3 ms·
You are correct, however, there is just one thing. Despite our low-tech primitive home, we also had a PAH monitor as in an industrial bit of kit that measures p
by Theodores 12y ago
You are correct, however, there is just one thing. Despite our low-tech primitive home, we also had a PAH monitor as in an industrial bit of kit that measures polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. This could detect cigarette smoke that had been acquired on one's breath down the pub an hour ago after a four mile walk home. As a teenager I found this out 'the hard way'!!! Oddly enough it did not bleep because the fire was 'on' and burning coal.
Anyway, I am willing to think differently about open fires, but again, there is an art to having a fire. Building the thing and having it reliably start with just the one match was a skill. I think that the size of the fireplace was also important, to create a draught we could use a broadsheet newspaper opened out and held over the fireplace surround. This would get it going burning with ridiculously huge flames and a rocket-style roar.
Some people just don't get physics and plenty of friend's houses had those horrible wood burning stoves that were a complete waste of time. Alternatively there would be those huge fireplaces with no potential to do the 'newspaper trick' for getting it going. These fires just lacked the airflow that a proper fireplace/grate/fire combo should provide.
It is a pity that I don't have the PAH monitor, the fire and the other variables needed to checkout what you are saying for myself. That said, the PAH monitor only worked on things like benzene, I imagine that there is everything up to and including uranium, asbestos and sulphur to check too.