Swiming pool alarm
Dennis
could use it's partitioning capability to fill the requirement for a
pool alarm system that is required. The code says:
Windows with bottom sills less than 48 inches above the floor surface
and all doors
providing direct access for the home to the pool shall be equipped
with an exit alarm
meeting UL2017 specifications with a 85 dB rating at 10 feet and is
either hard wired
or a plug-in type. The device shall have a maximum 15-second
deactivation switch,
with the alarm and switch located a minimum of 54 inches above grade.
It's the UL2017 spec that has me concerned.
Since I intend to disable the alarm once the inspection is done, I was
hoping to avoid the expense of installing a separate system. Any
information would be appreciated.
Dennis Raher
Frank Olson
>
> Since I intend to disable the alarm once the inspection is done,
I hope to Christ what-ever Social Service Agency is in your area takes
your kids away before there's an accident. You're a moron.
Dennis
> >
Frank, Why did I know that you would react without even asking any
thing. Well, first I don't have any children. Second, I have visited
over 30 homes, both models and owned homes, and without a single
exception either the oener has disconnected the alarm, or the builder
has indicated that the alarm can be disconnected to allow the pool
doors to be left open. Yes I am all in favor of protecting children
against pool accidents, but this approach is rediculous. Most homes in
FL are designed to have the pool area as a focal point with large
sliding doors opening onto the pool area. These alarms do not allow
you to even leave these doors open when you want to. You have to
leave all doors closed at all times! That's what I consider
rediculous. This code is a case of excellent intent, but rediculous
implimentation. If most people are disabling them, because they are
not useable, as appears to be the case, then the code accomplishs
nothing, and should be replaced with a better solution. I don't
expect someone with your reactionary bent to be able to understand
this line of reasoning.
Dennis Rahher >
Frank Olson
> Frank, Why did I know that you would react without even asking any
> thing. Well, first I don't have any children. Second, I have visited
> over 30 homes, both models and owned homes, and without a single
> exception either the oener has disconnected the alarm, or the builder
> has indicated that the alarm can be disconnected to allow the pool
> doors to be left open. Yes I am all in favor of protecting children
> against pool accidents, but this approach is rediculous. Most homes in
> FL are designed to have the pool area as a focal point with large
> sliding doors opening onto the pool area. These alarms do not allow
> you to even leave these doors open when you want to. You have to
> leave all doors closed at all times! That's what I consider
> rediculous. This code is a case of excellent intent, but rediculous
> implimentation. If most people are disabling them, because they are
> not useable, as appears to be the case, then the code accomplishs
> nothing, and should be replaced with a better solution. I don't
> expect someone with your reactionary bent to be able to understand
> this line of reasoning.
Dennis:
I apologize for over-reacting. I see this every day, though. People
bypassing life-safety devices because they "false" or are a "nuisance"
or they're too cheap to properly have them serviced. Put the alarm
contacts on a timer if you have to "bypass" them. Heck, even one of
those cheap mechanical ones will do. When the timer counts down after
an hour the doors will re-arm. If you want to add some time, turn the
knob again. If you permanently bypass the doors, you may live to regret
it and that's all I'm worried about.
Robert L Bass
> Gold system, and was hoping I could
> use it's partitioning capability to fill the
> requirement for a pool alarm system
> that is required.
Dennis,
Unfortunately, you probably can't do it.
The code doesn't only demand that the
pool alarm meet UL2017 specs. It has
to actually carry the UL2017 sticker. The
ELK-M1G is an excellent controller but
it does not carry the proper listing for a
swimming pool alarm.
Some inspectors may give permission
to use a non-listed device but most won't.
I understand the reasoning behind
removing the alarm after the inspection.
Many people have no children of their
own and don't plan to have guests with
small kids. To them the pool alarm law
is a nuisance. Unfortunately, the law
came about due to numerous tragedies.
Like many other things the law tries to
protect by laying down an inflexible
requirement. I think there should be a
degree of flexibility but the legislature
didn't consult me about it. :^)
I can tell you what some folks I know
have done about this. They install
sensors on the doors and windows
which face the pool area, connect them
to the pool alarm leaving a loop of
extra cable in the wall behind the alarm.
An additional cable runs from the pool
alarm to the HA or burglar alarm control
panel. After inspection the wire is con-
nected to the HA or alarm system and
the pool alarm is powered down or
even removed.
I can't exactly recommend such a
procedure. I can only tell you that is
how some folks do it. What you do in
your own castle is well, you know. :^)
By the way, you can run several door
and window sensors to a single pool
alarm to save some of the cost. That's
also less ugly than boxes at every
opening.
--
Regards,
Robert L Bass
=============================>
Bass Home Electronics
941-866-1100
4883 Fallcrest Circle
Sarasota · Florida · 34233
http://www.bassburglaralarms.com
=============================>
Frank Olson
>>I am going to be installing the ELK M1
>>Gold system, and was hoping I could
>>use it's partitioning capability to fill the
>>requirement for a pool alarm system
>>that is required.
>
>
> Dennis,
>
> Unfortunately, you probably can't do it.
> The code doesn't only demand that the
> pool alarm meet UL2017 specs. It has
> to actually carry the UL2017 sticker. The
> ELK-M1G is an excellent controller but
> it does not carry the proper listing for a
> swimming pool alarm.
How many Elk M1G systems did you sell before it was even UL Listed? You
were one of the first to "flog" it on your website and it was about a
year before the panel was finally approved. That was one of the most
irresponsible things I've ever seen anyone do. Now you turn around and
suddenly "see the light". That's gotta be one of the most disingenuous
things I've seen you do in this Group. You're a two faced "anything for
a buck" shill, Bass.
http://www.bbbwestflorida.org/commonreport.html?bid=41001663
Robert L Bass
>> The code doesn't only demand that the
>> pool alarm meet UL2017 specs. It has
>> to actually carry the UL2017 sticker. The
>> ELK-M1G is an excellent controller but
>> it does not carry the proper listing for a
>> swimming pool alarm.
>
> How many Elk M1G systems did you sell
> before it was even UL Listed?
I'm not sure. Somewhere around 40 or 50 I think.
The problem this gentleman faces is he has to
pass inspection of the pool alarm. In Florida and
California pool alarms (or fances) are mandatory.
The inspector will usually insist on a UL2017
listed device.
Most inspectors will pass a residential HA or
alarm system with the control panel displaying
"UL Pending" which is what ELK (like every
other maker of a new HA panel) did.
> You were one of the first to "flog" it on your
> website and it was about a year before the
> panel was finally approved...
Correction. UL does not "approve" anything.
The panel is now UL *listed*. However, it
is not listed as a pool alarm. Fortunately for
the gentleman who posted looking for
assistance (not personal vendettas), the
components he requires are less costly than
the ELK-M1G.
Please leave your insults in the security
newsgroup, Olson. No one here is interested
in your war.
Frank Olson
> I'm not sure. Somewhere around 40 or 50 I think.
So there are "40 or 50" Elk M1G's out there that have a "UL Pending"
sticker on them. I'm sure you've told your victims... errmmm...
customers that this of course is just as good as a "UL Listed" sticker.
What changes did Wade have to make to the hardware/firmware to obtain
the "UL Listing", I wonder?
> The problem this gentleman faces is he has to
> pass inspection of the pool alarm. In Florida and
> California pool alarms (or fances) are mandatory.
> The inspector will usually insist on a UL2017
> listed device.
And you're also recommending he "disconnect it" *after* the inspection
as well... Well Gee... That's real purfeshunal! You wouldn't by any
chance also use the alias "Professor X", eh?
>
> Most inspectors will pass a residential HA or
> alarm system with the control panel displaying
> "UL Pending" which is what ELK (like every
> other maker of a new HA panel) did.
Heh... Sure... There's a real "fishy" smell in here.
> Please leave your insults in the security
> newsgroup, Olson. No one here is interested
> in your war.
Please leave you "PR Posts" in the CHA newsgroup, Bass. No one in the
security one is interested in your wares.
B Fuhrmann
> I understand the reasoning behind
> removing the alarm after the inspection.
> Many people have no children of their
> own and don't plan to have guests with
> small kids. To them the pool alarm law
> is a nuisance. Unfortunately, the law
> came about due to numerous tragedies.
> I can tell you what some folks I know
> have done about this. They install
...
> the pool alarm is powered down or
> even removed.
> I can't exactly recommend such a
> procedure. I can only tell you that is
> how some folks do it. What you do in
> your own castle is well, you know. :^)
Bob, you can't tell him here is how to do something really stupid and then
disclaim it.
How many of those tragedies came about when a child was visiting but
everyone thought, we will watch out.?
You don't know the person. He can say all sorts of things that children
will not be there and then turn out to be running a daycare facility.
Now that you have posted it out for everyone in the world to see, some
people will read the instructions and not the disclaimer and do it with less
care.
If a tragedy happens, guess what their first thought will be - sue Bob.
--
Bill Fuhrmann
Bob White
"B Fuhrmann" <b-fuhrma...@mplsfridayDELETEskate.com> wrote in message
news:12s3lra...@corp.supernews.com...
>
> Bob, you can't tell him here is how to do something really stupid and then
> disclaim it.
you really don't know this guy very well do you? that's his modus operandi
>
> How many of those tragedies came about when a child was visiting but
> everyone thought, we will watch out.?
> You don't know the person. He can say all sorts of things that children
> will not be there and then turn out to be running a daycare facility.
> Now that you have posted it out for everyone in the world to see, some
> people will read the instructions and not the disclaimer and do it with
> less > care.
and how many of those 'systems' has he sold that are still in the box that
he's sent out certificates of alarm system installation so they can get
their insurance discount. can you say fraud, also.
>
> If a tragedy happens, guess what their first thought will be - sue Bob.
as song as he can sell some parts it's obvious he doesn't care what happens
once the funds have cleared the bank. I noticed nobody else here was stupid
enough to seriously take on this guy's question, may be hope for cha yet.
Dennis
Apology accepted, and I agree with your point regarding by-passing
safety devices for the reasons you stated. I will note however, that
the timer solution you mentioned also violates the code and would not
be permitted during inspection, thus would have to be done after the
inspection, and thus also violates the letter of the code. The
safety issue isn't access to the pool area, via the open sliding glass
door walls, but rather someone falling into the pool unintentionally,
be it a child or adult. The solution needs to be a system that
monitors this occurrence. I also find it ironic that the code includes
the provision that any door that is self closing, and has the handle
at least 54 inches high, does not have to be alarmed. This was clearly
done to allow the doors to the screened cage area to be exempt from
the alarm requirement. DA!! Convenient for the pool maintenance
company's, but hardly safe for most children, or even adults that
could, without permission, enter the pool area. As I said, before, the
wrong solution for a very real problem. I bet it wouldn't be hard to
find a number of alternative solutions that would work far better, but
that would not pass the current code inspection. These comments were
definitely not aimed at you, but at the rediculous codes currently in
place.
Dennis Raher
Dennis
Thanks for the reply. While I would prefer to comply with the code,
as I indicated, this doesn't appear to be an option and still live the
way I want to. I had planned to do exactly as you described, but was
hoping to find an alternative, code compliant solution. I even sent a
message to ELK describing the situation in hopes that it would get
them interested in getting the needed UL certification. I really hate
investing money in something like a separate pool alarm, just to meet
a poorly implemented code, just to have to disconnect it later and
replace it with a more workable, but not code compliant, solution.
Again, thanks for your input.
Dennis Raher
Robert L Bass
> to do something really stupid and
> then disclaim it.
There are two strains of thought on
this subject, Bill. Some people believe
that every swimming pool must have
either a child-proof fence surrounding
it or at least alarms on all doors and
windows leading to the pool area.
Others who have no children and
who never have children visit may
feel that the law is unreasonably strict.
Neither is stupid IMO. They just have
different beliefs.
> How many of those tragedies came
> about when a child was visiting but everyone thought, we will watch out?
I don't know. I do know that there are
homes where young children are never
around. Without knowinbg the OP's
situation I'd be hard put (as would you)
to say if his is one of those homes.
> You don't know the person. He can
> say all sorts of things that children will not be there and then turn out to
> be running a daycare facility...
That is possible but I prefer to give
people the benefit of the doubt unless
and until they give me reason not to
believe them.
> Now that you have posted it out for
> everyone in the world to see, some people will read the instructions and
> not the disclaimer and do it with less care.
Do you really think that someone who
is determined to get around that law
wouldn't do so without having read
this thread?
Robert L Bass
You're most welcome.
> While I would prefer to comply with the
> code, as I indicated, this doesn't appear
> to be an option and still live the way I
> want to...
There's always a balance between personal
freedom and community good. I understand
the reasoning for the law and frankly, I make
a lot of money selling pool alarms in my
online store. They're a very popular item.
Nonetheless, I think the law is poorly written.
I'd like to see some flexibility for families
without small children. That's not likely to
happen.
> I had planned to do exactly as you
> described, but was hoping to find an
> alternative, code compliant solution.
There are ways that you can combine a
UL listed pool alarm with the ELK M1G
system. You'd still have at least one
of the pool alarm units near the door.
GRI's 289 series has a switched voltage
output that can be used to trigger a
burglary zone on the ELK-M1G, eliminating
the need for duplicate burglary and pool
alarm sensors and wiring on the door(s).
There's also a "reset" output that trips
when someone pushes the button on the
289. That can be wired to another "zone"
(sensing circuit) on the ELK to let the HA
system know you want to exit. You could
use that to do things like bypassing the
security to allow you to access the lanai
without disarming the alarm, say when
walking the dog at night or whatever.
These are external connections and not
modifications to the UL listed pool alarm
so the inspector shouldn't have any issues
with them.
It could also do other cool things like
turn on the pool and lanai lights if you
touch the button after dark.
> I even sent a message to ELK describing
> the situation in hopes that it would get
> them interested in getting the needed UL
> certification.
As noted, the M1G carries a UL sticker for
a residential alarm. Unfortunately, the
procedure for obtaining any UL listing is
time consuming and very expensive. Unless
Wade believes he can sell a lot more M1G
systems by doing so he's unlikely to apply
for additional listing.
> I really hate investing money in something
> like a separate pool alarm, just to meet
> a poorly implemented code, just to have
> to disconnect it later and replace it with a
> more workable, but not code compliant,
> solution.
I understand. I have no small children either.
However, we have lots of parties and some
of our friends bring little ones so for us the
pool alarm is a necessity. There were holes
in the original lanai floor to install a pool fence
but those things are such an eyesore that
we don't want one. I had them paved over
when we redid the lanai with paver bricks
last year.
> Again, thanks for your input.
No problem.
Robert L Bass
intergate news groups
I really appreciate your suggestions. Your ideas for integrating the GRI
pool alarm with the ELK system looks like a very workable solution. That's
exactly the type of useful help I am looking for. I'll swing by your site
and take a look at it. Keep up the great input.
Dennis
"Robert L Bass" <no-sales-spam@bassburglaralarms> wrote in message
news:Te6dnedp_Z_BPl_Y...@comcast.com...
Robert L Bass
>
> I really appreciate your suggestions. Your ideas
> for integrating the GRI pool alarm with the ELK
> system looks like a very workable solution. That's exactly the type of useful help I am looking for.
> I'll swing by your site and take a look at it. Keep
> up the great input.
>
> Dennis
Thanks for the kind words. I'll be around this
weekend if you need to chat. Monday (02/05/07)
we're heading down to Brazil. I'll be off line for 3
or 4 days until we get my LAN up and running but
the store webserver won't be affected.