Notre Dame fire response?? 800 year old oak burn slowly??
 

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/19/world/europe/notre-dame-fire-safety.html

This article in NYT just doesn't seem to make any sense. Why would you not design a fire alarm system to give the most rapid response and not believe 800 year old oak would burn slowly.

I had also originally heard the wood in the roof beams was beech. Story sound fishy to me.

Any opinions from the pelican braintrust?

PARIS — The architect who oversaw the design of the fire safety system at Notre-Dame acknowledged that officials had misjudged how quickly a flame would ignite and spread through the cathedral, resulting in a much more devastating blaze than they had anticipated.

The system was based on the assumption that the ancient oak timbers in the cathedral’s attic would burn slowly, leaving ample time to fight a fire, said Benjamin Mouton, the architect who oversaw the fire protections.

Unlike at sensitive sites in the United States, the fire alarms in Notre-Dame did not notify fire dispatchers right away. Instead, a guard at the cathedral first had to climb a steep set of stairs to the attic — a trip Mr. Mouton said would take a “fit” person six minutes.

Only after a blaze was discovered could the fire department be notified and deployed. That means even a flawless response had a built-in delay of about 20 minutes — from the moment the alarm sounded until firefighters could arrive and climb to the attic with hundreds of pounds of hoses and equipment to begin battling a fire.

I used to work on French cars. This is perfect French logic.

The French do a much better job of taking down a mass shooter than Florida did.

We, sadly, had our emergency response personal and security just stand there and let the young man run out of ammo.

The French go in and do something.

I will wait to judge them harshly until more is known about how the fire started.

I have had fireplaces/wood burning stoves in the house I grew up in, and the properties I've owned..


Dry wood burns much faster than wet wood..


800 year old timbers used as purlins/beams/stingers.... would be dry

Very dry!!

Even if it does burn slow, I'd think you'd want the best system given the historical significance of the building... It's not like fire detection equipment is a strange concept.

I believe there may be different distinctions about the word burn that aren't being made.

But I'll need more information which perhaps will be forthcoming.

Slow Burning, as in you can hold a cig lighter to it for half an hour and not have critical heat for a self propagating fire if you took the lighter away.

Vs

Slow Burning, the time it takes to burn once you have critical heat for a self propagating fire.

When I read articles that distinction is often not being made and this can result in conflicting information.

But you would think the NYT would try and make a clarification, such a reliable source.

While quite obviously wood burns, heavy timber has good fire-resistance - better than unprotected steel for sure. Steel beams fail during fire by deflecting/bending out of plane, not by melting. See here:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1555794278.jpg

As timber burns, it forms a protective layer of char that insulates the unburned section. The core of the member actually remains at ambient temperature. Heavy timber, in modern construction, is designed so that this remaining cross section in a fire is able to sustain the design loads for the required duration of the fire exposure. Surprisingly, archaic wood does not behave much differently. The important thing here is the fire duration (measured in hours). A timber is typically required to survive a 2-hour fire exposure. By that time, it is assumed the fire department is on the scene and if not, well, you're pretty much up the creek without a paddle :D

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1555794414.JPG

What I find alarming with the statements I've read about the ND fire, is they are calling it 'accidental' and most likely an 'electrical fire'. But nobody has conducted any sort of investigation yet! In the fire investigation business, it was a running joke that inept and/or lazy investigators always attributed structure fires to "electrical" because it was difficult and time-consuming for others to disprove. I spent most of my career investigating the structural integrity of buildings after fire and other catastrophic damages.

Our building has a laser that shoots across the top of the atrium and if anything interrupts the beam the alarm goes off, seems like that wound have been an easy install

Paris, to be economical with resources requires a person to see the fire before the fire department shows up.

The alarm went off, a person went to look, came back and said no fire.

The alarm was again triggered, two people went up to look, said big fire.

Because of the time it took the first person to get up, and back down, and then the second group of two to get back up; a lot of time was consumed.

I'm open to a lot of possibilities at this point as very little has been ruled out.

I find it interesting that TWO people were sent up when the fire was actually detected.

Trust issue?

Lets look at probabilities. With no more prejudice than necessary.
A great number of churches has been set on fire in France lately. By people who obviously do not like churches.
This fire happens during the week of celebrating Easter. A holiday the same people do not approve on.
This particular church has been standing there for over 800 years.

What are the odds of an accidental fire?
What if they actually find evidence of foul play? The outcry from the French public would be monumental. Literally setting fire on the multiculty debate. Mr Globalist Macaroni would not like that. I see a cover up in the cards.

An interesting thought.

Wooo, Paris would be like a war zone, like no other, if it turned out to be more sinister than otherwise thought.

That's funny.

Fire science my last year of highschool we would constantly set off the fire alarm for the school as we would tap into one of the school's hydrants. We were forced to call the FD so they wouldn't come out! It's literally their job to respond to alarms (and to turn them off)...




Sounds like the french FD's are lazy.

Quasimodo has been converted to radical islam. :rolleyes:

I haven't followed the story in any detail whatsoever, other than the ridiculous 'accidental electrical fire' claim by officials less than a day after the fire - that's clearly a political conclusion, not a scientific one. An investigation of a building this size would take many weeks, if not months. If there are calls to immediately start the clean-up by removing the fire debris <s>EVIDENCE</s> because of "safety concerns", well, then the government officials simply don't desire to know what actually happened.

Hahaha. Vikings is such a a great series.