Grenfell Tower - Celotex

You are clueless, its self extinguishing and takes energy to burn. It may well start to burn at 450C but that is because it is taking the energy from where ever the heat is coming from.

With wood applying 450c to it will ignite it and it will continue to burn if you remove the heat source that does not happen with PVC as the burning is endothermic and it goes out!

You need to think before you post or people will know you are clueless. Now I think I will put you in the same category as TNP, a waste of space.

"Other advantages of PVC are that it releases less combustion heat than other plastics - hence contributes less to maintaining and spreading fire ? and produces no or very few flaming droplets or debris."

That's the PVC manufacturing industry putting a positive spin on it. Read that page - and remember who is writing it.

Andy

Now *there's* a commendation. If dennis hates you, you must be clueful.

FWIW, I once tried to burn some uPVC offcuts on a garden bonfire. They scorched and melted, but wouldn't burn. And I've melted an aluminium saucepan on a bonfire.

En el artículo , Martin Brown escribió:

You're correct, of course, but you mistakenly attributed the quote to newshound, not dennis.

What about computer server rooms and datacentres?

En el artículo , Huge escribió:

You see that in pics of house fires, where the building has uPVC windows. The frames sag and blacken, but don't burn away.

See

I think you'll find that she is remarkeably well-informed.

She even had the courage to ask why no-one 'saw it coming' on a visit to the BoE.in 2010

Effective heat of combustion of PVC is 17.95 MJ/kg

As these are both positive numbers, any claim of either being endothermic appear to be incorrect.

Yes it DID !!. ITV news did a test at a proper test lab.

First they exposed the foil surface to a 700 centigrade source of heat (but no flame). The foil surface bubbled but did not catch fire.

they they repeated the test exposing the cut surface of the celotex core to the heat source.

It burst into flames *immediately*.

This was surprising, I always thought PIR just charred, but that wasn't what I saw. Quite worrying.

Data! Something of a novelty in this thread!

:-)

Wasn't there a big lorry with "Rockwool" plastered all over it in the background?

Excellent reference, most interesting!

You do understand that you need oxygen at at least twice that in normal air to get it to burn and produce that heat?

Do you understand that "producing heat" is an exothermic process?

Are you trying to imply the amount of oxygen in the air determines whether combustion is an endothermic, or exothermic process?

When did you do chemistry?

Well you can see from the video here, that it does not sustain combustion on its own

If it produced enough heat it would continue to burn and it doesn't. It takes more heat than than it produces.

We are talking about fires here not lab conditions used to incinerate stuff. You can burn almost anything if you supply enough heat energy and enough oxygen.

Anyway I am bored so I will accept what you say.

Its not that simple.

If the materiel loses energy in thermal decomposition faster than its reaction will sustain high temperatures it 'goes out'

Celotex goes out. In normal air. in pure oxygen it may not, Or in a heavy draught from chimney.

Hence horizontal fire breaks.

The media have got the wrong end of the stick and wont let go

And will knee jerk into a terrible mistake. Its the cladding not the celotex that went up.

But someone doesn't want to take the blame for that, so its a mass diversion somewhere.

Probably they want to divet attention from local government failings and blame it all on a contractor or insulation supplier

En el artículo , dennis@home escribió:

Fixed that for you.