3 ms·
That's backwards isn't it? CO should be less dense than CO2.
by deelowe 13y ago
That's backwards isn't it? CO should be less dense than CO2.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- JshWright 13y agoYou are correct. The relevant specific gravities (higher == more dense): Carbon dioxide - CO2 1.5189 Carbon monoxide - CO 0.9667
- Ygg2 13y agoTrue, however there might be other factors. http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03364.htm http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03364.htm Perhaps the CO is generally produced mixed with other more heavier gasses and is colder, thus less conveyant. I can't find source but I found a pamphlet that mentioned that when in fire you shouldn't try to crawl on the floor for risk of CO poisoning, or something.
- JshWright 13y agoCO is a product of combustion, and will therefore be hotter than the ambient air in most cases. The primary reason manufacturers say CO detectors should be a bit lower on the wall is to avoid false positives (well... not really false, just alarms for events you don't really need to worry about). A little CO emission is expected during the normal operation of gas/wood burning appliances. A CO detector at the ceiling might go off when it detects these little 'puffs' of CO. In practice, a CO detector should be averaging the level of a couple minutes, and not worry about short transient peaks (which is what I suspect the nest detector does). If you're in a fire, stay low and get out. Source: I'm a firefighter.