electrical fire

[kwired]

Just saying "Electrical Fire" is too generic and can have 10 different meanings to 10 different people.

If fire starts by something powered by electricity we have an electrical fire even if the problem was not electrical in nature. You know how many electric motors have started "electrical fires" but the real cause was a bad bearing or other mechanical problem?

If you overheat something with an appliance that is intended to create heat and start a fire is this an electrical fire or is there operator error involved. Good example may be a grease fire on a cooking stove. Does it matter if the heat source was from an electric element or from gas burner? The fire likely started because of something the cook did.

Say a structure fire starts out in a natural gas furnace, maybe there was an electrical failure that failed to turn off the gas and the result was excessive heat being supplied by the gas. Is this an "electrical fire" or just a malfunctioning appliance? One description sends different meaning than the other to most people.

 

[safetysupervisor]

Assumtions for the cause

Assumtions for the cause

Actually no one can exactly say what happens when fire takes place because if someone was watching that, "how it happens" then obviously he had stopped it.

But yeah, we can assume the situations when it happens, probably it may happen due to loose connections, which results in sparking, and these sparks melt the insulation wire which cause a little fire, which finally took a huge face.

The other situation that might occur is overheating in appliances which are closer to the electrical wire.

Or the wires were not capable of balancing the voltage load which may again occur in heating.

 

[renosteinke]

I think what we are reacting to is the irresponsible listing of anyfire as 'electrical' because either the inspection is inadequate, or the cause is unknown.

I was doing the 'make safe' at the scene of a fatal apartment fire when an inspector for the insurance company arrived. Before I describe his visit, let me explain a few deails ...

Immediately prior to the fire, there had been some "suspicious" activity by area vagrants / petty criminals at this building. It was feared that this activity was somehow related to the fire. So, there had already been a very thorough investigation by the police and the fire marshall, and the cause was fairly clear: for whatever reason, the bed had been set afire by a cigarette, with the tenant in it. Whether the tenant died first, or the fire started first had not yet been determined.

Back to the story .... the insurance guy was simply determined to list the fire as 'electrical.' Here was a fire that had pretty much reduced everything - including the tenant- to piles of ashes, had melted exposed EMT fittings (zinc), where the maximum damage was clearly to the bed, and this guy wants to say it was 'electrical.'

This sort of 'investigation' undermines any trust there might be in the data collected. Perhaps this is part of the reason we are all so skeptical about AFCI's. We just don't believe anythig, having been exposed to so much nonsense already.

 

[pfalcon]

...
This sort of 'investigation' undermines any trust there might be in the data collected. Perhaps this is part of the reason we are all so skeptical about AFCI's. We just don't believe anythig, having been exposed to so much nonsense already.

I've only seen two fires at our rental units. The first was caused by a furnace (per fire marshall) that wasn't damaged by the fire it caused. In fact, the furnace man test fired it before he removed it. It was still in working order.

The second fire was a faulty outlet (per fire marshall) which also wasn't damaged. Though the fire never came within several feet of the outlet it was determined to be the only possible source of ignition near by. We later found that the toddler present had been taught to play with lighters. Seriously.

So yes, when a fire marshall determines a cause for a fire - I have no faith in his investigation.

 

[kwired]

The problem is nobody wants to spend the money for a real forensics investigation. When there is one done it is paid for by someone involved in a court case, often for a civil case and not so much for a criminal case unless the criminal defendant has some money to pay for the investigation, as it is deemed necessary to get someone that knows what they are doing to produce good evidence for the case.

There have been recent threads involving electrocutions in marina's lately - a lot of same applies there, it doesn't appear that there has been that good of investigations in those cases, but somebody will hire a private investigation eventually for the purpose of a civil lawsuit and will uncover things not mentioned in the initial investigations by public officials.

 

[hurk27]

I think we are also seeing fire investigators who are afraid of the back lash they might receive if they point the cause at one manufacture or another, it can be picked apart in a court of law and considered slander if they are found to be wrong, so I do understand both sides of the fence.

But with that said this is not getting us closer to the real facts that is needed to know what really took place so the correct fixes can be made whither it be a law or code that needs to be changed or may be a new product developed to prevent the accident from happening again, the sad thing is like Charlie Eldridge used to say, it takes some time some bodies before it gets done, in some of the recent cases we are talking about children, and this disturbs me when all we really need is correct investigations done by qualified people.

As I pointed out in post #12 without correct determinations of causes we are not going to see dangerous products removed from being sold, they will continue to be put out there and people can die from them, without the correct findings in these marina cases we will still see people being shocked or electrocuted, lets just hope they do find the correct reason and also find solutions to not just what they find but to anything that may also be a hazard in those kinds of environments.

I would welcome any of those investigators on here if we could only work together to help them find these solutions because saving life's is what it is all about.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Here's one of the issues with investigators not really looking that close, it just makes it easier for an arsonist. Simply put some accelerant on the wall, in a V pattern, above an outlet and Bingo, electrical fire. Now bring in the dog and that goes out the window, but if you just want quick and simple.......

 

[renosteinke]

Hurk says: "As I pointed out in post #12 without correct determinations of causes we are not going to see dangerous products removed from being sold."

I agree - except he doesn't go far enough.

In addition to letting bad stuff remain, this "junk science" leads to good stuff being banned- in error.

As Peter Huber documented in his book "Gallileo's Revenge: Junk Science in the Courtroom," there have been many instances of well-meaning government action doing exactly the opposite of the intent. Whether talking about the FDA's actions to ensure that 'radium' potions actual deliver harmful radiation, or the absolute errors about DDT portrayed in "Silent Spring," these rushes to judgement have harmed far more than Dr. Evil could have harmed in his wildest dreams.

So, what's that got to do with us? Well, the next NEC edition is in the works, and I wonder just how many hundreds of new pages there will be, expounding on ever-detailed burdensome requirements, specifying ever-more expensive materials, to fix problems that don't exist.

How soon we forget.

The latest shibboleth is the assertion that AFCI's are no different from GFCI's, in that they are facing superstitious opposition by unreasonable dinosaurs. What is overlooked is that GFCI's were developed over decades - the latest changes being in 2003 - and that there were very many problems associated with them.

AFCI's ... now, there's the irony. For all the talk of 'electrical fires,' even a perfect AFCI would have had no effect on any of the examples cited in this thread. Yet, we still get assertions about how the things will prevent electrical fires. Left unquantified are all the poor folks whose marginal housing isn't upgraded at all -and is maintained by unqualified folks- because of the increasing expense. Penny in the socket, or $35 breaker? Another extension cord - or complete rewire? What's amazing is that there are so few electrical fires.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Part of the issue with the fire cause and origin investigations is that some of the text books used to teach the fire service people how to deterimine the cause are incorrect. There was a Texas case where an "arson" fire resulted in a death, the "arsonist" was caught and give a death sentence. After the sentence was carried out, the information from a fire investigation text book, that was used to prove "arson" was shown to be invalid.
The following is part of a report about this fire.

The eight-member panel made its recommendations after the state attorney general limited the scope of its investigation in the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was put to death in 2004 for setting a 1991 fire that killed his three children. Arson experts hired by the forensic commission determined the evidence used to convict Willingham didn't meet modern scientific standards and the fire was most likely accidental.

 

[zbang]

Part of the problem is that schools stopped really teaching deductive and critical thinking, and scientific method, years ago. There's also a trend not to question authority, whatever authority that is. This leads to things like the completely undamaged
receptacle causing a fire- a moments thought would question that conclusion ("Hey! If that caused the fire, where are the burn marks around it?!? Why are they four feet away?").

And, of course, there are some people that won't change their mind even in the face of direct evidence, usually because that's what they were taught 40 years ago.

 

[pfalcon]

The problem is nobody wants to spend the money for a real forensics investigation. ...

I think we are also seeing fire investigators who are afraid of the back lash they might receive ...

And no one is willing to accept what is probably the most common answer: "I don't know."

 

[don_resqcapt19]

And no one is willing to accept what is probably the most common answer: "I don't know."

Part of that comes from the fact that fire departments are told they really should not use the "unknown cause" when they submit their NFIRS reports.

National Fire Incident Reporting System

 

[kwired]

Part of that comes from the fact that fire departments are told they really should not use the "unknown cause" when they submit their NFIRS reports.

National Fire Incident Reporting System

And calling it electrical in nature when in fact they really did not know does not help solve problems, and maybe even puts more emphasis on something that is not really much of a problem.

 

[cowboyjwc]

And calling it electrical in nature when in fact they really did not know does not help solve problems, and maybe even puts more emphasis on something that is not really much of a problem.

Now that's very true.

 

[nhfire77]

Part of that comes from the fact that fire departments are told they really should not use the "unknown cause" when they submit their NFIRS reports.

National Fire Incident Reporting System

That's changing. Investigations that do not have sufficient evidence are being left undetermined, as they should be, or if more experienced help is warranted, it must be brought in. This is due to many factors such as ignorance, malfeasance etc. however having your C&O blown out of the water by insurnace investigators is bad for business. Most losses over 50-100k get a detailed investigation by the insurance company. The bigger the loss the deeper the investigation. Many fire departments don't have the experience, manpower and money to commit a complete investigation. The smart ones won't use the electrical label unless its warranted.

To those of you that have mentioned BS causes by fire marshalls/investigator, know that the tide has changed and science and fact matters. The old gard is on its way out.

 

[T.M.Haja Sahib]

In one fire investigation, I was interviewed by the chief electrical inspector.Every thing in the room adjacent to the power room, where electrical switch gear was present was destroyed by the fire. But the cables emanating from that room into the portion of the power room for termination in the switch gear were intact. I pointed out this to the chief electrical inspector and remarked that if the fire was caused by an electrical short circuit, the insulation of those lengths of cables present in the power room should also have melted down. But it did not happen. So the fire could not be due to short circuit. The entire team of the chief electrical inspector agreed.

 

[spark master]

I witnessed my neighbors house burn down. I tried to put it out with a garden hose, but it was too late.
The car went on fire inside the garage, and took the house with it. Flames came out from under the hood. I saw it personally.

The fire chief writes it up. "GARAGE DOOR OPENER -- ELECTRICAL FIRE". He said he saw charr makes on the door operator.
I told him what I saw... he ignored me.

It's like arguing with city hall.

 

[kwired]

I witnessed my neighbors house burn down. I tried to put it out with a garden hose, but it was too late.
The car went on fire inside the garage, and took the house with it. Flames came out from under the hood. I saw it personally.

The fire chief writes it up. "GARAGE DOOR OPENER -- ELECTRICAL FIRE". He said he saw charr makes on the door operator.
I told him what I saw... he ignored me.

It's like arguing with city hall.

Kind of makes you wonder why someone would do that other than to use a position of power for their own benefit.
The charr marks are vaporized plastics from the car that were deposited on the door operator:slaphead: I bet if you take that door opener and open it up everthing inside is in good condition, might even run if you power it up, unless it got too hot. Insurance possibly will conduct their own investigation, if anything to determine validity of paying a claim, if it did start in the car they will want to know why and not just "it started in the car", same if it did start in the door opener.

Just read an article about a house fire in yesterdays paper - nobody was at home at time of fire yet the fire chief determined the cause was an "apparently overloaded electrical panel". If it was "overloaded" when nobody is at home, I hate to see what it was like when they were home. Maybe the fire did start at the electrical panel, overloading was not the likely cause though. What would be so wrong with making a statement like "there was an apparent malfunction in the electrical panel"? Fire chief may be able to determine where the fire started, but does not mean he knows what actually happened within a piece of electrical equipment

 

[pfalcon]

Part of that comes from the fact that fire departments are told they really should not use the "unknown cause" when they submit their NFIRS reports.

National Fire Incident Reporting System

And this kind of direction comes from upper level people stressing that all cases must be resolved. It's a fundamental departure from reality that they believe that the root cause of every problem isn't simply knowable, but already known to the people investigating. The investigators are just slacking off if they haven't closed the report yet.

We often get pushed with "All accidents are preventable." Only if God runs your safety department. The rest of us depend on people that aren't omniscient. So on all sorts of reports we get to read without any substantiating evidence:
Computer error
Operator error
Electrical fire
Furnace fire
Speeding and following too close
Texting while driving
All of these require additional details and conditions to have occurred. But when we read them we know that know one really knows what happened. It's a euphemistic way of saying "I don't know" that lets you close the file. And as has been said by others in this thread - it destroys credibility in the reporting system.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Kind of makes you wonder why someone would do that other than to use a position of power for their own benefit.
The charr marks are vaporized plastics from the car that were deposited on the door operator:slaphead: I bet if you take that door opener and open it up everthing inside is in good condition, might even run if you power it up, unless it got too hot. Insurance possibly will conduct their own investigation, if anything to determine validity of paying a claim, if it did start in the car they will want to know why and not just "it started in the car", same if it did start in the door opener.

Just read an article about a house fire in yesterdays paper - nobody was at home at time of fire yet the fire chief determined the cause was an "apparently overloaded electrical panel". If it was "overloaded" when nobody is at home, I hate to see what it was like when they were home. Maybe the fire did start at the electrical panel, overloading was not the likely cause though. What would be so wrong with making a statement like "there was an apparent malfunction in the electrical panel"? Fire chief may be able to determine where the fire started, but does not mean he knows what actually happened within a piece of electrical equipment

We had one try the same thing one time until we verified with the utility company that it was a lighting strike. It did destroy the panel, but the panel was an effect not a cause. I took one course on cause and effect, and it was a real eye opener.