ECN Forum Forums Photo Discussion Forums Photos for General Discussion Quartz Halogen Ignition

No...I am just saying that a fire caused by the heat from a light fixture is not a fire of electrical origin, although in most cases it will be reported as such. This type of fire cause reporting is what has led to the AFCI requirement. It is my opinion that a large number of fires that have been reported as of electrial origin are not really caused by an electrical problem and this is just one example of that.
Don

[This message has been edited by resqcapt19 (edited 01-04-2007).]

That's an interesting take on it. I'm under the impression that a light bulb, wether it be in a portable lamp or a ceiling/ wall mount light fixture, is still electrical in nature. Would this be considered an electrical fire ONLY if say a 100W lamp was used where a 60W lamp was required?

What I'm asking is, what constitutes an electrical fire?

I would limit the description "electrical" to a fire caused by arcing, a short circuit, or a loose connection getting hot. An overloaded wire would qualify. Wires that short out because the insulation has degraded would qualify.

Plugging in an electric charcoal lighter, and placing it under the sofa cushions, does not make an 'electrical fire.'

Even failure within an appliance would not (most likely) make it an "electrical" fire; that would be an appliance fire. I generally limit the 'electrical' category to the house wiring, and not anything that might be plugged in at the time.

Last winter, I was called to fix a water heater circuit. I found that there had been a short between one of the "hot" wires, and the EMT; a very nice hole had been burned through the steel by the arc. Had that arc ignited the floor joists nearby, that would have been a 'fire of electrical origin.'

On the other hand, if someone set up an electric space heater by there bed, and a blanket fell across the heater, and ignited ... that is not an 'electrical' fire.

As long as the electrical system is working properly, you probably won't have an electrical fire.

That's how I see it.

As Don said,
I would tend to back Don up too.
There is no way that electricity started this fire.
My reasons:
The fire looks to be far too hot for a source of electricity.
Why is everything around this shed scorched?.
IMHO this shed was torched.
I say that because of the depth of burn on the up-rights comprising the shed.
It all suggests a very hot fire,from the start, one started with accelerants.
Easiest way to be sure is look at the concrete pad.
Cement never lies.
A lot of people seem to think that Concrete never burns.
Everything burns if it gets hot enough, I've seen Fibre-Glass Batts burn like Candy Floss.
An elevated temperature, will burn most things folks.
Take what you like from that.

POI was the roof.

I agree that they will be called that by most fire departments and that is the reason that AFCIs won't really prevent a lot of fires. There is no way that an AFCI would prevent the light fixture from starting a fire, but if you call this type a fire an fire of elecrical origin, it becomes part of the statistics that were used to say that we need AFCIs.
Don

Alan: RELAX! No need to get bent outta shape bud.
Ya I did "imply" a few things.. so what... Ya I have pictures... Find the neighbourhood. Honestly off the record here.. "it wouldn't surprise me" is what I think... Nuff said.
Anyway Mike, Don: thank you for your professional take on it. What you stated makes sense to me.. BTW.. No "teltale" concrete pad, shed was just sitting on the dirt rotting from the bottom up

A.D

Touché, AD ! - But too late, I've been bent out of shape for years!

However, I located you in less than 2 minutes flat, using an intuitive Canada surname phone search. Then I flew right in using Google Earth to the two possible locations, eliminating one as the houses were too close together.

Small world, ain't it, bud?

Don:
Not that you need it, but I also agree with your thoughts on this subject. Some Fire Investigators (NOT all) use 'electrical origin' for a catch all. The AFCI proponents eat this up, even though an AFCI could not prevent this. NJ still has not adopted AFCI requirements this code cycle.

Mike: (Trumpy)
Good day! Would not your determination have to be also based on the contents of the shed, construction material, and other factors? Not disputing your opinion, or knowledge in this field, but I'm curious.
Had lawn equip, or fuel been inside, that's your accelerant, no?

John

It isn't just the use of "electrical origin" as a catch-all for fires that the investigators can't easily explain. The whole "science" of fire investigation is starting to get some serious scrutiny, with several arson convictions being overturned in light of emerging knowledge:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901920_pf.html http://malabar.livejournal.com/263698.html

[This message has been edited by NJwirenut (edited 01-05-2007).]