CO not lighter than AIR

jp_2

here are some comments from jim davis that I find curious and would like to know more about: anyone welcome to comment.

(((((...Carbon Monoxide is always lighter than air down to 32 degrees...... What is often forgotten is that if CO is dumping into the building even greater amounts of CO2(Carbon Dioxide) are being emitted. Carbon Dioxide is 40% heavier than air and ends up on the floor rapidly. This could actually prevent CO from getting to an alarm if it is plugged in at a low wall outlet.))))))****

"CO dumping into bldg" why does this generate or emit CO2? I thought the more CO you produce the less CO2 is being produced?

i think you can't say this stuff is heavier/lighter, the weights are all too close together, molecule against molecule. gravity is not playing a strong role here. look how heavy mercaptan is, 68g/mol. nearly 250% heavier than air. coming from an outside line well below 32F you should never smell a leak then with this same line of reasoning, it would just sink.

drop a mouse and a cow off your garage roof, which stands the better chance of hopping away? gravity has a less and less effect on smaller and smaller objects.

(((The most correct answer comes from field testing not a book. CO is always higher on the second floor of a house than the first floor. CO is always higher at the ceiling than at the floor. ))))***

when you've measured 2nd floor CO, what were the reading?

1st floor, floor & ceiling

2nd floor, floor & ceiling

CO2 levels at same places

O2 levels at same places

temperature measurements at same placess?

how long did these levels stay the same?

how long did it take to get from the source to the 2nd floor ceiling?

how long does it take to get the floor readings, 10 ft from source, 60ft from source??

do reading ever stabilize?

I find these statments confusing from what I understand of kinetic energy, diffusion, gas laws and gravity. after all the "books" were writting from interpretations of lab experiements, just like jim davis is doing. so in fact jim davis is telling me to test and not believe him! which I'd love to to if I had an analyzer.

so I'm interested in this data. I'm not calling anyone wrong but, I disagree. hopefully in a friendly manner, as is my intent.

***these quotes from search:

//hvac-talk.com/vbb/showthread.php?threadid=69727

jim lockard

interesting points

you raise some interesting questions JP as for cows I have never seen them hop. Lets see J.Lockard

Rich W

CO

I have seen cows bounce-they can only do it once though. As far as CO I think we're talking about a change in density.
I don't think you need to drop to 32deg. to see the change. The difference is slight and small air currents stir up the layers of the cake. Most homes don't provide lab conditions.

Rudy

Jim Davis is Absolutely Nuts!!!!!

Like I’ve said before, Jim reminds me of a 1997 Apple Computer Ad:

"Here's to the crazy ones, the misfits, the rebels, the troublemakers, the round pegs in a square hole, the ones who see things differently.

They're not fond of rules, and they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with then, glorify or vilify them.

About the only thing you can't do is ignore them, because they change things, they push the human race forward, and while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius, because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who'll do it."

I think you're confusing the issues with alot of facts. Irregardless of the theories and physics you mentioned, if ya don't test, ya don't know.

JMHO

Mike T., Swampeast MO

CO Confusion

1) Have heard over and over that standard (available direct-to-consumer) CO detectors lack the sensitivity to detect a continuous, low-level problem.

2) Am fairly certain that fuel-burning appliances in good order produce very little CO.

3) Placement instructions with consumer (remember "lacking sensitivity") CO detectors say they should not be placed near the highest potential source (e.g. boiler/furnace) to avoid "false alarms".

If the appliance shouldn't be producing (let along exhausting to living space) significant quantities of CO to begin with, how can there be a "false alarm" with a measuring device too insensitive to begin with?

Am not trying to downplay the potential danger--hell I won't allow a "ventless" gas log in my 1903 home--but there does seem to be some SERIOUS confusion.

Unknown

jp for a carpenter

you sure are smart. It has been my experience over the last 40 years that in the thousands of cases I have inspected tested and installed (over 3,500) gas conversion burners and tested everyone, that CO tends to rise most of the time its specific gravity being .9675 as compared to air makes it slightly lighter than air. As the room cools or heats it reacts differently. This is why I suggest that CO detector be placed "Head to Bed" in other words somewhere between lying down to sleep at night to standing up. The room humidity also has an affect on CO and its conduct. The truth is I have found cases that the CO reading on the floor was higher than at the ceiling due to air intake 12 inches from ceiling allowing air into a boiler room from outdoors with an outdoor temp of 5 below zero. All the text books and reading and engineer crap is out the window when you get in the basement and deal with the real world. I may not be too smart and neither is Jim Davis but this I will say when it comes to combustion and testing I will put Jim and I up against anyone. This is real world stuff.

This post sounds a little bit like the five lawyers I have been meeting with along with a couple of engineers who do a lot of speculating but do not know their butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to the dangers of CO and what needs to be done to protect life.

Why is it that every time this discussion comes up we have all these so called experts come out of the wood work and want to tell us that what we do and say does not make sense.

Come to Jims or my class and learn something. Prove your theories in the classroom and I will listen. Then we will go out to the equipment and let you apply your theories. Jim and I both take the stand that what we teach can be proven and has been. I know an awful lot but I must say I am still learning and Jim and I would be the first to tell you that outside of a few absolutes every job is a new adventure.

By the way one of the problems with mercaptan which I happen to know something about after 28 years working for a utility. It can also do some things it is not supposed to do. That is how explosions happen.

We do not do lab experiements we do actual testing. My advice to everyone do not think everything will always be the same it is not be ready for what can be different. That is why testing has to be done.

Unknown

If the cows land in the

poop they will be okay but the mouse will drown.

Rudy

Allow me

Mike, please give me a call when you have some time. Not that I am the 'sharpest tool in the shed' by any means, its just that I've been given the chance to learn an awful lot about a very narrow subject area.

Jim Davis, George Kerr, Mark Hunt, a bunch of other folks and somewhere around 20+ years of testing (and learning something every time) has given me the opportunity to stay up to speed on the issues - and alot of the issues are very alarming.

I'd look forward to crossing paths with you.

rudy

412-576-1350

740-594-0033

.

The claim that CO rises and CO2 sinks is absolute total nonsense. Gases are miscible and do not segregate because of gravity. Nitrogen is lighter than oxygen, CO has exactly the same density as nitrogen. You don't see nitrogen rising to the ceiling while oxygen stays at the bottom, do you?

The reason they stay mixed is the kinetics; the gas molecules are running all around all the time and bouncing againt all the walls. Potential energy (due to gravity) is astronomically small compared to kinetic energy.

It is nonsense to speak of real-world experience. The behavior of gases has been well understood since the 19th century; there is no new science to discover. There is not a single credible lab or real-world experiment, not one, that has detected any difference in CO2 or CO or N2 density between the floor and the ceiling of a room unless there are transient, nonequilibrium conditions (e.g. if the CO were being produced in the basement and streaming into the bedroom under a door, there would be more down low and less up high). If the room were as tall as Mt. Everest, differences would be measurable---oxygen, nitrogen and other gases all drop in concentration as you go up, because of what is called the "exponential atmosphere", but they drop at different rates---still, it is not like it's all nitrogen on Mt. Everest, the air is thin but the O2/N2 ratio changes only slightly. Same for CO and CO2 if they were present.).

Who is Jim Davis? He sounds like a Jim Jones /David Koresh type. He seems to have a lot of kool-aid-drinking followers.

jp_2

tim McElwain

tim, I figured I'd get some backlash from this topic, though I don't understand why? neither do i understand your comments. your post starts out fine but gets unfriendly.

I thought this was a "professional discussion forum"?

I feel I'm getting wacked with a ruler by a nun, "How dare you question me!!!!".

""""Why is it that every time this discussion comes up we have all these so called experts come out of the wood work and want to tell us that what we do and say does not make sense.""""""

not sure why you say this, I'm just asking questions from my point of view, not trying to tell you how to do your job.

I tried to write that post as polite as possbile, if you point out where I jabbed a piece of wood under your finger nail I'll re-edit it.

all the of professor/scientists I've ever spoke with are more than happy to explain their reasoning behind their work and take on any debate.

if we can't have a friendly disscussion here, why the heck would I take your class?

you seem to embrace the technology but say the science behind it is rubbish!

I like to learn stuff all the time, I learn that things aren't always what they seem and to keep an open mind about everything.

since CO will disperse in air, I do not think talking about specific gravity is legitimate, and you kind of prove it by saying you see measurements on the floor as well as the ceiling. I'm just asking "in what amount are found there?"

I'm not trying to discredit you guys, geeze!!! I've bought a COexperts from jim and I'm trying to buy more! problem is nci won't sell to me, I have to buy them from a local HVAC contractor who looks at me puzzled when I ask for one of these?

(((( All the text books and reading and engineer crap is out the window when you get in the basement and deal with the real world.)))))

this I strongly disagree with, its the interpretation that tends to "go out the window". you can't just take one theory of science and use it here, you have to combine any law that deals with it.

theories are like tools, if you use them wrong, they don't work right! so is it the tool or the operator thats wrong?

jp_2

saying the same thing

one other point tim,

theres a chance we are saying the same thing, just in a different way that doesn't sound right to each other.

but if you refuse to disscuss it, we will never know!

keep an open mind..........

Jim Davis_3

Real world experience is nonsense. 19th Century technology is good enough for us. Unfortunately unless someone gets government funding to do a study it can't be credible. We know everything the government tells us is true. The thousands of structures I have been in that had CO in them and it was always higher at the ceiling or upper floors that the floor or lower floors must have been my imagination. Standing next to appliances producing thousands of ppm of CO venting directly into the room and watching a CO Alarm within a few feet at the floor read nothing(after verifying the alarm was working)was an optical illusion. Overtime there will be some distribution floor to ceiling. Just was doing an experiment with CO2. The CO2 levels in our training room were 505ppm near the ceiling and 470ppm at the floor. Standing in the room talking, the CO2 levels rose faster at the ceiling than at the floor. The zone dampers in the room were closed so there was no air circulation. But this was the real world so what I saw didn't happen. It doesn't matter if CO is fairly close to the same levels at the floor or ceiling severals hours after you are dead. It is a fact that if you monitor them at eye level they will be detected much sooner.
Chuckles what flavor kool-aid do you like?

Dan_15

Co Experts

Get your CO Experts alarm here for only $100.

http://www.aeromedix.com/?_siteid=aeromedix&_sessid=8af37ef67fda7c8970675994fd0b6491&action=sku&sku=coex&_sessid=8af37ef67fda7c8970675994fd0b6491

jp_2

carpenter?

yep, thats the hat I wear today. I also have 4 yrs of calculus and I can skin & butcher a cow, but thats got nothing to do with nothing here....
i have a small pile of hats, makes life interesting and somewhat well rounded.

jp_2

well rudy

""""I think you're confusing the issues with alot of facts. Irregardless of the theories and physics you mentioned,""""

heres your chance rudy, straighten me out!

by the way, which are issues and which are facts?

Weezbo

well ...gasses never have behaved like solids....

so, one mouse dropped on the ground and one molecule of CO just arent going to behave in the same manner. in this analogy the mouse has the fright and the CO the flight.
*~/:) ......Weezbo .

Geno_15

Do I really want to get involved here??

hmmm, ok

the info I have from a Bacharach Seminar is that CO is lighter than air till 40* then gets heavier, what's right? dunno, air and gases have mass so when cooler and denser I would assume some would weigh more per cubic foot. Most homes won't get that cold so it don't matter.

As to false alarms, many CO alarms on the market are cumulative, as the sensor accumulates more CO over time, years maybe, they will go off on what's considered a false alarm. It's just that they sensed CO in small amounts and it is using up the alarm so to speak as it does that. It is not unusual to see a home with smokers, candle/incense burners etc, going off. Most will say in the directions to replace in 7 years so replace in 4-5.

Chuckles_3

> The thousands

> of structures I have been in that had CO in them

> and it was always higher at the ceiling or upper

> floors that the floor or lower floors must have

> been my imagination.


As Chuckles has said, nitrogen and CO have the same density, both are lighter than oxygen. So if there is more CO higher up, it stands to reason that taller people are getting less oxygen to breathe because there is more nitrogen up there. And forget about going upstairs, you'll be gasping for breath.

Remember, science isn't a matter of relating personal reports, of "giving witness". What people say they have seen isn't relevant. People report seeing UFOs, people report that magnets cure their arthritis, all kinds of things. There have to be REPRODUCIBLE experiments. And your claimed measurements cannot be reproduced by independent observers. It's like religion---only the people who believe see the phenomena they believe in. And that's why it isn't science.

jerry scharf_2

Whatssup

Chuckles,

I'm pretty sure you were trained as a physcist. Mixing due to brownian motion is well understood, as is specific gas density. One works to separate gases, the other to mix them. The equalibrium point between them will be found.

CO2 certainly does pool, and there are dead people to prove it. It's often from some form of fire suppression, and has the combined effect of higher density and the cooling from adiabatic expansion. The cooling both increases the density further and decreases the brownian motion. I used to have oxygen pouring contests at one lab. Liquid oxygen boil off from a flask, see how dense you can get the O2 in a glass. There it's about the cold to get it in, then the surface layer slowly degrades...

As for CO and the location of sensors, I end to agree with you that it should have little effect. the gases tend to mix hot, the way the CO gets to the sensor is almost certainly through brownian motion.

That said, I still tell people to do the same thing Timmie said. Why? Because I don't want to think about the impact of finding a case where I'm proven wrong.

jerry

jp_2

CO2 reading

those reading are pretty close together about 6%. it you kept measuring all day in a space suit the number would probably average out about the same within small error.
I don't dispute that gases at different temperatures from the ambient rise and fall, thats a given.

NO need for government money, publish your findings in a chemistry journal and there will be many people out there trying to duplicate your results.

if all the science from the 1800's was incorrect how the heck did we get from point A to point B? and if we are still teaching bad science why is technology still improving? your comments don't add up.

jp_2

tim & jim

any comments on this? what part of diffusion do you disagree with?


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HVAC Pro
Second link listed on Google search "Carbon monoxide density." http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03364.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Other than the molecular weights, most of the statements made are wrong when it comes to even diffusion. The last guy said put the alarm close to what you want to protect therefore his is mounted at waist level. His priorities may be slightly different than mine.
__________________
captain CO

you make some pretty strong comments, you have to assume someone is going to ask for your justifications?

((((Come to Jims or my class and learn something. Prove your theories in the classroom and I will listen. Then we will go out to the equipment and let you apply your theories. Jim and I both take the stand that what we teach can be proven and has been. I know an awful lot but I must say I am still learning and Jim and I would be the first to tell you that outside of a few absolutes every job is a new adventure)))

why won't you discuss this stuff out of the classroom?

do you make people sign non-disclosure agreements?

I'll say this again:
I DO NOT dispute the work you guys are doing.

I DO NOT dispute the dangers of CO.

I DO NOT dispute the positioning of CO detector.

its just some comments are, what I think, way out field and I wonder how/why you've come to these conclusions?

jp_2

weezebo

weezbo gases are just "spaced out" solids! spacey man!

solids used to be gases!

Chuckles_3

> all the science from the 1800's was incorrect how

> the heck did we get from point A to point B?


I think he meant that CO didn't rise in the 1800s, but now it rises.

Chris Jorgensen

Hot Air

How about this?

The CO gets into the house as HOT AIR.

It rises to the ceiling, second floor, etc.

When it cools down, it SLOOOWWWly diffuses into the rest of the air, unless there is a lot of turbulence, because it is then close to the same density as the other gasses in the air.

When you burn something on the stove, the smoke goes up to the ceiling and stays there a while-- even though the smoke particles are heavier than air.

Weezbo

hmmm....

when you can determine the speed of a given molecule of gas you cannot determine its Location,when you can determine its location you cannot determine its speed. a fluid fills the container in which you place it(and some if you figure the miniscus,when the fluid is a liquid)gases on the other hand behave as fluids and also Fill the container in which you place them...the minor technicality it doesnt take 5 gallons of air to fill a 5 gallon bucket buh it takes 5 gallons of water to fill a 5 gallon bucket meaning one molecule of gas will fill the 5 gallon bucket as would two now one molecule will also fill a 10 gallon container. so ,how the heck do you identify where it is in the bucket it is filling ? if we pump energy into the molecule, it will move about in a more excited state...and try to escape from a surface...say we pull energy out of it, it slows down...buh it still trys to escape from a surface..so basically it is a hard sell to say where any given molecule is at any given momment in a container. other than it is trying to escape from a surface...as it is filling the space in which it is bound. this is as best as i can describe where any given molecule of a gas may be...within our atmosphere. thats why i suggest we put them over the toaster. then from time to time we know its working

Rich W

CO density

Hi Jim, I have agreed with a lot of your posts in the past. However, I must take exception with the "no air circulation" statement. The only way to achieve this is in a perfect vacuum perfectly insulated from outside temp. difference. The diff. in density at room temp. is so slight that any movement, convective currents or respiration will mix them. Also, I have never seen a regular balancing damper that even comes close to stopping air flow. As for the guy who talked about Nitrogen and Oxygen magically separating out of air and seeking their own stratum based on density- no comment. That being said, I have three CO detectors mounted high, mid and low- I've seen high readings in all locations. You just can't trust that darn CO to always show up in the "right" spot for testing.

Mad Dog

All you armchair CO Generals and your fuzzy science

need to get out in to the real world and learn somethin'! You are attacking and besmirching 3 of the GODFATHERS of CO detection and prevention. Jim Davis, Rudy Leatherneck (sic...I know its Leatherman, but ya remind me of a fine Marine I once knew!) and Timmie Mc Elwain have a combined total of about 100 years in the real world: Called in when no one else knew what the hell was making everyone sick, late night no heat calls where most mechanics would've got the boiler started and hit the bar for a few pops. Who The hell are you dudes??????? Wait till Mark HUnt and Eatherton show up. Some peoples gots lots a book smarts and likes to intimidate and obfuscate with half-truths and charts. No use for ya! Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mad Dog

The world was a better place when nuns ran the schools

J.P.......No one is saying that you are not entitled to posit your theories, but YOUR tone has been one of ridicule and pomposity. Get out of the lab and into the field (Heating field that is!). Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Mad Dog

I always love your common sense replies, Geno

Your a good man. Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Rich W

Book smarts

Hey MD. My boss thinks Dan Holohan's "theory" of pumping away is B.S. According to my boss; "that don't work in the real world- I've been doin' it this way forty years- ain't never had no trouble- just cuz ya write a book don't mean ya know nuthin'." I test. I experiment. I read more. I learn more. If a book has only one truth that I can prove, I'll take that and leave the rest. I won't condemn all books because of one bad book. Just to clarify, every book I've gotten from Dan has been great- including Pumping Away.

Mad Dog

So do I ...my brother

I experiment EVERyDAY ...takes the victories and their knowledge and the defeats and their greater knowledge with me.. HOWEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have studied under ALL three of these men, and you will find no better, nor more experienced! I will not stand by as these interlopers caste aspersions...if you knew these gents and had studies under them, as I have, perhaps you would agree too. Your choice dude, they all have classes going on as we speak.....they are very continental-friendly too! They are dispersed throughout our great country. Try one - try all. Mad Dog

To Learn More About This Professional, Click Here to Visit Their Ad in "Find A Professional"

Weezbo

jp...... *~/:) Not the ones i spoke to last

) i know ,i know. i am out of my depth on this topic.still i appreciate your reply.it may suprise you buh this topic has not escaped my attention even as a child it seemed relavant. my main problem is once i start in on physics discussions i end up on the edge of the fractal universe ))

Rich W

books

Sorry Mad Dog. "Book Smart" bashing is a sore spot with me.I come from a family that thinks the ONLY way to learn is by doing. I know a guy who almost got his head ripped off by a flying cylinder head from a compressor. Had he read about the springs he would have followed the proper procedure when removing the heads. Thank God he got a second chance. Anyway, I have seen their posts and articles and I like them. I just don't automatically follow every word that anyone says without proof. Like I said in a post farther up, I have three CO detectors. Hedge my bets...

John R. Hall

Attend a seminar

I don't know squat about combustion analysis (well slighty above squat). I know the folks at NCI know a lot of squat about the subject. In particular, Jim Davis is a guy who I have a lot of respect for. I took in one of Jim's seminars (the non-technical portion of the seminar) and have listened to Jim speak at other events. The guy flat out knows his stuff. People who bash are the same who never heard Jim speak. Sign up for his seminar. If you don't like it, you are entitled to an opinion. But if you don't want to attend one, you are missing out on an education -- and making yourself look foolish for criticizing.

Unknown

I really do not have the

time to get into this debate as I am very busy with my training schedule and other matters of much greater importance.

I am not a scientist and to be honest with you probably know less about the science of what I do than anyone. I am just a service technician who finds himself standing in front of other technicains trying to help to keep tham and their customers alive. Does CO rise does it fall to be honest I really am not that concerned about that. I know that if I place a detector at somewhere about eye level in a room it will alert my customer to get help or get out. I use the "Head to Bed" reference because as an instructor I find people remember things that rhyme. I have one for gas anything above 4.5% LEL "evacuate" anything below 4.5% LEL "ventilate". I want them to have the best detector available either NCI or CO Experts. Beyond that I will not debate this any further.

Some here felt I got "unfriendly" maybe I did and if so I apologize. It is my frustration over not being able to get people to listen and learn and wanting to argue about saving lives. I am fighting with a bunch of lawyers and scientist right now who want to downplay the need for mandating low level detectors in homes.

The private e-mails I hae received calling me a traitor to the cause because I have become a follower of Jim Davis is real baloney. First of all I was testing long before Jim Davis even found out what this was all about. Second Jim and I have agreed to disagree on many issues but this one thing we are united on and that is CO KILLS and we are passionately dedicated about doing something about that. Third Jim is my friend and I really like him, his approach and mine are different maybe the good Lord wants difference in this very touchy subject. Fourth I am glad that as Rudy calls Jim he is a nut, but he is doing more to awaken people about the dangers of CO than anyone I know so I might say that he is "a nut screwed onto the right bolt".

Last thing for JP and others I am not as smart as some of you in fact when I read some of the posts from some here on the Wall I feel sort of dumb. I do not know all the science and stuff I am a nuts and bolts guy whose job is to save lives and make service techs jobs easier and hopefully help them make a living. I wish I was as smart as some of you here who have a lot of intelligence and education. I am learning but I stick to the stuff that can make sense to my service techs.

Just to let you know Jim and I have had many different people sit in on our classes. From Judges to lawyers to engineers to first responders and so far as far as I know I have not lost a life yet.

The company I worked for a gas utility had a plaque on the wall in memory of a servie tech killed in an explosion due to his own failure to follow the rules he knew so well. I when I first saw that plaque determined that no one would ever die again. I am working toward that end.

I as always apologize if anyone has been offended that is not my purpose, but know this I am one very passionate individual. My motto "Patient but Persistent".

jp_2

tim please read......

well tim, I for one, do not consider you dumb. I am sure you could teach me a lot about testing & correcting combustion problems. science isn't an easy subject, lots I do not understand.

I was hoping for some reasoning & data behind comments heard here and found on other forums. but my questions appear as bashing by some people, something I find rather odd.

I stand behind what I say, and at times I admit that I'm probably wrong, dead wrong or still think I'm right.

I may have gotten a little pushy, but when comments are made that scientific laws are crap and theres no connection between real world and labratory, well thats quite an inflamatory statement. indirectly calling me dumb which I take offense.

this tread has been a disappointment.......

jp_2

oops

jp_2

good one

mad dog, I apologize for asking a question, got your ruler handy? yep, you are right we should burn all those stupid books!

jp_2

and your comments aren't?

Unknown

Sorry you are disappointed

I would simply say give us in simple terms JP what you would like to say about CO and Combustion issues. What do we need to change in our thinking? Take this forum to teach us all what you know about CO and what is the best way to detect it and save lives. We are listening.

There is one other thing that I find, that is as exact as we would like science to be it is not always exact. There are variables that come into play that make things act differently. I was required to do testing on equipment when I was with the utility and tested many different gas burning types of equipment. The problem was that as many times as I tried to duplicate all the possible situations this equipment would possibly run into, it was in the field (the real world) that things happended that no one had planned on. Just look at all the equipment in our industry that has come and gone in the past 20 years. The heating business is not always an exact science and certainly everyone is learning and relearning. This site has a big emphasis on the "Lost Art of Steam Heating" there are many things I was taught about steam that over the years have proven to be incorrect or at least needed rethinking. We are ever learning but not coming to the full knowledge of the truth. Truth is what every scientist seeks but many of the things we teach and use are still called "theories" because they have not been fully proven. I tend to shy away from some subjects here on the Wall, not because I do not know anything about steam, hydronic systems, radiant etc because I do, but because I know there are people here who are real experts on these subjects. I bow to their knowledge on these subjects. On things that I am knowlegeable on I will jump in and debate with the best of them.

Does natural gas always rise because it is lighter than air? Does LP gas always accumulate in low areas because it is heavier than air? We teach cetain protocol but warn and discuss times when what was expected did not happen. In both of those cases I have seen them do the opposite, I cannot explain why but I experienced it happening so I warn techs everything is not always the way it should be. Test both high and low because you never know!! I like rhymes.

Talk to us JP and educate us but understand there are some real sharp minds here on the Wall who may know a lot more than I do who may challenge you. I do not think I know enough about the science to debate you.

jp_2

starting over

""""here are some comments from jim davis that I find curious and would like to know more about: anyone welcome to comment.""""

stuff,stuff

stuff,stuff

"""""I find these statments confusing from what I understand of kinetic energy, diffusion, gas laws and gravity. after all the "books" were writting from interpretations of lab experiements, just like jim davis is doing. """""

((so in fact jim davis is telling me to test and not believe him! which I'd love to to if I had an analyzer.))

these two statements are what this whole thread was to be about, not where to put detectors and how to save lives nor was it about the importance of CO. I can't put in any simpler than this.

I'm asking questions. I'm not here to teach anybody anything, was hoping for some friendly disscussion or debate, why is this so difficult?

science is NOT exact, thats about the first thing you are taught. people outside of science always think its exact, anyone on the other side of the fence laughs at that statement.