Re: Fire Side Chat -- Fire Alarm Code Issue

["Frank Olson" <feolson@xxxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L. Bass" <robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:wdydnRVIwbOP8_HfRVn-vg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

>>> You are absolutely wrong, Frank.  To use a residential burg panel with
>>> smoke detectors anywhere in the US where NFPA is observed the panel MUST
>>> bears a UL listing for residential fire alarm at a minimum.  You can not
>>> just connect up whatever you happen to find to a fire alarm system --
>>> residential or commercial.
>>
>> A burglar alarm panel will never be a listed fire alarm system.
>
> For a burglar alarm panel to be connected to smoke detectors in the US it
> must be listed for the purpose.  Connected to smokes, the listed panel
> becomes a fire alarm system and is subject to fire alarm code.

Really??  Where does it say this?  What section (chapter and verse) of the
NEC?  Besides, a homeowner that installs his own burg panel and then decides
to hook up fire detectors isn't going to quibble over code issues.  And no
one will be the wiser.  He'll "assume" it's OK to do because most burg
panels allow you to program a zone as a "fire loop" (and include diagrams on
suggested wiring methods).


>
>> There are plenty of panels sold in the
>> US that aren't UL listed for fire...
>
> Those whuch are not listed for the purpose are not permitted to be
> connected to smoke detectors.  Doing so is a code violation.

Where's it say that??  Any burg panel sold in the US diagrams the acceptable
methods to use to hook up a fire detector.  They even give you a list of
options on how to program the zone (ie. normal 24 hour fire, delayed
response, etc.)

>
>> There is nothing in any code or standard
>> that prohibits a homeowner from connecting
>> his 110VAC smoke alarm to an auto dialler
>> or his security panel...
>
> You can restate that falsehood as many times as you like and you will
> still be wrong.

Show me!!


>
>> You sell to DIY all the time.  I seriously
>> doubt a homeowner is going to install a
>> security system to the same standard as
>> even you would have (when you were in
>> the trade)...
>
> Ignoring your rude choice of words, whether a DIYer installs as good as or
> better than a technician is irrelavent to the discussion at hand.

It has everything to do with the "discussion at hand".


>
>> Al Columbo is absolutely correct...
>
> Nope.  He's wrong and so are you.

Show me where.  Quote the chapter and verse in the NEC that specifically
prohibits the practice and I'l believe you.


>
>> ... but I seriously doubt any professional installer would sanction (let
>> alone actually
>> hook up) an unsupervised alternatively
>> powered device to monitored alarm control...
>
> And yet that is precisely what Al suggested in his article in SSI.

Yes.  He did, but whether or not a professional follows his
"advice/suggestion" is another matter entirely, isn't it??


>
>> In all fairness to you, Robert...
>
> Now, there's a new twist.

Part of the "new me".  It's been that way for quite a while too...  You just
haven't noticed (or have decided to continue the flame war)...


>
>> you've raised an interesting point.  Al is both "right" and "wrong", but
>> not for the
>> reasons you've stated...
>
> Nope.  He is completely wrong and so are you -- precisely for the reasons
> I stated.

But you still haven't provided us with chapter and verse in the NEC (or even
in *one* local municipal code).

>
>> There is no proviso in the NEC (and I do
>> possess a copy of it) that specifically prohibits
>> the connection of a relay like the Firex 499
>> to a security control or automatic dialler...
>
> Want to bet?

Show me!!


>
>> In fact, there isn't anything prohibiting a
>> homeowner ...
>
> That's misleading, Frank.  The code does not distinguish between
> homeowners and paid installers.  Saying that the code does or does not
> allow a homeowner to do something implies that the DIYer is under less
> stringent regulations than the paid installer.  That is also patently
> false.

No professional installer would sanction connection of an unsupervised
device to a monitored security panel.  Nothing however, prohibits them from
doing so.


>
>> from hooking up a listed smoke detector (or
>> heat for that matter) to his monitored security
>> system...
>
> As long as the alarm panel carries the proper listing and the devices
> being connected are listed for the purpose that is true.  However, in this
> case the devices are not so listed and the only known 110VAC smoke relay
> on the market is definitely not listed for use with an alarm control panel
> of any kind, much less a FACP.

We're not discussing a listed FACP (and neither was Al in his article).


>
>> The issue of compatibility (and the suggested methods of connnection) are
>> included in every
>> instruction manual that accompanies any burglar
>> alarm panel.
>
> Those instructions specifically state that only fire alarm devices listed
> for the purpose are to be connected.  There's no exemption from fire alarm
> code just because one chooses to use a non-listed panel.  That decision
> would be a further code violation.

Nope.  Wrong again.  Have a look at any manual.  It only "suggests"
acceptable methods for connection.  You don't *have to* install end-of-line
resistors at the "end of the line".  Not following their suggested
connection instructions does not violate any code I know of...

>
>>> The problem is Olson (who neither works nor lives in the USA) has zero
>>> understanding of our codes.  When you install smoke detectors or other
>>> fire detection devices in a building in the US they need to be installed
>>> in accordance with code.  Period.
>>
>> The NEC mandates smoke detection in
>> every single family dwelling and specifies
>> the areas that are required to be covered...
>
> Stick to the subject at hand, Frank.  We're not talking about the
> requirement that there be smoke detectors.  We're talking about an
> improper method of connecting them to an alarm panel.

Show me where the "method" is against code.


>
>> I can do anything I damn well please in
>> my own house...
>
> Your house is in Canada.  We are discussing US code and anyewhere in the
> US where NFPA is code you can not do anything you darn well please.  In
> some places a permit is required and some it is not.

You've defended the "rights of the DIY" to do what ever they please.  A
homeowner will frequently undertake renovations without permit or
inspections.  You know this to be true.  You yourself have frequently stated
a homeowner doesn't need to pull a permit to install an alarm system where a
professional will *always* have to.

Al Columbo is 100% correct in his article.  I think it would be time better
spent suggesting an acceptable alternative than arguing over a non-existent
code issue.  I've asked this of you before and I'm asking again...  Quote
the chapter and verse of the NEC where it states you *can't* hook up a
110VAC smoke alarm to a home security system or automatic dialler.  Also
show me where hooking up any fire detector will magically turn the
dialler/security control into a fire alarm panel that *is* subject to code.

It's time to "put up, or shut up".