CO Detectors
Bruce Chr. Johnson (commodore@seascout.org)
Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:46:35 -0500
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------BE29F1695D696C1E9E16783F
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
--------------BE29F1695D696C1E9E16783F
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-ID: <md5:3F961E3A76CE08F8CFB880C1ED820626>
Received: from mail.sea.scouter.com [208.18.92.55] by mail.sea.scouter.com
(SMTPD32-4.07) id A9E81A330390; Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:41:28 CDT
From: "Seacout-Net List Manager" <listmanager@seascout.org>
Reply-To: "Seacout-Net List Manager" <listmanager@seascout.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 99 13:41:28 CDT
To: commodore@seascout.org
Subject: CO Detectors
X-Mozilla-Status2: 00000000
Original-From: "Martin A. Flynn" <maflynn@worldnet.att.net>
Original-Reply-To: seascout-net@mail.sea.scouter.com
Original-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1998 23:55:22 +0000
Does anyone have an opinion on the merits of the different Carbon Monoxide
detectors on the market?
We have smoke detectors for our boat already & would like to add CO
detectors (at least to the berthing areas).
Are the UL marine approved units significantly more durable then the
landlubber units? The advertised sensitivity (PPM/weighting) is comparable
for both units.
Martin
Martin A. Flynn - CR
M/V SEAHORSE
Sea Scout Ship 243, BSA
Watchung Area Council / NJ
http://www.seascout.net/sea243/
--------------BE29F1695D696C1E9E16783F--
