[Greenbuilding] [BULK] Re: Fwd: Question on tight house, carbon monoxide

KTOT (g) ktottotc at gmail.com
Sat Feb 18 11:42:16 CST 2012


I’ve gotten Kidde digital CO alarms recently from amazon.com for $22 though they’re showing about $30 now. Either way, they’re affordable enough that everyone should have multiples in their homes. These are the digital ones, that read out numbers, so you can catch rising CO (if you check the display) long before CO reaches the point of any alarms going off.

From: Bob klahn 
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 11:47 PM
To: greenbuilding at lists.bioenergylists.org 
Subject: Re: [Greenbuilding] [BULK] Re: Fwd: Question on tight house, carbon monoxide

On the couple of gas stoves I've had (that I can recall) the control and adjustment seemed to vary a bit.  None seemed to have been designed with adjustment - or ease thereof - in mind.  Good luck.

I believe the 100 ppm is an artifact of an old industrial  guideline.  Totally wrong for a residential exposure.  The real problem is, obviously, that g as ranges are not commonly vented.

Rick Karg, in Maine, worked up more reasonable (testing) standards for residential gas ranges, a couple of decades ago.  I believe his work is still avialable on the web, if you search.  A good CO detector/monitor would be a good thing to have on hand while you experiment, imho. They have gotten  relatively cheaper lately.  An alternative to might be one of the "CO Experts" detectors (about $200, a great bargain -imho- and as sensitive as my trusty Bachrach Monoxer).

Take care (in a general and literal sense, with this project).
Bob Klahn.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  From: greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org [mailto:greenbuilding-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org] On Behalf Of Reuben Deumling
  Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 3:57 PM
  To: Greenbuilding 
  Subject: [Greenbuilding] Fwd: Question on tight house, carbon monoxide

   

  Fascinating. 

  Is there any reason to be so (comparatively) lax about ovens? I mean isn't it a pretty simple matter to get the fuel air mixture right, or is it more complicated?

  It reminds me of the long standing rules that permit side by side & bottom freezer refrigerators to consume more electricity per cubic foot... There's no engineering reason to set this up that way, but there may be plenty of other reasons to :-)

   

  On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 1:53 PM, George J. Nesbitt <george at houseisasystem.com> wrote:

  It' burner design from what I understand. Historically CO testing protocols have allowed 100ppm for stovetop burners & 300ppm for ovens before you are "required" to take corrective action. Although lately 100ppm seems to be used for everything.

   


_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Greenbuilding mailing list
to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
Greenbuilding at bioenergylists.org

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/greenbuilding_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20120218/80c7488f/attachment.html>


More information about the Greenbuilding mailing list