Smoke detectors for the home. GET SOME!

mtngoat

Member
Do you have smoke detectors for the home? If not I suggest you get in your vechile of choice and drive to Wally World and purchase some!
Why all this fuss about smoke detectors you say?
We had a little flair up on the kitchen stove today.
Bacon grease was left in a pan and had hardened.Somebody had the great idea to turn the burner on and melt it so it could be poured into a container for disposal. It was forgotten about and the flames melted plastic salt & pepper shakersthe two plastic knobs on the stove the tops, the
cooking spray,side of the frig and the ceiling is black over the stove.(did i metion i'm a professional hood cleaner and grease removal specialist) A WHOOOPSEE! And NO it wasnt me.
Good thing for the smoke detectors or we would not have noticed until half the house was on fire.

OK So lets hear it professional cleaners. How the heck can I get this
black soot off the ceiling without repainting? Mite need to reprime with kilz or similiar.The soot isnt that bad, may be able to repaint.
 
Sorry to hear about the mishap.
It happens daily all across the country. That is now the second leading cause of home fires with candles being #1 and smoking #3 (used to be #1).

As for the clean up, sorry can't help you. But Kilz is a great product.
 
Last edited:
Say Grant you do fire systems professionaly correct?
What is a good class extinguisher for the home and garage?
 
5 pound, ABC minimum (3A40BC) for most areas is okay. I keep several in my garage, one in my closet and one in my kitchen. (BC's are used in commercial kitchens with automatic supression systems due to chemical compatibility issues.)
A is for normal cumbustibles
B is for flammable liquids
C means non conductive and can be used on energized electrical equipment.
 
A butyl based degreaser should cut the soot. I have a customer that cleans at Tumbleweed, and the hood cleaner did fine on grease but wouldn't cut the wood smoke soot. BD20 degreaser (6% butyl) cleaned the soot right off. Does wonders for fireplace glass, too.
 
Along wiht the smoke, get a CO moniter. The Fire extinguihser should not be one with a plastic valve assembly, get a metal valve assembly. I prefer Amerex, but that is because I am an Anerex distributor. My experience with the plastic valve has not been good. Get an extra extinguisher with a vehicle bracket for the work vehicle and trailer.

Douglas Hicks
General Fire Equipment Co of Eastern Oregon, Inc
 
My new home alarm system ties in smokes and Co2 for local alarm plus 24 hour monitoring those additions to the new system cost less than the amount of discount I am going to get from my homeowners insurance in the first year!

Finally I'm getting a good deal on something!

And Douglas is right about the plastic "disposable" extinguishers. Spend twice the money and get a real extinguisher that will last at least ten times as long.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Doug & Grant. Good point about the Plastic Valve. Especially if the extinguisher is in or near the fire it could be melted and or destroyed not to mention how much tuffer the metal would be on every day abuses. Allready have CO monitor.

Russ- I will try the Butyl degreaser. Have used it on hoods with not much luck.But grease is different then smoke soot.
 
Wher do the new K class extinguishers fit into these catagories?
 
The class K extinguisher is used for restaurant . With the new cooking oils available on the market today, it has been proved that the regular BC dry chemical powder in systems and BC type extinguishers do not put out the grease fires as well. The Class K extinguisher has been developed to combat the newer cooking oils and extinguishes the fire much better. Class K agent is similar to the wet chemical found in the new UL300 compliant fire suppression systems.

and D class is for heavy metal fires like magnesium (old volkswagen transaxles)
 
So K class wall mount are not the same agent as the UL 300 solutions.
What are the chemical names for the 2 different solutions?
 
The various manufacturers are intentionally being vague about the whole issue, but Ansulex R102 is made up of Potassium Carbonate, Potassium Acetate, Phenolphtalein and Water. and the K Class MSDS says "proprietary mixture of hydrocarbon surfactants, fluorosurfactants, and organic and inorganic salts and water"

Kidde defines theirs as a Potassium Acetate Solution. What is the difference...I'm no chemist.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Grant.
With everyone changing over to UL 300 I am recieving alot of questions about what is the UL 300 solution compared to the current dry chemical systems.
Seems like the dry chems would be better for electrical equipment
rather than the wet chems. But as you have stated I am not a chemist either.
Just would be nice to give some of these people a inteligent answer when they start asking me why and what is it.

Thank You. Mtngoat
 
Here is something that may help:

UL-300 Standard Update

From the National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors

UL-300
On November 21, 1994, a new Underwriters Laboratories test standard entitled UL 300, Fire Testing of Fire Extinguishing Systems for Protection of Restaurant Cooking Areas went into effect. This new standard is the result of changes in fire hazards involving commercial cooking equipment.
Pre-engineered chemical suppression systems were developed in the 1960's for the protection of commercial cooking equipment, plenums and ducts. Underwriter's Laboratories (UL) developed a series of fire tests for these systems designed to duplicate the potential fire hazard found in the work place. These tests established specific requirements (and limitations) affecting extinguishing agent, fire detection, piping limitations, nozzle coverage, etc., for each manufacturer who submitted its system for UL testing. Following successful completion of such tests, this data created the installation and maintenance manual for that specific manufacturer.

Fats and Temperature
At the time that these tests were developed, rendered animal fat (lard) was typically used in commercial kitchens to fry various foods. Commercial cooking operations, appliances and supplies have changed greatly since the 1960's. Health concerns have reduced the use of lard. Efforts to cook faster have caused the use of insulated "high efficiency " fryers that heat faster and cool slower. Restaurant suppliers estimate that 70-75% of commercial kitchens use vegetable oils for frying in high-efficiency fryers.

These changes have significantly altered the fire hazard in cooking areas. Lard has a large percentage of saturated fat whereas vegetable oils have a very low percent of such fatty acids. The auto-ignition temperature of most animal fats in the 550-600 degree F. range compared to the auto-ignition temperature of most vegetable oils which is at 685 degree F. and higher.

The extinguishing agent employed in pre-engineered restaurant systems is an alkaline base. Fatty acids combine with alkalines to produce a soapy solution in process known as saponification. Thus, when a suppression system is discharged on a burning deep fat fryer containing rendered animal fat, a soap blanket is formed cutting off the oxygen supply and containing the fire until the fuel (animal fat) is cooled below its auto-ignition temperature.

A similar fire involving vegetable oils creates a different set of circumstances. With only a limited amount of fatty acids saponification is greatly reduced and the higher temperature of such fires, enhanced by the insulation in a high efficiency fryer, causes the soap blanket to break down. Thus the extinguishing capability of the fire suppression system is reduced.

Time for Change
UL recognized the need for a new set of standards for pre-engineered systems and developed its new UL 300 standard. As might be anticipated, many changes were made in the testing program. A chart comparing former tests with the new requirements is printed on the reverse of this page.

Unfortunately, UL did not require a model number change for those manufacturers who will be modifying existing system designs to comply with the new UL 300 test standard. The only requirement is the issuance of a new installation and maintenance manual containing whatever changes and modifications found necessary for the compliance with the new standard plus the effective date of the revised publication. This could lead to some confusion because of similarities between the old and new system components.

Buyer Beware
We must assume that there will be a small number of sellers/installers who will attempt to furnish either new or used systems that were tested to the former standard. Such fire suppression systems would be inadequate to deliver the additional coverage found to be necessary for today's fire hazards.

UL-300 and the Fire Service
How can a local authority determine if the system complies with the new UL 300 standard? It is suggested that the contractor be required to include with his submittal package a copy of the manufacturer's installation and maintenance manual that would specifically indicate it is in compliance with the new standard and dated November 1994 or later.

The new UL 300 standard assures fire protection for a hazard that has gone through many changes. It presents the most significant advancements in testing of pre-engineered restaurant fire suppression systems in the past 20 years. Without careful scrutiny by local authorities such changes would have little effect if fire suppression systems are allowed to be installed under the old listings and manuals.

Final Remarks
The new UL Standard 300 addresses the problems in fire protection for commercial cooking environments which reflect changes in our diet and the way we prepare food. All of these changes have resulted in fires which are hot, stubborn and difficult to extinguish. Nozzle coverages and placement options are likely to decrease while extinguishing agent amounts increase.

Pre-engineered systems for commercial cooking operations will become more detailed, more technical, and more expensive. They will also be safer, more reliable and perform their primary function better than ever before.




Update History
This page is brought to you as a courtesy of the National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors, and was last updated on July 22, 1995.
Copyright (C) 1995, National Association of Fire Equipment Distributors

Permission is granted to create WWW pointers to this document. All other rights reserved.


UL 300
 
Last edited:
Back
Top