I do not understand why the modern room burnt like that and the legacy room did not.

@@eleanorhogan8643 the plastics burn much more rapidly than natural fibers

@@wyster14 Oh.

@@eleanorhogan8643 because the modern room had poyester and other low flash point materierals as the legacy room has high flash point matterals like wood, cotton, wool, silk! also polyester and plastic will cling to the body if burned on as with cotten or wool would cleanly burn off you!

@@awesomeninja9178 good Lord.

macmedic892 actually ionization smoke detectors that are in 90% of homes fail to operate 55% of the time in a smoldering fire such as this one. I suggest checking out the omni shield network. The lithium maganese batteries in them last 20 years. They also can actually see a fire happening with infra red sensors and quarts crystal processors. It's state of the art stuff but worth investing in. Comes with an app and many other features

and I keep setting off my detectors by accident.

​@@Beezy089 Optical/photoelectrical and CO/2-detector if there's improper central ventilation is pretty much all you need. Heat-sensitive detectors are overkill for private residence given the enclosed space, as are giving the system a 2-way connection - This is a life-saving system, it should never EVER accept remote connections and there's absolutely no need for it. An enclosed wireless water-detector and lock-system will give audible warnings to anyone in the house and shut off the relevant valve(s) to prevent damage, while optical and/or CO-gas detectors are easy to chain-connect internally with automatic dialing over IP with SIM-backup past 30+ seconds if the owner doesn't manually stop it. Ionizing detectors are unreliable, but there's no need to spend thousands on a system that in reality makes you less safe given it introduces several new critical failure points. Even security-companies mess up occasionally, do you genuinely trust a company making smoke detectors and mobile apps to not do the same? And what is the app for actually? Are you expected to start fiddling with your mobile phone while in a potential emergency where seconds count, instead of audibly and visually(if chained) be guided to the initial detector? I assume 90% of homes is for the US? Ionizing detectors became a rarity here(across the pond) 20 years ago, and all buildings after 2010 have by law at the bare minimum optical detectors with direct net-power and battery backup(usually 5-10 year duration). IIRC anything residential built after 2015 has heat-released fire sprinklers installed as well.

perfect example of why i love my -5329 BC home its a good cave and FIREPROOF

@@AlexRaGeAHoLiC negative Bc is in the future XD

And some things in a house fire such as gun ammunition, lithium ion batteries, and celluloid movie film contain their own oxidizer and do not need oxygen to decompose and generate lots of heat and destruction.

Hence why the modern home took longer to have a visible flame but a shorter amount of time to flash over.

Much less make a viable rescue.

Brian M thx for da lesson Not sarcasm

I agree with you completely.

It may have played some role but wildlamd firefighting is a whole different monster than structure.

That was more down to the winds. Beyond a certain amount of wind you simply cannot get ahead of it.

No, we actually lost progress.

Even by 2010 standards 240p is pretty garbage. Hell, that was around the time that KZfaq introduced 1080p.

lion Heart all the fire retardant stuff manages is to stop a cigarette from igniting it immediately. Which is what you see at the beginning when the new room takes a while to start burning.

Actual wood isn't easy to catch. It burns great once it does, but actually getting it to light is very difficult.

todays osb board ( i call chip board and glue) id assume catch easily?

Chemical saturation

@@randomrazr science experement.

Homes in the old days were built with old growth trees/wood which is more solid

This is comparing furnishings not build methods or material. You may want to open up a wall or two in that old home of yours. I have seen many that use newspapers and other stuff for insulation.

And make sure there electric (if there is any) is safe as well!

+whydidthetilda 2009

I was thinking that myself. After just 2 minutes your chances of being able to put that fire out on your own look very slim.

rentacow I live in a wooden house that is over 100 years old. Shit is terrifying.

2 mins?! at 2 mins I could piss it out. At 3 mins its STILL a can job...

​@@SwissMarksman At least older houses do better if they have old-school furnishings.

***** Perhaps also that the synthetic materials generate more toxic gases that contribute to heat propagation throughout the room and causes flashover to occur sooner (not to mention that smoke being more dangerous to people or animals caught in it).

synthetics, plastics release highly flammable gases when there's severe heat in the room (from a building fire).. these gases are part of the dark smoke that quickly ignites the room when the temperature and concentration reaches the critical level.

No, the toxic smoke that is released from synthetic materials during a house fire Isn’t more dangerous to your health than toxic smoke released during a house fire from natural materials, synthetic materials release carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide during a house fire, but natural materials also release carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide as well during a house fire. Also a house fire involving natural materials is also much more likely to smoulder for a very long time before it actually catches flame, and synthetic materials don’t really smoulder for a long time before it catches fire, and a smoulder fire is much more dangerous than a flame fire because a smouldering fire produces much more carbon monoxide than a flame fire.

@@ryandoris6744 When they are small, but when one is engulfing your house, I would say that one is more dangerous

username132 That experiment is probably scare mongering. And plus they used a massive hall to put them 2 rooms next to each other which doesn’t simulate a real life house or an apartment, them rooms were rich in oxygen, probably not much carbon monoxide were produced during them 2 experiments.

And we do have flame retardants.

Brominated treated is a fire retardent. This is wasn't very scientific. Drapes were different. People have much less upholstered furniture than they used too. Google "No, Modern Furniture Is Not Burning 8X Faster In A House Fire". Dieing in a fire is much less than it was....smoke alarms.

We can if we are prepared to pay for the extra cost, which we aren't most of the time. If you go for the cheapest shit at Ikea you really shouldn't expect much in the way safety.

@@glmccready however, when plastics burn, they put off a lot more smoke, which can make it even more dangerous

Calculators don't have mics.

Did you mean? 3:23

Still takes the same amount of time to respond.

No matter it only takes one fire to kill you. With today's materials you have less than three minutes to get out of the house. Your will be unable to be awoken by the smoke detector, get out, call 911, and get firefighters on scene in less than three minutes. Just not gonna happen.

@@joshmarvin5720 Just came across this on a website for the National Safety Council. "Although the number of fire-related deaths has decreased by 46% since 1980, 2020 marks a 23% increase from the record low number of deaths recorded by NFPA in 2012 (2,855). The 2020 civilian fire death toll of 3,500 is 5.5% lower than the 3,704 total in 2019."

+G Hawirko (StyroHome) Idiot. You want to pay 10x as much to be "safer" when all you really need to do is be properly cautious in the first place, go ahead. I'll take the risks and save the money.

TheWaynelds the point is modern houses burn faster and with more smoke.

Which only allows the radiant heat to heat the materials faster and causing quicker flashover.

They are controlling for one situation. The furnishings. Modern furnishings go up in flame faster. If you put old furnishings in a new house, the new house would burn slower than if you filled it with new furnishings. The age of the house itself, wiring issues and a bunch of other things can lead to older homes catching on fire. Here, they just wanted to test for the furniture. The point here is that the conditions were the same for both "rooms" except for what is in them.

I know some really old houses in New England used newspapers for insulation.

Messiness or even old vs new decorating styles can play a role too.

There was less regulation when the legacy room was made, its just now we buy cheap plastic shit from china, instead of well crafted wooden furniture.