.ffd-article-content-5 p.ffd-para-5 {
font-family: Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif;
font-size: 14.5px;
line-height: 1.75;
color: #666;
margin-bottom: 1.4em;
}
.ffd-article-content-5 a.ffd-link-5 {
color: #FFA500; /* Orange */
text-decoration: none;
border-bottom: 2px solid #FFD700; /* Gold */
padding-bottom: 1px;
}
.ffd-article-content-5 a.ffd-link-5:hover {
color: #FF8C00; /* DarkOrange */
border-bottom-color: #FFA500; /* Orange */
}
.ffd-article-content-5 .ffd-pros-5 {
color: #3A943A; /* Forest Green */
font-weight: bold;
}
.ffd-article-content-5 .ffd-cons-5 {
color: #C44848; /* Moderate Red */
font-style: italic;
}
When selecting a fixed flame detector, it’s essential to compare the different types of fixed flame detectors available on the market, as each has its unique strengths and weaknesses. Ultraviolet (UV) detectors offer very fast response times (milliseconds) to flames, making them suitable for applications involving rapid ignition and explosions. However, they are highly susceptible to false alarms from sources like welding, lightning, and UV lamps, and their range can be reduced by smoke or oil mist contamination on the lens.
Infrared (IR) detectors, particularly single-frequency ones, sense the specific IR spectrum emitted by hot CO2 from fires. They generally have good immunity to welding and solar radiation compared to UV detectors. However, they can be triggered by other hot surfaces or modulated IR sources, and their response time might be slightly slower than UV detectors. Combined UV/IR detectors aim to mitigate false alarms by requiring simultaneous detection in both spectra. This provides enhanced false alarm immunity compared to standalone UV or single-frequency IR detectors, making them a popular choice for many industrial settings, though they may still be affected by specific combinations of UV and IR sources.
Multi-spectrum IR (MSIR) detectors represent a more advanced category. By analyzing multiple IR wavelengths and employing sophisticated algorithms, they offer superior false alarm immunity against a wide range of non-fire sources and can often detect fires obscured by smoke more effectively than UV or UV/IR types. They can also sometimes differentiate between fuel types. Their main potential drawback is typically a higher initial cost. Video Flame Detectors (VFD) offer visual verification and can cover large areas, but are dependent on lighting conditions and can have higher computational demands. Comparing these fixed flame detectors based on application hazards, environmental factors, and performance requirements is crucial for effective fire protection.