Another RV Fridge Fire

[Psneeld]

Not realizing the complete spectrum of knowledge posters have in net forums is often a big mistake by many.

I try very hard not to answer questions too simplistically or too complex until I have a good understanding of the poster I am addressing experience and background.

This is why some threads go on forever because often there are several points being debated and at any given time they flipflop with new posts.

The real issue I have with threads is like listening to the news...they are way too full of "bits" of info, often taken out of context.

I often don't disagree with a person's premise as much as the presentation of the thought (fact vs opinion/limited personal experience) or the misuse of a statistic/not weighing what is a total fix or a practical fix.

[Solo_RV_Guy]

As I mentioned a bunch of posts ago, there are a few million ammonia absorption refrigerators in us in RVs. Some math shows how small the random probability is that any one RV will have a reefer fire.

Will it happen to you? Statistics say it's very unlikely, but they can't tell us to whom or when bad things will happen for those unfortunate to become part of the failure numbers.

That's what owners have to balance - likelihood, consequences of failure that cannot be liquidated (life/property), and the owners aversion to risk. None of this is inherently good or bad, but are the metrics to use in order to make a decision that is right for each owner.

[Psneeld]

One of the US Military's Operational Risk Management risk assessment guides.

[Unplanned Tourist]

Originally Posted by Psneeld

One of the US Military's Operational Risk Management risk assessment guides.

115 posts later, and finally someone puts it in simple terms.

Low risk and high consequences describes RV absorption fridges very well.

It's similar to house insurance. Not much chance of your house burning down, but we still buy insurance.

I look at buying and installing anything that will protect my fridge and thus my rig from a fire basically just another insurance policy. So thanks to Fridge Defend for supplying that policy. And it's a one time payment!

[TandW]

Most telling is when a carrier offers discounted insurance when the OP's device is installed.

[n2zon]

Originally Posted by TandW

Most telling is when a carrier offers discounted insurance when the OP's device is installed.

Do any of them do that? That'd almost make it a no-brainer to install one, since it would pay for itself.

Conversely, would an insurer consider the modification as voiding the certifications for the fridge (ANSI Z21.19B for the fridge and UL for the electronics) and refuse to pay for a loss resulting from a fridge fire?

[TandW]

Originally Posted by n2zon

Do any of them do that? That'd almost make it a no-brainer to install one, since it would pay for itself.

Conversely, would an insurer consider the modification as voiding the certifications for the fridge (ANSI Z21.19B for the fridge and UL for the electronics) and refuse to pay for a loss resulting from a fridge fire?

The resident insurance expert says the insurance carrier will likely pay damages, but then may go after those they deem responsible. Fire is a peril covered by insurance.

[astrnmrtom]

It's been a while since I visited this thread, and while I haven't read every post since my last visit, there are a few that caught my attention. I'd like to offer some perspective regarding one thing that's been repeated several times. To paraphrase: "The only way to eliminate RV fridge fires is to remove the absorption fridge and install a residential unit."

Since the main point of this thread has been RV the dangers of RV refrigerator fires I want to point out one a couple things to address household refrigerators being a solution. If you do a search on what appliance causes the most house fires you'll see that refrigerators are at the top. Stop and think of the history of this thread's subject. For for how many decades have absorption fridges been standard equipment in RVs? How many millions of units over this period? Compared to the many millions of absorption fridges, how many residential units have been in use, and for how long?

What I'm suggesting is, there's a huge general data set on absorption refrigerators, and a tiny one on residentials. Even if that huge dataset is incomplete without forensic examination of the fire's cause. "The fire started in the refrigerator compartment" is only a general statement, not evidence of cause. Remember correlation does not equal causation.

Another important perspective. If a set of statistics say that in the last 50 years 99.5% of refrigerator fires in RV have been caused by RV absorption refrigerators vs .5% caused by residential, the impulse is to think OMG residential refrigerators are WAY safer than absorption fridges. Now ask yourself this question: Does your opinion change if statistics also reveal 99.5% of RV refrigerators are absorption, vs .5% residential?

To say that residential refrigerator is a cure for the danger ignores two facts: One that they cause fires in houses, so they DO cause fires, and two, they've been in use in RVs for a tiny fraction of the time, and at much smaller numbers compared to absorption fridges. 50 years from now the topic of refrigerator fires may still be an emotional one, even if by then 99.5% of RV refrigerators are residential or compressor types.

I realize, and can accept, there's no way a residential refrigerator can start an RV fire due to a failed boiler or flu fire, so chances are they ARE statistically safer than absorption. Without actual forensic data - not just general area of origin statistics - it's hard to predict just how much safer they really are.

I am also not in the slightest bit questioning the value of an addition of safety device to control boiler temps, nor minimizing the tragedy of loss from such a fire. I am also not questioning anyone's desire to do whatever makes them feel safer. A large part of my removing our absorption fridge and installing a residential is because my wife sleeps better now having done so. Before taking off to full time she was frightened by all the talk of refrigerator fires, and Norcold fires in particular. No proposed addition of of ANY safety device made her feel better. I've done a lot of things just because they made me feel better or safer, after all piece of mind is a very important thing to everyone. I see nothing but positive things if there's a device on the market that makes another product safer. I also respect and support a manufacturer who has the passion and drive to improve safety. I only wish RV manufacturers would make an effort to do even the simplest things to reduce the chance of fire in an RV refrigerator compartment. I've often thought a basic fire resistant liner in the refer box would go a long way toward stopping the total loss of an RV from a failure in the refrigerator compartment, just like flame resistant outlets and junction boxes do for an electrical fire. The question remains, is it worth the cost for a product that's primarily used for a few weeks a year? To me yes, just like safety glasses are important for me to wear for the few times a year I use a tool that might spit something into my eye. To the RV industry, apparently not.

As the length of this thread proves, risk tolerance varies by individual. What's no big deal to one is another's sleepless night of worrying. Am I nit picking certain comments? Well, yes, probably. I just found myself thinking this thread reminds me of tire blowout threads where there's a lot of opinions on the cause were stated without any facts to base them on. Strong conclusions were based on almost complete lack of facts. In fact, my example and question in paragraph 3 is a variation on one posted on a tire thread.

I also want to thank those posters who have first hand experience in some of these subjects. There's a big difference in knowledge between the average consumer and one who has countless hours of experience with a subject that's being discussed. We as consumers can't be experts in everything we consume and shouldn't be expected to be. I love learning form those who know more about a particular subject. It helps me in my eternal quest to separate facts from perceptions, and to get a more accurate picture of a product or subject.

[Psneeld]

Originally Posted by Unplanned Tourist

115 posts later, and finally someone puts it in simple terms.

Low risk and high consequences describes RV absorption fridges very well.

It's similar to house insurance. Not much chance of your house burning down, but we still buy insurance.

I look at buying and installing anything that will protect my fridge and thus my rig from a fire basically just another insurance policy. So thanks to Fridge Defend for supplying that policy. And it's a one time payment!

Sorta....remember there are many other way/devicess to reduce risks further and minimize catastrophic losses to lesser ones....

Some devices to prevent losses are different than insurance in that one is before and one is after the fact. Some of the other risk mitigators such as good smoke/heat detectors or auto fire extinguishing devices can prevent deaths or severe damage. There is not only one device out there that reduces risk or loss, although it might be the best.

So the matrix isn't necessarily as easy as it sounds because you can start applying mitigation devices/methods and they will change the different levels.

Part of operational risk management is applying risk mitigation and continue the feedback loop to see if proceeding is warranted or more controls are necessary.

[Archer2]

After posting one comment and getting a very defensive response from the OP I have followed this thread but resisted joining in. The apparently infinite cycle of posters commenting with questions, observations and opinions and then the OP responding by defensively restating his talking points is tiresome. What everybody seems to agree in is that:
1. Absorption fridge fires are statistically relatively rare (compared to the probability of a driving accident for instance) but they can be devastating or even deadly.
2. The cause of the fires can be components in the appliance overheating causing systemic failures leading to a fire.
3. The mitigation provided by the manufacturers (ie thermofuses that are designed to operate if the temperature of the fuse exceeds a set value of around 900F and thus interrupt power to the appliance) are, in the opinion of the OP, either designed to operate at too high a temperature and/or installed at the wrong location in the system to be optimally effective.
4. The OP's device is, in his opinion, designed to be more effective and thus is a better solution than the OEM approach. It can be set to operate at, in the OP's opinion, an optimized temperature and installed at exactly the right location.
5. The OP's preferred approach is relatively simple to deploy, reasonably economical given the disastrous potential for damage and has virtually no negatives.

But rather than a simple, logical description of the problem and the solution the whole thing comes off as trying to scare people into buying the product by overstating the statistical magnitude of the danger. Then the OP tries to make the case for his device by making flat assertions but when you try to track down the evidence you just go to sources that effectively say “RV fires happen and they can be really bad and sometimes they are caused by refrigerator failures”. This is a classic circular argument and the whole thing reminds me of a sensationalist TV news teases like “Is this item in your house making you sick? Tune in to Eyewitness News at 11 to find out!”
The sad thing is that I believe the problem and danger is real and the OP's product is a great way to minimize it. I would buy and install one in a heartbeat if I had an absorption fridge. I'll wait here for the expected restatement of why refrigerator fires in RVs are bad.

[Kid Gloves]

Originally Posted by Psneeld

One of the US Military's Operational Risk Management risk assessment guides.

Any idea what that chart cost to develop?

Follow up: Does that qualify as Military Intelligence?

[Psneeld]

Originally Posted by Kid Gloves

Any idea what that chart cost to develop?

Follow up: Does that qualify as Military Intelligence?

The cost was nothing as far as I know....or low for the payback.

I was on the early joint military group of safety officials that was tasked with writing the DoD Operational Risk Management doctrine back in the late 90's.

The each military adopted variations and I believe many of the matrix style decision charts came a little later after I retired.

So the program was in house and did cost some TAD for a small group of officials that would have been spent on other meeting topics. Post this group I have no idea, but I believe most branches further developed in their in house safety teams.

Even if the cost was in the millions, one aircraft saved more than payed for the development costs.

[Kid Gloves]

Originally Posted by Psneeld

The cost was nothing as far as I know....or low for the payback.

I was on the early joint military group of safety officials that was tasked with writing the DoD Operational Risk Management doctrine back in the late 90's.

The each military adopted variations and I believe many of the matrix style decision charts came a little later after I retired.

So the program was in house and did cost some TAD for a small group of officials that would have been spent on other meeting topics. Post this group I have no idea, but I believe most branches further developed in their in house safety teams.

Even if the cost was in the millions, one aircraft saved more than payed for the development costs.

Your service and knowledge are appreciated.

The chart is rather simplistic. Sometimes, simple is the best approach. Personally, I’d be surprised if it would take a group of 8th graders more than an hour to construct the chart. Once the USG gets involved, it could be months and millions.

[Psneeld]

Originally Posted by Kid Gloves

Your service and knowledge are appreciated.

The chart is rather simplistic. Sometimes, simple is the best approach. Personally, I’d be surprised if it would take a group of 8th graders more than an hour to construct the chart. Once the USG gets involved, it could be months and millions.

Hate to disappoint you, but some in the USCG are very good at their jobs and save the public millions of dollars each year by looking for ways to be more efficient and worthy of the budget to accomplish what they have been tasked to do.

Not many 8th graders get woken up in the middle of the night, get briefed that people may die if they don't respond, yet conditions or the situation may cause the death of that dispatched crew. The alternative is sit safe and sound at the station and listed to people or even just realize your non response has possibly caused their deaths. No, not many 8th graders have been in that position to come up with a good decision matrix.

Ultimately it isn't that simple....the matrix is a "guide"...many, many inputs by all involved focus on the likelihood/consequence categories and constantly feedback as the mission develops.

For decades the USCG and all military lost way too many personnel due to a little too much "gung ho" attitude and "operational risk management" was developed to minimize loss while still performing dangerous missions. Often USCG crews died while the people signaling distress made it through OK without assistance....totally unacceptable when slower, steady and intelligent decision making can reduce those outcomes.

Again, the program has probably saved more in assets and lives than it cost the US Government. Maybe because it was homegrown in house and NOT left to a bunch of defense contractors who had no skin in the game. I certainly did.