Re: 2 wire vs 4 wire Smoke allarms

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> 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.