2 wire vs 4 wire Smoke allarms
Coppernob
construction home. The manual allows me th option of the 2wire or 4
wire smoke alarms, but I cannot seem to get a difference between these
two types. Any significant advantages of one over the other?
Robo
"Coppernob" <alexn...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:jhkhd2hk46elig7rv...@4ax.com...
I go with 2 wire. no need for eol relay, just resistor.
Stu Alden
> > construction home. The manual allows me th option of the 2wire or 4
> > wire smoke alarms, but I cannot seem to get a difference between these
> > two types. Any significant advantages of one over the other?
>
> I go with 2 wire. no need for eol relay, just resistor.
>
>
>
for panels probably apply:
2-wire is simpler, easier, but the zone circuit has to be able to handle
2-wire and you need to select your smokes from a list of approved models
(approved by the panel maker to work with the panel).
4-wire will work with any conventional zone circuit, need separate power
circuit, no list of approved models to worry about.
jmj...@msn.com
easy to identify which one sounded the alarm - if that ever happens.
On many panels you can only connect 2-wire smokes to a single zone.
Coppernob
>4-wire will work with any conventional zone circuit, need separate power
>circuit, no list of approved models to worry about.
For remodel codoe requires me to use 110V models, so i think i have to
go 4wire, but then do i need to purchase a relay to connect to the
Omni?
Robo
110V are different from 4 wire which are 12V or 24V. you can hook up relay
from 110V to OMNI but that is against code. The relay is not listed for
connection to alarm system. It appears condo has you in a Catch 22
Kurt Delaney
news:ZWLCg.15272$dQ4....@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
There have been EXTENSIVE discussions on this exact topic over on the boards
at www.worthingtonsolutions.com -- you might want to check them out.
The conclusion on those discussions was that the best and safest solution is
to put in two sets of detectors -- interconnected 110V to satisfy building
codes, and LV detectors to connect to your Omni so it is approved as a fire
detection alarm system. More progressive localities will allow properly
installed LV smoke detectors for code, but a lot of localities (and
inspectors) will not sign off on them (as you have found out).
Kurt
Frank Olson
>>110V are different from 4 wire which are 12V or 24V. you can hook up
>>relay from 110V to OMNI but that is against code. The relay is not listed
>>for connection to alarm system. It appears condo has you in a Catch 22
What's the difference between the relay in a 110VAC smoke alarm and a
24VDC smoke alarm? Nothing. There is no "code violation" as long as
you maintain a clear physical separation between the 110 and the low
voltage connections to the panel. The only thing you might wind up with
is an alarm every time you have a power failure because in most 110VAC
smoke alarms the relay activates for a few seconds when power is
reapplied. I do agree that the *best* method involves the installation
of 12 VDC smoke alarms (which means you'll wind up with two units next
to each other in most applications). On my own system I've run 18AWG to
all the 110VAC smoke alarm locations, and after the final electrical
inspection, replaced all of them with two wire smoke alarms connected to
the alarm panel. The 110VAC wires were marretted off and stuffed into
the back of the box.
Robo
"Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
news:1r5Dg.366828$iF6.98903@pd7tw2no...
> Kurt Delaney wrote:
>
>>>110V are different from 4 wire which are 12V or 24V. you can hook up
>>>relay from 110V to OMNI but that is against code. The relay is not
>>>listed for connection to alarm system. It appears condo has you in a
>>>Catch 22
>
> What's the difference between the relay in a 110VAC smoke alarm and a
> 24VDC smoke alarm? Nothing. There is no "code violation" as long as you
> maintain a clear physical separation between the 110 and the low voltage
> connections to the panel.
here in the US we can only use parts in a fire alarm that are "LISTED" for
the application. If you check the relay for a 110V smokes you will see that
it is not LISTED for interconnection to a fire alarm panel. Maybe I used
the wrong terminology when I said against code. When the inspector flags it
I just assume it a code problem. What is the correct term?
Frank Olson
> "Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
> news:1r5Dg.366828$iF6.98903@pd7tw2no...
>
>>Kurt Delaney wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>110V are different from 4 wire which are 12V or 24V. you can hook up
>>>>relay from 110V to OMNI but that is against code. The relay is not
>>>>listed for connection to alarm system. It appears condo has you in a
>>>>Catch 22
>>
>>What's the difference between the relay in a 110VAC smoke alarm and a
>>24VDC smoke alarm? Nothing. There is no "code violation" as long as you
>>maintain a clear physical separation between the 110 and the low voltage
>>connections to the panel.
>
>
> here in the US we can only use parts in a fire alarm that are "LISTED" for
> the application. If you check the relay for a 110V smokes you will see that
> it is not LISTED for interconnection to a fire alarm panel. Maybe I used
> the wrong terminology when I said against code. When the inspector flags it
> I just assume it a code problem. What is the correct term?
There is nothing in the NEC that states you can't connect the relay of a
110VAC smoke alarm to a burg/security panel. Most manufacturers of
110VAC smoke alarms *recommend* the relay not be used to interconnect to
a security system. I believe this link will prove helpful:
Robo
>
> There is nothing in the NEC that states you can't connect the relay of a
> 110VAC smoke alarm to a burg/security panel. Most manufacturers of 110VAC
> smoke alarms *recommend* the relay not be used to interconnect to a
> security system. I believe this link will prove helpful:
>
> http://www.icca.invensys.com/manuals/firex/110-278F.pdf
>
yes,but it does say you have to use parts that are LISTED for the
application. that link specifically states not to use in the application we
are discussing. ie not LISTED for the application, ie not code.
Coppernob
<kurt_dot_delaney@rm_this_hp.com> wrote:
>
>There have been EXTENSIVE discussions on this exact topic over on the boards
>at www.worthingtonsolutions.com -- you might want to check them out.
Thanks,
I even called them and they confirmed the bad news....
>
>The conclusion on those discussions was that the best and safest solution is
>to put in two sets of detectors -- interconnected 110V to satisfy building
>codes, and LV detectors to connect to your Omni so it is approved as a fire
>detection alarm system. More progressive localities will allow properly
>installed LV smoke detectors for code, but a lot of localities (and
>inspectors) will not sign off on them (as you have found out).
110V smoke detectos (photoelectric + ionization) are around 35$
Now I have to search for 4wire 24V ones for the Omni....
Frank Olson
What "application" are we talking about?? Connection to a LISTED fire
alarm? We're talking about interconnection to a security panel.
There's nothing in NEC that forbids this. You're monitoring a contact
point. How many contacts do you know are LISTED for a particular
application? What's to prevent me from hooking up a push button switch
to bypass a zone in my alarm panel? I could use a standard light switch
for that. It's certainly not "listed" for the application.
To the OP. There is nothing in any code or statute that forbids you to
interconnect your AC smoke alarms to your security alarm panel. You
can't connect it to a LISTED fire alarm panel, though. Furthermore, no
Authority Having Jurisdiction is going to fail the application as long
as you meet code requirements regarding physical separation of the high
voltage (110VAC) from the low voltage (12 VDC).
Frank Olson
> On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 13:48:46 GMT, "Kurt Delaney"
> <kurt_dot_delaney@rm_this_hp.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>There have been EXTENSIVE discussions on this exact topic over on the boards
>>at www.worthingtonsolutions.com -- you might want to check them out.
>
>
> Thanks,
> I even called them and they confirmed the bad news....
They're wrong.
>
>
> 110V smoke detectos (photoelectric + ionization) are around 35$
> Now I have to search for 4wire 24V ones for the Omni....
That's actually a good idea, however, I'd go with 2 wire units (they're
easier to install). Make sure they're cross-listed to your alarm
control. You may have to install a reversal module to get all the smoke
alarms to "beep" when one goes into alarm. If you use 4 wire DC smokes,
you'll need a power supervision relay.
Robo
> Robo wrote:
> > "Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in
message
> > news:d26Dg.367317$iF6.199323@pd7tw2no...
> >
> >>There is nothing in the NEC that states you can't connect the relay of a
> >>110VAC smoke alarm to a burg/security panel. Most manufacturers of
110VAC
> >>smoke alarms *recommend* the relay not be used to interconnect to a
> >>security system. I believe this link will prove helpful:
> >>
> >>http://www.icca.invensys.com/manuals/firex/110-278F.pdf
> >>
> >
> >
> > yes,but it does say you have to use parts that are LISTED for the
> > application. that link specifically states not to use in the
application we
> > are discussing. ie not LISTED for the application, ie not code.
> >
> >
>
>
> What "application" are we talking about??
get lost easily?
>Connection to a LISTED fire
> alarm? We're talking about interconnection to a security panel.
in this app it is a fire alarm
> There's nothing in NEC that forbids this. You're monitoring a contact
> point. How many contacts do you know are LISTED for a particular
> application?
on a fire alarm, all of them
>What's to prevent me from hooking up a push button switch
> to bypass a zone in my alarm panel? I could use a standard light switch
> for that. It's certainly not "listed" for the application.
for a burglar alarm you are correct
but
again this app is a fire alarm
>
> To the OP. There is nothing in any code or statute that forbids you to
> interconnect your AC smoke alarms to your security alarm panel. You
> can't connect it to a LISTED fire alarm panel, though.
are you saying the OMNI is not listed for household fire?
Frank Olson
>
>>Robo wrote:
>>What "application" are we talking about??
>
>
> get lost easily?
Nope. I don't consider any security panel as a fire alarm system. A
fire alarm *system* is dedicated to one thing... A burg panel/security
system can report on a variety of events and doesn't require
specifically "listed" devices to do so.
>
>
>>Connection to a LISTED fire
>>alarm? We're talking about interconnection to a security panel.
>
>
> in this app it is a fire alarm
Nope. It's a security system. A fire alarm system is a whole different
"animal". The OP would have a hard time installing a *LISTED* fire
alarm panel... for this you would need the proper certifications,
permits, etc.
>
>
>>There's nothing in NEC that forbids this. You're monitoring a contact
>>point. How many contacts do you know are LISTED for a particular
>>application?
>
>
> on a fire alarm, all of them
We're not talking a "fire alarm device" here are we??
>
>
>>What's to prevent me from hooking up a push button switch
>>to bypass a zone in my alarm panel? I could use a standard light switch
>>for that. It's certainly not "listed" for the application.
>
>
> for a burglar alarm you are correct
> but
> again this app is a fire alarm
No. It isn't. It's a burg/security system.
>
>
>>To the OP. There is nothing in any code or statute that forbids you to
>>interconnect your AC smoke alarms to your security alarm panel. You
>>can't connect it to a LISTED fire alarm panel, though.
>
>
> are you saying the OMNI is not listed for household fire?
I don't doubt that it is. Did the OP need to preserve the UL fire
listing or did he simply want to monitor his 110VAC smoke alarms? I
work with LISTED fire alarm systems all day. They're manufactured by
companies like Edwards, Simplex, Notifier, FireLite, and Mircom. Like I
said... you can hook *any* switch up to a burg panel. It doesn't have
to be "listed" for the specific purpose. I can monitor any number of
"points" in my Elk M-1 Gold and none of them have to be "listed" for the
particular purpose.
rober...@comcast.net
That is not correct. 110VAC smoke detectors canno9t be supervised by
the alarm control panel. If they lose primary power the relay will not
fire and the alarm control panel will not know it. This is a
significant difference.
> There is no "code violation" as long as you maintain a clear physical
> separation between the 110 and the low voltage connections to the
> panel...
Most of the relays (for example, the one that Kidde sells) specifically
state in the manufacturers' instructions that they are not for use with
an alarm control panel. Code requires that devices connected to a fire
alarm system be "listed for the purpose" by the manufacturer. Since
such devices are almost invariably not so listed, using them with an
alarm control panel is not code compliant.
> The only thing you might wind up with is an alarm every time
> you have a power failure because in most 110VAC smoke
> alarms the relay activates for a few seconds when power is
> reapplied...
That is wrong. The more important problem is that during a power
failure the relay is inoperable (it requires both 110VAC and the 9-volt
trigger to function).
> I do agree that the *best* method involves the installation
> of 12 VDC smoke alarms (which means you'll wind up with
> two units next to each other in most applications)...
There are alternatives which are code compliant where there are
existing 110VAC smokes. One is to simply add a few well-placed system
type (12 Volt) smokes. Many times over the years when installing
systems in homes with a full compliment of integrated 110VAC smoke
detectors, we would add a system smoke detector on each level. The
theory behingd this is that either type of detector will wake you up
and save your life but the system detectors can be monitored, perhaps
allowing the fire depoartment to respond before a fire gets out of
hand.
Years ago code was somewhat less than encouraging on this. Some
inspectors would say, "Sorry, if you want system smokes you have to
install them in every required location." Others would say that as
long as the home already had all the required smokes they didn't object
to a few "extra" ones. Most inspectors we worked with took the latter
aproach but there were a few who didn't agree.
In recent revisions to the code the use of "extra" smoke detectors in
this manner is expressly permitted, clearing up questions that some
inspectors used to have.
> On my own system I've run 18AWG to all the 110VAC
> smoke alarm locations, and after the final electrical inspection,
> replaced all of them with two wire smoke alarms connected to
> the alarm panel. The 110VAC wires were marretted off and stuffed into
> the back of the box.
The previous poster is in Canada. Pulling a fastr one like this after
the inspection in the USA would be a handy way to get cited, especially
if the fire department later came out on a call and someone decided to
inspect (not all that unusual in many communities). Since this
newsgroup is frequented by D-I-Yers I suggest you not encourage people
trying to slip code violations past an inspector.
Regards,
Robert L Bass
www.BassBurglarAlarms.com
P.S. -- I'm only spending a little time each evening at the computer
these days so I may or may not reply to further discussion on this
thread.
rober...@comcast.net
You might want to read NFPA 72. That is the National Fire Alarm Code.
NEC is the electrical code.
John J
<rober...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1155618779.1...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Most of the relays (for example, the one that Kidde sells) specifically
> state in the manufacturers' instructions that they are not for use with
> an alarm control panel. Code requires that devices connected to a fire
> alarm system be "listed for the purpose" by the manufacturer. Since
> such devices are almost invariably not so listed, using them with an
> alarm control panel is not code compliant.
I believe that at least one vendor (BRK) sells AC smokes with a UL listed
relay for interconnection to a security panel.
Frank Olson
>
> I believe that at least one vendor (BRK) sells AC smokes with a UL listed
> relay for interconnection to a security panel.
>
>
Any relay smoke alarm can be connected to a home security system. It's
not *recommended* by most smoke alarm manufacturers (for reasons I've
already given and I posted a link to FIREX unit earlier in which similar
phrasing is used). Many of those same manufacturers include diagrams on
the correct procedure to follow in their installation manuals.
There's nothing in NEC or NFPA that specifically prohibits this type of
connection either. We're not talking about a listed fire alarm panel
here, but a home security system. To follow through on this
arguement... If you wanted to obtain UL/ULC certification of your home
security system you would require *supervised* fire detectors and a
whole lot more in the way of wiring and devices. There are very few
residential installations that are certified so unless your insurer has
specifically requested it, you needn't worry. Typically there are many
devices connected to a home security system that aren't specifically
UL/ULC listed. Bass is (as usual) spouting utter nonsense. For over a
year he's been "pushing" the ELK panel which only recently received it's
"UL" listing. Unlike him, I purchased one for my own use but didn't
start selling them until *after* they were listed.
I've asked Robert to post the specific wording that supports his
argument many times. He keeps falling back on the phrase "fire alarm
system". I'm tired of having to correct this same mistake but as long
as he continues to spout such nonsense, I don't have a choice (and the
Cessna 150 is *not* a taildragger).
Frank Olson
> You might want to read NFPA 72. That is the National Fire Alarm Code.
> NEC is the electrical code.
NEC refers to NFPA. You *still* haven't provided specific wording to
refute my argument that doesn't involve "fire alarm systems". A self
installed home security system is *not* a "fire alarm system". A
professionally installed burglar alarm is also *not* a fire alarm system
*but* most professionals would *recommend* installation of a
*supervised* smoke/fire detection system. As for replacing the 110 VAC
smoke alarms with a listed supervised smoke detector, most AHJ's would
tell you the same thing the guys in my jurisdiction say: "As long as
the wiring to the 110VAC smoke alarms remains intact and can be
reconnected if the supervised detectors are ever removed we don't have a
problem. Please ensure the high voltage wires are clearly marked and
physically separated from the low voltage cabling."
John J
> John J wrote:
>
> I don't have a choice (and the Cessna 150 is *not* a taildragger).
Actually I think there was a conversion kit to do that...I always preferred
the lines of a T-craft anyway
Frank Olson
> Actually I think there was a conversion kit to do that...
There is, but Bass seemed to think it was *manufactured* as a
"tail-dragger".
> I always preferred
> the lines of a T-craft anyway
While the aesthetics are in fact much nicer, for recreational flying I
find I much prefer a Cessna 185 on amphib floats. I live in Vancouver,
B.C. My partner recently purchased a nicely refurbished Piper Aerostar
very much like this one though
(http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Piper_Aerostar-Airline_Corporate_Aviation_Video-6653.html).
Frank Olson
> I believe that at least one vendor (BRK) sells AC smokes with a UL listed
> relay for interconnection to a security panel.
>
>
Here's the link:
http://www.brkelectronics.com/safety_products/relays.htm
"Model RM4
Designed to activate an auxiliary device like a bell, siren, strobe
light, exhaust fan, alarm panel, or door closer when alarm is sounded.
Now works with "Smart Interconnect" BRK CO alarms. The RM4 has form-C
contacts that, once connected to BRK 120volt AC alarms, automatically
activate whenever the alarm sounds and will automatically deactivate
when the alarm shuts off. Meets UL 317, UL2034 and UL539 for accessories."
rober...@comcast.net
That is patently untrue. When you connect smoke detectors or any other
type of fire detectors to an alarm control panel the system becomes a
fire alarm system and must comply with code requirements for a fire
alarm. There is no exception for a "home security system."
> It's not *recommended* by most smoke alarm manufacturers...
It's prohibited by code unless the part is specifically "listed for the
purpose" by the manufacturer. We've had this discussion before. Mr.
Olson claims I've never given code references to illustrate the point.
However, he conveniently forgets the following passage which I posted
in an earlier discussion.
"NFPA72 FUNDAMENTALS OF FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS 72-21
1-5 Fundamentals.
1-5.1 Common System Fundamentals.
1-5.1.2 Equipment. Equipment constructed and installed in conformity
with
this code shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used."
"1-5.3 Compatibility. All fire detection devices that receive their
power
from the initiating device circuit or signaling line circuit of a fire
alarm
control unit shall be listed for use with the control unit."
In the prior discussion, Mr. Olson also offered the following advice
which clearly violated code:
> I would suggest pulling four conductor 18 gauge
> wire to the same electrical box your builder's
> electrician will use to wire the smokes.
> I've asked Robert to post the specific wording that supports his
> argument many times...
See above. The answer was given quite some time ago but Mr. Olson
insists it wasn't given. The reader may wish to note that the comments
by Mr. Olson in this forum are usually based on personal animus rather
than anything factual or experiential.
rober...@comcast.net
Frank Olson wrote:
> rober...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>
> > You might want to read NFPA 72. That is the National Fire Alarm Code.
> > NEC is the electrical code.
>
And NFPA specifically says you can't use any device on a fire alarm
unless it's listed for the purpose. Readers may wish to investigate
this further. The process of "listing" a device for use with a control
panel involves testing it with the panel to make certain not only that
the device will function but that the system as a whole will conform to
code requirements.
One of the requirements of a fire alarm system, be it residential or
commercial, is that all initiaing devices (smoke detectors, heat
detectors, etc.) be supervised against accidental disconnction. This
is simply not possible with integrated 110VAC smoke detectors.
Another requirement is that all of the parts of a fire alarm system
have two power sources. This typically consists of a transformer
connected to AC and a rechargeable battery in the control panel. While
all current 110VAC smoke detectors have 9V backup batteries in them,
the relay device does not. It will not function during a power
failure. Furthermore, some od these relays have the annoying habit of
triggering upon power restoral, causing a false alarm.
Because of these weaknesses the FIREX 499 relay (one of the models
cited by Mr Olson) is specifically NOT listed for use with an alarm
control panel. The manufacturer even went so far as to state in the
installation instructions that the device may not be so used.
> You *still* haven't provided specific wording to refute
> my argument...
I have before and I will repeat it here. The following are directly
quoted from the manual:
"WARNING: The relay will not op-erate without continnuous AC power...."
and
"The relay module is not recommended for use with automatic dialers or
security alarm panels."
http://www.icca.invensys.com/manuals/firex/110-278F.pdf
> that doesn't involve "fire alarm systems". A self installed
> home security system is *not* a "fire alarm system".
Code makes no reference to who installs the system. Any alarm system
which includes smoke detectors must comlply with the NFPA.
> A professionally installed burglar alarm is also *not* a fire
> alarm system...
If it includes fire detection it is.
> --- snip unrelated stuff about inspectors in Canada ---
rober...@comcast.net
> argument many times. He keeps falling back on the phrase
> "fire alarm system". I'm tired of having to correct this same
> mistake but as long as he continues to spout such nonsense,
I rely on code in defining what is or is not a fire alarm system. The
NFPA's definition follows:
" Fire Alarm System. A system or portion of a combination system that
consists of components and circuits arranged to monitor and annunciate
the status of fire alarm or supervisory signal-initiating devices and
to initiate the appropriate response to those signals.
NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code®"
Perhaps the gentleman would care to explain where the code exempts
"self-installed" alarm systems or perhaps where it exempts residential
systems from compliance with the general standards of component
listings. I've read every word of that code several times and for the
life of me I can't seem to locate those exemptions.
rober...@comcast.net
> relay for interconnection to a security panel.
I beliebve you are referring to the BRK model RM3 auxiliary relay.
Here's what BRK says about the model.
"Model RM3"
"This 120 VAC relay can be used with BRK Electronics® brand smoke
alarms, carbon monoxide alarms or heat alarms to signal auxiliary
devices like horns, bells, and door closures."
"The RM3 accessory relay is designed to activate an auxiliary device
like a bell, light or door closer when used with BRK® Electronics 120V
AC smoke, Heat or CO alarms. Once connected, if the alarm is triggered,
the RM3 sends a signal to activate the auxiliary device. The relay
deactivates automatically when the alarm stops."
"Relay may be wired next to alarm, or from a remote location. If wired
remote from the alarm, a maximum of 1,000 feet of #18AWG or larger
wire, rated at least 300V should be used. The 120V AC relay is to be
used only with 120V AC BRK® Electronics alarms, to a maximum of 18
interconnected devices. The RM3 will not receive signals from alarms
operating on battery or battery back-up power."
Please note that the manufacturer does not list the device for use with
an alarm control panel. There is a common misunderstanding about "UL
Listing" which unfortunately has been promoted by another gentleman
posting to this newsgroup. The mere existence of a UL listing does not
mean that a given device can be used in conjunction with a fire alarm
system. For example, your kitchen toaster likely bears a UL listing if
you purchased in the USA. That only means that the devvice is
considered safe for use as a toaster.
Side note: Sometimes clients seem to use toasters as a means of
testing their smoke alarms. Those same clients occasionally use the
smokes as an oven timer. :^)
It is hoped that you will give serious consideration to what I've
posted in this thread. A fire alarm system is intended to save your
life and to help save your property. In order to best accomplish those
goals you should pay close attention to the manufacturers'
instructions.
If you're doing your own residential fire & security alarm installation
you need to familiarize yourself with a few basic principles from code
as well. Most of these are easily gleaned from the instructions and
from advice you can obtain from your alarm vendor.
If you need to review a portion of the code let me know. I'll be happy
to forward brief passages (in conformance with copyright limitations)
for your perusal.
Frank Olson
> And NFPA specifically says you can't use any device on a fire alarm
> unless it's listed for the purpose.
We're not talking about a "fire alarm". We're talking about a home
security system. I posted the link to the BRK relay (which *can* be
used to interconnect your 110VAC smoke alarms to your home alarm system)
in another response in this thread. Are you saying their "listing" is
any different from Firex, or ESL, or Nortron?
> Readers may wish to investigate
> this further. The process of "listing" a device for use with a control
> panel involves testing it with the panel to make certain not only that
> the device will function but that the system as a whole will conform to
> code requirements.
You're confusing the issue here by introducing "compatibility listing".
The issue of compatibility doesn't apply to four wire smoke detectors.
You can use any of a number of different manufacturer's equipment in
this instance on any UL listed control. Compatibility only comes into
play on two wire devices powered by the listed panel's initiating circuit.
"Compatiblity listing" also applies to two wire smoke alarms on specific
burg/security panels because (as with "Listed Fire Alarm Systems)
they're usually powered by a specific initiating circuit(s). Four wire
smoke alarms aren't. They derive their power from another source. Most
are UL (ULC) Listed as stand alone or multiple station devices and you
can't mix manufacturers or even model numbers. I haven't come across
one four wire smoke alarm that is specifically *listed* for
interconnection to a fire alarm system (in fact most fire alarm
manufacturers want you to use two wire smoke detectors for obvious
reasons). Most alarm control manufacturers will tell you how to
interconnect four wire smoke alarms and often provide the power
supervisory relay kits to accomplish this. If you check out the
installation instructions with any of the Meridian (DSC) series of four
wire smoke alarms their "listing" doesn't mention interconnection (or
even testing/compatibility) to a specific "listed fire alarm panel".
>
> One of the requirements of a fire alarm system, be it residential or
> commercial, is that all initiaing devices (smoke detectors, heat
> detectors, etc.) be supervised against accidental disconnction. This
> is simply not possible with integrated 110VAC smoke detectors.
We're not talking a "fire alarm system". You've still failed to provide
the "chapter and verse" to back up your claim.
>
> Another requirement is that all of the parts of a fire alarm system
> have two power sources.
This isn't a FIRE ALARM SYSTEM. Nothing you can do short of having one
installed to meet the specific UL/ULC requirements will make it so. UL
certification isn't an issue in a home alarm system (and if it was,
we're talkin' a "horse of a different color").
<snip>
> Because of these weaknesses the FIREX 499 relay (one of the models
> cited by Mr Olson) is specifically NOT listed for use with an alarm
> control panel. The manufacturer even went so far as to state in the
> installation instructions that the device may not be so used.
Nope. They never say that. They say it's "not recommended". When you
talk to their tech-support staff they'll tell you why (and the reasons
cited have nothing to do with your "so called" code issues).
>
>
>>You *still* haven't provided specific wording to refute
>>my argument...
>
>
> I have before and I will repeat it here. The following are directly
> quoted from the manual:
>
> "WARNING: The relay will not op-erate without continnuous AC power...."
> and
> "The relay module is not recommended for use with automatic dialers or
> security alarm panels."
>
> http://www.icca.invensys.com/manuals/firex/110-278F.pdf
Which is a "far cry" from wording that specifically *prohibits* its use
with "automatic dialers or security alarm panels". Why do you think it
is? I'll tell you why. All of the Firex smokes "self test" when power
is first applied to them. That means that if you have a power failure
in your home, the relay will trigger momentarily when power is
re-applied. This will result in a false alarm to the CS and activation
of the system siren (if one is attached to your burg panel). There is
*nothing* in *any* code, statute, or ordinance that prohibits a
homeowner from connecting his 110VAC smoke alarms to his security panel
however, with one exception. If the system is a UL (or ULC in Canada)
Certificated *INSTALLATION* then all devices and wiring must comply with
the various specific standards that come into play. I have only eleven
customers with ULC Certified Residential Systems. They are a rarity but
some insurers will require it depending on their level of risk.
>>that doesn't involve "fire alarm systems". A self installed
>>home security system is *not* a "fire alarm system".
>
>
> Code makes no reference to who installs the system. Any alarm system
> which includes smoke detectors must comlply with the NFPA.
Horse twaddle. Where's it say that?? And now I suppose your "bodge"
involving 3 relays to get a UL Listed fire communicator to test on the
second line, or to interrupt your primary receiver for five seconds (for
non-paying clients) is somehow "OK" while connecting a 110VAC smoke
alarm with a *listed* relay to a resi-burg panel isn't? Can you explain
the difference, Mr. Bass??
>
>
>>A professionally installed burglar alarm is also *not* a fire
>>alarm system...
>
>
> If it includes fire detection it is.
Nope. It's not. What AHJ would care what you connect to your home
alarm system, Robert? What AHJ would care that you even have a home
alarm system? If you honestly believe that doing so is "against code",
then quote me the chapter and verse. Better yet, call your local AHJ
and ask him if *he* cares one way or another. He will make one subtle
distinction for you. There *is* a difference between a listed fire
alarm system and a home security (or burglar) alarm. I wonder how many
"Rat-Shack" alarms there are out there with the relays they used to sell
to tie in your AC smoke alarms? Heck, if we were to believe your claims
regarding running your own alarm company in CT between 1979 and 1989,
you could have installed "hundreds" of alarm systems *without a permit*
or the proper licensing.
Frank Olson
>>I believe that at least one vendor (BRK) sells AC smokes with a UL listed
>>relay for interconnection to a security panel.
>
>
> I beliebve you are referring to the BRK model RM3 auxiliary relay.
> Here's what BRK says about the model.
>
> "Model RM3"
<snip>
Nope. It's the RM4. And I'll repost the link for you:
Frank Olson
>>Any relay smoke alarm can be connected to a home
>>security system...
>
>
> That is patently untrue. When you connect smoke detectors or any other
> type of fire detectors to an alarm control panel the system becomes a
> fire alarm system and must comply with code requirements for a fire
> alarm. There is no exception for a "home security system."
Please provide chapter and verse in NFPA to back up your claim.
>
>
>>It's not *recommended* by most smoke alarm manufacturers...
>
>
> It's prohibited by code unless the part is specifically "listed for the
> purpose" by the manufacturer. We've had this discussion before. Mr.
> Olson claims I've never given code references to illustrate the point.
> However, he conveniently forgets the following passage which I posted
> in an earlier discussion.
>
> "NFPA72 FUNDAMENTALS OF FIRE ALARM SYSTEMS 72-21
> 1-5 Fundamentals.
> 1-5.1 Common System Fundamentals.
> 1-5.1.2 Equipment. Equipment constructed and installed in conformity
> with
> this code shall be listed for the purpose for which it is used."
>
> "1-5.3 Compatibility. All fire detection devices that receive their
> power
> from the initiating device circuit or signaling line circuit of a fire
> alarm
> control unit shall be listed for use with the control unit."
A four wire smoke alarm *DOES NOT* receive it's "power from the
initiating device circuit or signalling line circuit of a fire alarm
control unit". It therefore does not require "listing" with a specific
control unit. Its listing doesn't mention connection to a listed
control unit but has to do with "single and multiple station smoke
detectors". There is *NO* code, statute, or authority that would
prohibit a homeowner from connecting their 110AC smoke alarms to their
home security system. Furthermore, no AHJ would care one way or another
(with the exception of maintaining the physical seperation between the
AC and the DC which DOES happen to be a code issue).
>
> In the prior discussion, Mr. Olson also offered the following advice
> which clearly violated code:
>
>
>>I would suggest pulling four conductor 18 gauge
>>wire to the same electrical box your builder's
>>electrician will use to wire the smokes.
Where does this "violate code", Robert??
>
>
>>I've asked Robert to post the specific wording that supports his
>>argument many times...
>
>
> See above. The answer was given quite some time ago but Mr. Olson
> insists it wasn't given.
It wasn't. The answer is always couched in specific wording involving a
"fire alarm system". A resi-burg panel is *not* a listed fire alarm
system unless, of course, you *install* it as such.
> The reader may wish to note that the comments
> by Mr. Olson in this forum are usually based on personal animus rather
> than anything factual or experiential.
"Personal animus" has nothing to do with this discussion. I personally
think you should have stayed out of it. You don't work with listed fire
alarm systems. I do.
rober...@comcast.net
Frank Olson wrote:
> rober...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> > And NFPA specifically says you can't use any device on a fire alarm
> > unless it's listed for the purpose.
>
Yes, we are indeed talking about a fire alarm system. Perhaps if you
would purchase a copy of the code -- NFPA 72, to be specific -- you
would know what it says. The code clearly defines a fire alarm system.
Also, almost all residential security systems sold in the USA carry the
UL listing for a residential fire alarm control panel. There's a
reason that manufacturers spend tons of money getting that lkisting,
Frmank. Without it the systems can't be used as a required fire alarm
system.
On a side note, I noticed you've made comments about me "pushing" ELK's
M1 Gold system before it had a UL listing. In point of fact, the
listing was "pending" (it is now UL listed) and that information was
never hidden from clients. While we're on the subject, you have also
rtecommended the ELK M1 Gold while the listing was pending so I'm not
sure what your problem is in that regard.
> We're talking about a home security system...
Once you connect a smoke detector that security system becomes a fire
alarm system and it is subject to the code requirements which apply to
a fire alarm system. You can't get around that fact, no matter how
many times you try to ignore it.
> I posted the link to the BRK relay (which *can* be
> used to interconnect your 110VAC smoke alarms to your home alarm system)
> in another response in this thread. Are you saying their "listing" is
> any different from Firex, or ESL, or Nortron?
Try reading the listings. There are three of them -- not one -- and
none apply to use with a fire alarm control panel. Again, it helps if
you actually purchase and read the code, or in this case the UL
listing.
> > Readers may wish to investigate
> > this further. The process of "listing" a device for use with a control
> > panel involves testing it with the panel to make certain not only that
> > the device will function but that the system as a whole will conform to
> > code requirements.
>
>
> You're confusing the issue here by introducing "compatibility listing".
No, Frank. It is you who are confused. The listing must be "for the
purpose". Code is quite clear on this.
> The issue of compatibility doesn't apply to four wire smoke detectors.
We're not talking about using 2 or 4 wire smokes. We're talking about
improperly using a relay to connect 110VAC smokes to a low voltage
system when that relay is not listed for the purpose.
> You can use any of a number of different manufacturer's...
> --- snip irrelevent stuff about low voltage smoke detectors ---
> We're not talking a "fire alarm system". You've still failed
> to provide the "chapter and verse" to back up your claim.
Indeed I have. I'll repeat it here.
NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code®
72-16: DEFINITIONS
"Fire Alarm Control Unit (Panel). A system component that receives
inputs from automatic and manual fire alarm devices and might supply
power to detection devices and to a transponder(s) or off-premises
transmitter(s). The control unit might also provide transfer of power
to the notification appliances and transfer of condition to relays or
devices connected to the control unit. The fire alarm control unit can
be a local fire alarm control unit or a master control unit."
"Fire Alarm System. A system or portion of a combination system that
consists of components and circuits arranged to monitor and annunciate
the status of fire alarm or supervisory signal-initiating devices and
to initiate the appropriate response to those signals."
> This isn't a FIRE ALARM SYSTEM...
It is indeed a fire alarm system according to the above definitions.
> Nothing you can do short of having one installed to meet the specific UL/ULC requirements will make it so...
Installation practices don't make it a fire alarm system. Connection
of smokedetectors makes it into a fire alarm system. It might not be
listed or certificated, but that doesn't change the fact that the
national fire alarm code calls it a fire alarm system.
> UL certification isn't an issue in a home alarm system (and if it was, we're talkin' a "horse of a different color")...
Actually, you're talking horse excrement, but that is nothing new. We
both know that you're wrong. You just won't admit it.
>> Code makes no reference to who installs the system. Any alarm system
>> which includes smoke detectors must comlply with the NFPA.
>
> Horse twaddle. Where's it say that??...
See above.
> What AHJ would care what you connect to your home
> alarm system...
Any AHJ who knows code would care.
> What AHJ would care that you even have a home
> alarm system?...
Almost none until you start running wires. Once you do that it is
subject to the electrical code (NEC, aka NFPA70) anywhere that code is
in use. When you connect a smoke detector to the system, you now have
a fire alarm system.
BTW, you can jeep posting BS about fictitious dates during which you
claim I ran my alarm company all you like. I've been in the alarm
industry for over 29 years. Your silly lies don't change that.
Robo
"Frank Olson"news:pWaGg.429560$Mn5.368006@pd7tw3no...
> rober...@comcast.net wrote:
>
> It wasn't. The answer is always couched in specific wording involving a
> "fire alarm system". A resi-burg panel
For the sake of accuracy it is a resi burg/fire panel.
is *not* a listed fire alarm
> system unless, of course, you *install* it as such.
make up you mind Frank. you appear to be talking out of both sides of your
mouth at the same time.
the op it was to be a fire alarm. If an insurance company wanted added a
fire alarm to a burg panel I would not use an unlisted relay hooked to his
110v smokes to accomplish that and neither would you if you are really a
business owner as you say. If there was a loss on a million dollar house
and they found out you had cobbled together a fire alarm out of misc parts
not listed for the application you would be in trouble. This stalking of
RLB by you is becoming an ugly business.
Frank Olson
> "Frank Olson"
> "Frank Olson" <Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote in message
> news:pWaGg.429560$Mn5.368006@pd7tw3no...
>
>>rober...@comcast.net wrote:
>>
>>It wasn't. The answer is always couched in specific wording involving a
>>"fire alarm system". A resi-burg panel
>
>
> For the sake of accuracy it is a resi burg/fire panel.
>
>
> is *not* a listed fire alarm
>
>>system unless, of course, you *install* it as such.
>
>
> make up you mind Frank. you appear to be talking out of both sides of your
> mouth at the same time.
> the op it was to be a fire alarm.
No. The OP stated he was hooking up an Omni II and was wondering what
kind of smoke alarms to go with - two wire or four wire. He didn't
specifically state he was hooking up a fire alarm system. I understood
him to mean he was installing a burg system in a new construction.
> If an insurance company wanted added a
> fire alarm to a burg panel I would not use an unlisted relay hooked to his
> 110v smokes to accomplish that and neither would you if you are really a
> business owner as you say.
You are correct. And I believe I stated as such early on in the thread.
The OP asked whether-or-not he could hook up his 110VAC smoke alarms
to his burg panel. You have to re-read what I wrote in response. I
won't re-hash this whole thread.
> If there was a loss on a million dollar house
> and they found out you had cobbled together a fire alarm out of misc parts
> not listed for the application you would be in trouble.
Horse twaddle. First and foremost I would never do such a thing. This
is a DIY job and anything goes. Besides which neither you or Robert
have provided the specific wording in the code that prohibits this kind
of connection. A "definition" is hardly anything to go on. I can call
my home alarm system anything I want. At the end of the day it's just a
resi-burg panel that happens to carry a ULC sticker which allows it to
be used in a very specific application. You're "missing the boat" here
just as Robert has.
> This stalking of
> RLB by you is becoming an ugly business.
Robert wasn't even posting in this thread and he decided to stick his
nose in.
G. Morgan
<Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote:
>We're not talking about a "fire alarm". We're talking about a home
>security system. I posted the link to the BRK relay (which *can* be
>used to interconnect your 110VAC smoke alarms to your home alarm system)
>in another response in this thread. Are you saying their "listing" is
>any different from Firex, or ESL, or Nortron?
Sorry Frank, I'll have to agree with Fat-Ass on this one. Perhaps
this argument can be settled by Mike Baker.
-G
G. Morgan
<Use_the_e...@yoursecuritysource.com> wrote:
>>>I would suggest pulling four conductor 18 gauge
>>>wire to the same electrical box your builder's
>>>electrician will use to wire the smokes.
>
>Where does this "violate code", Robert??
Once again Frank, I'll have to side with Porkie.. It's a violation of
the NEC to put high voltage and low-voltage in the same j-box.
-G
Frank Olson
> Once again Frank, I'll have to side with Porkie.. It's a violation of
> the NEC to put high voltage and low-voltage in the same j-box.
And once again, you'd be wrong. NEC clearly states you must maintain a
physical seperation between the two so you can't accidentally apply high
voltage to the low voltage wiring and that's about it. The relay bases
on the smoke alarms are frequently used to fire off low voltage
appliances like buzzers, strobes and bells. If you look at any of the
connection diagrams supplied with the Firex unit (for example), how
*are* you going to accomplish what you want to do if you can't at some
time have the 110VAC and the low voltage in the same box? Now go back
and play in the sandbox and let me take care of the Toilet Duck.
Frank Olson
>>We're not talking about a "fire alarm". We're talking about a home
>>security system. I posted the link to the BRK relay (which *can* be
>>used to interconnect your 110VAC smoke alarms to your home alarm system)
>>in another response in this thread. Are you saying their "listing" is
>>any different from Firex, or ESL, or Nortron?
>
>
>
>
> Sorry Frank, I'll have to agree with Fat-Ass on this one. Perhaps
> this argument can be settled by Mike Baker.
And you're just as wrong.
G. Morgan
Anytime you connect a fire device to a burglar alarm it becomes a
"fire alarm" and all applicable codes must be followed. Including
but not limited to appropriate fire cabling to the keypads and sirens,
proper detector coverage and spacing, and.... yes.. devices that are
listed for FACP initiation. In this case the BRK smokes are not
listed for that purpose.
-G
Frank Olson
> Anytime you connect a fire device to a burglar alarm it becomes a
> "fire alarm" and all applicable codes must be followed. Including
> but not limited to appropriate fire cabling to the keypads and sirens,
> proper detector coverage and spacing, and.... yes.. devices that are
> listed for FACP initiation. In this case the BRK smokes are not
> listed for that purpose.
>
> -G
>
>
Please quote me the chapter and verse in NFPA (or NEC) where it says
this. The "definition" doesn't count. It's only a definition and has
more to do with helping an AHJ to properly identify the components used
in a listed fire alarm system.
I can purchase an Edwards EST-2 and connect any number of devices to it
that I want. It won't be a "fire alarm system" unless all of the
devices, components and wiring that comprise the "system" comply. I can
hook up any number of smoke alarms (110VAC or 24VDC powered) and you
can't say "squat" unless of course I intend to use them instead of
properly supervised detectors and still try to make the system fly as a
*fire alarm system*.
Fire alarm systems have been used to *monitor* such things as dampers
(the last time I looked the limit switches used are *NOT* listed for
connection to a fire alarm system but they're used for the purpose of
*monitoring* the position of the dampers). Ditto for such things as
"fire pump running" indicators, "generator trouble", exhaust fan "on"
switches, etc. The contacts in these devices are *NOT* specifically
listed for connection to a fire alarm system yet it's done all the time.
I can "monitor" a 110VAC smoke alarm relay with my burg panel if I want.
I can even get the zone it's connected to to report to my CS or my
pager. There is *NOTHING* in NEC (or NFPA) that specifically prohibits
this. Heck... I can even hook up my 110VAC smoke alarm to a Visonic
voice dialer. This does NOT make the components I used a "listed fire
alarm system" by any stretch of the imagination. You're approaching
this from the "wrong end" of the equation. Talk to your local AHJ.
Would I "cobble" something like this together for a customer? Not on
your Nelly! Now ask Bass what prompted him to suggest to a licensed,
qualified *installer* how to circumvent the primary phone line on a
*listed fire alarm communicator* so that it reports a "test signal" on
the second line.
From where I sit, he's the horse's ass and you've just made the costume
complete.
G. Morgan
I'll have to get back to you on that..
>
>Would I "cobble" something like this together for a customer? Not on
>your Nelly! Now ask Bass what prompted him to suggest to a licensed,
>qualified *installer* how to circumvent the primary phone line on a
>*listed fire alarm communicator* so that it reports a "test signal" on
>the second line.
How would I know where he dreamed that up, I was astounded too.
> From where I sit, he's the horse's ass and you've just made the costume
>complete.
That was rude!
Frank Olson
>>Would I "cobble" something like this together for a customer? Not on
>>your Nelly! Now ask Bass what prompted him to suggest to a licensed,
>>qualified *installer* how to circumvent the primary phone line on a
>>*listed fire alarm communicator* so that it reports a "test signal" on
>>the second line.
>
>
> How would I know where he dreamed that up, I was astounded too.
Yet this "contraption" is being used to monitor the fire alarm on a
church in CT...
>
>
>
>>From where I sit, he's the horse's ass and you've just made the costume
>>complete.
>
>
> That was rude!
>
>
Hey... someone has to wear the brainy end... :-)
Frank Olson
> I rely on code in defining what is or is not a fire alarm system. The
> NFPA's definition follows:
>
> " Fire Alarm System. A system or portion of a combination system that
> consists of components and circuits arranged to monitor and annunciate
> the status of fire alarm or supervisory signal-initiating devices and
> to initiate the appropriate response to those signals.
> NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code®"
I rely on the code to define a fire alarm system as well. There are
many systems out there that *aren't* fire alarm systems yet happen to
use some listed components. Care to explain how after you "bodged" the
UL Listed communicator in the local church you were monitoring, the fire
alarm *system* that it somehow remained "code compliant"? Care to
explain how tampering with a UL Listed central station receiver is
somehow "OK" as long as the monitoring centre isn't UL Listed? How'd
you manage to sneak that one by the AHJ??
>
> Perhaps the gentleman would care to explain where the code exempts
> "self-installed" alarm systems or perhaps where it exempts residential
> systems from compliance with the general standards of component
> listings.
Once again, you're talking "compatibility" and not "connectivity". Four
wire smoke alarms don't require "compatibility" listings like two wire
ones do (that derive their power from the panel's initiating circuit).
As for connecting a 120VAC smoke alarm to a control panel or auto
dialer, there's nothing in any code or standard that says I (or anyone)
*can't* do this as long as you use the manufacturer's listed relay.
> I've read every word of that code several times and for the
> life of me I can't seem to locate those exemptions.
That's because they're not there. This isn't an issue of "compatibility".
Frank Olson
> Yes, we are indeed talking about a fire alarm system. Perhaps if you
> would purchase a copy of the code -- NFPA 72, to be specific -- you
> would know what it says. The code clearly defines a fire alarm system.
The code also has this to say about connecting single and multi-station
smoke alarms to an alarm panel or auto dialer:
NFPA 72-2002 11.7.6.7 Installations that include the connection of
single- or multiple-station alarms with other input or output devices,
such as but not limited to relay modules, remote signaling devices,
phone dialers, security panels, heat detectors, and manual pull
stations, shall be permitted, providing that an open or short circuit of
the wiring leading to these input or output devices does not prevent
normal operation of the single- or multiple-station alarm.
>
> Also, almost all residential security systems sold in the USA carry the
> UL listing for a residential fire alarm control panel. There's a
> reason that manufacturers spend tons of money getting that lkisting,
> Frmank. Without it the systems can't be used as a required fire alarm
> system.
Not applicable in this instance. The UL Listing for residential fire
allows properly qualified installers to certify an installation to meet
the UL requirements for a residential fire alarm system. It's *not* a
"listed" fire alarm *system* until the installation itself is certified
and only in that instance must all the devices comply with NFPA 72.
>
> On a side note, I noticed you've made comments about me "pushing" ELK's
> M1 Gold system before it had a UL listing. In point of fact, the
> listing was "pending" (it is now UL listed) and that information was
> never hidden from clients. While we're on the subject, you have also
> rtecommended the ELK M1 Gold while the listing was pending so I'm not
> sure what your problem is in that regard.
"Pending" or not, you've actively advocated the purchase of potentially
non-compliant panels to your customers (most of whom you've stated also
purchase smoke and heat detectors from you). Selling a non-compliant
fire alarm system (according to your definition) isn't a very
responsible thing to do. Advising a licensed, professional installer to
short the primary telephone line on a UL Listed fire alarm communicator
to get it to test on the second line is *also* not a very responsible
thing to do.
> Once you connect a smoke detector that security system becomes a fire
> alarm system and it is subject to the code requirements which apply to
> a fire alarm system. You can't get around that fact, no matter how
> many times you try to ignore it.
>
> Try reading the listings. There are three of them -- not one -- and
> none apply to use with a fire alarm control panel. Again, it helps if
> you actually purchase and read the code, or in this case the UL
> listing.
Sure.
UL 2034 - Standard for Single and Multiple Station Carbon Monoxide Alarms
UL 539 - Standard for Single and Multi-Station Heat Alarms
UL 317 - Standard for Single and Multi-Station Smoke Alarms
And you're right... There is no mention of connection to a "Listed Fire
Alarm Control System", but then BRK isn't talking about connecting their
RM4 to one either... They're talking about hooking it up to an "alarm
panel", which is what I have been saying you can do all along.
Robert. I was responding to a legitimate question from the OP. If you
*read* my response you'll see that I'm not *advocating* he do this. I
simply stated that there's nothing in the code that would prohibit him
from connecting his 110VAC smoke alarms to his Onmi II burg panel and a
very relevant section of the code which states quite simply that he *can*.
>
>
>>>Readers may wish to investigate
>>>this further. The process of "listing" a device for use with a control
>>>panel involves testing it with the panel to make certain not only that
>>>the device will function but that the system as a whole will conform to
>>>code requirements.
>>
>>
>>You're confusing the issue here by introducing "compatibility listing".
>
>
> No, Frank. It is you who are confused. The listing must be "for the
> purpose". Code is quite clear on this.
Check. So post the relevant section. Where does it state that if I
hook up a heat detector to my home alarm panel that it automatically
"becomes" a "listed fire alarm system"?? I think you're confused by the
wording on a panel that's "UL listed as a residential fire alarm
control" and an *installation* that's been *certified* as a residential
fire alarm *system*.
>
>
>>The issue of compatibility doesn't apply to four wire smoke detectors.
>
>
> We're not talking about using 2 or 4 wire smokes. We're talking about
> improperly using a relay to connect 110VAC smokes to a low voltage
> system when that relay is not listed for the purpose.
The relay we're talking about here *is* listed for the purpose of
providing an "output" from the specific 110VAC smokes. The code clearly
states I can connect my 110VAC smoke alarms to my home alarm system
"providing that an open or short circuit of the wiring leading to these
input or output devices does not prevent normal operation of the single-
or multiple-station alarm".
> Indeed I have. I'll repeat it here.
>
> NFPA 72 National Fire Alarm Code®
> 72-16: DEFINITIONS
>
> "Fire Alarm Control Unit (Panel). A system component that receives
> inputs from automatic and manual fire alarm devices and might supply
> power to detection devices and to a transponder(s) or off-premises
> transmitter(s). The control unit might also provide transfer of power
> to the notification appliances and transfer of condition to relays or
> devices connected to the control unit. The fire alarm control unit can
> be a local fire alarm control unit or a master control unit."
That's a pretty generalized definition and has nothing to do with the
issue at hand (which I've repeated here ad nauseum). It's also not what
I asked you for. Quote the section of the code that states a home
security system "becomes" a fire alarm system when you connect a heat
detector or smoke alarm to it and that it therefore must comply in all
respects with a "listed" fire alarm system.
>
> "Fire Alarm System. A system or portion of a combination system that
> consists of components and circuits arranged to monitor and annunciate
> the status of fire alarm or supervisory signal-initiating devices and
> to initiate the appropriate response to those signals."
BZZZT. Sorry, Robert. I don't see where tying in a smoke alarm to an
auto dialer or even a "listed" panel automatically makes the whole kit
and kaboodle a "fire alarm system". Once again, it's simply a
"definition". More-over, are you saying BRK is now selling
non-compliant devices for hook-up to an alarm control?? Using your
logic, that's against code!!! I'll report them immediately!
<snip>
> Actually, you're talking horse excrement, but that is nothing new. We
> both know that you're wrong. You just won't admit it.
Funny. I've given you plenty of opportunity to prove you're right and
so far all you've managed to do is demonstrate your complete lack of
understanding regarding code issues.
>
>
>>>Code makes no reference to who installs the system. Any alarm system
>>>which includes smoke detectors must comlply with the NFPA.
>>
>>Horse twaddle. Where's it say that??...
>
>
> See above.
I suppose I could say the same thing! :-)
>
>
>>What AHJ would care what you connect to your home
>>alarm system...
>
>
> Any AHJ who knows code would care.
Really? Most AHJ's have a copy of the current code book I would hope,
and won't be taking the nonsense posted by a third rate installer
"wannabe" in Florida to heart.
>
>
>>What AHJ would care that you even have a home
>>alarm system?...
>
>
> Almost none until you start running wires. Once you do that it is
> subject to the electrical code (NEC, aka NFPA70) anywhere that code is
> in use. When you connect a smoke detector to the system, you now have
> a fire alarm system.
Horse twaddle!
>
> BTW, you can jeep posting BS about fictitious dates during which you
> claim I ran my alarm company all you like. I've been in the alarm
> industry for over 29 years. Your silly lies don't change that.
I haven't posted *one* "silly lie" in all the time I've been
participating in Usenet. You yourself have admitted to being convicted
of assault with a gun in 1979. You yourself have stated that you didn't
receive the proper licensing to actually *install* an alarm system until
1983. You yourself admitted to getting caught installing an alarm
system *without a permit* in 1989 subsequent to which you applied for
(and received) the proper licensing to pull one. What does this mean?
That from 1979 to 1989 you installed alarm systems in people's houses,
and commercial establishments *illegally* (without the proper permit)?
Up here we call those kinds of installers "trunk slammers".
You yourself admitted to "running a modestly successful central station
alarm company" from 1979 to 1999. Does that mean that your central
station was set up in your home in CT in 1979? I'm a bit confused on
that. First off, you were in Florida in 1979 and then there's the issue
of "setting up a monitoring centre" with a customer base that was what??
"zero"?? When did you buy the "former doctors house" in which you set
up your CS operation?
You yourself have admitted that you moved to Florida in 1999. This is
2006. It seems to me that (even if you counted the time you were
serving probation in Florida) 1979 to 2006 is 27 years "in the
industry". How do you get "29"? When you look at the period 1979 to
1999 how do you get "24 years" *installing alarms*?
Your math and your knowledge of code issues is equally abysmal.
rober...@comcast.net
>
> --- snip BS ---
This is getting OT. Olson has (as usual) misquoted me in an effort to
stir the pot. I once mentioned a C152 which was a tail dragger. Olson
tried to argue that TD conversions are somehow impossible or some such
drivel. Mr. Olson claimed to have snap-rolled a 737. He also claimed
that he borrowed this 737 from Boeing so that he could test out his pet
theory about a Canadian air disaster. Mr. Olson claimed that his
initial plan was to take off and then (without weight on the mains)
appply reverse thrusters. :^)
Petem
<rober...@comcast.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
1157074452....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
And we all know who is Bobo from some aviation group......
But I agree with you this getting OT,as everything you talk about...
btw I found some good herbs to put on hamburger...want my recipe?LOL
G. Morgan
wrote:
>btw I found some good herbs to put on hamburger...want my recipe?LOL
hehehe ;-)
--
-Graham
(remove the double e's to email)
Frank Olson
Heh... right...
> This is getting OT. Olson has (as usual) misquoted me in an effort to
> stir the pot. I once mentioned a C152 which was a tail dragger.
Nope. That isn't how it went down, Robert. As usual you're "editing"
the event in your favour.
> Olson
> tried to argue that TD conversions are somehow impossible or some such
> drivel.
Nope. I simply stated that you couldn't just "swap" the main gear legs
with ones that "raked forward". You had to move the entire assembly to
the second hard point below the fuselage wing strut attachment.
> Mr. Olson claimed to have snap-rolled a 737.
I never "claimed" any such thing, Robert.
> He also claimed
> that he borrowed this 737 from Boeing so that he could test out his pet
> theory about a Canadian air disaster.
Horse twaddle.
> Mr. Olson claimed that his
> initial plan was to take off and then (without weight on the mains)
> appply reverse thrusters. :^)
Bullschitt!! I stated that during the test the Boeing Engineers ruled
out deploying reversers in flight because we could easily overstress the
aircraft. By the way... You can deploy reversers in flight (although
it's certainly not recommended). It's called "reverser override", and
the two switches for it are on the overhead console.
Robert Green
I take a month's vacation only to find we're playing the same old games.
Lots of smoke and heat but very little light. Ironic in a thread about
smoke detectors! :-)
If anyone's *really* interested in resolving this question, it would be nice
if they would provide citations of some sort. There's lots of info out
there. Anyone with an interest in this topic would be well-served to read
the PDF articles here:
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/smokealarm/smokealarm.html
In fact, anyone who depends on wired, wireless or lithium powered smoke
alarms owes it to their loved ones to carefully read ALL the information at
that site. This one alone:
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/smokealarm/UL22503in.pdf
about transients causing cascade failures in interconnected smokes is a
*must read* IMHO for anyone using interconnected smokes.
One of the things the materials on the CPSC site reminds readers is that
different jurisdictions have very different requirements and it's unlikely
there's a "one size fits all" answer to the question. I *am* sure lots of
folks will benefit by reading the material about smokes at the CPSC site
(even though it's a little out of date) since there are so many house fires
each year:
"In 1999, there were an estimated 337,300 residential fires resulting in
2,390 civilian deaths. Smoke alarms have successfully prevented thousands of
residential fire deaths. Reducing the number of non-working alarms and
providing unprotected homes with smoke alarms may produce a further
reduction in fire deaths. CPSC staff believes that more effective alarms in
residential dwellings could have an even greater impact in reducing deaths."
(Below I've copied over just some of the articles to be found at the smoke
alarm home page: http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/smokealarm/smokealarm.html
***************************************************
Proposals for 2008 Edition of the National Electrical Code - Comments due by
November 2, 2005.
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/NEC2008.pdf
Correspondence to Underwriters Laboratories
October 31, 2003. Response for comments on the Proposed
Requirements for the Fifth Edition of the Standard for Single and Multiple
Station Smoke Alarms, UL 217, Bulletin Dated October 1, 2003.
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/smokealarm/UL103103.pdf
Correspondence to Underwriters Laboratories
February 25, 2003. Recommendations to address potential reliability and
performance issues associated with interconnected smoke alarms, UL 217
http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/smokealarm/UL22503in.pdf
CPSC Staff Report: Considerations for Installation of Smoke Alarms on
Residential Branch Circuits - (October, 2005)
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia06/os/acfismoke.pdf
CPSC Staff Report: Possible Technologies for Improving the Audibility of
Residential Smoke Alarms for Older Adults - (September, 2005)
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia06/os/audibility.pdf
Contractor Report on The Audibility of Smoke Alarms in Residential Homes -
(September, 2005)
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/os/audibility.pdf
A Review of the Sound Effectiveness of Residential Smoke Alarms - (December,
2004)
http://www.cpsc.gov/library/foia/foia05/os/alarm1.pdf
Contractor Report on The Implementation and Demonstration of Wireless
Communications Capabilities in Off-the-Shelf, Battery-Powered Smoke Alarms
Phase II Report - (March 23, 2004)
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA04/os/offshelf.pdf
Contractor Report on Smoke Alarms, Low-Cost Batteries, and Wireless
Technology Technical Report: Phase I - Preparatory Study and Literature
Search - (August 29, 2003)
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA03/os/Lowsmoke.pdf
Final Report on Lithium Batteries (UltraLife, ANSI 1604) Used in Residential
Smoke Alarms - December 2, 2002
http://www.cpsc.gov/LIBRARY/FOIA/FOIA03/os/Smokalrm.pdf
NIST Report on Home Smoke Alarm Tests
http://smokealarm.nist.gov/
Consumer Product Safety Review: Winter 2004
http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PUBS/cpsr_nws31.pdf
***************************************************
Happy reading! (Only 419 unread messages left in CHA. Jeez, I hope they're
not all about how make interconnected smoke alarms can dance on the head of
a pin!) :-)
No, wait, I see plenty of other threads. Phew! Sorry if I left anyone
hanging with unanswered messages. I will try to get to them shortly. My
wife insists I no longer announce my vacation plans over the internet ever
since someone tried kicking in the alarm door when we were away. It's
really a buzz kill to have that message waiting at the hotel's front desk.
--
Bobby G.