Re: Smoke alarms (was Re: For Graham, Rober, and Coppernob)

[Frank Olson <Use_the_email_links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

robertlbass@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>do you mean resi burg / fire panel?  because
>>that is what we are talking about.
>
>
> That is exactly what we're speaking of.  You might want to take note
> that combination fire/burglar alarm control panels used for fire
> detection in private residences within the USA are required to carry a
> UL listing.  Specifically, they carry the UL 985, "Household
> Fire-warning System Unit" listing.  Most control panels actually carry
> more than one listing.  That is why manufacturers spend tens of
> thousands of dollars getting them listed.  Without that listing the
> local inspector will reject the panel and no alarm company would buy or
> install it.

Hmmmm....  Yet the ELK M-1 Gold wasn't listed...  yet you sold it.  How
many unlisted systems did you sell and were your customers aware that
they were installing something at any self-respecting local inspector
would reject?


>
> Note: Not all inspectors care a hoot about burglar alarms.

There's not one of my aquaintance that does.  In fact, many alarm
companies (in Vancouver) install systems every day without even pulling
a permit.


> However,
> the vast majority will insist upon code compliance when it comes to
> fire detection.

The only "code issue" a homeowner has to address is the proper placement
of the requisite 110VAC smoke alarms.


> While interconnected 110VAC detectors can and do meet
> the code requirements if properly located and wired, once they are
> connected to an alarm control panel they become part of a fire alarm
> system.  Do so using a non-listed panel and you have a non-compliant
> fire alarm system.

That is utter poppy-cock.  Quote the relevant chapter and verse in
either NEC or NFPA that states this.


>
> This is somewhat analagous to DOT requirements for automobiles.  You
> are required to have (among other things) operable brakes and a
> regulated exhaust system on passenger vehicles driven upon public
> highways.  Now suppose you decide to build a four-wheeled, engine
> driven vehicle without submitting it for DOT testing.  The thing has no
> brakes and the exhaust pipe spews clouds of gray smoke.  When the
> police pull you over will you claim that your car is exempt from the
> state vehicular code because it's home-made and it doesn't have brakes,
> a muffler or a catalytic converter?  Of course not.  That would be as
> ludicrous as claiming that a fire alarm system doesn't have to comply
> with NFPA72 because you built it yourself and you connected non-listed
> stuff to it.  It's still a fire alarm system -- an illegal one.

Uh-huh.  So you're makin' a "big stink" over the fact that *your*
interpretation of "code" is based on a definition of a fire alarm
system, yet you still haven't provided chapter and verse for your claim
that attaching a heat detector to a burg/security panel makes it a "fire
alarm system".  You're now basing your argument on automobile
certification, for Petem's sake.

Let's examine some of the things *you've* done with UL listed equipment
and installations.  These are far more relevant and I really would like
to see you explain:

1.  The church in CT with the Napco dual channel fire alarm
commmunicator.  You took it upon yourself to compromise the main
incoming telephone line in order to force the panel to communicate a
test signal on the second telephone line.  What you really did was
compromise the UL Listing of the communicator and the life safety of
your clients by placing a *RELAY* on the incoming phone line ahead of
the communicator.  This violates not only the manufacturers installation
instructions (and the UL Listing), but NFPA, and NEC.

2.  You ran a "modestly successful central station alarm company" for
"X" years in CT.  You employed a UL Listed digital receiver to process
alarm and miscellaneous signals from your customers security panels.
You installed a six line call display board in order to "fault" the
incomming phone line for five seconds when a non-paying customer's
system called in to "test".  You stated that your operation wasn't "UL
Listed" so you could do this with impunity.



>
> There is another issue with connecting 110VAC smoke detectors to an
> alarm control panel.  Code requires that all parts of the system be
> connected according to the manufacturer's instructions.

What "code" are you quoting now?  Chapter...  Verse...

What "code" allowed you to do the things I mentioned above?


> Every listed
> panel sold in the USA requires that smoke detection circuits be
> supervised.

Horse hockey.  Only "UL Listed" *Systems* require supervised fire
circuits.  You can leave the end of lines inside the control panel if
you wanted (I wouldn't recommend it but I've seen dozens of systems
where the nimrod installer did this) and no AHJ is going to say squat.
They don't care what you install in your home as a burg/security system.
  If they did, outfits like "AlarmFarce" wouldn't be allowed to operate.

<kersnip>