Talk:Carbon monoxide detector

message: I just came here, looking for emergency advice because my CO detector is beeping. It makes me think that Wikipedia topics that are about emergency devices should begin with emergency instructions, in large type of what to do immediately. My two cents - David.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.84.235 (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I made the suggestion about not needing them on the ceiling into a stern warning. If you install them on the ceiling (unless they're specifically designed for it - most aren't) it could be deadly. = incorrect
Carbon monoxide is not heavier than air - in fact it is slightly lighter as CO has the RMM of 28 whereas air is slightly more than this.  It is therefore almost neutral density.  However in a normal room, thermal convection current dominate transport of gases in a room.  The ceiling is a relatively good place to have a CO detector as long as air flow from convectional currents in not affected and any boundary layer is overcome.
A ceiling mounted CO detector would have to be very sensitive in relation to a normal "near the floor" detector.  NOT TRUE Does anyone have any examples? I've never even heard of a ceiling CO detector. FractureTalk   06:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the density of CO is less than that of air, therefore its lighter than air (but not by much), this article is incorrect.Mr Bungle 09:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right you are. I've made the correction and added a reference. sinewaveTalk   05:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would like to point out this article still incorrectly states that CO is denser("Heavier") than or equal in density to air. I agree "should be installed between the most likely sources of CO" and while I can't say anything about air currents, I think the best advice is to follow manufacturers specification. What I was taught is that CO's should be in the area of outlet to your waist on the wall in *GENERAL*. I wont push that though as I see it as being very much an opinion, with no real scientific backup. Magu (talk) 06:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not on the ceiling! 

message: This very impressive website not only reviews CO detectors, it has a serious, considered overview-review of reviews, Updated July 2007:
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/house_and_home/carbon-monoxide-detectors/index.html
If you are feeling brave, please try to add it to the article.-69.87.199.142 23:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  review of reviews 

message: Testing A Carbon Monoxide Detector
Most CO detectors have a test button that should be pressed once a week to confirm that the device is in operation. Detectors with displays can be tested with a known source of CO such as smoke from a cigarette or incense stick. Hold the CO source about 8-10 inches away and watch the digital display respond to the presence of even a small amount of CO. BUT an alarm will most likely not sound with this test.
There are CO detector test kits available, where CO detectors are sold, that provide a vial of high level of CO (1000 ppm) and a plastic tent to house the unit during the test. This test only proves that your detector will sound an alarm with a very high level of CO.
-69.87.199.142 01:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing 

message: Changes In Test Standards
The standards organizations of Canada (CSA) and the United States (Underwriter's Laboratory or UL) have co-ordinated the writing of CO standards and product testing. The standards as of 2005 prohibit showing CO levels of less than 30 ppm on digital displays. The new standards also require the alarm to sound at higher levels of CO than with previous editions of the standard.The reasoning behind these changes is to reduce calls to fire stations, utilities and emergency response teams when the levels of CO are not life-threatening.This change will also reduce the number of calls to these agencies due to detector inaccuracy or the presence of other gases. Consequently, new alarms will not sound at CO concentrations up to 70 ppm. Note that these concentrations are significantly in excess of the Canadian health guidelines.
Detectors with a digital display and a history option can provide the true CO concentrations in a house. A low-level display would be useful for people with existing respiratory problems or for those who like to spot evolving problems, rather than having to wait for the situation to become serious. Low-level CO detection products are becoming commercially available. They will not be certified to CSA or UL standards, as these standards currently prohibit low level displays.
-69.87.199.142 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't 35 PPM the point where bad stuff starts to happen? Pets dying, newborns dying, people with respiratory or heart/blood problems dying, etc. I know 25 PPM is the point where healthy individuals start having symptoms but it's less for others. If half your family is dead before a detector is *allowed* to go off are they really worth buying? How do you find a detector that displays low level amounts given this regulation? I want to troubleshoot why my family feels sick.204.237.107.161 (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: until recently, 100ppm/8hrs of work was acceptable. It's now 50ppm/8hrs (Ontario) In some factories, they have no choice. Propane tow motors can generate CO. Appliance (natural draft)  venting only has to be below 100ppm. (condensing appliances often are higher) 35ppm takes a significant time to affect people and is unlikely to stay that low if an appliance is generating CO.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.49.131.188 (talk) 06:54, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low-level detection prohibited 

message: It seems relevant to mention that the main makers of domestic detectors for the US market seem to be Kidde (brand Nighthawk) and First Alert.  But I don't know if or how it might be proper to add this info to the article. -69.87.199.132 16:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Companies 

message: I just discovered that my carbon monoxide detector has an "end of life" beeping mode, which sounds just the same as it's low battery warning mode. This raises the issue of disposal which is apparently subject to local code, likely a worthy topic to aid people in making the right choice on how to dispose of their "expired" detectors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.83.101 (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disposal of smoke and carbon monoxide detectors 

message: The legal situation is only discussed in two states in the US. Does anybody know the current legislation about these else where.  I'm particularly interested in Europe.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grimley517 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legals 

message: The article says there are four, but only lists chemical strips, electrochemical cells and semiconductior types.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Testem (talk • contribs) 08:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For some unknown reason the sections got removed - I've reinstalled them  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:24, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of sensors 

message: So far, my (admittedly limited) ransacking of the web hasn't turned up anyone even ASKING the most important question, let alone answering same:
Here and now, in the second decade of the twenty-first century, is 7 measly years REALLY as good as this technology can get?
As an electronics technician for many decades, I'm a little skeptical any time industrialists claim an alleged "need" to periodically replace somewhat-expensive items that don't seem like they should even HAVE a "decay rate" - always reminds me of John Lovetts' "Pathological Liar" character from SNL - "Yeah! You, uh, have to replace 'em, yeah, um, every few years, because, er, uh, that's the best we can do right now! Yeah, THAT'S the ticket!"
I'm invariably left wondering: are manufacturers REALLY providing technology which "goes the limit" of what is ACTUALLY, practically "do-able" at this point in history, or have they simply "pulled-back" their research to a level which assures, NOT the optimum protection of my family, property, wallet, etc., but, rather the optimum protection of their continuing profit margin, through an ongoing form of CONSUMER FRAUD known as "Deliberate Obsolescence"? (...NOT "Planned Obsolescence", mind you - that's a whole different animal, and a perfectly valid industrial concept. "Deliberate Obsolescence", on the other hand, is the malicious manufacture of "Landfill By Design": technology which flagrantly WASTES raw materials, energy, time, etc., and UNNECESSARILY destroys itself, just a little bit, every time you use it and/or every minute of every day, so that you have no choice but to give them "mo'money, mo'money, mo'money" nearly every time you turn around.)
Has anyone seen a salient, believable answer to this point?
The Doctor Is On (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if the manufacturers have thought through the legal implications of intentionally disabling a piece of safety equipment. If a householder chooses to continue to use a detector past its advisory last-use date, that is their own decision and their own risk. However, time-bombing a detector to cause a noise nuisance at a specific date and thus force the owner to remove the battery, could be seen as a felony if it leads to an otherwise avoidable death. --Anteaus (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this trip REALLY necessary? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carbon monoxide detector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090409030219/http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5010.html to http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/5010.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070814020213/http://www.mudomaha.com/naturalgas/COdetect.html to http://www.mudomaha.com/naturalgas/COdetect.html
*Added  tag to http://artclesgalore.com/article.php?id=2879
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100521204616/http://www.dos.state.ny.us/fire/firewww.html to http://www.dos.state.ny.us/fire/firewww.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130411073346/http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_002.cfm to http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/co/maho/yohoyohe/inaiqu/inaiqu_002.cfm
*Added  tag to http://www.avweb.com/news/aeromed/186016-1.htmlHistorical
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Smaller concentrations can be harmful over longer periods of time while increasing concentrations require diminishing exposure times to be harmful."
Shouldn't this read either:
1. Smaller concentrations can be harmful over longer periods of time while increasing concentrations are harmful over diminishing exposure times.
or
2. Smaller concentrations can be harmful over longer periods of time while increasing concentrations require diminishing exposure times to be safe.
As written it doesn't seem to make sense. --Jack6128 (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing sentence in this article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carbon monoxide detector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160506200010/http://www.menlofire.org/pdf/Updated%20Smoke%20Alarm%20Requirement%20IB%20September%202014.pdf to http://www.menlofire.org/pdf/Updated%20Smoke%20Alarm%20Requirement%20IB%20September%202014.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Carbon monoxide detector. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160306025204/http://m.ul.com/news/press-releases/?dcr=most-americans-at-risk-against-the-silent-killer to http://m.ul.com/news/press-releases/?dcr=most-americans-at-risk-against-the-silent-killer
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified