlets in the shop.
When I turn out the lights, everything turns off. Now I just need to
make sure I keep remembering to turn out the lights.

-Mike

In article
<1gne8e0.mejyly1z10008N%mare*Remove*All*0f*This*I*Hate*Spammers*@mac.inv
alid.com>, mare
<mare*Remove*All*0f*This*I*Hate*Spammers*@mac.invalid.com> wrote:

> False alarm with a sprinkler?

We had a sprinkler head let go at the printer I worked for a decade
ago. After the fact, I wished I'd had the foresight to run into the
room and drop off the POS color printer we were using that the boss
wouldn't let me replace.

I haven't received the FWW issue yet, but I don't have a smoke detector
in the basement shop, though there is one in the basement. Will pick
one up when I go out in a couple of hours.

Hope the sawdust doesn't keep setting it off...

In article <[email protected]>, Dave Hinz
<[email protected]> wrote:

> Get an ionizing one, rather than an optical one. Look for "contains
> Amerecium 241" and the NRC exemption stickers on the box. Optical smoke
> detectors will "see" the dust and think it's smoke; ionizing ones are
> much less likely to trigger falsely for that reason.

Thanks for the advice. As it turns out I wasn't able to get to the
store tonight... The boy's swab came back pos for strep throat, so I
had to pick up the prescription from the doc and the antibiotics from
the pharmacy instead. He's been off school for two days and has to be
off tomorrow as well.

Ah, well... I've booked tomorrow off and we'll cruise over to the Co-op
and pick up the right detector for the shop. It'll be a good safety
lesson for him.

Then, maybe we'll make a wooden dinosaur (no, I'm not talking about the
old-timers here... they're not my type), I picked up a book of dino
patterns on sale a while back, and his eye's perked up when I showed it
to him today.

As JT sez, life is good...

Doug Miller wrote:

> You do *not* recall correctly.
>
> Nitrogen is absolutely non-toxic to all forms of terrestrial animal
> life,
> humans included -- it comprises approximately 79% of the air on this
> planet.
>
> That said, an atmosphere of pure nitrogen is not breathable by
> humans, but
> that's solely because of a lack of oxygen, and not due in any way to
> the presence of nitrogen.

From http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Space_disasters

<quote>
On March 19, 1981 during preparations for STS-1, at the end of the 33 hour
long Shuttle Dry Countdown Demonstration Test, Columbia's aft engine
compartment was under a nitrogen purge to prevent the buildup of oxygen and
hydrogen gases from the propulsion system. Six technicians entered the aft
engine compartment and five of the six lost consciousness due to the lack of
oxygen in the compartment. Two died. John Gerald Bjornstad, a 50 year old
Rockwell employee, was pronounced dead at the scene and Forrest Cole was
brought to the hospital where he later died. The other four workmen were
treated and released.
</quote>

As I recall the press at the time (and I could be wrong) the danger of
walking into a nitrogen atmosphere is that your body gives you *no* *clues*
that it is not getting enough oxygen. There is no shortness of breath, no
choking. There are zero warning signs. You breathe normally until you
suddenly collapse.

Actually in this case there was an early warning sign (IIRC) for some of the
people. The four who survived the accident freaked out and fled when the
first one in, the guy who died on the site, collapsed.

That is my recollection of the press from 1981. I'm open to more/better
information.

-- Mark

Clint <[email protected]> wrote:

> You say you'll take water damage over fire damage any day, but I remember
> the hassles a relative of mine went through when trying to build a house
> just outside a municipality. They wanted him to get a sprinkler system
> installed because he was too far away from the fire stations. His insurance
> company was giving him flack about having a sprinkler system installed,
> because of the rate of false alarms, and water damage caused when that
> happened. Actually, they weren't so much giving him flack as soaking him
> (tee-hee) on the premiums. I think in the end he signed a waiver with the
> city to cover their butts, and life went on. But it dragged on for over a
> year, got in the paper, etc.
>
> So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when there's
> not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on that
> frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife doesn't
> cook like mine...

False alarm with a sprinkler? AFAIK the (often) red sprinkler caps break
after becoming too hot. If there is no fire I'd be surprised if they
become too hot. There is no detector like in a alarm system, and it's
all mechanical.

--
mare

In article <Oj4nd.14335$d96.8071@trnddc01>, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>IIRC nitrogen is a very dangerous gas for us humanoids. If you walk into a
>room with a high enough concentration of nitrogen and stay there a few
>breaths, the next thing you'll know (or won't know depending on whose
>religion is right) is you're dead. There's no shortness of breath, no
>choking, just your eyes going dark. The early warning sign is death.
>
>IIRC extremely dangerous.

You do *not* recall correctly.

Nitrogen is absolutely non-toxic to all forms of terrestrial animal life,
humans included -- it comprises approximately 79% of the air on this planet.

That said, an atmosphere of pure nitrogen is not breathable by humans, but
that's solely because of a lack of oxygen, and not due in any way to the
presence of nitrogen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36:00 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>Unfortunately, there is _nothing_ that is as effective, available to replace
>it. And nothing that is a 'drop-in' substitute; unlike the situation with
>the similarly-banned FREON refrigerants.

We were able to "drop in" - more or less - FM1200. It used the
same distribution pipes but required a larger canister.

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 14:59:49 -0600, Dave Balderstone <dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
><mare*Remove*All*0f*This*I*Hate*Spammers*@mac.invalid.com> wrote:
>
>> False alarm with a sprinkler?
>
> We had a sprinkler head let go at the printer I worked for a decade
> ago. After the fact, I wished I'd had the foresight to run into the
> room and drop off the POS color printer we were using that the boss
> wouldn't let me replace.

They don't buy new toys for you until you break the ones you have.
Modern sprinkler systems have a flow alarm which notifies (someone)
when water is flowing in the sprinkler supply line. Apparently the risk
of sprinklers going of is still well lower than the risk of an un-controlled
fire, because most if not all insurance companies give discounts if you have
sprinklers.

> I haven't received the FWW issue yet, but I don't have a smoke detector
> in the basement shop, though there is one in the basement. Will pick
> one up when I go out in a couple of hours.
> Hope the sawdust doesn't keep setting it off...

Get an ionizing one, rather than an optical one. Look for "contains
Amerecium 241" and the NRC exemption stickers on the box. Optical smoke
detectors will "see" the dust and think it's smoke; ionizing ones are
much less likely to trigger falsely for that reason.

Dave Hinz

I think it was something about wood dust in an electrical contactor or
something (sounds kind of scary), but they didn't know for sure.
Joe


"Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Did it say what the source of the fire was?
>
> Joe Wilding wrote:
>
>> I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
>> browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once
>> again.
>>
>> However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the
>> magazine
>> almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine
>> aside
>> for a few minutes.
>>
>> I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
>> I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe
>> I
>> will ask again:
>> I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking
>> for
>> some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would
>> sound
>> int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>> that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>> that is affordable?
>>
>> Thanks for any advice,
>>
>> Joe in Denver
>> my woodworkin website:
>> http://www.the-wildings.com/shop/
>

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:37:06 -0600, Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some of the sprinkler systems I'm familiar with used a small vial in the
> sprinkler head the ruptured under heat and release the water. This
> system sounds pretty fool proof as far as false alarms unless it
> routinely gets up to a hundred and whatever in your shop. Are these
> things still considered worthwhile?

Yup. Make sure whatever you buy is NFPA-13 compliant.

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:39:00 +0000, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Nitrogen, itself, is absolutely harmless. Good thing, too, because it makes
> up approximately 80% of what you're breathing _right_now_.

Yes.

> It is an *inert*
> gas, totally non-reactive with _anything_.

Er, no. Plenty of nitrates, nitrites, and other nitrogen-containing
compounds exist. It's not one of the noble (inert) gasses, those are
the helium/neon/argon/krypton/xenon/radon column.

> The absence of CO2 means that the 'breathing reflex' is _not_ triggered, and
> you simply 'forget' to breathe. This _lack_ of CO2 is the 'real' killer --
> you "don't know" you have a breathing problem, because you aren't "feeling the
> need, the need to breathe".

Yes, but that CO2 is in blood-chemistry, and is a result of cellular
respiration rather than CO2 in the atmosphere.

> Catch the unconscious person promptly, remove them from the 'unhealthy'
> environment, and they will generally recover quite quickly. "Mouth-to-mouth"
> is actually the most effective 'direct' treatment -- it supplies the critical
> carbon-dioxide as well as the oxygen.

I've been an EMT for a dozen years, and have never heard this theory. Can
you provide a link I can read about it please? We provide 100% oxygen
in situations like this, by bag/valve/mask in most cases. Mouth to mouth
is only used until/unless we can get high-flow O2 on them, because exhaled
breath has considerably _less_ than the 21% O2 that's in the atmosphere.
It's certainly better than nothing, but nowhere near as good as pure O2.
The breathing drive isn't needed at that time, because we're pushing
it into them if they're not breathing well on their own.

> Speed _is_ of the essence in getting
> breathing restored. Ephinepherine may also be beneficial -- it assists
> hemoglobin in binding to free oxygen.

At the EMT level of training, we use epi to raise blood pressure by
constricting the blood vessels, and improve ventilation by opening up
the air passages in the lungs. I am surprised to see that it has
an effect on oxygenation of hemoglobin.

Dave Hinz

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:49:39 +0000, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36:00 +0000, [email protected]
>>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>
>>>Unfortunately, there is _nothing_ that is as effective, available to replace
>>>it. And nothing that is a 'drop-in' substitute; unlike the situation with
>>>the similarly-banned FREON refrigerants.
>>
>> We were able to "drop in" - more or less - FM1200. It used the
>> same distribution pipes but required a larger canister.
>
>
> "FM 200" maybe? I can't find any apparently relevant on-line references to
> "FM1200"

What ever happened to GHG-12? George Goble (spelling?) worked it up,
blend of propane/butane/etc. Intended as a drop-in for R-12, for automotive
use. People whined that it was flammable, but most cars have this whole
fuel thing going on anyway, so...

Dave Hinz

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:22:45 -0600, Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Nitrogen, itself, is absolutely harmless. Good thing, too, because it makes
>> up approximately 80% of what you're breathing _right_now_. It is an *inert*
>> gas, totally non-reactive with _anything_.
>
> Always got to be some SOB wants to argue. Today, it's me.

Get in line ;)

In article <[email protected]>, Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
>Some of the sprinkler systems I'm familiar with used a small vial in the
>sprinkler head the ruptured under heat and release the water. This
>system sounds pretty fool proof as far as false alarms unless it
>routinely gets up to a hundred and whatever in your shop. Are these
>things still considered worthwhile?
>
Well, they're still selling them, and IIRC that's the type that was pictured
in the article in FWW. My biggest concern with those would be protecting the
glass vials from physical damage -- maybe a welded wire cage?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
>>
>>>>>> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
>>>> work?
>>>>>> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire,
>>>> any
>>>>>> day.
>>>>
>>>>Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
>>>>halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
>>>>risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>>>>finishing stuff.
>>>>
>>>I don't think so. I used to work at a place that had a halon fire suppression
>>>system in the computer room; the standard warning was if you hear the fire
>>>alarm go off, you have 30 seconds to get out of the room before the atmosphere
>>>is no longer breathable. I'll accept the (hopefully small) risk of my tools
>>>getting wet.
>>>
>>
>>Just for the record, there ware *TWO* kinds of HALON systems used for computer
>>rooms. _One_ of them *would* maintain a 'breathable' atmosphere for humans,
>>while suppressing a fire. The other one was 'quite' hazardous to humans.
>
>Perhaps you can explain further, as I don't see how this is possible. To be
>breathable for humans, air must have somewhere around 15% oxygen minimum, I
>believe, and that's more than enough to support a fire.

HALON is *strange* stuff. 'Traditional' fire-extinguisher techniques revolve
around removing one of the three components needed to sustain combustion:
the fuel, the oxidizer, and 'heat'. e.g. CO2 extinguishers work by driving
away the oxygen; a fire hose (water) works by absorbing the heat, etc.

HALON works _differently_ -- it 'interferes with' the combustion process.
Sort-of like a catalyst that _slows_down_ a chemical reaction. A concentration
of a few percentage points in the 'atmosphere' is sufficient to inhibit
combustion.

This 'different' functionality is a significant part of why HALON is referred
to as a 'fire *suppression*' system, rather than a 'fire extinguisher'.

At fire-suppression concentrations, HALON 1301 (gas) _is_ safe to breathe.
HALON 1211 (liquid) is also 'breathable', *but* is generally "pushed out"
by high pressure Nitrogen -- which adds a possible 'oxygen starvation'
component to the situation. A few systems use HALON 1211 to push out the
HALON 1301. There are other forms of HALON that also suppress combustion,
but are moderately poisonous to animals, including humans, in the required
concentrations. The health hazard is/was tolerated because of the other
characteristics -- it 'suppresses' combustion *quickly*. it dissipates
rapidly, and it doesn't leave any "mess" behind. In 'high value' installations
that last characteristic is *important* -- it means you can get the site
back in operation (at least the parts that didn't actually catch fire)
almost immediately.

HALON's fire-suppression capabilities were discovered 'by accident' -- it
was years later that the 'mechanism' of _how_ it "did it's thing" was
figured out.

One last thing, like the old Mad Magazine sticker about 'waste water', the
breathable HALON "tastes terrible". I *know*. <wry grin>

>>Note: I've had the 'dubious honor' of working at sites that have had dumps
>>of _both_ kinds of systems. There is *no* warning/delay with the 'breathable'
>>system -- when somebody hits the panic button the dump valves open *right*now*.
>>
>>Either variety is fairly _expensive_ to use. The 'breathable' stuff, more so.
>
>And thus, absolutely not suited to use in a small woodshop -- if one could
>even get it, which as you note, one can't.

When manufacture was banned, effective 1994, the price of existing stockpiles
_skyrocketed_.

Unfortunately, there is _nothing_ that is as effective, available to replace
it. And nothing that is a 'drop-in' substitute; unlike the situation with
the similarly-banned FREON refrigerants.

Clint wrote:
> You say you'll take water damage over fire damage any day, but I remember
> the hassles a relative of mine went through when trying to build a house
> just outside a municipality. They wanted him to get a sprinkler system
> installed because he was too far away from the fire stations. His insurance
> company was giving him flack about having a sprinkler system installed,
> because of the rate of false alarms, and water damage caused when that
> happened. Actually, they weren't so much giving him flack as soaking him
> (tee-hee) on the premiums. I think in the end he signed a waiver with the
> city to cover their butts, and life went on. But it dragged on for over a
> year, got in the paper, etc.
>
> So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when there's
> not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on that
> frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife doesn't
> cook like mine...
>
> Clint
>
>


Clint, in my opinion there is a lot of mis-information or urban myth in
what you
have said above. There are many types of sprinkler systems and one that
is properly
designed and installed will seldom if ever go off by itself. Most cases
of accidental discharge are caused by human failings such as bumping a
discharge head or damaging components such as the piping, or failing to
properly maintain the system. The last stats regarding true accidental
discharges I can recall was something to the effect of only 1 head
failure per 17 million installed.

NFPA 13 and it's accompanying sub-standards outline the requirements for
sprinkler systems installations. Worth a look if you can get your hands
on a copy - maybe the local library.

Waldo

Did it say what the source of the fire was?

Joe Wilding wrote:

> I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
> browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once again.
>
> However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the magazine
> almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine aside
> for a few minutes.
>
> I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
> I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe I
> will ask again:
> I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking for
> some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would sound
> int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
> that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
> that is affordable?
>
> Thanks for any advice,
>
> Joe in Denver
> my woodworkin website:
> http://www.the-wildings.com/shop/

[email protected] (Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~) writes:


>Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
>halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
>risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>finishing stuff.

Our computer room at work has an FM200 fire supression system, basically
the new version of halon. The room is maybe 1000 square feet.

We had a very minor fire that cut the power and triggered the fire
supression system. It cost over $12,000 to have the gas cylinder
refilled.

I doubt any woodworker could afford one of these unless it was a
commercial business.

Brian Elfert

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:

>>We had a very minor fire that cut the power and triggered the fire
>>supression system. It cost over $12,000 to have the gas cylinder
>>refilled.

>*WOW*! I had _no_ idea what refills go for these days. That's 10-20 times
>what it would have cost for HALON, back in the 'bad old days'.

$12,000 was the total cost to repair the fire suppression after the fire,
but refilling the tank was most of the expense.

The entire system had to be recertified. All of the heat/smoke detector
heads had to be replaced because of the oily smoke caused by burning
plastic.

Damage was very minor. One of piece of hardware was melted and burned
internally. We got all of the equipment online 2.5 hours after the fire.
The longest wait was for an electrician to reset the power.

Brian Elfert

In article <[email protected]>,
Brian Elfert <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~) writes:
>
>
>>Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
>>halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
>>risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>>finishing stuff.
>
>Our computer room at work has an FM200 fire supression system, basically
>the new version of halon. The room is maybe 1000 square feet.
>
>We had a very minor fire that cut the power and triggered the fire
>supression system. It cost over $12,000 to have the gas cylinder
>refilled.

*WOW*! I had _no_ idea what refills go for these days. That's 10-20 times
what it would have cost for HALON, back in the 'bad old days'.

>I doubt any woodworker could afford one of these unless it was a
>commercial business.

yeah. 12 large pays for a _lot_ of water damage.

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:

>More... http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003017
>
><quote>
>To prevent an accidental fire or explosion sealed compartments on the
>shuttle and ground equipment are purged with pure nitrogen. Nitrogen isn't
>poisonous but without oxygen a fire can't happen--however people can't
>breathe either.
>
<snip>

>I'm still googling for proof your body doesn't know when it is breating pure
>nitrogen.
>
> -- Mark
>
Interesting.

I would have thought you would get shortness of breath. But I
understand hypoxia due to altitude works much as you describe.
People's judgment and mental capacity decreases, but they do not
recognize it.

Here are two posts from a thread that appeared on
rec.aviation.piloting a few years ago when a golfer's jet decompressed
an flew until fuel exhaustion. The question was why the pilots
couldn't recognize it and get down. These posts tell of people's
experience in a hypobaric chamber, which shows their rapid
incapacitation.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3816eda4%240%2490324%40news.net-link.net&output=gplain
and
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl3691800605d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&selm=3818FB10.4C291D24%40bellsouth.net

Another post in the thread tells of similar disorientation occurring
much more slowly (~15min) when altitude was raised to only 18,000
feet.

So, back to your original post, nitrogen itself is certainly not
poisonous, or even harmful, but if it displaces oxygen, the resulting
hypoxia kills quickly and without much warning, as you described.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

Cmon Robert, that is what his point was! Read it again.

Robert Bonomi wrote:

> "Not exactly". <grin>
>
> Nitrogen, itself, is absolutely harmless. Good thing, too, because it makes
> up approximately 80% of what you're breathing _right_now_. It is an *inert*
> gas, totally non-reactive with _anything_.
>
> That said, a 'near-total' nitrogen atmosphere *is* dangerous. Not so much
> _because_ of the Nitrogen presence, but because the levels of (a) Oxygen
> and (b) Carbon-Dioxide, are at unsafely _low_ levels -- 'driven out' by the
> excess Nitrogen.
>

alexy wrote:

>> IIRC extremely dangerous.
>
> "IIRC"? That is a big IF!

Pi approximately = 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 40288 41971 ... I
have verifiable memories from 1960 before I was a year old. My memory is
either a gift or a curse. Since I'm *not* *rich* it must be a curse ...
;-) It's a hell of a burden to recall 45 years of accumlated failures in
3D, TechnicalColor detail....

BTW I *SUCK* at most things. In scientific terms I have "narrow bandwidths
of more-than-minimum competence." Einstein said that everyone was somehow
his superior; I know that almost everyone is in nearly every way better at
everything than I am. (<sigh> Ask my wife and kids....)

F*ck.

-- Mark

Also, an ounce of prevention.....Don't forget to keep fire extinguishers
handy! Mount them up on the wall where they are easily accessible in an
emergency, not buried under stuff in a corner. I keep 2 in my shop. Early
this spring I cleaned some extra warm clothes out of my truck and put them
on my workbench. Several days later i went into the shop, flipped on the 6
way, made a quick cut on something and went out back. About an hour later I
smelled smoke, which is not all that unusual here, as many heat with wood.
The smoke smell soon became very strong, and i became curious. I opened my
shop door to find it completely filled with thick smoke. In a hurry, i ran
in, felt around the wall (couldn't see anything) and grabbed the nearest
extinguisher. I couldn't see any flames, so I opened the overhead door to
let the smoke out and went in. What I found when the smoke started to clear
is when I flipped on the six way, it also turned on the branding iron SWMBO
bought me as a gift, but it was covered up by the clothes (specifically a
few month old Carhartt jacket) I placed there a few days earlier. Burned
the sleeve and one whole side of that jacket off and half of a flannel shirt
lay smoldering in the driveway. I don't think the clothes ever had caught
"fire", but did slowly smolder for quite a while. With the exception of the
aforementioned, nothing else was damaged, not even the bench the clothes
were on. Fortunately, I didn't need the extinguisher in this case, but at
least it was there and ready if this problem had been worse. I learned a
lesson from that day, and double check whats plugged in whenever I leave the
shop, as it is my life! --dave



"Joe Wilding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>I think it was something about wood dust in an electrical contactor or
>something (sounds kind of scary), but they didn't know for sure.
> Joe
>
>
> "Phil" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Did it say what the source of the fire was?
>>
>> Joe Wilding wrote:
>>
>>> I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
>>> browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once
>>> again.
>>>
>>> However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the
>>> magazine
>>> almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine
>>> aside
>>> for a few minutes.
>>>
>>> I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
>>> I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe
>>> I
>>> will ask again:
>>> I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking
>>> for
>>> some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would
>>> sound
>>> int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>>> that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>>> that is affordable?
>>>
>>> Thanks for any advice,
>>>
>>> Joe in Denver
>>> my woodworkin website:
>>> http://www.the-wildings.com/shop/
>>
>
>

In article <Oj4nd.14335$d96.8071@trnddc01>,
Mark Jerde <[email protected]> wrote:
>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> At fire-suppression concentrations, HALON 1301 (gas) _is_ safe to
>> breathe. HALON 1211 (liquid) is also 'breathable', *but* is generally
>> "pushed out"
>> by high pressure Nitrogen -- which adds a possible 'oxygen starvation'
>> component to the situation. A few systems use HALON 1211 to push out
>> the HALON 1301.
>
>IIRC nitrogen is a very dangerous gas for us humanoids. If you walk into a
>room with a high enough concentration of nitrogen and stay there a few
>breaths, the next thing you'll know (or won't know depending on whose
>religion is right) is you're dead. There's no shortness of breath, no
>choking, just your eyes going dark. The early warning sign is death.
>
>IIRC extremely dangerous.

"Not exactly". <grin>

Nitrogen, itself, is absolutely harmless. Good thing, too, because it makes
up approximately 80% of what you're breathing _right_now_. It is an *inert*
gas, totally non-reactive with _anything_.

That said, a 'near-total' nitrogen atmosphere *is* dangerous. Not so much
_because_ of the Nitrogen presence, but because the levels of (a) Oxygen
and (b) Carbon-Dioxide, are at unsafely _low_ levels -- 'driven out' by the
excess Nitrogen.

Nitrogen is 'colorless, odorless, and tasteless' (good thing!, see above:),
and, as such, you get no warning of the presence of a 'too nitrogen rich'
environment.

The absence of CO2 means that the 'breathing reflex' is _not_ triggered, and
you simply 'forget' to breathe. This _lack_ of CO2 is the 'real' killer --
you "don't know" you have a breathing problem, because you aren't "feeling the
need, the need to breathe". Fairly quickly, this leads to oxygen depletion
in the blood stream, which leads to cessation of many 'automatic' bodily
functions. Unconsciousness follows. 3-5 minutes later, and you have
irreversible brain-death due to lack of oxygen.

Catch the unconscious person promptly, remove them from the 'unhealthy'
environment, and they will generally recover quite quickly. "Mouth-to-mouth"
is actually the most effective 'direct' treatment -- it supplies the critical
carbon-dioxide as well as the oxygen. Speed _is_ of the essence in getting
breathing restored. Ephinepherine may also be beneficial -- it assists
hemoglobin in binding to free oxygen.

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> That said, an atmosphere of pure nitrogen is not breathable by
>> humans, but that's solely because of a lack of oxygen, and
>> not due in any way to the presence of nitrogen.
>
>I suppose this is strictly true. There is nothing wrong with nitrogen.
>
>My point is a nitrogen-only atmosphere will cause death in humans, and the
>humans will have no advanced notice of the danger.
>
>Hence the (perhaps wrong) potential danger of Halon fire suppression systems
>that use nitrogen.
>
>
>Again, I welcome more and better information. I know I often get things
>wrong.

Mark, I think the difference is that here we are talking about
nitrogen as a propellant, which would dilute the oxygen content
somewhat. In the NASA case, nitrogen was used in large quantities to
displace the air. To put it in silly terms, spaying water on the fire
will raise the humidity of the room, but not hurt the human occupants.
Flooding the room with water to remove all of the air will result in
drowning.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

In article <RQ9nd.6101$N_5.449@trnddc03>,
Mark Jerde <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> That said, an atmosphere of pure nitrogen is not breathable by
>> humans, but that's solely because of a lack of oxygen, and
>> not due in any way to the presence of nitrogen.
>
>I suppose this is strictly true. There is nothing wrong with nitrogen.
>
>My point is a nitrogen-only atmosphere will cause death in humans, and the
>humans will have no advanced notice of the danger.
>
>Hence the (perhaps wrong) potential danger of Halon fire suppression systems
>that use nitrogen.
>
>
>Again, I welcome more and better information. I know I often get things
>wrong.

You are *not* 'entirely wrong' in that premise.

As with everything else, everything depends on the details. :)

The 'typical' Nitrogen-pressurized HALON system uses HALON 1211, a sprayable
liquid. The gas pressure is used to force the liquid out of the storage
tank, through the pipes, and out into the 'protected' space.

It _is_ practical to install cut-off valves that pass the liquid flow, but
shut themselves off when the gas starts going by. Doing so, however, _does_
add a fair amount of complexity, and _cost_, to the system.

You get into a _very_ complex set of trade-offs, regarding the size of
the protected space, the layout, the number of people in it, how _quickly_
they can evacuate, given a warning, and the dollar cost of letting the
fire burn 'without resistance' for that evacuation period.

One of the other HALON formulations (I don't have the number to hand) is
built around a bromine atom. "Bromides" are _not_ 'people friendly'; this
is the kind of a system where you absolutely *have* to evacuate before
the dump goes.

In article <[email protected]>,
Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>>> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
>>>> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
>> work?
>>>> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire,
>> any
>>>> day.
>>
>>Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
>>halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
>>risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>>finishing stuff.
>>
>I don't think so. I used to work at a place that had a halon fire suppression
>system in the computer room; the standard warning was if you hear the fire
>alarm go off, you have 30 seconds to get out of the room before the atmosphere
>is no longer breathable. I'll accept the (hopefully small) risk of my tools
>getting wet.
>

Just for the record, there ware *TWO* kinds of HALON systems used for computer
rooms. _One_ of them *would* maintain a 'breathable' atmosphere for humans,
while suppressing a fire. The other one was 'quite' hazardous to humans.

Note: I've had the 'dubious honor' of working at sites that have had dumps
of _both_ kinds of systems. There is *no* warning/delay with the 'breathable'
system -- when somebody hits the panic button the dump valves open *right*now*.

Either variety is fairly _expensive_ to use. The 'breathable' stuff, more so.

Unfortunately, you cannot buy/install a _new_ HALON system these days.
and they're not making HALON any more. If you have an existing system,
and can find 'old stock' from somebody, you can use that to recharge and/or
top-off an existing system.

The -bad- news is that nobody's come up with a "good" replacement for HALON
yet. Unlike the similarly banned 'FREON' refrigerant.

In article <[email protected]>,
Mike <[email protected]> wrote:
>Yeah, my shop light switch also engages all the outlets in the shop.
>When I turn out the lights, everything turns off. Now I just need to
>make sure I keep remembering to turn out the lights.

I'd regard _two_ circuits as the absolute minimum for a *safe* shop.
One for lights (only), and 'everything else' on the other one. OR,
as available, split the 'everything else' up on multiple breakers.

I entirely agree about the 'desirability' and 'convenience' of a "master kill"
switch; *BUT* I don't want it to take out the lighting -- I need to be able to
*see* what those moving 'sharp bits' are doing, _at_least_ until they *stop*
moving.

_Two_ switches -- the 'master kill', and the lights, is not an excessive
burden. :)

BTW, this is a good reason to _not_ run the "lighting" circuit through a
sub-panel, when you use a sub-panel for the shop. Pull the extra pair
of wires. Then you can lock out the entire panel, without losing the lights.
And, in that horror-of-horrors situation where you manage to overload the
sub-panel feed, without overloading any -single- circuit, you'll *still*
have the lights.

In article <[email protected]>,
Eddie Munster <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately, you cannot buy/install a _new_ HALON system these days.
>> and they're not making HALON any more. If you have an existing system,
>> and can find 'old stock' from somebody, you can use that to recharge and/or
>> top-off an existing system.
>
>
>No. Halon is still used and approved for aircraft. I don't remember what
>type number it is though. But they still have their place.

Usually 1301, or a 1301/1211 'blend'.

>I sit on a handheld one one!

It's still 'used and approved' for computer rooms, and other facilities,
too. :)

The facts remain that it has been banned from manufacture since the
early 1990s, that the *only* sources today are 'old stock' -- either
manufactured before the ban, or 'reclaimed' from systems being de-
commissioned. Even the hand-held ones that are on the market _today_
were actually manufactured a number of years ago.

*NOBODY* is building aircraft with in-frame fire-suppression systems using
HALON these days, And havn't for a number of years. They all use one of
the 'substitutes'.

"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RMJmd.108146$R05.70023@attbi_s53...
>
> "Clint" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> > financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> > insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> > consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when
there's
> > not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on
that
> > frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife
> doesn't
> > cook like mine...
> >
> Who is the redneck comedian who says that his wife is a terrible cook? But
> she has improved since she figured out that the smoke alarm is not a
timer.
>
I remember now. It is Ron "tater salad" White.

Mark Jerde wrote:

> I'm still googling for proof your body doesn't know when it is
> breating pure nitrogen.

I found this on the internet, it has to be true... <g>

From http://yarchive.net/space/science/man_in_vacuum.html

<quote>
The best Earthly comparison is what happens to people who walk into a room
containing a pure-nitrogen atmosphere. The analogy is fairly good; to a
first approximation, when there's no oxygen present, it doesn't matter
whether something else is there or not. Such accidents happen
occasionally in industry. (In fact, one happened at the Ariane 5 launch
site a few months back.) Sudden loss of consciousness occurs within
10-15s, and death follows quickly. Stringent precautions have to be taken
to prevent such accidents, because survival is rare -- you get no warning
that you're about to keel over, and rescuers must understand the situation
immediately and act very quickly.

Also, Clarke got one detail completely wrong: hyperventilating first will
not help. The bloodstream of a resting person is already saturated with
oxygen; there is no way to pump more in. What hyperventilation does is to
flush CO2 out of your body. This matters because the breathing reflex is
triggered by CO2 buildup, not oxygen shortage. (That's why you get no
warning of impending unconsciousness in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere.)
Hyperventilation suppresses the breathing reflex so you can fully exploit
the air in your lungs. This doesn't help in vacuum.

(I suppose I should also observe here that deliberate hyperventilation to
help you hold your breath -- in situations like diving -- is dangerous,
for an analogous reason: it's possible to suppress your breathing reflex
so thoroughly that you run out of oxygen before you feel any need to
breathe, and the result is sudden unconsciousness.)
</quote>


Pulling out quotes.

"Sudden loss of consciousness occurs within
10-15s, and death follows quickly. Stringent precautions have to be taken
to prevent such accidents, because survival is rare -- you get no warning
that you're about to keel over, and rescuers must understand the situation
immediately and act very quickly."

"This matters because the breathing reflex is
triggered by CO2 buildup, not oxygen shortage. (That's why you get no
warning of impending unconsciousness in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere.)"

"it's possible to suppress your breathing reflex
so thoroughly that you run out of oxygen before you feel any need to
breathe, and the result is sudden unconsciousness."


I'm quitting googling and going back to work. I'm still open for
more/better information on the danger of a pure nitrogen atmosphere and its
effect on us humanoids.

-- Mark

In article <1V4nd.14340$d96.7402@trnddc01>, "Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Doug Miller wrote:
>
>> You do *not* recall correctly.
>>
>> Nitrogen is absolutely non-toxic to all forms of terrestrial animal
>> life, humans included -- it comprises approximately 79% of the air on this
>> planet.
>>
>> That said, an atmosphere of pure nitrogen is not breathable by
>> humans, but that's solely because of a lack of oxygen, and not due in any way to
>> the presence of nitrogen.
>
>From http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Space_disasters
>
><quote>
>On March 19, 1981 during preparations for STS-1, at the end of the 33 hour
>long Shuttle Dry Countdown Demonstration Test, Columbia's aft engine
>compartment was under a nitrogen purge to prevent the buildup of oxygen and
>hydrogen gases from the propulsion system. Six technicians entered the aft
>engine compartment and five of the six lost consciousness due to the lack of
>oxygen in the compartment. Two died. John Gerald Bjornstad, a 50 year old
>Rockwell employee, was pronounced dead at the scene and Forrest Cole was
>brought to the hospital where he later died. The other four workmen were
>treated and released.
></quote>

"due to lack of oxygen".

Isn't that what I said?

>
>As I recall the press at the time (and I could be wrong) the danger of
>walking into a nitrogen atmosphere is that your body gives you *no* *clues*
>that it is not getting enough oxygen. There is no shortness of breath, no
>choking. There are zero warning signs. You breathe normally until you
>suddenly collapse.

I don't know if that's correct or not, but, like I said, nitrogen is *not*
poisonous. Air is 78% +/- nitrogen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Robert Bonomi wrote:

> At fire-suppression concentrations, HALON 1301 (gas) _is_ safe to
> breathe. HALON 1211 (liquid) is also 'breathable', *but* is generally
> "pushed out"
> by high pressure Nitrogen -- which adds a possible 'oxygen starvation'
> component to the situation. A few systems use HALON 1211 to push out
> the HALON 1301.

IIRC nitrogen is a very dangerous gas for us humanoids. If you walk into a
room with a high enough concentration of nitrogen and stay there a few
breaths, the next thing you'll know (or won't know depending on whose
religion is right) is you're dead. There's no shortness of breath, no
choking, just your eyes going dark. The early warning sign is death.

IIRC extremely dangerous.

-- Mark

"Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:[email protected]...

> Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
> halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
> risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
> finishing stuff.
>
> Chris
>

I don't think you can buy halon systems anymore...not to mention I wouldn't
want to be around when it went off.

Rob

http://www.amateurtermite.com

"Clint" <[email protected]> wrote
>
> So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when there's
> not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on that
> frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife
doesn't
> cook like mine...
>
Who is the redneck comedian who says that his wife is a terrible cook? But
she has improved since whe figured out that the smoke alarm is not a timer.

Doug Miller wrote:

> That said, an atmosphere of pure nitrogen is not breathable by
> humans, but that's solely because of a lack of oxygen, and
> not due in any way to the presence of nitrogen.

I suppose this is strictly true. There is nothing wrong with nitrogen.

My point is a nitrogen-only atmosphere will cause death in humans, and the
humans will have no advanced notice of the danger.

Hence the (perhaps wrong) potential danger of Halon fire suppression systems
that use nitrogen.


Again, I welcome more and better information. I know I often get things
wrong.

-- Mark\

"Rob Walters" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "Chris Richmond - MD6-FDC ~" <[email protected]> wrote in
> message news:[email protected]...
>
>> Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar'
>> fancy halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a
>> big risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>> finishing stuff.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>
> I don't think you can buy halon systems anymore...not to mention I
> wouldn't want to be around when it went off.

Was in a computer room many years ago when the halon system went off. We
all knew what it could do and the result was blood and hair on the door
jamb!

>
> Rob
>
> http://www.amateurtermite.com
>
>
>

Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

<snip>
> Get an ionizing one, rather than an optical one. Look for "contains
> Amerecium 241" and the NRC exemption stickers on the box. Optical
> smoke detectors will "see" the dust and think it's smoke; ionizing
> ones are much less likely to trigger falsely for that reason.
>

I had a smoke detector in the shop, set up about 10 ft away from the table
saw. When the cut wasn't perfect, and the kerf burned a bit, it would go
off, particularly with maple.

But that wasn't a false alarm - it was really burning.

Patriarch

In article <[email protected]>,
GregP <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:36:00 +0000, [email protected]
>(Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>
>>Unfortunately, there is _nothing_ that is as effective, available to replace
>>it. And nothing that is a 'drop-in' substitute; unlike the situation with
>>the similarly-banned FREON refrigerants.
>
> We were able to "drop in" - more or less - FM1200. It used the
> same distribution pipes but required a larger canister.


"FM 200" maybe? I can't find any apparently relevant on-line references to
"FM1200"

FM 200 _is_ one of the closer substitutes, and the 'most commercially
available'. It fails the 'drop-in' replacement test on at least a
couple of points -- 1) tanks have to be kept in a controlled environment,
HALON is ok, outside in the Arctic, or the tropics. 2) can't use it
through long piping runs.

All the 'gory details', for anybody who is interested, at:
<http://p2library.nfesc.navy.mil/P2_Opportunity_Handbook/3_III_2.html>

In article <666nd.4743$BX4.371@trnddc08>,
Mark Jerde <[email protected]> wrote:
>alexy wrote:
>
>>> IIRC extremely dangerous.
>>
>> "IIRC"? That is a big IF!
>
>Pi approximately = 3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 40288 41971 ... I
>have verifiable memories from 1960 before I was a year old. My memory is
>either a gift or a curse. Since I'm *not* *rich* it must be a curse ...
>;-) It's a hell of a burden to recall 45 years of accumlated failures in
>3D, TechnicalColor detail....
>
>BTW I *SUCK* at most things.

I'm told a job as a sex toy pays really well. <guffaw type=muffled degree=badly>



Sorry, couldn't resist.

When you leave the door _that_ wide open, *somebody* is going to drive the
truck through it. I guess I'm "somebody" around here, today. :)

both my insurance company and the fire service i subscribe to gives me a
discount for having sprinklers installed. they don't use electronics to
trigger, and it actually takes a lot of heat for them to go off. iirc, 175F
at the ceiling. it cost me about $3k for about 3.5k sqft of protection when
i was building my new house.

"Clint" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:nJJmd.247390$nl.170707@pd7tw3no...
> You say you'll take water damage over fire damage any day, but I remember
> the hassles a relative of mine went through when trying to build a house
> just outside a municipality. They wanted him to get a sprinkler system
> installed because he was too far away from the fire stations. His
> insurance
> company was giving him flack about having a sprinkler system installed,
> because of the rate of false alarms, and water damage caused when that
> happened. Actually, they weren't so much giving him flack as soaking him
> (tee-hee) on the premiums. I think in the end he signed a waiver with the
> city to cover their butts, and life went on. But it dragged on for over a
> year, got in the paper, etc.
>
> So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when there's
> not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on that
> frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife
> doesn't
> cook like mine...
>
> Clint
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>, "Joe Wilding"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
>> >browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once
> again.
>> >
>> >However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the
> magazine
>> >almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine
> aside
>> >for a few minutes.
>>
>> It shook me up too. Not quite that badly, but that photo was pretty grim.
> And
>> scary. My shop is in the basement. Under my 13YO son's bedroom. I really,
>> really, REALLY don't want a fire in the shop. We have a heat detector
> there
>> already, wired into the monitored alarm system, but that article has me
>> thinking about sprinklers. I'd *much* rather deal with water damage to
>> the
>> tools, than fire damage to the tools *and* the house, and the danger to
>> my
>> family.
>> >
>> >I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
>> >I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe
> I
>> >will ask again:
>> >I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking
> for
>> >some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would
> sound
>> >int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>> >that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>> >that is affordable?
>>
>> No doubt it's affordable, but is it practical? I mean, how much damage is
>> going to happen before you can even get there?
>>
>> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting
>> a
>> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
> work?
>> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over
>> fire,
> any
>> day.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>>
>>
>
>

>> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
>> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's work?
>> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire, any
>> day.

Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
finishing stuff.

Chris

--
Chris Richmond | I don't speak for Intel & vise versa

Dave Hinz wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:39:00 +0000, Robert Bonomi <[email protected]> wrote:
>

snip

>
> I've been an EMT for a dozen years, and have never heard this theory. Can
> you provide a link I can read about it please? We provide 100% oxygen
> in situations like this, by bag/valve/mask in most cases. Mouth to mouth
> is only used until/unless we can get high-flow O2 on them, because exhaled
> breath has considerably _less_ than the 21% O2 that's in the atmosphere.
> It's certainly better than nothing, but nowhere near as good as pure O2.
> The breathing drive isn't needed at that time, because we're pushing
> it into them if they're not breathing well on their own.
>
I learned of it as Shallow Water blackout, snorkeling class many
years ago.
http://www.scuba-doc.com/latenthypoxia.html
Joe

On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 06:45:14 -0700, "Joe Wilding"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking for
>some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would sound
>int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>that is affordable?
>
>Thanks for any advice,

I'm not sure at that distance, but an X-10 type system might work. Maybe
w/ a booster. You might call these guys:
http://www.smarthome.com/index.html

No connection with them, etc.. I have not called them in a couple of years
but back when I did they were very knowledgeable and helpful with free
advice. They have some expensive stuff but press them for "affordable".
Call them and just tell them the problem and see what they say. HTH. --
Igor

In article <[email protected]>,
alexy <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>>
>>> At fire-suppression concentrations, HALON 1301 (gas) _is_ safe to
>>> breathe. HALON 1211 (liquid) is also 'breathable', *but* is generally
>>> "pushed out"
>>> by high pressure Nitrogen -- which adds a possible 'oxygen starvation'
>>> component to the situation. A few systems use HALON 1211 to push out
>>> the HALON 1301.
>>
>>IIRC nitrogen is a very dangerous gas for us humanoids. If you walk into a
>>room with a high enough concentration of nitrogen and stay there a few
>>breaths, the next thing you'll know (or won't know depending on whose
>>religion is right) is you're dead. There's no shortness of breath, no
>>choking, just your eyes going dark. The early warning sign is death.
>>
>>IIRC extremely dangerous.
>
>"IIRC"? That is a big IF!
>
>You are partially right. If increase the normal air nitrogen content
>from 78% to 90% or 95%, there is precious little room for oxygen. But
>I suspect you would experience shortness of breath.

The insidious thing is that you _don't_ experience shortness of breath.
The CO2 is also driven out, and the breathing reflex doesn't cut in.
You _don't_know_ you're in breathing trouble, because you've "forgotten"
to breathe.

The 'hypoxia' suffered at high altitudes (mountain climbers, flyers) is
_exactly_ the same thing.

It's similar to 'nitrogen narcosis' for SCUBA divers,

All of these things just 'sneak up on you' -- you don't know there's
anything wrong.

With _mild_ hypoxia, *IF* you've had training to recognize the symptoms
_in_yourself_, you *may*:
(a) recognize that "you're *IN*TROUBLE*",
(b) manage to remember 'what to do about it',
(c) actually _do_ it.

Severe hypoxia can hit fast enough, and hard enough, that you _don't_ have
any chance. You're unconscious before you're conscious (pun intended) that
there's a problem.

Mark Jerde wrote:
<snip>
>"Sudden loss of consciousness occurs within
>10-15s, and death follows quickly. Stringent precautions have to be taken
>to prevent such accidents, because survival is rare -- you get no warning
>that you're about to keel over, and rescuers must understand the situation
>immediately and act very quickly."
>
>"This matters because the breathing reflex is
>triggered by CO2 buildup, not oxygen shortage. (That's why you get no
>warning of impending unconsciousness in a pure-nitrogen atmosphere.)"
>
>"it's possible to suppress your breathing reflex
>so thoroughly that you run out of oxygen before you feel any need to
>breathe, and the result is sudden unconsciousness."
>
>
>I'm quitting googling and going back to work. I'm still open for
>more/better information on the danger of a pure nitrogen atmosphere and its
>effect on us humanoids.

A google search for "nitrogen asphyxiation" turns up a lot of hits.
This looks like a good one:

http://www.csb.gov/index.cfm?folder=news_releases&page=news&NEWS_ID=15

Partial quote:

"While nitrogen makes up the majority of the air we breathe and is not
toxic, people shouldn't assume it's benign," according to CSB Chairman
Carolyn W. Merritt. "Nitrogen does not support life, and when nitrogen
displaces the oxygen we breathe, it can prove very deadly. Since
nitrogen is odorless and colorless, our senses provide no protection
against nitrogen-enriched atmospheres. Good safety management
practices are essential if we are to reduce the annual toll of
nitrogen-related deaths and injuries."

R,
Tom Q.

In article <[email protected]>, alexy <[email protected]> wrote:

>Robert, I am not a medical professional, and Jr. high school biology
>was a long time ago, so I might be wrong, but aren't you ascribing to
>atmospheric CO2 what is really an issue with dissolved CO2 in the
>blood, or possibly CO2 build-up in the lungs? After all, this
>mechanism works when you are holding breath underwater, with no CO2 in
>the surrounding "atmosphere". Excessive CO2 buildup in the lungs is
>removed by breathing air with or without normal atmospheric levels of
>CO2.

That is correct: the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is very, very low,
approximately 0.035%, or only 350 ppm. The breathing reflex is triggered by
the level of CO2 in lung tissue.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

I have smoke detector in the basement away from the shop and a heat
detector over my DC. Also monitored. There isn't much else to catch fire
in there. Heat detector in garage and smoke detector upstairs too.

John

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, "Joe Wilding" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
>>browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once again.
>>
>>However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the magazine
>>almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine aside
>>for a few minutes.
>
>
> It shook me up too. Not quite that badly, but that photo was pretty grim. And
> scary. My shop is in the basement. Under my 13YO son's bedroom. I really,
> really, REALLY don't want a fire in the shop. We have a heat detector there
> already, wired into the monitored alarm system, but that article has me
> thinking about sprinklers. I'd *much* rather deal with water damage to the
> tools, than fire damage to the tools *and* the house, and the danger to my
> family.
>
>>I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
>>I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe I
>>will ask again:
>>I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking for
>>some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would sound
>>int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>>that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>>that is affordable?
>
>
> No doubt it's affordable, but is it practical? I mean, how much damage is
> going to happen before you can even get there?
>
> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's work?
> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire, any
> day.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>

On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:49:39 +0000, [email protected]
(Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>
>"FM 200" maybe? I can't find any apparently relevant on-line references to
>"FM1200"
>
>FM 200 _is_ one of the closer substitutes, and the 'most commercially
>available'. It fails the 'drop-in' replacement test on at least a
>couple of points -- 1) tanks have to be kept in a controlled environment,
>HALON is ok, outside in the Arctic, or the tropics. 2) can't use it
>through long piping runs.


Sorry, a typo, it is FM200. Our computer room fits the constraints:
it's pretty small - about 10 X 17 - and it's got it's own cooling
with backup. There are a bunch of alternatives, actually, but
each has constraints that make it less ideal than Halon.

[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

>That said, a 'near-total' nitrogen atmosphere *is* dangerous. Not so much
>_because_ of the Nitrogen presence, but because the levels of (a) Oxygen
>and (b) Carbon-Dioxide, are at unsafely _low_ levels -- 'driven out' by the
>excess Nitrogen.
>
>Nitrogen is 'colorless, odorless, and tasteless' (good thing!, see above:),
>and, as such, you get no warning of the presence of a 'too nitrogen rich'
>environment.
>
>The absence of CO2 means that the 'breathing reflex' is _not_ triggered, and
>you simply 'forget' to breathe. This _lack_ of CO2 is the 'real' killer --
>you "don't know" you have a breathing problem, because you aren't "feeling the
>need, the need to breathe".
<snip>

>"Mouth-to-mouth"
>is actually the most effective 'direct' treatment -- it supplies the critical
>carbon-dioxide as well as the oxygen.

Robert, I am not a medical professional, and Jr. high school biology
was a long time ago, so I might be wrong, but aren't you ascribing to
atmospheric CO2 what is really an issue with dissolved CO2 in the
blood, or possibly CO2 build-up in the lungs? After all, this
mechanism works when you are holding breath underwater, with no CO2 in
the surrounding "atmosphere". Excessive CO2 buildup in the lungs is
removed by breathing air with or without normal atmospheric levels of
CO2.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

alexy wrote:

> I would have thought you would get shortness of breath. But I
> understand hypoxia due to altitude works much as you describe.
> People's judgment and mental capacity decreases, but they do not
> recognize it.

A friend of mine climbed Mt. McKinley in Alaska in 1978. I wanted to go but
couldn't get all the $$ together. His description of insuffient oxygen was
interesting: "It's not like being high, it's like being stupid." All the
members of the expedition had an altitude at which they "became stupid." My
friend Jon made it higher than most but he was "out of it" near the peak and
has few memories of the last part of the climb. He has photos, and these
are the basis of his "reconstructed recollections" of the last part of the
climb. ;-)

By his description as they walked back down the mountain people "snapped
out" of their IQ-65 mode back to normal at the same altiudes they lost it on
the way up.

-- Mark

"Joe Wilding" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking
for
> some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would
sound
> int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something

Joe,

No idea of what you consider affordable - but for "things like this" (I was
going to say "toys" but didn't want to sound demeaning) I usually browse
www.smarthome.com. See: http://www.smarthome.com/73902.html

But you're always going to be considering tradeoffs. Is the reliabilty of
this system enough to suit my needs? Is the price right? Will the smoke
detector get set off by dust (as mine does)?

Things must get more violent in your shop than mine. The light bulbs
hang out at that same level. Can't remember ever breaking one of them.

bob g.

Doug Miller wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Robert Galloway <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Some of the sprinkler systems I'm familiar with used a small vial in the
>>sprinkler head the ruptured under heat and release the water. This
>>system sounds pretty fool proof as far as false alarms unless it
>>routinely gets up to a hundred and whatever in your shop. Are these
>>things still considered worthwhile?
>>
>
> Well, they're still selling them, and IIRC that's the type that was pictured
> in the article in FWW. My biggest concern with those would be protecting the
> glass vials from physical damage -- maybe a welded wire cage?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>

More... http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110003017

<quote>
To prevent an accidental fire or explosion sealed compartments on the
shuttle and ground equipment are purged with pure nitrogen. Nitrogen isn't
poisonous but without oxygen a fire can't happen--however people can't
breathe either.

Through a chain of miscommunications several technicians entered the
shuttle's aft compartment on March 19, shortly after the shuttle's dress
rehearsal was completed. They fell unconscious in the nitrogen-filled aft
compartment. Other techs were able to pull their bodies out and fire and
rescue personnel gave the victims CPR and oxygen. John Bjornstad died the
day of the accident. Technician Forrest Cole lingered on, dying on April
1st. Four others were either hospitalized or treated and released. Some had
respiratory problems for the rest of their lives.

The accident review board noted that a series of events led to confusion, a
do not enter sign was removed when it should have been replaced with another
sign with a warning. A supervisor was called away to another location. One
tech who put on an emergency breathing mask and tried to see if anybody was
still inside the shuttle couldn't tell because his mask fogged over. The
accident led to more stringent safety rules and procedures. During the STS-1
mission astronauts John Young and Bob Crippen recognized Bjornstad and Cole
for their sacrifice to the shuttle program.
</quote>

I notice some of the details in this quote are different from what I recall
being published in the Rapid City (South Dakota, USA) Journal in 1981.

I'm still googling for proof your body doesn't know when it is breating pure
nitrogen.

-- Mark

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Doug Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
>
>>>>> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
>>> work?
>>>>> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire,
>>> any
>>>>> day.
>>>
>>>Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
>>>halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
>>>risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>>>finishing stuff.
>>>
>>I don't think so. I used to work at a place that had a halon fire suppression
>>system in the computer room; the standard warning was if you hear the fire
>>alarm go off, you have 30 seconds to get out of the room before the atmosphere
>>is no longer breathable. I'll accept the (hopefully small) risk of my tools
>>getting wet.
>>
>
>Just for the record, there ware *TWO* kinds of HALON systems used for computer
>rooms. _One_ of them *would* maintain a 'breathable' atmosphere for humans,
>while suppressing a fire. The other one was 'quite' hazardous to humans.

Perhaps you can explain further, as I don't see how this is possible. To be
breathable for humans, air must have somewhere around 15% oxygen minimum, I
believe, and that's more than enough to support a fire.
>
>Note: I've had the 'dubious honor' of working at sites that have had dumps
>of _both_ kinds of systems. There is *no* warning/delay with the 'breathable'
>system -- when somebody hits the panic button the dump valves open *right*now*.
>
>Either variety is fairly _expensive_ to use. The 'breathable' stuff, more so.

And thus, absolutely not suited to use in a small woodshop -- if one could
even get it, which as you note, one can't.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Lee Michaels wrote:

> Who is the redneck comedian who says that his wife is a terrible
> cook? But she has improved since whe figured out that the smoke alarm
> is not a timer.

Some other comedian said "My wife treats me like a god. She serves me burnt
offerings three times a day."

-- Mark

On 19 Nov 2004 16:11:26 GMT, Dave Hinz <[email protected]> wrote:

>What ever happened to GHG-12? George Goble (spelling?) worked it up,
>blend of propane/butane/etc. Intended as a drop-in for R-12, for automotive
>use. People whined that it was flammable, but most cars have this whole
>fuel thing going on anyway, so...

As far as making stuff cold goes, you can use just about any gas,
straight propane works well and has been substituted for years, the
problem is that gasses under pressure often leak, and flammable gasses
tend to, well, *burn*, when they leak into very hot environments. Add
to that the fact that and AC system repeatedly compresses the gas
(raising its temperature notably) and you have a real disaster waiting
to happen. While a dust collector explosion is virtually impossible,
an explosion of an AC system charged with propane is a very real
possibility and would have significant destructive capability, far
beyond what you will get from any fuel system.

The propane mixtures are still often used in stationary applications
where you don't have to worry about hot exhaust systems and suchlike
setting leaking gasses on fire. As I understand it, propane actually
has a greater capacity for cooling than does freon.

Tim Douglass

http://www.DouglassClan.com

"Mark Jerde" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
>> At fire-suppression concentrations, HALON 1301 (gas) _is_ safe to
>> breathe. HALON 1211 (liquid) is also 'breathable', *but* is generally
>> "pushed out"
>> by high pressure Nitrogen -- which adds a possible 'oxygen starvation'
>> component to the situation. A few systems use HALON 1211 to push out
>> the HALON 1301.
>
>IIRC nitrogen is a very dangerous gas for us humanoids. If you walk into a
>room with a high enough concentration of nitrogen and stay there a few
>breaths, the next thing you'll know (or won't know depending on whose
>religion is right) is you're dead. There's no shortness of breath, no
>choking, just your eyes going dark. The early warning sign is death.
>
>IIRC extremely dangerous.

"IIRC"? That is a big IF!

You are partially right. If increase the normal air nitrogen content
from 78% to 90% or 95%, there is precious little room for oxygen. But
I suspect you would experience shortness of breath.

Maybe you were thinking of carbon monoxide?
>

--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.

You say you'll take water damage over fire damage any day, but I remember
the hassles a relative of mine went through when trying to build a house
just outside a municipality. They wanted him to get a sprinkler system
installed because he was too far away from the fire stations. His insurance
company was giving him flack about having a sprinkler system installed,
because of the rate of false alarms, and water damage caused when that
happened. Actually, they weren't so much giving him flack as soaking him
(tee-hee) on the premiums. I think in the end he signed a waiver with the
city to cover their butts, and life went on. But it dragged on for over a
year, got in the paper, etc.

So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when there's
not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on that
frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife doesn't
cook like mine...

Clint

"Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Joe Wilding"
<[email protected]> wrote:
> >I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
> >browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once
again.
> >
> >However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the
magazine
> >almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine
aside
> >for a few minutes.
>
> It shook me up too. Not quite that badly, but that photo was pretty grim.
And
> scary. My shop is in the basement. Under my 13YO son's bedroom. I really,
> really, REALLY don't want a fire in the shop. We have a heat detector
there
> already, wired into the monitored alarm system, but that article has me
> thinking about sprinklers. I'd *much* rather deal with water damage to the
> tools, than fire damage to the tools *and* the house, and the danger to my
> family.
> >
> >I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
> >I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe
I
> >will ask again:
> >I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking
for
> >some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would
sound
> >int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
> >that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
> >that is affordable?
>
> No doubt it's affordable, but is it practical? I mean, how much damage is
> going to happen before you can even get there?
>
> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
work?
> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire,
any
> day.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>
> Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
> by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
> You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>
>

Some of the sprinkler systems I'm familiar with used a small vial in the
sprinkler head the ruptured under heat and release the water. This
system sounds pretty fool proof as far as false alarms unless it
routinely gets up to a hundred and whatever in your shop. Are these
things still considered worthwhile?

bob g.

Clint wrote:

> You say you'll take water damage over fire damage any day, but I remember
> the hassles a relative of mine went through when trying to build a house
> just outside a municipality. They wanted him to get a sprinkler system
> installed because he was too far away from the fire stations. His insurance
> company was giving him flack about having a sprinkler system installed,
> because of the rate of false alarms, and water damage caused when that
> happened. Actually, they weren't so much giving him flack as soaking him
> (tee-hee) on the premiums. I think in the end he signed a waiver with the
> city to cover their butts, and life went on. But it dragged on for over a
> year, got in the paper, etc.
>
> So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when there's
> not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on that
> frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife doesn't
> cook like mine...
>
> Clint
>
> "Doug Miller" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, "Joe Wilding"
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
>>>browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once
>
> again.
>
>>>However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the
>
> magazine
>
>>>almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine
>
> aside
>
>>>for a few minutes.
>>
>>It shook me up too. Not quite that badly, but that photo was pretty grim.
>
> And
>
>>scary. My shop is in the basement. Under my 13YO son's bedroom. I really,
>>really, REALLY don't want a fire in the shop. We have a heat detector
>
> there
>
>>already, wired into the monitored alarm system, but that article has me
>>thinking about sprinklers. I'd *much* rather deal with water damage to the
>>tools, than fire damage to the tools *and* the house, and the danger to my
>>family.
>>
>>>I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
>>>I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe
>
> I
>
>>>will ask again:
>>>I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking
>
> for
>
>>>some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would
>
> sound
>
>>>int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>>>that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>>>that is affordable?
>>
>>No doubt it's affordable, but is it practical? I mean, how much damage is
>>going to happen before you can even get there?
>>
>>Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
>>900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
>
> work?
>
>>Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire,
>
> any
>
>>day.
>>
>>--
>>Regards,
>> Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
>>
>>Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
>>by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
>>You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
>>
>>
>
>
>

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>>> Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
>>> 900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's
> work?
>>> Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire,
> any
>>> day.
>
>Avoid the whole water damage thing and install 'one uh them thar' fancy
>halon systems. Probably not a DIY, nor ~$100, but if this is a big
>risk... Seems plausable for a basement shop, esp. with volatile
>finishing stuff.
>
I don't think so. I used to work at a place that had a halon fire suppression
system in the computer room; the standard warning was if you hear the fire
alarm go off, you have 30 seconds to get out of the room before the atmosphere
is no longer breathable. I'll accept the (hopefully small) risk of my tools
getting wet.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article <[email protected]>, "Joe Wilding" <[email protected]> wrote:
>I just got the new Tools and Shop edition of Fine Woodworking. After
>browsing through quickly, it looks like there is some good stuff once again.
>
>However, the picture of the burned down shop in the middle of the magazine
>almost made me physically ill. I had to sit down and put the magazine aside
>for a few minutes.

It shook me up too. Not quite that badly, but that photo was pretty grim. And
scary. My shop is in the basement. Under my 13YO son's bedroom. I really,
really, REALLY don't want a fire in the shop. We have a heat detector there
already, wired into the monitored alarm system, but that article has me
thinking about sprinklers. I'd *much* rather deal with water damage to the
tools, than fire damage to the tools *and* the house, and the danger to my
family.
>
>I guess the article succeeded at making me think more about shop safety.
>I have made this request before, but never found a good answer, so maybe I
>will ask again:
>I have a detached shop about 100 feet from my house. I have been looking for
>some sort of a remote transmitting smoke alarm for the shop that would sound
>int he house if I ever did have a shop fire. I am sure this is something
>that a lot of woodworkers could use. Does any know of anything like this
>that is affordable?

No doubt it's affordable, but is it practical? I mean, how much damage is
going to happen before you can even get there?

Speaking of affordable... did you see that the article described fitting a
900 square foot shop with a sprinkler system for about $100 and a day's work?
Sounds like a winner to me. Like I said, I'll take water damage over fire, any
day.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

alexy wrote:

> Mark, I think the difference is that here we are talking about
> nitrogen as a propellant, which would dilute the oxygen content
> somewhat.

I agree I have probably fixated on an obscure and basically irrelevant
point. ;-) That's my MO. <g>

Doubtless halon was/is an effective fire suppressor.

Sorry for the diversion... ;-) I specialize in obscure and
irrelevant....

-- Mark

Jeff Foxworthy?


"Lee Michaels" <leemichaels*nadaspam*@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:RMJmd.108146$R05.70023@attbi_s53...
>
> "Clint" <[email protected]> wrote
> >
> > So I guess the idea of a sprinkler system is a good one, but it may be
> > financially more expensive to deal with. I doubt in particular if your
> > insurance company would cover ANY of your costs if you DIY. And if you
> > consider how often your smoke detector goes off in your house when
there's
> > not actually a fire, and imagine repairing/refurbishing your tools on
that
> > frequency, you may want to reconsider. Then again, maybe your wife
> doesn't
> > cook like mine...
> >
> Who is the redneck comedian who says that his wife is a terrible cook? But
> she has improved since whe figured out that the smoke alarm is not a
timer.
>
>
>

No. Halon is still used and approved for aircraft. I don't remember what
type number it is though. But they still have their place.
I sit on a handheld one one!

John


> Unfortunately, you cannot buy/install a _new_ HALON system these days.
> and they're not making HALON any more. If you have an existing system,
> and can find 'old stock' from somebody, you can use that to recharge and/or
> top-off an existing system.

>
> Nitrogen, itself, is absolutely harmless. Good thing, too, because it makes
> up approximately 80% of what you're breathing _right_now_. It is an *inert*
> gas, totally non-reactive with _anything_.

Always got to be some SOB wants to argue. Today, it's me. There are
several inert gasses. Helium, Neon, Argon, Radon... Nitrogen is fairly
non reactive but everything from ammonium nitrate fertilizer to nitric
acid tends to show that is does react with a few things. Doesn't
require extreme conditions, either. Check out the rhizobium bacteria
attached to the roots of your alfalfa or clover.

bob g.

every thing else you said appears to be right on.

>
> That said, a 'near-total' nitrogen atmosphere *is* dangerous. Not so much
> _because_ of the Nitrogen presence, but because the levels of (a) Oxygen
> and (b) Carbon-Dioxide, are at unsafely _low_ levels -- 'driven out' by the
> excess Nitrogen.
>
> Nitrogen is 'colorless, odorless, and tasteless' (good thing!, see above:),
> and, as such, you get no warning of the presence of a 'too nitrogen rich'
> environment.
>
> The absence of CO2 means that the 'breathing reflex' is _not_ triggered, and
> you simply 'forget' to breathe. This _lack_ of CO2 is the 'real' killer --
> you "don't know" you have a breathing problem, because you aren't "feeling the
> need, the need to breathe". Fairly quickly, this leads to oxygen depletion
> in the blood stream, which leads to cessation of many 'automatic' bodily
> functions. Unconsciousness follows. 3-5 minutes later, and you have
> irreversible brain-death due to lack of oxygen.
>
> Catch the unconscious person promptly, remove them from the 'unhealthy'
> environment, and they will generally recover quite quickly. "Mouth-to-mouth"
> is actually the most effective 'direct' treatment -- it supplies the critical
> carbon-dioxide as well as the oxygen. Speed _is_ of the essence in getting
> breathing restored. Ephinepherine may also be beneficial -- it assists
> hemoglobin in binding to free oxygen.
>
>