PhotonWrangler
Flashaholic
Saw a report on the news today that claimed that ionizing smoke detectors are far less sensitive to fires that produce toxic gases than photoelectric detectors. They showed a demonstration using a simulated house fire where the room was filling with smoke, and the photoelectric detector sounded after about 17 minutes of light smoldering, where the ionizing units didn't sound until around 35 minutes. By that time the room was hazy with smoke and likely filled with invisible toxic fumes.
So from now on I'm only going to buy smoke detectors that use both detection technologies inside.
What puzzles me is this - up until today I had no idea that ionizing detectors were so much slower to reach than photoelectric ones. So why hasn't this been generally known by the public over the several decades that smoke detectors have been around?
:thinking:
So from now on I'm only going to buy smoke detectors that use both detection technologies inside.
What puzzles me is this - up until today I had no idea that ionizing detectors were so much slower to reach than photoelectric ones. So why hasn't this been generally known by the public over the several decades that smoke detectors have been around?
:thinking: