Edison fire article

[schweg]

An interesting article published soon after the 1914 fire. I thought it was worth sharing.

[Lenoirstreetguy]

I've always been amused and delighted by the " never touched me!" written on his own photo. The old boy did have a sense of humour. The company was particularly chagrined that the fire spread so rapidly between their poured concrete " fire proof" buildings. The problem was that the buildings had wooden window frames which ignited and spread the blaze. I've seen a pic of Edison and the factory gang testing metal framed windows for their fire resistant qualities before they were installed during the re-build . I'll see if I can find it.
Jim

[briankeith]

Another real photo of the West Orange New Jersey fire.

[Henry]

That looks like more than just window frames burning. Your typical factory buildings in this period had flammable materials in the roofing, possibly also the flooring and finish of interior spaces, not to mention the contents of the buildings themselves. I don't think any building is, or can be made to be, "fireproof," but I'm no expert. Just my 2¢ worth.

[Lenoirstreetguy]

No, of course entire contents of the buildings burnt, but the fire spread from one building to the next via the window frames of the second building catching from the heat of the first,thus spreading the conflagration . I'm home today trying to beat the current filthy head cold making the rounds in Toronto, so I dug in the APM and found the article to which I referred in my first post. Here they are testing two types of metal framed windows. I'm amused that the fire inside the chimney used old blue amberols and celluloid film stock as part of the fuel.
Jim

[Henry]

Yeah, that old film stock burned pretty readily, I understand. Also turned to mush in the can. Many old movies lost by that means. IIRC it was Eastman Kodak that introduced "safety film" sometime in the '20s or '30s maybe (too lazy to look up at the moment), so called because the emulsion wasn't on a cellulose medium and wasn't flammable. (Ever ponder why "flammable" and "inflammable" mean exactly the same thing? Ah, the beauties of the English language!)

Metal sash may be the best for industrial purposes. I can tell you from experience that for domestic use it stinks. I had it in my 1950-built home for years until replaced with wood and vinyl double-glazed. The metal sash transferred heat and cold quite efficiently; the window panes fogged and dripped in the winter, and blazed (figuratively speaking) in the summer. Moreover, the maker had used some kind of glazing compound ("putty") that had turned to rock. Replacing a broken window pane would have been a major project; fortunately, that never happened to me.

I'm afraid the statement "It was a pretty clear demonstration that when the buildings are thus equipped [with metal sash] they will be fireproof" will prove to be unreliable when the roofing materials start to burn. Unless, of course, they used ceramic or concrete tile, or slate.

[martinola]

Hi Henry.

Although Kodak had Safety base film in the 1920s (most notably for 16mm home movies in 1923), Nitrate was considered an optically superior film base and was used in the USA up to about 1952. It's amazing how slow we are to change even with the threat of injury or death. I wonder if the fire played a role in Edison's leaving the film business shortly thereafter?

-Martin