"Electrical Fault" Definition

[CAWORK]

Afternoon All

I understand that if a fire has occurred somewhere and there is no obvious cause, the Fire Brigade often use this as a convenient idea/excuse, but there are one ore two other things I have wondered about regarding the above definition.

In August 1995, the local Post Office suffered a (relatively small) fire in the shop area. A person working in another village shop claimed 'The fridge overheated' (probably referring to the compressor over working itself, which is quite logical considering it was a very hot summer) and after the fire but before the shop was cleared out the fridge was stood outside (with the top etc all melted).

However, when the fire appeared as an article in one of the local papers all that was mentioned was the blaze was caused by an electrical fault.

But I had often been under the impression that 'Electrical Fault' would often refer to the wiring of the building whilst if a fire occurred from an appliance the appliance itself would be mentioned.

Secondly, there was an article (about a year later) about a stable fire which was claimed to have been caused by an 'Electrical Fault'. The article then stated 'It was most probably a light fitting but until we have looked into it we can't say'.

If they don't know if it was a light fitting or not then how can they be sure it was actually electrical?

Regards

 

[Iamchamps]

Isn’t it more the reporter who has summed it up as that rather than the fire brigade?

I am sure for every fire they write a detailed report but for the means of a newspaper article it is easier to sum up.

 

[JohnW2]

I understand that if a fire has occurred somewhere and there is no obvious cause, the Fire Brigade often use this as a convenient idea/excuse ...

That often does to seem to be the case, but it may be an unfair accusation.

Having said that, it seems fairly unusual for them to conclude that a fire was "of unknown cause", so one suspects that there must be some guesswork, or invocation of a scapegoat (like 'electrical') in at least some cases.

However, when the fire appeared as an article in one of the local papers all that was mentioned was the blaze was caused by an electrical fault. But I had often been under the impression that 'Electrical Fault' would often refer to the wiring of the building whilst if a fire occurred from an appliance the appliance itself would be mentioned.

They might just be using the phrase 'electric fault' in the everyday sense - i.e. a 'fault' in something electrical, be that wiring, and appliance or whatever.

Secondly, there was an article (about a year later) about a stable fire which was claimed to have been caused by an 'Electrical Fault'. The article then stated 'It was most probably a light fitting but until we have looked into it we can't say'. If they don't know if it was a light fitting or not then how can they be sure it was actually electrical?

Quite so - they obviously could not be 'sure'.

I would have thought that in any serious fire, the electrical installation (cables, accessories, appliances etc.) would be so fire-damaged that it would be difficult or impossible to actually discover the precise cause 'by investigation' (e.g. how could one determine that molten insulation at one point in a cable had been the initial cause of the fire after the entire cable had been melted by the fire?!). I suspect that all they can often really determine is roughly where the fire originated - and if that is in the vicinity of 'something electrical', that is what is likely to get the blame.

The public may be partially to blame for this, by expecting/demanding that the fire brigades will always produce 'an answer'. If people were more prepared to accept a "we don't really know" answer in a substantial proportion of cases, there might well be fewer cases in which the answer they give seems to be open to question.

Kind Regards, John

 

[SUNRAY]

I had a conversation with my future son-in-law quite recently, following a news report which stated electrical fault.
He has been electrically qualified since 1994 and fire fighter late 90's till last September, now does electrical testing for insurance purposes.
He reckons it's usually fairly easy to see where and depending on the amount of damage how a fire starts. Additionally CCTV is providing more and more sight of the initial flame.

 

[JohnW2]

... He reckons it's usually fairly easy to see where and depending on the amount of damage how a fire starts.

As I said, I would expect the 'where' to be the easiest thing. However, as I also said, if that 'where' is in the vicinity of 'something electrical', there must be a temptation to 'put two and two together' and get some answer, although not necessarily "four".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

Using java script we find 2 + 2 = 22, the value of 2 plus the value of 2 makes 4. So if a washing machine or tumble drier goes on fire due to a build up of fluff on the element is it.
1) Human error for not cleaning out the lint catcher.
2) Design error for not having machine auto switch off when air flow restricted.
3) Mechanical error in that fluff passed the catcher
4) Electrical error as without power it could not have gone on fire
forest fires can be caused by electrical storms, but was not a fault, and for an element to over heat is a fault, but is that caused by an electrical fault or mechanical fault, if air flow is restricted it is a mechanical fault unless there was an electrical device which should have detected that fault.

If a news paper reports the tumble drier went on fire because.
1) The lint catcher was not emptied, then that alerts us all to ensure ours it emptied before every dry.
2) If they say it was due to a design error then we note the make and make sure we don't buy anything made by that manufacturer.
3) If they say the lint catcher had not been replaced correctly and fluff had passed it we are careful we don't make same mistake.
4) Electrical fire tells us nothing, may as well have not reported it.

The same applies when some fire guy says that an appliance designed to be used on economy 7 off peak power should not be used unattended. Come on get real, the whole idea of an appliance is that it works automatic, and it does not need human intervention. My central heating has a flame inside it, I don't stay awake at night watching it, this is why I have central heating not an open fire.

Be it moving from candles to electric lights, or the cauldron to washing machine the whole idea is automation, we have progressed from the twin tub and the whole idea is to walk away and leave it. So when it does go wrong we want no only to know why, but also how to stop it happening again, and that does not include hiring a night watchman to keep an eye on it.

 

[SUNRAY]

Using java script we find 2 + 2 = 22, the value of 2 plus the value of 2 makes 4. So if a washing machine or tumble drier goes on fire due to a build up of fluff on the element is it.
1) Human error for not cleaning out the lint catcher.
2) Design error for not having machine auto switch off when air flow restricted.
3) Mechanical error in that fluff passed the catcher
4) Electrical error as without power it could not have gone on fire
forest fires can be caused by electrical storms, but was not a fault, and for an element to over heat is a fault, but is that caused by an electrical fault or mechanical fault, if air flow is restricted it is a mechanical fault unless there was an electrical device which should have detected that fault.

If a news paper reports the tumble drier went on fire because.
1) The lint catcher was not emptied, then that alerts us all to ensure ours it emptied before every dry.
2) If they say it was due to a design error then we note the make and make sure we don't buy anything made by that manufacturer.
3) If they say the lint catcher had not been replaced correctly and fluff had passed it we are careful we don't make same mistake.
4) Electrical fire tells us nothing, may as well have not reported it.

The same applies when some fire guy says that an appliance designed to be used on economy 7 off peak power should not be used unattended. Come on get real, the whole idea of an appliance is that it works automatic, and it does not need human intervention. My central heating has a flame inside it, I don't stay awake at night watching it, this is why I have central heating not an open fire.

Be it moving from candles to electric lights, or the cauldron to washing machine the whole idea is automation, we have progressed from the twin tub and the whole idea is to walk away and leave it. So when it does go wrong we want no only to know why, but also how to stop it happening again, and that does not include hiring a night watchman to keep an eye on it.

Ah, I see where you're coming from, in that situation perhaps it shoud be described as an electric appliance fire. However a fire starting in a socket [for example] is unlikely to be described as anything other than 'electrical fault' regardles of the actual reason for the fire, be it a bad termination or product failure etc.

 

[clifford1]

Pedantically I don't think electricity has the mental capacity to exhibit "fault" . Only humans can have faults, eg in the way they handle natural forces such as electricity.

 

[ajohn]

An electrical fault just mean that the fire was started by electricity. It could be anything that is carrying it. It doesn't have to be wiring in fact given that an installation meets current regs it's unlikely. They leave 2 things, poor connections and partial shorts between live and neutral. Poor connections lead to the demise of plastic consumer units - electricians not tightening them enough. This can happen on any connection. A 13amp socket and plug will get warm if that is drawn for any length of time. If the connection is some what dodgy it will get even hotter. There is an advert around now showing an extension lead head bursting into flames. Maybe there are some poor quality ones around. It seems some cables can go green over time due to plastisiser leaching out probably due to them overheating maybe poor quality.

A very famous fire seems to have mostly been started by a plastic back on a fridge or a freezer. An internal fault caused it to catch fire. They are in widespread use now.

The people concerned can generally tell where a fire started via the degree of damage and other factors.

 

[JohnW2]

Pedantically I don't think electricity has the mental capacity to exhibit "fault" . Only humans can have faults, eg in the way they handle natural forces such as electricity.

I think that goes beyond pedanticism to the point of being incorrect .

Nearly all dictionaries list several (in most cases at least 3) meanings of the word, one of which is along the lines of (this from Cambridge dictionary) ... "a broken part or weakness in a machine or system".

Kind Regards, John

 

[JohnW2]

The people concerned can generally tell where a fire started via the degree of damage and other factors.

Indeed - but as I wrote ...

As I said, I would expect the 'where' to be the easiest thing. However, as I also said, if that 'where' is in the vicinity of 'something electrical', there must be a temptation to 'put two and two together' and get some answer, although not necessarily "four".

Kind Regards, John

 

[ericmark]

An electrical fault just mean that the fire was started by electricity.

Not really welding and most boilers and gas hobs have the fire started by electricity, but it is not a fault, so suppose you could modify to put in unintentional.

If a fire is started by a poor connection on a cable then that is clearly an electrical fault, but it started due to missing safety measures, then it is a design fault, but what if due to cheap manufacturing methods?

Let me give an example of a fire, and you say if this should be called an electrical fire.

A fan heater had a over temperature device built in, so if the fan fails it will switch off, this was before the element as whole idea was when fan failed, so it will get hot with fan failure, but not during normal use. There were four feet on the heater for it to be placed on a floor.

The user however wanted the heat blowing up her skirt so had placed items under the front feet so at 45°, the lady went for dinner leaving the fan on, the fan did fail to run, but because at 45° it set the plastic alight before it auto switched off, it required fire brigade because of plastic smoke but only damage was burnt hole in lino.

So was this:-
a) Electrical fault.
b) Design fault.
c) Human error.

 

[ajohn]

As I said, I would expect the 'where' to be the easiest thing. However, as I also said, if that 'where' is in the vicinity of 'something electrical', there must be a temptation to 'put two and two together' and get some answer, although not necessarily "four".

Actually I do wonder about that in relationship to the plastic back. What could have happened in other words if it was a true electrical fault. There aren't many options if the electrics are up to date and they usually come lead attached with a plug. Our new fridge freezer has one.

 

[JohnW2]

So was this:-
a) Electrical fault.
b) Design fault.
c) Human error.

I would say primarily 'human error', but a risk that could have been anticipated and largely ;designed out' by more complex design (although not necessarily a 'design fault' to not have that added complexity).

Not an 'electrical fault' - but, I would think, quite likely to be described by the FB as an 'electrical fire'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ajohn]

The user however wanted the heat blowing up her skirt so had placed items under the front feet so at 45°, the lady went for dinner leaving the fan on, the fan did fail to run, but because at 45° it set the plastic alight before it auto switched off, it required fire brigade because of plastic smoke but only damage was burnt hole in lino.

So was this:-
a) Electrical fault.
b) Design fault.
c) Human error.

I don't think that would just be put down as an electrical fault unless it was classed as a design error. Human stupidity perhaps if it needed propping up but in the USA it might result in clear instructions that this must not be done. Some driers. They should have something that detects the overheating due to lack of maintenance - a design fault without it. The makers will have no idea how quickly fluff builds up. If some part misbehaving could cause the same problem that should be covered as well.

Might be an extreme view but a lot of my background is working in safety critical areas where failures have to be considered.