Necessary for CO detectors to be "for marine use"?

[ArmyDaveNY]

This is a follow up to my earlier post (post 10) and my conversations with three manufacturers.
Summation: Per Fireboy, the difference is not really in the detection, but in both the manufacturing and testing.

Details: I wrote and called three manufacturers, Kiddie, MTI Industries, and Fireboy. Kiddie said they didn't know what if any difference there was and that they didn't manufacture marine units. I spoke to a "customer service" rep and she didn't seem terribly knowledgeable but said there was no difference in them except the marine units were certified as marine units. N.B. MTI makes and markets marine CO detectors. No one wrote back to me however all three did talk to me on the phone.

Fireboy has a technical hot line and the person I spoke to seem very technically proficient. He said the difference is not so much performance, but in the manufacturing and testing. On the manufacturing side, the circuit boards are built with coatings to resist corrosion, moisture, and temperature extremes. The detectors are also more robust as well as more sensitive and thus better able to avoid being affected by things such as volatile organic compounds, other gases, etc. He mention the use of electrical-chemical detectors versus metal oxide detectors (assuming I heard him correctly and remember correctly what he said!). Additionally, the entire unit is manufactured to a higher standard much better able to handle temperature extremes, humidity, shock, vibration, and corrosion. While the detection standards are the same (ANSI/UL 2034), the testing standards are much higher in order to meet the marine certification requirements.

Conclusions: Yes, a marine CO detector is a better unit in many ways, and yes, it is most likely gong to last longer while provide more assurance that it will continue to work over time. Having said that, a non marine unit is better than no CO detector, at least for the first few years.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by NaClyDog

See, you can answer the question nicely instead of belittling people who came here for guidance in doing the right thing and potentially having to spend more money on a marine rated appliance vs. a regular consumer appliance.

see here is the thing

Far as I'm concerned you started the "belittling" thing by quoting me and basically calling me cheap and stupid to spend less on "safety" equipment. And now you came back for more with a "see you can be nice" underhanded insult.

since I have a hard time letting stuff like this roll off I know the answer and will take the action I suggested to you since it appears in fact that you can not ignore advice from "sailors like me" as you said you would

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

see here is the thing

Far as I'm concerned you started the "belittling" thing by quoting me and basically calling me cheap and stupid to spend less on "safety" equipment. And now you came back for more with a "see you can be nice" underhanded insult.

since I have a hard time letting stuff like this roll off I know the answer and will take the action I suggested to you since it appears in fact that you can not ignore advice from "sailors like me" as you said you would

Let the pissing contest go, both of you. It serves no purpose.

[sailorboy1]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Fireboy has a technical hot line and the person I spoke to seem very technically proficient. He said the difference is not so much performance, but in the manufacturing and testing. On the manufacturing side, the circuit boards are built with coatings to resist corrosion, moisture, and temperature extremes. The detectors are also more robust as well as more sensitive and thus better able to avoid being affected by things such as volatile organic compounds, other gases, etc. He mention the use of electrical-chemical detectors versus metal oxide detectors (assuming I heard him correctly and remember correctly what he said!). Additionally, the entire unit is manufactured to a higher standard much better able to handle temperature extremes, humidity, shock, vibration, and corrosion. While the detection standards are the same (ANSI/UL 2034), the testing standards are much higher in order to meet the marine certification requirements.so they do some more higher degree manufacturing /, but said they aren't better at detecting. Did he acturally say there is a different standard?

Conclusions: Yes, a marine CO detector is a better unit in many ways, and yes, it is most likely gong to last longer while provide more assurance that it will continue to work over time. Having said that, a non marine unit is better than no CO detector, at least for the first few years. Is it a given that "marine" CO detector from all different manufacturer of such has these coatings etc.?

I have other electrical and electronic items in my boat that aren't "marine" and they don't have any problems. So to my mind there is still the question of whether there is a different "standard" for manufacture of a marine CO detector compared to any other? Or is it the standard "marine" marketing to get more money for it?

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by NaClyDog

Buying the cheapest safety equipment not up to the required standards sounds foolish to me.

True, I don't have much sailing experience at the moment but I figured that credo would also transfer over to sailing... maybe I'm wrong?

A key concept to consider is that, on a sailboat, you cannot buy safety. Safety comes from a combination of sound judgement (based on knowledge and experience), vigilance, seamanship, and timely maintenance.

The market is replete with gadgets and devices whose stated purpose is to enhance safety. Many are costly and all have limited useful lives. For nearly all boat owners, money is a limited resource and tradeoffs have to be made.

Every tragic CO poisoning story I have read of or heard has, as its root cause, egregiously poor judgement in either maintenance or operation of equipment, nearly always for space heating:


- Installing and using unvented heaters
- Using an oven or stovetop for space heating
- Running a portable generator indoors, or upwind on deck
- Operating a furnace that is known to have a failing heat exchanger
- Using a charcoal grill inside.

So CO detectors, unlike smoke detectors, alarm on problems that are entirely preventable by avoiding these various foolish practices. And none of these practices become safe, just because you have one or more CO detectors.



And CO detectors cost money, that takes away from things like replacing fuel filters proactively and polishing tanks, or replacing propane regulators and lines that are iffy, or having the lifeboat repacked, or replacing the standing rigging if it's too old. All of which have an impact on safety

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

I have other electrical and electronic items in my boat that aren't "marine" and they don't have any problems. So to my mind there is still the question of whether there is a different "standard" for manufacture of a marine CO detector compared to any other? Or is it the standard "marine" marketing to get more money for it?

Hi SailorBoy,

You ask some good questions, and I think your questions are quite valid based upon my limited interaction with the three manufacturers.

"but said they aren't better at detecting. Did he acturally say there is a different standard?" No, he did NOT say there is a different detection standard. He (The tech support guy at Fireboy) said the manufacturing standards that his company used were higher. The lady I spoke to at MTI really didn't know what the difference was although her comments hinted that there was some sort of testing difference, but she really didn't know.

"Is it a given that "marine" CO detector from all different manufacturer of such has these coatings etc.?" I don't think we can assume that all manufacturers use the same coatings, sensors, etc. I suspect that some are better than others.

I think Jammer hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that safety gear is no good if one doesn't act in a wise manner. Whether in the Army, flying, sailing, racing cars, rock climbing, shooting, etc. I have found that safety gear is far less critical than the actions one takes. How many times have we seen people with the latest and greatest chart plotters, radar, etc. run aground? How many times have we seen boats collide despite AIS, radar, etc. When anti-lock brakes first appeared on cars, accidents increased.

[NaClyDog]

Originally Posted by Jammer

A key concept to consider is that, on a sailboat, you cannot buy safety. Safety comes from a combination of sound judgement (based on knowledge and experience), vigilance, seamanship, and timely maintenance.

The market is replete with gadgets and devices whose stated purpose is to enhance safety. Many are costly and all have limited useful lives. For nearly all boat owners, money is a limited resource and tradeoffs have to be made.

Every tragic CO poisoning story I have read of or heard has, as its root cause, egregiously poor judgement in either maintenance or operation of equipment, nearly always for space heating:


- Installing and using unvented heaters
- Using an oven or stovetop for space heating
- Running a portable generator indoors, or upwind on deck
- Operating a furnace that is known to have a failing heat exchanger
- Using a charcoal grill inside.

So CO detectors, unlike smoke detectors, alarm on problems that are entirely preventable by avoiding these various foolish practices. And none of these practices become safe, just because you have one or more CO detectors.



And CO detectors cost money, that takes away from things like replacing fuel filters proactively and polishing tanks, or replacing propane regulators and lines that are iffy, or having the lifeboat repacked, or replacing the standing rigging if it's too old. All of which have an impact on safety

I understand all this but some times the requirements are mandated by outside entities (e.g. insurance companies).


If they say I need X which is more expensive than Y, I will be buying X.

[Cadence]

I would guess they are labeled in parts per million. It might be worth checking to see if it is apples and oranges or not.

[ArmyDaveNY]

This post is a follow up to my post #46 where I list the differences between a marine unit and a non marine unit, as relayed to me by a technician from Fireboy.

Just now, I received an e-mail from Fireboy with an Excel document that describes the difference in testing standards between a marine unit and a non marine unit. They liked my suggestion that they post this and indicated this will soon be on their website. This is NOT to suggest that a less expensive home unit will not work. Rather, this suggests that a marine unit will last longer under more extreme conditions. Sadly, I didn't think to ask them on a comparison or contrast in length of service between the units.

Anyway, I hope this provides some clarity on the subject. As always, only you can determine what is adequate for your needs.

UL 2034 Technical Standards Testing Comparisons between MARINE and RESIDENTIAL CO Alarms

Water Resistance Marine Unit Only
79.1.3 These alarms shall be constructed to be watertight or drip-proof. See 79.3 and 79.4 79.4.2 One sample alarm from the humidity conditioning, 79.2.16 and 79.2.17, is to be used for this test. The alarm is to be energized and mounted in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions beneath a drip pan that produces both splashing and dripping and that extends beyond all exposed sides of the enclosure. The bottom of the drip pan is to be equipped with uniformly distributed spouts; one spout for each 20 square inches (129 cm2) of pan area. Each spout is to drip water at a rate of 20 drops per minute. The enclosure is to be subjected to continuously dripping water for 30 minutes.

Corrosion Marine Unit Only
One sample alarm from the Abnormal Operation Tests, Section 79.5, shall operate as intended and its mounting means shall show no signs of structural deformation after exposure for 48 hours to a salt spray in accordance with the procedure specified in the Standard for Salt Spray (Fog)

Temperature Marine Unit
The environmental chamber is to be set to minus 40 ±2°C (minus 40±4°F) with a relative humidity of 45 +10 percent/ -5 percent for 24 hours. The environmental chamber temperature and relative humidity are to be controlled to ensure that the transition between temperatures does not result in a condensing environment.
79.2.3 Three sample alarms are to be placed in an air-circulating oven maintained at 70 ±2°C (158 ±4°F) with a relative humidity of 20 ±2.5 percent for 24 hours.

Temperature Residential Unit
48.1.1 An alarm shall operate for its intended signaling performance and there shall be no false alarms (or pre-alarms) during the exposures when tested at ambient temperatures of 0°C and 49°C (32°F and 120°F) at 50% RH. Two alarms, one at maximum and one at minimum sensitivity, are to be maintained at both ambient temperatures for at least 3 hours then tested for sensitivity

Shock Marine Unit
79.2.13 The samples are to be subjected to 5000 shock impacts of 10 g acceleration (98 m/s2) and having a shock duration of 20 – 25 milliseconds as measured at the base of the half-sine shock envelope. 77.2 Two alarms, one at maximum and one at minimum sensitivity, are to be subjected to vibration The frequency of vibration is to be varied from 10 to 35 cycles per second in increments of 5 cycles per second until a resonant frequency is obtained. The samples are then to be vibrated at the maximum resonant frequency for a period of 120 hours.

Shock Residential Unit 77.2 Two alarms, one at maximum and one at minimum sensitivity, are to be subjected to vibration The frequency of vibration is to be varied from 10 to 35 cycles per second in increments of 5 cycles per second until a resonant frequency is obtained. The samples are then to be vibrated at the maximum resonant frequency for a period of 4 hours.

[BlackHeron]

Regardless of how well-built the marine unit is in comparison, the fact is that any CO detector has a 7-year lifespan built-in to the unit before it will go into self-destructive "trouble mode" where it'll beep annoyingly upon occasion until you replace it.

Will a $20 residential unit last the full 7 years inside a nice dry well-found boat where the cabin environment is not much different than an oceanfront home compared to a $100-150 marine unit?

I know that the cheap automotive radio and cassette player that had been on our boat when we bought it for nearly 30 years was still working fine when I replaced it with a $250 "marine" stereo from Fusion. I do like the Bluetooth and the ability to control the stereo from the cockpit via the NMEA-2k network, but I doubt it will last any longer than that Clarion cassette deck or sound any better.

I'm still using the Realistic brand speakers from radio shack that were installed alongside that perfectly good old Clarion car radio cassette deck. Those weren't "marine" either. But they sound really good. RadioShack actually sold some good stuff in the early 80's and before, and their Realistic speakers had some high-end units in the lineup.

[wingless]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

Temperature Marine Unit
The environmental chamber is to be set to minus 40 ±2°C (minus 40±4°F) with a relative humidity of 45 +10 percent/ -5 percent for 24 hours.

Great job getting and providing all this technical information!!!

It is very interesting to me that they test with relative humidity in sub freezing temperatures, per their -40°C (-40°F) with a relative humidity of 45%, as-shown in this document.

[David B]

Originally Posted by wingless

An aerosol can of conformal coating was purchased years ago to permit disassembly, masking then protecting circuit board assemblies on new products. They are then reassembled and put into service.

Factory applied conformal coating is a lot more than that, but I guess the aerosol version offers some protection.

[ArmyDaveNY]

Originally Posted by BlackHeron

Regardless of how well-built the marine unit is in comparison, the fact is that any CO detector has a 7-year lifespan built-in to the unit before it will go into self-destructive "trouble mode" where it'll beep annoyingly upon occasion until you replace it.

Will a $20 residential unit last the full 7 years inside a nice dry well-found boat where the cabin environment is not much different than an oceanfront home compared to a $100-150 marine unit?

I know that the cheap automotive radio and cassette player that had been on our boat when we bought it for nearly 30 years was still working fine when I replaced it with a $250 "marine" stereo from Fusion. I do like the Bluetooth and the ability to control the stereo from the cockpit via the NMEA-2k network, but I doubt it will last any longer than that Clarion cassette deck or sound any better.

I'm still using the Realistic brand speakers from radio shack that were installed alongside that perfectly good old Clarion car radio cassette deck. Those weren't "marine" either. But they sound really good. RadioShack actually sold some good stuff in the early 80's and before, and their Realistic speakers had some high-end units in the lineup.

As Voltaire said, perfect is the enemy of good enough. I sometimes use lesser items and find they often are sufficient for my needs. At the same time, I am willing to accept the inherent risks when I choose a lesser item.

[Sailing Drummer]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

What is the difference between a UL "marine" rating and a standard rating?

If the difference is just a longevity issue then the home units will work just as well but perhaps not as long. If there is actually a performance difference then your comment is valid.

ANSI/UL 2034 standard covers electrically operated single and multiple station carbon monoxide (CO) alarms intended for protection in ordinary indoor locations of dwelling units, including recreational vehicles, mobile homes, and recreational boats with enclosed accommodation spaces and cockpit areas (per the standard). This implies that from a performance point of view there is no difference.

Is there actually a performance difference?

I have no idea what the actual difference is. But I have a vague recollection that it had to do with the typical shape of a room vs space on a boat. When I was looking for mine, there was a UL listing for residential and there was a UL listing for residential AND recreational boats. As long as what you buy is UL 2034 it’s considered safe for a boat. If it has a different UL number then it is not safe for a boat by UL standards. I don’t recall the other UL number, and can’t look it up because I have horrible internet here. It’s possible there’s currently only one UL number now. Bottom line from my perspective is that it has to be UL 2034, otherwise it’s NOT rated for marine.

[Cal31]

Originally Posted by ArmyDaveNY

As Voltaire said, perfect is the enemy of good enough. I sometimes use lesser items and find they often are sufficient for my needs. At the same time, I am willing to accept the inherent risks when I choose a lesser item.

ArmyDave, in your investigation did anyone suggest a way to easily test a CO unit so, marine grade or not, one could check if it is still functioning? Seems like that is the most important question. I get false alarms from the air freshener unit when boat is closed up but don't consider that a test of the unit.