Now I understand where you're coming from. Failing to operate the brakes is brake failure. No wonder you were so easily taken in by Brexit.
Detroit stuck with steering boxes when the norm elsewhere became steering racks. And they are situated differently.
In message , at 14:57:19 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, Tim Streater remarked:
I'm prepared to ring-fence the debate to failure of the brakes to work at all. That more than adequately makes the point I was advancing.
In message , at 14:27:37 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
About 80, by all reports.
Wrong kind of smoke. The problem smoke is that getting into the not-on-fire core from flats which are ablaze. Those are the flats where the cunning evacuation plan only has one per tower block alight at any one time.
[24 lines snipped]
There's no gas in Grenfell.
Would a huge fan at the entrance help to some extent? During the moments wh en the front door wasn't open it would blow outdoor air in to clear the sta irwell of smoke and to some variable degree reduce smoke in the passages to the stairs. By the time the stairs are clogged with people & the front doo r open all the time it would stop being effective, but it could be of use b efore that point. And it would be very cheap.
NT
In message , at 15:38:42 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, Huge remarked:
Not any more, but there was until a few weeks ago.
I wouldn't want to be in the same room as a lithium fire and sprinklers.
So why did they tell residents
"Rydon will be fitting vents to the ducts at all the points where the gas mains run in the building; this work is compulsory and will take about two hours. They will need access to your flats"
It was supposed to have mechanical smoke ventilation fitted already. It should have been able to keep the core fairly clear of smoke.
It didn't do its job and that killed the people.
Now why it didn't is the real issue. No I don't think having multiple fires is a good enough reason for it not to work as there isn't really any limit on the amount of smoke one flat fire could cause.
Because its the easy thing to do and it makes tenants happy. It makes you happy. It makes the councillors happy.
You may have to eat your words when it happens again without the need of the cladding.
But you are too thick to work out that there isn't any limit to how much smoke a single fire could cause and its still a better idea to be able to get out when the unexpected happens.
It may stop it spreading!
Its called out to a lot more but >50% are false alarms.
Many of the actual fires were in blocks fitted with the same cladding but they didn't kill lots of people so I will say again it wasn't the cladding, something else went wrong.
They have to remove the cladding now for obvious reasons that its best not talked about in public until the cladding has gone.
In message , at
19:10:28 on Tue, 4 Jul 2017, "dennis@home" remarked:
Previously they got away with it, because the fire [in one flat] hadn't spread to the cladding.
Not according to the planning documents, there isn't. Why do you think there is?
In message , at 21:33:31 on Tue, 4 Jul
2017, Huge remarked:
nb the second photo on that page is probably of a heat-exchanger, not a boiler.
Not a reliable source.
Which rather proves my point.
Did you not see my post where kctmo referred to rydon requiring access to the flats to add vents to gas pipes ducts?
No. And ATM I don't believe a single word about what went on in Grenfell, especially if it's in the press or reported by a politician.
Taking a step backwards, can anyone explain why gas is being run into a building with central heating and hot water?
In message , at 08:51:56 on Wed, 5 Jul
2017, Huge remarked:OK, so what *are* those black pipes, and why is the gas company not saying "huh? nowt to do with us, guv, you've go the wrong block of flats".
And of course, the Fire Brigade delayed half an hour turning off the gas at the main. Why would they do that??
It proves the gas is only for cooking.
You can make as much pointless speculation as you like. Given the S/N ratio of pronouncements about Grenfell, I'm not playing.
SOP.
It proves the Guardian has no idea.
Again, I'm baffled as to why you're getting so heated about this.
En el artículo , Huge escribió:
Reports of the fire referred to the fire service having difficulty locating the main isolator for the gas supply to the block.
But you're right: I had a quick look at the planning documents and found no mention of gas supplies.
In one document, one of five options presented for improving the heating system is fitting a gas combi boiler in each flat, but it's not clear if this option was the one taken up.
page 9, appendix A.
I couldn't spot any further reference to the heating system(s) or gas supply in the documents on the RBKC planning site, which seems an odd omission.
The estate had a communal boiler in the basement of Grenfell Tower - presumably gas-fired. It supplied surrounding buildings, the occupants of those have allegedly had to be rehoused as they have no heating, hot water or gas.
page 18, chapter 8, "Sustainability"
shows a pic of the boilers.
quote:
"The so-called ?improvement works? freed Grenfell Tower residents from dependence on this outdated and dysfunctional system by installing individual heating systems in all of the Grenfell Tower apartments"
but it's not clear whether those are combis, heat exchangers, or what.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.