EICR, plastic CU, coding and the checklist

[EFLImpudence]

Maybe he thought inflammable means not inflammable.

 

[JohnW2]

Maybe he thought inflammable means not inflammable.

I suppose that, in some senses, one couldn't blame him too much! However, I'm sure that wasn't the case. It was apparent that most/all of the liquid had burned/burnt (which should it be?) away, with some burning of clothing etc., but the body certainly hadn't been seriously burned/burnt.

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnD]

I think, to burn a body, you need it on some kind of grate, with the fire beneath it. As any cook will tell you, it takes a long time to burn meat, though an over-hot barbeque can do it.

I remember reading an investigation of a person whose incinerated remains were found in a car, burned so badly that foul play was suspected, although there was no sign of petrol or other fuel.

The conclusion was that he had a heart attack, and dropped his cigarette, which ignited the seat cushion, and the padding or upholstery then burned, leaving the wire spring frame. As the fire continued, the melting fat dripped into the flame and propagated it.

A test was carried out with a sheep carcase on a car seat, which had a similar result.

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Who knows - but it was a forensic scientist who said this, and I doubt that he would have said something that didn't make sense to him just because a scriptwriter had written it - which led me to suspect that this scientist believed (rightly or wrongly) that "inflammable" and "combustible" had specifically different meanings.

It seems they do:

Combustible materials are those which can combust, i.e. burn in air. Flammable materials are combustible materials that can be easily ignited at ambient temperatures whereas those that are harder to ignite are just considered combustible.​

--------

Flammable and combustible liquids are liquids that can burn. They are classified, or grouped, as either flammable or combustible by their flashpoints. Generally speaking, flammable liquids will ignite (catch on fire) and burn easily at normal working temperatures. Combustible liquids have the ability to burn at temperatures that are usually above working temperatures.
.
.
.
Flammable and combustible liquids themselves do not burn. It is the mixture of their vapours and air that burns. Gasoline, with a flashpoint of -40°C (-40°F), is a flammable liquid. Even at temperatures as low as -40°C (-40°F), it gives off enough vapour to form a burnable mixture in air. Phenol is a combustible liquid. It has a flashpoint of 79°C (175°F), so it must be heated above that temperature before it can be ignited in air.​

So something which is flammable is necessarily combustible but not vice-versa.

it was said that the reason was that the liquid used was "inflammable but not combustible"

An impossibility, it would seem.

In fact, I think that if I poured alcohol (e.g. meths) on my hand and ignited it, the alcohol will all burn away, but my hand will not get burned (probably actually would get cooled) - so maybe that's the sort of difference we're talking about?.

I'm not sure, but I think that's a sort of don't-try-this-at-home thing.

 

[JohnD]

JohnW2 said: ↑

"it was said that the reason was that the liquid used was "inflammable but not combustible"

An impossibility, it would seem.

maybe the words were the other way round.

 

[SimonH2]

Having drifted off-topic, from watching a few too many "WTF happened here ?" type programs on the box ...
There's a phenomenon of "spontaneous human combustion" where it is claimed that people have spontaneously combusted. Scientific investigation has shown that these events have several factors in common :

• a source of ignition
• some absorbent material (eg cotton clothes)
• restricted supply of air/oxygen

It seems that what happens is that something (eg dropped cigarette) ignites the clothing. The body releases fat due to the heat which the clothing then wicks away to where the heat vapourises it and it sustains the combustion. With a suitably restricted supply of air/oxygen, the conditions are such that the whole lot burns relatively slowly and with relatively little heat given off - but the body is completely consumed except for the extremities (eg the hands which aren't enclosed in clothing). The room typically has a lot of water on the walls, and surprisingly little heat damage.
Gruesome but fascinating

 

[ban-all-sheds]

maybe the words were the other way round.

[DOH!]I added that in the text in Word where I pasted it for spell-check purposes (for reasons too tedious to go into):

An impossibility, it would seem. Sure it wasn't the other way round?
​

And then forgot to paste it back in as there were no typos.[/DOH!]

 

[JohnW2]

So something which is flammable is necessarily combustible but not vice-versa.

Interesting. As you go on to say, that contradicts what I heard on TV.

I'm not sure, but I think that's a sort of don't-try-this-at-home thing.

Oh, I have - and I've seen it done a good few times as a 'party trick'. It does work, but one has to be careful how one ignites the alcohol - if one uses something like a lighter, it's is to actually get a burn from that.

 

[JohnW2]

maybe the words were the other way round.

From what BAS has quotes, that would certainly have made no sense. However, no, unless I was going completely mad, it was the way around that I mentioned. I know that because my first reaction was to report to this forum that I may have come across a liquid that could be used to construct a BS7671-compliant CU

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I can't help observing that a party is probably not an appropriate venue for playing with flammable liquids.

And although it's not a directly comparable scenario, I also can't help remembering the old adage - "once you torch off a can of WD40, nothing else that happens can reasonably be described as 'an accident'"

 

[SimonH2]

I know that because my first reaction was to report to this forum that I may have come across a liquid that could be used to construct a BS7671-compliant CU

Weeellllllllll ...
If the conditions are likely to remain cold enough, then pure di-hydrogen monoxide would comply After all, they do build complete buildings with it.